Positive Discrimination - Positive Action

[JBR]

The easiest way to achieve that is to be seen to be reflecting the population in employment and delivery of services.

Not always possible because of differences in the groups.

So if a person from ethnicity A and a person from ethnicity B both apply and both meet the minimum requirement, but person from ethnicity B meets the preferred requirement in order to meet or maintain targets, they are employed.

What’s the problem?

It's racist.

I don't usually bother to read Coathanger's posts but, having seen this extract, I see how the chip-on-the-shoulder brigade try to change the rules to suit themselves.

It seems to me that, in order to legally employ the 'type of person' they want, the answer is simply to lower the 'preferred requirements' until they meet the candidate's abilities.

 

[jockscott]

We recognise that a Person Specification will have the minimum skills required. There may also be preferential attributes mentioned.
So if a person from ethnicity A and a person from ethnicity B both apply and both meet the minimum requirement, but person from ethnicity B meets the preferred requirement in order to meet or maintain targets, they are employed.

What’s the problem?

The problem arises when the person of ethnicity B (the better qualified one) doesn't get the job simply because the person of ethnicity A is under-represented in the workforce. Surely when offering any job, the person with the best qualifications for that position, would be the one most beneficial for the company? (irrespective of ethnicity)

 

[Dextraneous]

It seems to me that, in order to legally employ the 'type of person' they want, the answer is simply to lower the 'preferred requirements' until they meet the candidate's abilities.

Are you suggesting that certain ethnic groups are so inferior that they need the requirements to be lowered? Hmm

 

[jockscott]

It seems to me that, in order to legally employ the 'type of person' they want, the answer is simply to lower the 'preferred requirements' until they meet the candidate's abilities.

Are you suggesting that certain ethnic groups are so inferior that they need the requirements to be lowered? Hmm

Oooh, can't see that happening up and down the country in local government.

 

[Dextraneous]

Some own goals being scored here

 

[groovynooby]

That's fine and obviously for someone of the appropriate ethnicity the discrimination would be perceived as positive, but an equivalent candidate of the wrong ethnicity would be subject to plain old discrimination.

My take on primary and secondary objectives means that the prefereable quality is part of the recruitment process. Therefore the unsuccessful candidate is not equal to the successful candidate.

Surely the best candidate should get the job, as a potential shareholder that would certainly be my preference.

But, the positive discimination may mean that it was the best candidate, in that circumstance.

I get it but it's crazy, it is racism by default but it's ok because the company have decided to implement a racist policy... crazy.

 

[Dextraneous]

I get it but it's crazy, it is racism by default but it's ok because the company have decided to implement a racist policy... crazy.

Define "crazy"

 

[JBR]

Looks like followers of the R O P can arrange their own positive discrimination, without the help of the hand-wringing intelligencia. Don't know which is more dangerous, the soft-headed coathanger types or the R O P followers themselves.

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/jihadist-plot-take-over-birmingham-6782881

Also, has anyone ever noticed that those promoting loony-left policies like these are unlikely to be affected by them? Typical, hypocritical socialism.

I'm just surprised that they powers-that-be are investigating this rather than 'brushing it under the carpet'.

 

[Norcon]

Here in the province being employed to do a job will depend on what tabernacle you worship in.
Our customer base is about 90% prod from the unionist community. 25 years ago about 50/50.

So despite the peace process things have actually changed for the worst you could say.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking the papish followers.
Its just a natural thing to want to stick to your own at the end off the day.

 

[JBR]

What a bout if both candidates are equally as good, but by employing a certain ethnicity the company is more likely to appeal to a wider or new market which includes members of that particular ethnic group market, thus ensuring more contracts and jobs?

Only works one way, though, doesn't it.

Can you imagine what the reaction would be if two applicants - one white one black - both have exactly the same attributes and the job were to be given to the white candidate?

There would, of course, be appeals of racism by the black candidate.

 

[Whitespirit66]

whereas positive discrimination is persuing a positive result.

positive discrimination, discriminates against someone on racial grounds, that's Racism.

But you haven't refused a person a position simply on your whim. You have followed a stated, shared objective of the organisation in its pusuit of a proportional repesentation.

Not satisfied with promoting racism, coathanger's gone one better. He's all for institutional racism now.

Never thought I'd see the day!

 

[JBR]

What a bout if both candidates are equally as good, but by employing a certain ethnicity the company is more likely to appeal to a wider or new market which includes members of that particular ethnic group market, thus ensuring more contracts and jobs?

Economics does not come into it, if your choice is based on Race / colour then theoretically it's racist.

But what it economics did come into it? Would that still be racist or simply pragmatic?

Either, depending upon which candidate was chosen!

 

[groovynooby]

I get it but it's crazy, it is racism by default but it's ok because the company have decided to implement a racist policy... crazy.

Define "crazy"

I don't know, perhaps bewildering would be more apt... I wonder, in my little theoretical village the inhabitants are 100% white, English, would my whites only policy be deemed positive or negative discrimination wise?

P.S. The last sentence is not representative of any reality merely a theoretical construct. - Edit: in addition, for clarity, I am referring to my theoretical company/organisation.

 

[jockscott]

Look up any local government's website and look at jobs. I'm sure you'll see statements like "Applications are particularly welcomed from ethnic minorities , as these are under-represented in our workforce." Some even advertise jobs saying "Only applications from certain ethnic minorities will be accepted." (and these are not jobs working within the ethnic minority communities. They are jobs working with the general public). So it follows that some councils are practising "discrimination." As someone said earlier putting the word positive in front of it , still makes it discrimination.

 

[JBR]

It seems to me that, in order to legally employ the 'type of person' they want, the answer is simply to lower the 'preferred requirements' until they meet the candidate's abilities.

Are you suggesting that certain ethnic groups are so inferior that they need the requirements to be lowered? Hmm

I'm suggesting that if and when that happens, it is wrong. Did I specify any specific ethnic groups?