Election Year or Fear!

[swaledale]

?.and therein lies (one of) the problem. Historical prejudice (and being a junior member of recruitment panels amongst rampant bigots in the past I have heard some outrageous stuff) gave way some time in the 2010s to the madness of minority-favouring quotas without there ever being a period when there was a fair and equitable middle ground. I think only recently has this started to be exposed/realised.

Mm quotas? Never experienced them myself, certainly wherever I've worked and been involved in recruitment, there were efforts to encourage more diverse applicants for jobs and a guarantee that any suitably qualified disabled applicant would be interviewed.

There has also been a move to blind short listing whereby the ethnicity age and gender of applicants weren't know to the short listing panel, it was done purely on qualifications and experience. All of which helped to avoid the inevitable bias that everybody has towards being favourable to people that resemble themselves and who they are familiar with.

Certainly I experienced instances where a firm wanted to recruit a woman because the workforce, management team or board was mostly male. But even where I personally "lost out" or where a woman was recruited, they always had the relevant qualifications and experience.

I don't doubt that some zealots would stretch this in some instances, but closer examination of claims where DEI had resulted in "sub standard recruitment, has not been proven to be true, either in my own personal experience or on closer examination of some of the claims made in certain sections of the media. A point in case being the allegations that the application of DEI had impacted US Air Traffic Control, when its clear that no under qualified or inexperienced applicants had been appointed, but it was and is the case that there had been a recruitment crisis due to low wages coupled with a lack of investment.

I can cite many cases where a white male applicant without the relevant quals and experience or who was patently useless being appointed due to their connections, or because the recruiting team was useless. Indeed one might look at Trump's appointments and figure that they demonstrate the exact opposite of DEI.

As with all these issues, there is often a grain of truth, that has been overblown and made into an issue it isn't, mostly it seems by privileged white blokes who don't seem to be able to accept that other people different from them might just be able to do as good a job if given the chance.

[Andy_Faber]

I don't really know how you do it. How does a candidate prove they have been discriminated against? Easier if you are on a role and suffer from it.

I only had maybe four folk complain about discrimination but none concerned any ?protected characteristics? and no complaints were, or stood a chance of being, upheld. Being discriminated against these days is in some cases perfectly legal if you DON?T have a protected characteristic and that?s what?s naffing so many people off.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Well the Lincolnshire mayor is gormless, talentless, opportunistic self serving idiot who was ousted as Tory MP for a Leeds constituency who will now actually have to do some governing, can't wait to see the mess she makes of that!

The MP for Runcorn is another dumb ex Tory who fortunately doesn't have to do anything other than sit in the House of Commons and follow Farage's orders. I do expect however that she will find that an issue and either cross the floor back to the Tories or be an independent and fade into obscurity.

I'm pleased to see these utter useless ****s elected, they will **** up pretty soon, fall out with each other and basically demonstrate their inability to run a piss up in a brewery. bring it on.

Swale "Well the Lincolnshire mayor is gormless, talentless, opportunistic self serving idiot"

I'm sure he speaks highly of you too

[Geoff Parkstone]

Yusuf says hiring should be 'colour blind' and best person for the job.

I 100% agree, and I'm no fan of quotas. There does need to be policies in place though and employers held to account if people are overlooked because of their nationality, colour of their skin, religion, disabilities etc etc

Much as many would like to believe discrimination won't happen, it 100% does and removing protection potentially will only make this worse.

Strip away those protections and employers may see it as consent to pass on the best candidate who just happens to have a medical condition through fear they might require adjustments in the work place.

Interestingly I entirely agree that recruitment should be colour blind (and gender bling, ***ualty blind etc) but I will never hire anyone with a visible tattoo. Is this discriminatory?

[Andy_Faber]

Interestingly I entirely agree that recruitment should be colour blind (and gender bling, ***ualty blind etc) but I will never hire anyone with a visible tattoo. Is this discriminatory?

Not illegal to discriminate against (or for) people with tattoos unless they are linked to culture, religion or ethnicity. Likewise my pet hate, multicoloured hair.

[ramAnag]

Swale "Well the Lincolnshire mayor is gormless, talentless, opportunistic self serving idiot"

I'm sure he speaks highly of you too

He’s a she, GP…Andrea Jenkyns.

Honestly…tattoos and multi coloured hair? Unless you two are going to suggest that it’s sensible to not appoint people because you don’t like their tie/suit/shoes, might it not make more sense to judge on little things like ability and qualifications?

In thirty five plus years within the education system I can truthfully only think of one person I’ve known who, imo, has got to where they’ve got by virtue of ticking three diversity backgrounds rather than by virtue of their ability.
I’d also suggest that about 40-50 years ago there were loads of blokes gaining teaching qualifications and going into primary education because they knew that their gender alone gave them an advantage in the promotion stakes.
Fortunately that has been addressed, gender now plays little part - except perhaps in specific posts - in promotion and so it should surely be. Indeed shouldn’t we be striving for a world where race/religion/disability become barely noticeable unless they somehow have a direct impact on a person’s ability to perform the job?

[Andy_Faber]

He?s a she, GP?Andrea Jenkyns.

Honestly?tattoos and multi coloured hair? Unless you two are going to suggest that it?s sensible to not appoint people because you don?t like their tie/suit/shoes, might it not make more sense to judge on little things like ability and qualifications?

Can you please, just for once, reread my post without the normal prejudice and identify where I said hair colour would impact my decision making?

[ramAnag]

Can you please, just for once, reread my post without the normal prejudice and identify where I said hair colour would impact my decision making?

You felt the need to raise it in the context of GP mentioning tattoos being a no-go for potential employees. I haven’t actually suggested anything other than that there are more important things to judge people on.

[Andy_Faber]

You felt the need to raise it in the context of GP mentioning tattoos being a no-go for potential employees. I haven?t actually suggested anything other than that there are more important things to judge people on.

I offered it as a personal add-on to a piece of factual clarification to GP?s comment - i didn?t ?raise? it, I mentioned it. And don?t pretend you don?t judge in a similar way, everyone does.

[ramAnag]

I offered it as a personal add-on to a piece of factual clarification to GP?s comment - i didn?t ?raise? it, I mentioned it. And don?t pretend you don?t judge in a similar way, everyone does.

‘I didn’t raise it, I mentioned it.’ World of difference. LOL

[Ramshank72]

Interestingly I entirely agree that recruitment should be colour blind (and gender bling, ***ualty blind etc) but I will never hire anyone with a visible tattoo. Is this discriminatory?

Only if you demonstrably show preference to hire people with invisible tattoos.

[Andy_Faber]

‘I didn’t raise it, I mentioned it.’ World of difference. LOL

"raise" is not typically considered an antonym for "mention." While they can be used in similar contexts, "raise" is more about bringing something to light or addressing it, whereas "mention" is about a passing reference or acknowledgment

You were clearly a metalwork teacher or similar

[ramAnag]

"raise" is not typically considered an antonym for "mention." While they can be used in similar contexts, "raise" is more about bringing something to light or addressing it, whereas "mention" is about a passing reference or acknowledgment

You were clearly a metalwork teacher or similar

Both tiresome and completely incorrect. Well done. Also a little disrespectful to ‘metalwork teachers or similar’.
Still, at least I seem to have mastered full stops and capital letters.

[swaledale]

Swale "Well the Lincolnshire mayor is gormless, talentless, opportunistic self serving idiot"

I'm sure he speaks highly of you too

As Ra has said, he is a she and I suggest you look at her acceptance speech, comments she has made in the past, her behaviour in the past and then question my description of her.

Still its entirely possible you think Truss was a genius and Johnson isn't a bumbling, lying adulterous ****.

[swaledale]

Both tiresome and completely incorrect. Well done. Also a little disrespectful to ‘metalwork teachers or similar’.
Still, at least I seem to have mastered full stops and capital letters.

You also don't condone the "right sort of bullying" either!