We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Do you fit the bill ?!?
Comments
-
Why would you need to ask anyway? What if the woman said 'no I hate kids'sharpy2010 wrote: »Discrimination, whether we like it or not, goes on and will go on, and there is nothing we can do to stop it.
Bringing in new rules to combat it usually harms the group it was intended to help. An example of this is the rule that says you can't ask a woman if she plans to have a family. The way this doesn't help women, is that you just decide not to employ any.
Ridiculous.We’ve had to remove your signature. Please check the Forum Rules if you’re unsure why it’s been removed and, if still unsure, email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
sharpy2010 wrote: »Bringing in new rules to combat it usually harms the group it was intended to help. An example of this is the rule that says you can't ask a woman if she plans to have a family. The way this doesn't help women, is that you just decide not to employ any.
Absolutely agree. It just becomes "tick boxing" to preserve the feelings of the alleged oppressed minority at the expense of the majority.
There was a classic example I read about the other day. There were proposals for a new/reopened railway line that had gone through all the consultations/planning processes and is ready for the go ahead. However, there was no "disabled standard" coaching stock available - just the older slam-door units with smaller toilets, narrower vestibules, no on-board destination displays etc., and it would be several years before such coaching units would become available. So, the new line is now put on hold indefinitely. So, because the new line wouldn't have been accessible to a minority, it's going to be inaccessible to everyone (as it's not going to be opened). Where's the logic in that?
Exactly the same re the women and children issue. Employers, especially smaller firms with few staff, which would have massive issues if a key employee disappears for several months, will now just not employ women (of an age) at all, whereas if they could ask the question about children, prospective employees could give assurance as to their future family plans. It's not right, but it's the reality. A woman who has no plans for a family (or who can't have children) could well miss out on a decent job because of the laws that were brought in to protect her.
Just more examples of the unforeseen consequences.0 -
sharpy2010 wrote: »Why can't we go back to the days where anyone was welcome to apply for a job, and then the best candidate got the position?
I have always selected the best candidate for the role, regardless of gender, race, religion etc.
I usually only have 3 questions in my head that need to be answered for them to get the job.
1. Do they have the skills to do the job
2. Will they enjoy the job
3. Will they fit into the team
The only time I have positively discriminated as when I have specific talent requirements for a video production.0 -
sharpy2010 wrote: »Why can't we go back to the days where anyone was welcome to apply for a job, and then the best candidate got the position?
Because some HR departments are too timid and weak to defend themselves against charges of discrimination, so deliberately take on members of the protected groups to make the figures look right, regardless as to whether or not they're the best people for the job.
It is quite possible for firms with no women, or no disabled, or no ethnic minorities, etc., to show that they havn't discriminated and that they have recruited solely on the basis of applicant's ability.
Trouble is, that's harder for them to justify themselves. Far easier to employ members of the protected groups, even if they're weaker applicants, for their statistics and tick boxing exercises to look right.0 -
Because some HR departments are too timid and weak to defend themselves against charges of discrimination, so deliberately take on members of the protected groups to make the figures look right, regardless as to whether or not they're the best people for the job.
It is quite possible for firms with no women, or no disabled, or no ethnic minorities, etc., to show that they havn't discriminated and that they have recruited solely on the basis of applicant's ability.
Trouble is, that's harder for them to justify themselves. Far easier to employ members of the protected groups, even if they're weaker applicants, for their statistics and tick boxing exercises to look right.
Lots of jobs are CV applications where you do not even have to say age, race, gender, disability or not at all so really hard to prove unless you fill in an equal ops firm to go with it.We’ve had to remove your signature. Please check the Forum Rules if you’re unsure why it’s been removed and, if still unsure, email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
Lots of jobs are CV applications where you do not even have to say age, race, gender, disability or not at all so really hard to prove unless you fill in an equal ops firm to go with it.
Age can be guessed from school/uni/qualifications/work experience summaries
Sex can be guessed from name
Race can be guessed from name
The only thing that can't be guessed is disability
By not specifically asking, doesn't mean that an informed guess can't be made. Just window-dressing to make it look as if the prospective employer isn't discriminating.0 -
Race by the name? Really? What about Sharon Edwards for example? Is she white British?Age can be guessed from school/uni/qualifications/work experience summaries
Sex can be guessed from name
Race can be guessed from name
The only thing that can't be guessed is disability
By not specifically asking, doesn't mean that an informed guess can't be made. Just window-dressing to make it look as if the prospective employer isn't discriminating.We’ve had to remove your signature. Please check the Forum Rules if you’re unsure why it’s been removed and, if still unsure, email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
Oh yeah your CV may only say 6 GCSE/O levels and they then have to guess what is it? GCSE or O Level?
Also if you put 10 years work exp you could just be 26 years old where in fact you are really 44We’ve had to remove your signature. Please check the Forum Rules if you’re unsure why it’s been removed and, if still unsure, email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
i just recall the good old days when the best suited person got the job, regardless.
How do you know? I suggest that in fact in the good old days the "Asian transgender" almost certainly didn't have a chance, even if they were the best for the job and as another poster has since suggested, minority groups can still find it difficult.
I'd also suggest that you don't show any sign of this resentment at the job interview, if you decide this is, in fact, an area where you feel able to work given the possibility of such minorities.0 -
There must be still a load of discrimation out there - my transgender partner doesn't get any mail despite sending out alot of applications.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards