Positive Discrimination - Positive Action

R

RogueHanger

By request, I've put this in a new thread.
It's my take on positive discrimination and why it's sometimes justified.

We are all aware that organisations have objectives, aspirations, goals, call them what you will.
Usually these goals can be divided into primary and secondary goals.

Primary goals usually refer to the primary purpose of the organisation, e.g. a hospital might have “the improvement in health of the local population” or some such statement. Or the police might have “reduction of crime in this area”, etc. as one of their primary objectives.

Whereas the secondary objective might include something along the lines of “being a market leader in this trade or service”, or “ become a beacon of quality”.

In order to achieve the secondary objective of being a beacon of quality, then it would probably be necessary or expected that the workforce reflect the ethnicity of the population that they serve. The reason for this is to demonstrate that no institutional racism exists, whether in employment or in delivery of service. or to be able to meet the requirements of the population.

The ethnic breakdown of the population is easily attainable and it is preferable that the workforce represents that population. The management are charged by the shareholders (I’m using that word in it’s loose sense, because citizens are shareholders of public organisations) to demonstrate the fair and equitable delivery of their services.

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

Management therefore strive to ensure that a fair mix of ethnicities are employed.
The one sure method of achieving this is to ensure that targets are met or maintained.

It may sometimes not be sufficient to achieve an organisation overall target, but to create hierarchical or sectional targets to ensure that all levels of the organisation are equally represented.

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?
 
Sponsored Links
Joined
23 Jun 2013
Messages
2,617
Reaction score
380
Location
Manchester
Country
United Kingdom
Define a "fair" mix. If you mean "proportional" in relation to the target market population then fair enough.
 
Sponsored Links
Joined
7 Jul 2010
Messages
38,612
Reaction score
4,717
Location
Retired to:
Country
Portugal
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.
 
G

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.

Surely the best candidate should get the job, as a potential shareholder that would certainly be my preference.
 
Joined
15 Dec 2007
Messages
8,011
Reaction score
2,112
Location
Bristol
Country
United Kingdom
What an utter load of the usual hogwash from the usual suspect. Another example of a downside of uncontrolled immigration, and how over-educated hot air merchants expect us to tie ourselves up in knots to please the incommers.

A perfect example of positive discrimination, albeit an extreme one, is Zimbabwe. That went well didn't it? And how well are the white inhabitants of Zimbabwe represented? Do they get positive discrimination when the shoe's on the other foot? Do they hell.
 
R

RogueHanger

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.
Lots of things are not easily achieved but it shouldn't deter us from trying.

[
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.
Please elucidate.
 
R

RogueHanger

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.
 
R

RogueHanger

What an utter load of the usual hogwash from the usual suspect. Another example of a downside of uncontrolled immigration, and how over-educated hot air merchants expect us to tie ourselves up in knots to please the incommers.
Thank you for you valuable contribution, as usual.

A perfect example of positive discrimination, albeit an extreme one, is Zimbabwe. That went well didn't it? And how well are the white inhabitants of Zimbabwe represented? Do they get positive discrimination when the shoe's on the other foot? Do they hell.
You can hardly compare a violent take over of a country by a despot to the objectives of an organisation. Can you?
 
B

Big Tone

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 believe it! RH is showing racism :eek:

If you have two groups A & B but you favour group B to make things somehow more representative of a cross section of society or balance, how do you imagine A would feel?

As said elsewhere, the clue is in the word "discrimination". Putting positive in front doesn't mean it isn't still nonetheless discrimination.

However you try and cut it, you have disadvantaged someone on their colour under a falsehood to make things fairer and in doing so discriminated against A based on colour! :eek:

When things are really that close, which would be the exception anyway, it would be fairer and non-discriminatory to have just pulled one of the two names out of a bag! At least then both A AND B would not feel aggrieved. I cant' see a way out for you this time RH.

You don't start a football match by looking at the balance of colour on the pitch or in the stands and say "okay, that side gets to kick off". They flip a coin to make it fairer.

You see, when you give RH enough rope he hangs himself.... :cool: (Certainly does it in style).
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JBR
Joined
23 Jun 2013
Messages
2,617
Reaction score
380
Location
Manchester
Country
United Kingdom
Oh I don't know. Nothing wrong with stratified sampling techniques being used to populate a workforce.
 
Joined
15 Dec 2007
Messages
8,011
Reaction score
2,112
Location
Bristol
Country
United Kingdom
Looks like followers of the R O P can arrange their own positive discrimination, without the help of the hand-wringing intelligencia. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: 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.
 
Joined
14 Jan 2008
Messages
9,912
Reaction score
1,152
Location
Staffordshire
Country
United Kingdom
Unless you stick a moat around an area, and prevent free movement in and out, and ensure that the geographical range of the corporate body exactly matches that of the population it serves, it will not be a true reflection of them.

What about if the distinct population doesn't want to abide by the laws or customs of the country as a whole? Do you have the "police" respecting that position?

Or a distinct population of say, Jehovah's Witnesses, served by a reflective hospital, denying the children blood transfusions?


On the general point of positive discrimination, I hear your previous point about adopting it, to force a previously-biased position the other way. But I can't agree with it - two wrongs do not make a right.
Just draw a line in the sand, make a set of rules, and ensure that they are abided by.
 
Sponsored Links
Top