What is equality to you?

[Guest makapaka]

1 hour ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Yes they are. If all else is equal, toss a coin or draw straws. Otherwise, if being of one gender means you don't get the job in preference of someone of another gender, then you're being discriminated against.

No mate. 

 

Its levelling up the imbalance where there is nothing else to separate.

 

so - let’s say you have 8 men and 1 woman in a management team that needs 10.

 

9 men and 1 woman apply and all are equally qualified- you employ the woman and increase female representation on the management team from 10% to 20%.

 

whats up with that?

Edited February 25, 2019 by makapaka

[Cyclone]

Who said 'optional form'? . Read the post again.  Anyone got Specsaver's number? 

  Such forms are always (by law) optional.

 

Quote

(presumably he had to fill in one of those additional forms that 'Are only for use as a monitoring tool to establish that we are reaching all members of the community & will not be used in the recruitment process in anyway.'

15 hours ago, Baron99 said:

Who said 'optional form'? . Read the post again.  Anyone got Specsaver's number? 

 

And you can't deliberately favour any candidate per se. 

 

And apparently it is unlawful to use positive discrimination as a blunt tool; "While positive action can be used to ensure greater diversity, it should only be applied to distinguish between candidates who were all equally well qualified for a role." 

 

In this case, the white, heterosexual, male, (not that it would really matter to the public if they were being robbed at knife point, they'd just like to see a copper), was the superior candidate but overlooked for a box ticking exercise. 

 

Never mind. As it's Cheshire Police, the compo paid to Mr Furlong won't come out of our council tax, eh? 

 

The Chief Constable, Police Commissioner & council tax payers must be so proud. 

Yes, I read the same report you did.

So what makes you think that it was related to a diversity information form?  It's not mentioned anywhere.  The fact that he's white and male is identifiable without that form, and there's no evidence that his sexuality was questioned or used in the decision.

Edited February 26, 2019 by Cyclone

[Branyy]

9 hours ago, makapaka said:

No mate. 

 

Its levelling up the imbalance where there is nothing else to separate.

 

so - let’s say you have 8 men and 1 woman in a management team that needs 10.

 

9 men and 1 woman apply and all are equally qualified- you employ the woman and increase female representation on the management team from 10% to 20%.

 

whats up with that?

Sounds irrational to keep some arbitrary numbers just because they look nice, without any added value. Use of random generator would be fair.

Edited February 26, 2019 by Branyy

[Robin-H]

10 hours ago, Cyclone said:

 

 

  Such forms are always (by law) optional.

 

Yes, I read the same report you did.

So what makes you think that it was related to a diversity information form?  It's not mentioned anywhere.  The fact that he's white and male is identifiable without that form, and there's no evidence that his sexuality was questioned or used in the decision.

The judgement can be found here. 

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c66abfd40f0b61a1e93a27a/Mr_M_Furlong_v_The_Chief_Constable_of_Cheshire_Police_2405577.18_judgment_and_reasons.pdf

 

It is quite clear that the issue was around 'protected characteristics', which Mr Furlong didn't have. The judgement specifically mentions these to be his race, sexuality, and sex, concluding that if he was a woman, if he was from an ethic minority background, or if he was gay or bisexual, he would have been given one of the positions. 

 

It doesn't mention a diversity information form as such, but it would be odd for a police force actively wanting to increase its number of LGBT employees  not to ask that somewhere. 

Edited February 26, 2019 by Robin-H

[the_bloke]

13 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Yes they are, the one who isn't given the job is being discriminated against, if not in current legal terminology then at least in actuality. They are not getting the job on the basis of their gender not meeting some arbitrary ratio target.

For positive action to work, it can't be an arbitrary target. It has to reflect the statistics of the local populace and you have to be able to prove how your company differs.

 

That's obviously not a problem for positive action based on sex as the population is 50/50 male female, but you can't say you want half your workforce to be black when the population you are recruiting from is 90% white.

[WiseOwl182]

18 hours ago, makapaka said:

No mate. 

 

Its levelling up the imbalance where there is nothing else to separate.

 

so - let’s say you have 8 men and 1 woman in a management team that needs 10.

 

9 men and 1 woman apply and all are equally qualified- you employ the woman and increase female representation on the management team from 10% to 20%.

 

whats up with that?

Because the person losing out would be doing so purely because of their gender. If gender was truly irrelevant, it wouldn't come into it. Therefore, it's discriminatory.

7 hours ago, the_bloke said:

For positive action to work, it can't be an arbitrary target. It has to reflect the statistics of the local populace and you have to be able to prove how your company differs.

 

That's obviously not a problem for positive action based on sex as the population is 50/50 male female, but you can't say you want half your workforce to be black when the population you are recruiting from is 90% white.

To meet the target, however it is set, will require discrimination. If all else is equal, people will lose out due to being the 'wrong' gender, race, etc.

[Guest makapaka]

2 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Because the person losing out would be doing so purely because of their gender. If gender was truly irrelevant, it wouldn't come into it. Therefore, it's discriminatory.

To meet the target, however it is set, will require discrimination. If all else is equal, people will lose out due to being the 'wrong' gender, race, etc.

It’s redressing entrenched discrimination where particular groups become under represented to try and make it more equal. 

 

Your missing the main point that these groups are already under represented and attempts are being made to correct that.

 

why do you think there are so few women in senior positions in corporations or black football managers etc.

 

why do you think the Rooney rule was implemented for example?

Edited February 26, 2019 by makapaka

[WiseOwl182]

5 minutes ago, makapaka said:

It’s redressing entrenched discrimination where particular groups become under represented to try and make it more equal. 

 

Your missing the main point that these groups are already under represented and attempts are being made to correct that.

 

why do you think there are so few women in senior positions in corporations or black football managers etc.

 

why do you think the Rooney rule was implemented for example?

None of which detracts from my point, that it is still discrimination with someone losing out purely on the basis of, say, their gender.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Guest makapaka]

2 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

None of which detracts from my point, that it is still discrimination with someone losing out purely on the basis of, say, their gender.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

It’s correcting previous wrongs.....

 

Quote;

“In Europe, positive action are measures which are targeted at protected groups in order to enable or encourage members of those groups to overcome or minimise disadvantage; or to meet the different needs of the protected group; or to enable or encourage persons in protected groups to participate in an activity. In the United Kingdom in the Equality Act 2010 ss 158-159, the term is used in the context of employment to allow selection of a candidate from an "under-represented" group, so long as he or she is no less than equally qualified compared to another potential candidate that is not from the under-represented group”

 

I can’t see what your problem is with that?

[Waldo]

Is positive discrimination a good or a bad thing?

 

Cheshire Police were recently found to have discriminated against, white hetrosexual male, Mathew Furlong. Even though Mathew passed the interview process with flying colours, he was turned down for his dream job because he didn't meet the selection principles; being...

 

1. Applicants who identify as being female, BME, LGBT or disabled.

2. Applicants who speak English as their second language.

3. Applicants who already work for the service.

 

Should people who have demonstrated less capability in the interview process, be given jobs, instead of those more capable, who are unlucky enough to be white, male and straight?

 

I'm struggling to see Positive Discrimination, as anything but plain old regular discrimination with a positive spin on it. Discrimination in favour of some people, is logically the same as discrimination against some other people.

 

For me, I would absolutely disregard skin colour, ethnicity, gender, etc; and the only considerations (for a job offer) would be ability and attitude.

 

Maybe I'd wrong though?

 

Should I move with the times, and self identify as a black gay female? In an ideal world, doing so would neither help nor hinder my job prospects; but sadly in the real world, in some cases it will help, and in others it will hinder; but how do we get to a place where it's not even a consideration?

 

Anyhow, here's the clip of Mathew being interviewed on This Morning by the lovely Holly Willoby and some twit...