Positive discrimination

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....ack-people-women.html

What if a law was brought out which said "if all candidates have equal qualifications for a senior position, only white heterosexual males will be considered for the post", would that also be acceptable?

[sandyRoe]

Isn't positive discrimination designed to redress an imbalance caused by past bias? It can be effective. Can you think of an area in the workplace where white heterosexual males with the necessary qualifications are under represented?

[THECORBYLOON]

Anotheoldgit, I don't have the figures but I think I'd be on fairly safe ground if I said there are a fair few white heterosexual males in the Met's top jobs already and the plan is legal so what's the problem? Would you be happier if there were ONLY white heterosexual males in the top jobs?

[anotheoldgit]

sandyRoe

Not a matter of being under represented, but given a workforce of say 1000 and only two top jobs on offer and also taking into consideration this is predominantly a white country.

In the interests of equality, from what group would you consider the two jobs should go to, white heterosexual male, white heterosexual female, white gay male, white gay female, black heterosexual male, black heterosexual female, black gay male, black gay female or similar members of any other minority group?

[sandyRoe]

In the circumstances you describe it would be only fair if both jobs went to transgendered, black people of the Islamic faith.

[anotheoldgit]

THECORBYLOON

/// Would you be happier if there were ONLY white heterosexual males in the top jobs? ///

No of course not, but I would also not like to see only white heterosexual males excluded from future top jobs.

[anotheoldgit]

sandyRoe

/// In the circumstances you describe it would be only fair if both jobs went to transgendered, black people of the Islamic faith. ///

Read what I put Sandy, "or similar members of any other minority group"?

[jno]

hasn't that been the policy for many decades?

[THECORBYLOON]

Do you not agree that minorities should be fairly represented where possible? If X represented 50% of the population but in a workforce of 1,000 there were 90% who were X, is that fair? If there are then two folk of equal ability and one of them is not X, does it not make sense to employ that person since there's already an over-representation of X?

[Brenden]

Positive discrimination is not fair, the jobs should go to the best candidates who meet the criteria - I had a black female team leader who got the job (her husband wrote her cv for her) on her colour and sex, and she could not string a sentence together on paper - utterly useless.

[jomifl]

How will they know when they have done enough positive dicrimination? The only fair way to do it is to make sure that every level of rank reflects the proportions of ethicity in the police administrative distict. As proportions change emloyees can be transferred compulsorily to other forces that have not achieved ethnic proportionality. By this means full ethnic harmony will be achieved and the police force will achieve maximum efficiency through being thoroughly nice to everyone. As if :o)

[sp1814]

AOG

But isn't the key question here the one of the 'tie break' where both candidates are equally qualified and suitable for the job?

Brenden - positive discrimination is indeed unfair, and i totally underestand your concern, but the situation you described with your ex-team leader here doesn't apply he unless she was up against someone who was equally qualified.

The fault in your situation lay with the company's interviewing process. I have had to interview dozens of people over the years, and a CV only provides candidates with a foot in the door. It's easy to weed out unsuitable candidates if you have a fair and robust interview strategy in place.

[jno]

did her job involve stringing sentences together on paper, Brenden? If so, the recruitment process was badly flawed. If not, maybe she was still the best applicant.

[FredPuli43]

No. And this policy is, prima facie, wrong too. By all means, discourage and prevent discrimination against women or blacks or gypsies or any group. But how does having someone, less qualified or able than other candidates, in a job because they are black, or anything else, benefit society as a whole? And how, ultimately, does it benefit their community or the individual, to have the suspicion or the fact abroad that people were chosen because they were black?

[FredPuli43]

^should have said 'less or equally' qualified^

[BlueToffee]

Shouldn't any job be given to the best candidate, regardless of sex, race, colour or sexual orientation?

[wolf63]

I would hate to be given a job on the basis of my gender, race, sexual orientation etc - it is insulting.

A job should be given to the best woman for the job :~$ (that is my new sarcastic/tongue--in-cheek smilie).

[sandyRoe]

If that had always applied then there would be no need for positive discrimination. It hasn't, and there is.

[ummmm]

Was just to say what Sandy just said.

[sandyRoe]

^ That was in response to Blue Toffee's post

[jno]

FredPuli: if less qualified, not at all; but that's not the position here. This is only for tie-break situations. If they're equally qualified, what's the difference to society?