Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
55% v 20% Why?
http://news.sky.com/h...news/article/16185997
I expect to be labelled as racist for pointing out this inconvenient statistic but I think it is an important social question. 55% of young black men are unemployed as opposed to 20% of white men, why such a disparity?
I expect to be labelled as racist for pointing out this inconvenient statistic but I think it is an important social question. 55% of young black men are unemployed as opposed to 20% of white men, why such a disparity?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by d9f1c7. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
baz there is a degree of that, but i would say that many of the youngsters are unemployable, endless testimonies from business leaders seem to bear this out. If you have poor communication skills, problems with numeracy and writing skills how are you going to get a job in today's very competitive markets. The answer is you can't, and as to black youngsters being discriminated against, maybe so, but i reckon it's more across the board.
What needs to happen is that a no holds barred investigation needs to understand why.
However such an investigation would be hampered by being afraid of being labelled as Racist. But if you dont do it, and understand and accept the real findingings (such as a chip on the shoulder, which will be there in many cases although not all) then you will never solve the problem.
So i see the real cause as the right-on lefties who have had there warped ideas backfire
However such an investigation would be hampered by being afraid of being labelled as Racist. But if you dont do it, and understand and accept the real findingings (such as a chip on the shoulder, which will be there in many cases although not all) then you will never solve the problem.
So i see the real cause as the right-on lefties who have had there warped ideas backfire
Perhaps one of the reasons could be, that once employed they are much harder to sack, due to the fear of a potential employer, that later they may take up the race card, which in turn could cost many thousands of pounds in a law suite.
This is just common sense on the part of an employer, just as some tend to shy away from employing females of childbearing age, due to all the legislation that has recently been brought out for their protection.
I am not saying these numerous protection clauses should not be in force, but it may have something to do why certain factions are more likely than others to be unemployed.
This is just common sense on the part of an employer, just as some tend to shy away from employing females of childbearing age, due to all the legislation that has recently been brought out for their protection.
I am not saying these numerous protection clauses should not be in force, but it may have something to do why certain factions are more likely than others to be unemployed.
D9f1c7
Exactly!
Why were the figures presented in such a way in the first place.mmakes the whole story a little - dodgy. Like-for-like figures would've been so much easier to debate.
AOG may have a point - some employers will not take on black workers or women of child bearing age because they fear the consequences of sacking them.
However, any employer worth his/her salt would have put stringent HR policies in place which would show due diligence in respect of staff appraisals and disciplinary processes.
Also, you have to remember, thousands of women, Asians and black workers are made redundant or sacked every year without complaint. The problem is - newspapers will never print stories about black workers who leave a company quietly - they need drama to sell papers...so all employers will ever read are the minuscule number of cases that go to tribunal, leaving them with the ridiculous impression that all black people are litigious.
And that can unfortunately translate into racial prejudice, as the BBC report proves.
Exactly!
Why were the figures presented in such a way in the first place.mmakes the whole story a little - dodgy. Like-for-like figures would've been so much easier to debate.
AOG may have a point - some employers will not take on black workers or women of child bearing age because they fear the consequences of sacking them.
However, any employer worth his/her salt would have put stringent HR policies in place which would show due diligence in respect of staff appraisals and disciplinary processes.
Also, you have to remember, thousands of women, Asians and black workers are made redundant or sacked every year without complaint. The problem is - newspapers will never print stories about black workers who leave a company quietly - they need drama to sell papers...so all employers will ever read are the minuscule number of cases that go to tribunal, leaving them with the ridiculous impression that all black people are litigious.
And that can unfortunately translate into racial prejudice, as the BBC report proves.
Paul_M
Thanks for your input. I suppose all points of view are of value, whether or not they are easily supportable.
Getting back to d9f1c7's very pertinent question...who knows? Unfortunately, we haven't been presented with the full facts.
We're trying to describe a jigsaw puzzle picture, but we've not got all the pieces.
Thanks for your input. I suppose all points of view are of value, whether or not they are easily supportable.
Getting back to d9f1c7's very pertinent question...who knows? Unfortunately, we haven't been presented with the full facts.
We're trying to describe a jigsaw puzzle picture, but we've not got all the pieces.
