Skip to main content

unbelievable 2525 Responses

Last post: 4 months, 4 weeks ago | Thread started: Jun 26, 08, 5:40 a.m.

RespondNew TopicDisable Images

  • moth

    I can't believe I'm reading this:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po…

    This government is clueless.

    Jun 26, 08, 5:40 a.m. – Permalink
  • stem

    Ms Harman said the proposed bill - due later this year - would "address the serious inequalities that still exist" in the UK.

    How?

    By creating another form of inequality.

    Genius...

    next note >add note

    You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

    Cancel
    Dog-earJun 26, 08, 5:44 a.m. – Permalink
  • detritus

    I still don't quite get this - from the reports on Radio4 this morning, the sum of the plan amounts to something like "If there are two equal candidates, the employer can choose who they want".

    OK, then.

    But how else would they do it?

    Is it just legislation to endorse free choice? I mean, it's not saying that you should actively choose the 'Less Typical' option (for wont of a better term), just that you're free to choose who you want. If that's so - how does it work now?

    I mean, if it were me, I'd rather choose the woman anyway, and pocket the 40% difference in her reduced pay...

    next note >+ add note

    You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

    Cancel
    Dog-earJun 26, 08, 5:44 a.m. – Permalink
  • designbot

    Wow. If somone is discriminated against, they can always take the matter to court or elsewhere...I def don't think the government should be getting involved.

    • As far as I understand it, this legislation denies the right to sue on those terms.– detritus1/4
      how conveiniant eh?– designbot2/4
      tbh, I think being able to sue on the basis of not being picked for a job is a bit odd, but I'm a fascist, so...– detritus3/4
      True. but I thats where it would hopefully fall in the hands of an experienced judge.– designbot4/4
    next note >+ add note

    You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

    Cancel
    Dog-earJun 26, 08, 5:46 a.m. – Permalink
  • moth

    It means they can legally discriminate if they have two equal candidates.

    Which is discrimination - plain and simple.

    • I didn't get the irony in this until you put it that way...sad.– designbot
    + add note

    You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

    Cancel
    Dog-earJun 26, 08, 5:47 a.m. – Permalink
  • stem

    Just done a quick google on 'reverse discrimination' and only found U.S. legal definitions. This must not be against the law in England?

    • Our Nu Labour calls it 'Positive Discrimination'. Gotta love spin :)– detritus
    + add note

    You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

    Cancel
    Dog-earJun 26, 08, 5:49 a.m. – Permalink
  • moth

    Can anyone honestly blame me any more for wanting to vote Tory?

    Labour are a mockery of common sense.

    next note >add note

    You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

    Cancel
    Dog-earJun 26, 08, 5:49 a.m. – Permalink
  • detritus

    But. what I don't get, is that any selection process is inherently discriminative? I mean, I can appreciate that in large scale gov't jobs there might be some way of peeking behind the green curtain and divining the selection process, but in private enterprise?

    If I'm The Boss - who's to tell what my selection criteria are?

    • the next stage will be fuckers who don't get the job suing you and asking to see criteria - and if you choose polly big tits you might be in trouble– mistermik1/2
      could be up for it. or something like that– mistermik2/2
    next note >+ add note

    You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

    Cancel
    Dog-earJun 26, 08, 5:50 a.m. – Permalink
  • drgs

    die america, die
    http://www.economist.com/world/n…

    • How do you think human beings work? That's the expression of modern Free Choice tribalism.– detritus1/2
      sorry i thoguht this thread was about US– drgs2/2
    next note >+ add note

    You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

    Cancel
    Dog-earJun 26, 08, 5:50 a.m. – Permalink
  • stem

    Yeah moth, I was typing before your last comment. Couldn't put it any better than that.

    • second to last...

      Damn you - typing too fast for me! ; P
      – stem
    + add note

    You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

    Cancel
    Dog-earJun 26, 08, 5:51 a.m. – Permalink
  • kelpie

    positive discrimination gives guidelines to companies on targets they MUST meet, regardless of suitability of candidates, to re-address workplace inequalities.

    This doesn't do that. It sounds kind of pointless to me for the reasons detritus has stated above, but its doesn't make requirements of companies to discriminate "positively" in favour of of the less well suited candidate.

    Strikes me as a bit of, either, PR to curry favour with Labour's key demographics in working class women etc or simply an entrenching of equality principles in law without significantly legislating to alter the workplace.

    the pay scale transparency, homophobia and ageism legislation are the significant parts of this announcement.

    • what dictionary did you swallow?– mistermik
    + add note

    You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

    Cancel
    Dog-earJun 26, 08, 5:54 a.m. – Permalink
  • designbot

    In the U.S. I have seen this same type of thing transpire. Co's I have worked for have a "minority qouta" they have to meet. Suddenly it's like they just need to hire a minority regardless of their capabilities/skillset. It's an idea that only looks good on paper....but fails miserably when implemented.

    • Well typically they are supposed to hire qualified minorities. Not random black minorities off the street.– Glitterati_Duane
    + add note

    You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

    Cancel
    Dog-earJun 26, 08, 5:57 a.m. – Permalink
  • stem

    What bugs me is that they always back this stuff up with comments like...

    "A society which is equal and fair is one which is more at ease with itself," she added.

    Which, no-one in their right mind could argue with. But if you agree with this 'over-arching' statement, then you must agree with the rest...

    Nah, it doesn't wash with me.

    next note >add note

    You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

    Cancel
    Dog-earJun 26, 08, 5:58 a.m. – Permalink
  • Glitterati_Duane

    It's interesting. What if a company wanted to hire someone because they felt that person's cultural perspective would benefit the team more than their skills? But there were other candidates that were more skilled so out of fairness they had to hire them. It's interesting just extremely flawed. I can see a racist or sexist employer abusing the shit out of that legislation.

    + add note

    You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

    Cancel
    Dog-earJun 26, 08, 5:59 a.m. – Permalink
  • moth

    It also means kelpie (in the worst case scenario) that you could never get another job. Striving for a balanced workplace would frankly be a disaster. We don't have enough immigrants!

    next note >add note

    You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

    Cancel
    Dog-earJun 26, 08, 6:01 a.m. – Permalink
  • calculator

    It should be the best person for the job, regardless of sex, race or anything.

    next note >add note

    You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

    Cancel
    Dog-earJun 26, 08, 6:02 a.m. – Permalink
  • kelpie

    If I'm not picked because my potential employer wants to pick another candidate who has the exact same skill set and qualifications as me then what the fuck do I have to complain about?

    • this doesn't let people pick someone who isn't as good as me– kelpie1/2
      Not having tits like the other girl?– moth2/2
    next note >+ add note

    You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

    Cancel
    Dog-earJun 26, 08, 6:02 a.m. – Permalink
  • creative-

    I give up

    next note >add note

    You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

    Cancel
    Dog-earJun 26, 08, 6:02 a.m. – Permalink
  • calculator

    it's also as much about personality when picking people as it is skillsets

    + add note

    You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

    Cancel
    Dog-earJun 26, 08, 6:04 a.m. – Permalink
  • flashbender

    thank god I'm white and male and I don't have to deal with discrimination

    • Yes, but you will have to, that's what this is all about!– stem1/2
      You will now.– jamble2/2
    next note >+ add note

    You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

    Cancel
    Dog-earJun 26, 08, 6:56 a.m. – Permalink
  • Jaline

    "The new Equalities Bill will...force employers to disclose salary structures in a bid to close the gender pay gap."

    This doesn't seem horrible to me (but I'm sure someone will post more info about why it could be hidden).

    Other than that, there are many contradictory things about this plan.

    next note >add note

    You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

    Cancel
    Dog-earJun 26, 08, 6:56 a.m. – Permalink

Login or Register to respond to this

Skip to main content