Government looking at legalising 'positive discrimination'

[TheAnimus]

This is one of the reasons why investment banks are driving hugely for diversity. The CEOs even get involved.

Except the french ones, obviously.

JPreston, i think the point is, that even tipping the balance which is a term an aquantance who supports this used, or allowing a company to have a policy where HR would tip the balance is foolish.

The thing is, the only person i know who supports it, whilst been a 'minority' is thick, i mean amazingly stupid, the kind of person who's middle class but you wounder how manages to put shirts on the right way round.

He says that he's been rejected for jobs because of racisim, and thinks this would help.

First off, if the employer is racist, they will always find ways round such rules (such as voting tests in alabama did in the past). Its easy to refuse a perfectly good candidate who you think might get pregenant (obviously such action would be illegal disciminitation), THIS HAPPENS ALL TIME TIME. This law won't address this.

In fact it shows, that he is so thick, he likes to blame anything for him not getting good jobs other than the simple truth. People like will support it, i still can't fathom a reason why anyone else will.

[JPreston]

JPreston, i think the point is, that even tipping the balance which is a term an aquantance who supports this used, or allowing a company to have a policy where HR would tip the balance is foolish.

The thing is, the only person i know who supports it, whilst been a 'minority' is thick, i mean amazingly stupid, the kind of person who's middle class but you wounder how manages to put shirts on the right way round.

He says that he's been rejected for jobs because of racisim, and thinks this would help.

My bold - how's that for an ad populum argument?

In the case of your thick friend, this rule would not help him (unless everyone else who applies is even more thick, but fortunately the job is such that a vegetable could perform it after the available training).


Comments about middle class are interesting though. I sat 9 GCSE's and got all A - C, from a 'failing' comprehensive which is defined as one where fewer than 20% of pupils get five A - Cs (or fewer than 20% of individual results are A - C, I forget which). IIRC you have a similar background.

Now let's imagine Tarquin, who had every advantage money can buy all his school life, went to a fee-paying school and had additional private tuition in the holidays. Tarquin was pretty thick though and only got exactly the same GCSEs as me (or you). Tarquin applies for the same job as me (or you). Both applicants have the same qualifications, but who is likely to be the better candidate? The one who was tutored up to the eyeballs and stretched to fulfill his potential completely, or the one who had crappy resources and other worries to contend with?

Considering that specific minorities are overwhelmingly likely to have had a paucity of education (series 4 of The Wire! Easier to apply this in the US) compared to their leafy suburban counterparts there would seem to be an argument in favour of actual, explicit positive discrimination* in some circumstances, isn't there? Given that it's facile to chirp on about how everyone should have the same opportunities regardless of colour and blah blah blah, should we not recognise that inequality is a very real and current problem, and it will remain entrenched until someone actually does something about it?




*Of the sort that absolutely was not proposed in the UK....just to avoid any further confusion....

[YorkieBen]

FACT: no inferior candidate could be given preference under the proposed rules any more than they can under present rules.

well done, frankly the original article doesn not state that.

What it indicates is that if there are two equally qualified candidates then a company could legally make the decision based on race. Which is racial discrimination however you wish to dress it up in.

Which you know as you mentioned it in an earlier post so I'm baffled why you brought it up later

Even if it did, the poor oppressed middle class white man could only lose out to a minority candidate who is no less qualified than he is and equally deserving of the job in every respect, before anyone's ethnicity is considered.

Strangely you seem to think that this is okay?

And actually it is legal at the moment for certain jobs to be restricted to women or ethnic minorities if it is deemed suitable for the job. Working in the housing/homelessness public sector I see these occur all the time:

e.g. at a hostel for 'black minority ethnic' (as the offical term is) they can restrict the post to BME applicants.

I will try to find the section of employment law that it comes under.


And previous posts mention that 'rich white kids' are more likely to receive a good education, what about 'poor white kids' from working class backgrounds? Children of Indian and black descent are more likely to end up in professional or management grade jobs than that of white children according to this:

BBC NEWS | UK | Minorities break 'class barrier'


So should an applicant's parents' economic situation be taken into account as well?

Oh and :


"Considering that specific minorities are overwhelmingly likely to have had a paucity of education (series 4 of The Wire! Easier to apply this in the US) compared to their leafy suburban counterparts there would seem to be an argument in favour of actual, explicit positive discrimination* in some circumstances, isn't there? Given that it's facile to chirp on about how everyone should have the same opportunities regardless of colour and blah blah blah, should we not recognise that inequality is a very real and current problem, and it will remain entrenched until someone actually does something about it?"

Trying to solve inequality by punishing someone for what is not under their control (i.e. race, upbringing etc) is ridiculous and counter-productive. And there is a MASSIVE difference between the fact that society/people may discriminate on there grounds and the LAW doing it (and yes, that is what Harriet Harmen is suggesting).

[YorkieBen]

Phew, lucky I read that. I'd better vote for whatever candidate is parachuted into my constituency from the red-light jumping hooligan Dave Cameron's all female/minority shortlist . Sarcasm tags around that BTW. I understand that as a genuinely racist fascist organisation the tory party needs to positively discriminate in order to appear inclusive. (Do I need to add a 'FACT:' addendum to that? I'm happy that someone has found exactly the right job for himself on the 'news' desk of the Daily Wail but we don't have to humour him by pretending he's a real journalist, do we?)

nice to see that you have shown yourself to be truely balanced

As a person with a Labour MP 'parachuted' into my constituency from 'down south' I find your statement rather ironic

[Saracen]

And as for being unencumbered by facts we can start with the thread title - "Government looking at legalising 'positive discrimination'" when in fact, no it is not, even just going by the article. Where to continue? Well...

And then you quote me.

My thoughts are that it's a recipe for divisiveness and resentment, and will risk labelling anyone that fits the "preferential" category as only having got their job through preference, not because they earned it, whether they earned it or not...

So my opinion is "unencumbered by any measure of fact at all" is it? I will deal with that issue separately.

FACT: no inferior candidate could be given preference under the proposed rules any more than they can under present rules.

Firstly, I did NOT say that an inferior candidate could be given preference. I referred to the preferential category. I didn't say they'd be inferior to be in it.

The article claims that it's government policy, as espoused by Harriet Harmon and to be embedded in the Equality Bill, that when two candidates are equally qualified, preference will be able to be given because that candidate is, for example, female or from an ethnic minority. This, currently, would be illegal. If that changes, then anybody not fitting in that "preference" category, whatever the preference may be, will be excluded by virtue of not being in that category according to a process which is currently illegal. In other words, given two equally qualified candidates, currently, in theory at least, each have an equal chance. If the law changes, they won't. The article may or not be correct in that assertion, which is a fair subject for debate. But by reference to Ms Harmon's stated position in the past, it's certainly consistent and conceivable.

As Mr Harmon's stated intent, over a very long period, has been to increase the representation of what she considers to be (and in my opinion too, actually are) under-represented, by what she has repeatedly referred to as "positive action", we can safely assume that she's still talking about the same thing.

So what does she mean by "positive action"?

In the absence of her actually providing us with a definition, what has she meant in the past? Well, one example is women-only shortlists for Labour candidates for Parliamentary seats, the objective being the (perfectly laudable) objective of increasing the number of women MPs until it more broadly resembles the proportion of women in the population. She espouses the same objective for ethnic groups.

That is an example of what she has meant by "positive action" in the past. If you want the proof of that, and by all means don't take my word for it, read up on her speeches in Hansard. But it's a FACT. So don't go around accusing me of having opinions "unencumbered by any measure of fact at all". Not only is that incorrect, it's also against our rules, and if it continues, I will take action on it.

You seem to either be confusing what is generally meant (as in the US sense) by positive discrimination, or you think I am. If an inferior candidate was given a job over a more experienced or qualified candidate because of their gender or ethnicity, that would be what is generally referred to as positive discrimination. That isn't what's being proposed or alleged ..... though it is precisely what was achieved by those all-women shortlists IF any of the excluded men were better qualified, and she still referred to it as positive action (and that referral is on the record), not discrimination.

But even assuming it's the less discriminatory act of selecting on the basis of race, ethnicity or gender in the case of otherwise equally well qualified candidates, it will STILL allow firms to give preference on the basis of those criteria, and if you give preference to one group because of those criteria, by definition, you are discriminating against another group on that basis. If you pick one candidate over another because of their race or gender, you are discriminating against the other on the basis of race or gender.

[Zak33]

Mr Preston.....have we touched a raw nerve ?

[TheAnimus]

My bold - how's that for an ad populum argument?

In the case of your thick friend, this rule would not help him (unless everyone else who applies is even more thick, but fortunately the job is such that a vegetable could perform it after the available training).

Comments about middle class are interesting though. I sat 9 GCSE's and got all A - C, from a 'failing' comprehensive which is defined as one where fewer than 20% of pupils get five A - Cs (or fewer than 20% of individual results are A - C, I forget which). IIRC you have a similar background.

Now let's imagine Tarquin, who had every advantage money can buy all his school life, went to a fee-paying school and had additional private tuition in the holidays. Tarquin was pretty thick though and only got exactly the same GCSEs as me (or you). Tarquin applies for the same job as me (or you). Both applicants have the same qualifications, but who is likely to be the better candidate? The one who was tutored up to the eyeballs and stretched to fulfill his potential completely, or the one who had crappy resources and other worries to contend with?

Considering that specific minorities are overwhelmingly likely to have had a paucity of education (series 4 of The Wire! Easier to apply this in the US) compared to their leafy suburban counterparts there would seem to be an argument in favour of actual, explicit positive discrimination* in some circumstances, isn't there? Given that it's facile to chirp on about how everyone should have the same opportunities regardless of colour and blah blah blah, should we not recognise that inequality is a very real and current problem, and it will remain entrenched until someone actually does something about it?




*Of the sort that absolutely was not proposed in the UK....just to avoid any further confusion....

Well he's given up on been a developer, and is now been an anlysist, but the truth of the matter is, one of the reasons i'm so rude about him is because of how he see's my job. He works longer hours than me as a developer, he got paid about a 3rd, and couldn't see why. The obvious reason why he got turned down for jobs like mine was race in his mind. He actually has a better education than me by quite a long way (hence why i described him as middle class, been uni educated) but a desmond isn't really worth much is it. Whilst i might have but 5 GCSEs (BBCCB) and a 2-1 from a redbrick, he's CV is certainly better than mine in the education, so your spot on in saying this law won't help him, but as previously mentioned he is very thick.

So why do people like him need help? They're not living in the ghetto. He's not going to have to turn to a life as a second class citizen because the finance sector said no, leaving him to work in insurance?

Fact is, people i know who've had a harder time getting to places like 6th form, or uni, really are driven, far more than i am (me v lazy), and guess what, they do much better than i do because they're not so lazy. Employers will often recognise very swiftly someone who really had to work hard, teach themselfs to get through their A-Levels at local inner citty 6th form. I've not seen any predudice there thats not a simple "degree required" level of predudice.

I think its fair to say that at the higher end of the scale (graduates and skilled workers who've proved their skilled) there is nothing that this would help.

On the lower end, the 3 GCSEs if your lucky i think anyone who's been turned down for that exciting new opertunity at Greggs the bakers is probably going back to the ghetto anyway, its hardly as thou there are plenty of people competeting who are from an afluant white background for these jobs anway.

I just don't see who this would help? Smaller class sizes, with much less examination and an emphasis on vocational developement which children can be intrested in would be of much more use surely?

[joshwa]

Positive discrimination is already happening - spotted this in a local current job advert:

Males, Chinese and mixed ethnic background employees are under-represented in our workforce; we actively encourage applications from these groups.

[Saracen]

I see nothing discriminatory in that ad, Joshwa, provided that's as far as it goes.

There is no doubt at all in my mind that some groups are under-represented in some jobs and/or careers. It has often been alleged, and may be the case, that one reason is that people from a minority group are discouraged from applying because they think they stand no chance .... or a reduced chance. So if you make it clear that applications are encouraged, you are actively seeking to counter that impression.

So by all means encourage applications ..... and then select the candidate to give the position to on merit. As long as the employment decision is based on merit and not on race, gender, etc, then I can't see any discrimination.

Of course, as in all these things, what the law says should be done and what actually happens on the ground are very different, and next to impossible to stamp out, at least for small-scale employers. If you've got a corner shop looking for one person, to make a total of three employees, it's very difficult to assert, or prove, that the decision was made on the basis of race or gender. If you've got a small, local dental practice with six or eight staff, you don't have a large enough statistical population to draw much in the way of conclusions.

But if you've got, say, tens of thousands of employees and recruitment decisions in the thousands over a few years, then the demographics of who is recruited and who is a not may, at the very least, be suggestive .... and statistically significant.

Frankly, whatever the law says, I'd be astonished if a fair few recruitment decisions weren't made on the basis of race, and perhaps gender. And it'd be virtually impossible to prove. If you've got that dentist in the example above, and he's a bit of a bigot, good luck proving it if he's even half careful about what he (or she) says and puts in writing.

So in the case of that advert you quoted, it may be that what actually happens is that the decision is based on preference for one candidate or another because of race. I rarely see white staff in a Chinese restaurant , and white staff in Asian-owned small shops in Luton, for example, are pretty thin on the ground, too, in my experience. And if there aren't white business owners in predominantly white areas that would discriminate in favour of white staff, I'd be astonished.

But when that sort of racial or gender discrimination happens despite legislation, it's one thing. It's cultural, and human nature and though I'd say it's FAR less prevalent than it was a few decades ago, it is going to take time to eliminate .... if we ever finally do.

But it's entirely another thing to embed the principle in legislation.

[Stravagantismo]

My thoughts are that it's a recipe for divisiveness and resentment, and will risk labelling anyone that fits the "preferential" category as only having got their job through preference, not because they earned it, whether they earned it or not.

Brit politicians do not have any home-grown 'big' ideas – they copy America. Usually 20-25 years later, and ONLY when the ideas in question have failed disastrously in their country of origin. Right now we have school bussing to achieve a 'correct' social and ethnic mix, and 'positive discrimination', both ideas that savagely divided ethnic and social groups in the USA a generation ago.

But maybe that's the point? Stir things up and then the elite can bemoan how [fill in the blank]ist the masses are. Proving how fortunate the country is to have such an honest, hard-working, impartial and self-sacrificing bunch of wonderful bureaucrats and politicians.

Scroom

[Nickg]

could this not backfire on the government? it would give employers the power to look at all candidates and then potentially reject any non english ones that they dont like, simply based on the lack of englishness?

ahh the Halo effect of being english may shine again.