Jump to content


What is equality to you?

Vaati

The bickering and insults can cease. You were warned by another mod only a few hours ago. Any further and accounts will be suspended.

Message added by Vaati

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

No, they just didn't get the job.

 

Does that mean that everyone else who applied and didn't get the job was discriminated against?

They "just didn't get the job" because of their skin colour.

 

Yes, if anyone else was equally qualified and only lost out because of their race/gender/religion, etc then yes, they were discriminated against.

 

Here's a new question:

 

A company has to choose between 2 equally qualified candidates. Their workforce is 60% white and 40% black, but the country in which they operate is 85% white. On that basis, they offer the job to the white candidate. Is that ok or is that discrimination?

Edited by WiseOwl182

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, leviathan13 said:

How do they choose one of them?

Who knows, they both scored equally.

 

It's a dilemma alright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SnailyBoy said:

Who knows, they both scored equally.

 

It's a dilemma alright.

So... why not bring them both back for further testing and questioning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Exactly, that's why in the context of the thread it betrays you.

Nonsense. Stating my position on tackling inequally using 'positive action' hasn't betrayed me at all.

 

Here it is again.

 

Using 'positive action' to tackle social inequality without discriminating against 'anyone' isn't  possible. But, you and others disagree, claiming 'positive action' is not discriminatory in the slightest, adding- positive action  actually  tackles discrimination and  the social inequalities that unrepresented minorities who generally lose-out to so-called  'privledged white men' often face. 

You and others have routinely refered to these unrepresented minorities as 'disadvantaged', even suggesting that thier advancement is semi-relient the good grace of the so-called 'privledged white men' who ought to give them "a leg up" occasionally. 

 

Does that sound about right? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WiseOwl182 said:

They just didn't get the job because of their skin colour.

 

Yes, if anyone else was equally qualified and only lost out because of their race/gender/religion, etc then yes, they were discriminated against.

 

Here's a new question:

 

A company has to choose between 2 equally qualified candidates. Their workforce is 60% white and 40% black, but the country in which they operate is 85% white. On that basis, they offer the job to the white candidate. Is that ok or is that discrimination?

We've been through this before, it's tiring.

 

No, they choose the candidate they wanted based on their aspirations for their workforce, in keeping with the Equality Act 2010.

 

As for your question, if the employer felt that white people were proportionally under represented in their company, and the candidates were equally qualified, etc.

 

Then yes, I would say that the employer would be justified in choosing the candidate who would meet their aspirations for a proportionally representative workforce.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SnailyBoy said:

We've been through this before, it's tiring.

 

No, they choose the candidate they wanted based on their aspirations for their workforce, in keeping with the Equality Act 2010.

 

As for your question, if the employer felt that white people were proportionally under represented in their company, and the candidates were equally qualified, etc.

 

Then yes, I would say that the employer would be justified in choosing the candidate who would meet their aspirations for a proportionally representative workforce.

 

 

 

 

Would they be keeping within the Equality Act 2010 in doing so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, danot said:

Nonsense. Stating my position on tackling inequally using 'positive action' hasn't betrayed me at all.

 

Here it is again.

 

Using 'positive action' to tackle social inequality without discriminating against 'anyone' isn't  possible. But, you and others disagree, claiming 'positive action' is not discriminatory in the slightest, adding- positive action  actually  tackles discrimination and  the social inequalities that unrepresented minorities who generally lose-out to so-called  'privledged white men' often face. 

You and others have routinely refered to these unrepresented minorities as 'disadvantaged', even suggesting that thier advancement is semi-relient the good grace of the so-called 'privledged white men' who ought to give them "a leg up" occasionally. 

 

Does that sound about right? 

 

 

Heard it all before.

 

It's still nonsense and pretty tiring now.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Heard it all before.

 

It's still nonsense and pretty tiring now.

 

 

 

Only because of your own cognitive dissonance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Would they be keeping within the Equality Act 2010 in doing so?

If they can justify it.

 

' Positive action is when an employer takes steps to help or encourage certain groups of people with different needs, or who are disadvantaged in some way, access work or training. '

 

Now what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SnailyBoy said:

If they can justify it.

 

' Positive action is when an employer takes steps to help or encourage certain groups of people with different needs, or who are disadvantaged in some way, access work or training. '

 

Now what?

Doesn't mention 'representation', though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SnailyBoy said:

If they can justify it.

 

' Positive action is when an employer takes steps to help or encourage certain groups of people with different needs, or who are disadvantaged in some way, access work or training. '

 

Now what?

So you think a company who wanted to recruit more white people would fall within that remit? Or do you think, more likely, they'd be taken to court for illegal discrimination?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.