Positive Discrimination - Positive Action

[Dextraneous]

What a bout if both candidates are equally as good, but by employing a certain ethnicity the company is more likely to appeal to a wider or new market which includes members of that particular ethnic group market, thus ensuring more contracts and jobs?

Only works one way, though, doesn't it.

Does it? Perhaps it seems to work one way since the majority of the UK remain white anglo saxon

Can you imagine what the reaction would be if two applicants - one white one black - both have exactly the same attributes and the job were to be given to the white candidate?

There would, of course, be appeals of racism by the black candidate.

Care to provide evidence of this claim? We're both public sector workers (well, you were) who have probably seen a couple of hundred or so applications/recruitments in our time. I cannot recall a single case relating to the ones you cite Can you?

 

[Whitespirit66]

I get it but it's crazy, it is racism by default but it's ok because the company have decided to implement a racist policy... crazy.

Define "crazy"

I don't know, perhaps bewildering would be more apt... I wonder, in my little theoretical village the inhabitants are 100% white, English, .................



P.S. The last sentence is not representative of any reality

Sadly, you're right. No longer representative of reality.

Shame, I was going to ask where it was so I could move there.

 

[Dextraneous]

It seems to me that, in order to legally employ the 'type of person' they want, the answer is simply to lower the 'preferred requirements' until they meet the candidate's abilities.

Are you suggesting that certain ethnic groups are so inferior that they need the requirements to be lowered? Hmm

I'm suggesting that if and when that happens, it is wrong. Did I specify any specific ethnic groups?

You haven't suggested anything being wrong though. I suggest an implication on your part which you need to sidestep, quite naturally. But I may be wrong and am applying my cynical mind - you're an honourable man and I'm happy to withdraw the obvious potential sleight.

 

[Dextraneous]

Sadly, you're right. No longer representative of reality.

Shame, I was going to ask where it was so I could move there.

Wells next the Sea is all white AFAIK.

 

[Big Tone]

He cares more about racist company policy in the pursuit of money than racism. This just gets better and better and worse...

Are you saying that it is better to starve whilst upholding one's egalitarian views instead of surviving and feeding one's family by applying a pragmatic approach towards the marketplace?

No Dext.

No one in this/his scenario is starving. He's been talking about company policy trumps actual racist behaviour when it comes to business.

I can't do much on this mob but look back on his posts.

 

[Dextraneous]

OK Tone. I suspect this ongoing argument is beyond the remit of this thread and has history to it. Thus, it's time for one to duck out from the undercurrents.

 

[Big Tone]

He cares more about racist company policy in the pursuit of money than racism. This just gets better and better and worse...

Are you saying that it is better to starve whilst upholding one's egalitarian views instead of surviving and feeding one's family by applying a pragmatic approach towards the marketplace?

No Dext. No one is starving in this/his scenario.

b) positive discimination is persuing a beneficial result.

Total rubbish, tell the applicant who did not get the job, that it was "beneficial"

Beneficial to the organisation in pursuit of their goals.

He cares more about racist company policy in the pursuit of money than racism. This just gets better and better and worse...

What can't speak can't lie. Company policy first, racist behaviour second!

Add: more shooting in foot...

whereas positive discrimination is persuing a positive result.

positive discrimination, discriminates against someone on racial grounds, that's Racism.

But you haven't refused a person a position simply on your whim. You have followed a stated, shared objective of the organisation in its pusuit of a proportional repesentation.

Company policy first, racism second.

 

[cajar]

If a golf shop's customers say are 95% white, the shop decides to have a positive discrimination policy to prefer whites, Candidate A and B are evenly matched, but they pick A because B is Pakistani, they have discriminated in line with a stated policy. Is that ok with you roguehanger? if not, whats the difference in your example?

 

[JBR]

Can you imagine what the reaction would be if two applicants - one white one black - both have exactly the same attributes and the job were to be given to the white candidate?

There would, of course, be appeals of racism by the black candidate.

Care to provide evidence of this claim? We're both public sector workers (well, you were) who have probably seen a couple of hundred or so applications/recruitments in our time. I cannot recall a single case relating to the ones you cite Can you?

No, I cannot recall a single case, certainly not at the establishment at which I used to work. I have, however, seen evidence of this reported in the press although perhaps you will excuse me if I do not have details of the sources to hand. Surprisingly, I tend not to keep records of these things.

I have said this before, so please excuse me if I sound like a cracked record, but my philosophy is for equality of opportunity for all. Positive discrimination is not an example of equality of opportunity.

 

[Dextraneous]

OK

 

[Big Tone]

Prediction and technique.

Reply with quote after quote after quote...

Mix with question after quote after question after quote and acusation after quote after missrepresentation and no one else on the thread either cares or has the will to bother keeping up other than watching an e-fight in a voyeuristic way.

So we then give up and he feels victorious.

Then, this very post I write comes under scrutiny as defeatist and argument lost. (There's a Latin phrase could insert here).

He did not answer my question with a simple yes or no. But it's been noted what the reply or non reply was.

Rumbled Troll? Don't know. But I know he loves this stuff.

To feed or not to feed? That is the question

 

[noseall]

...A dodgy builder once said....

"I'd love to employ some Indians but the cowboys I got working for me would not get along with them!"

I'll get me coat

Seriously, if I decided that employing an ethnic person would open doors for me and increase profits thus enhancing the companies standing financially etc, then yes I would have to do it.

Being forced to employ ethnic bod's based upon some racial fair play rule though does not sit well with me. We employ grafters and are too small a company to carry any dead wood. So if an ethnic bod turned out to be not so good at grafting then I could see the sacking being contentious based not only on the lack of graft but also on the race thing.

Mebbe?

 

[Brigadier]

Being forced to employ ethnic bod's based upon some racial fair play rule though does not sit well with me. We employ grafters and are too small a company to carry any dead wood. So if an ethnic bod turned out to be not so good at grafting then I could see the sacking being contentious based not only on the lack of graft but also on the race thing.

Mebbe?

Eggzackerly.

Hire on merit, fire on merit - it is the only fair way.

 

[Micilin]

...A dodgy builder once said....

"I'd love to employ some Indians but the cowboys I got working for me would not get along with them!"

I'll get me coat

Seriously, if I decided that employing an ethnic person would open doors for me and increase profits thus enhancing the companies standing financially etc, then yes I would have to do it.

Being forced to employ ethnic bod's based upon some racial fair play rule though does not sit well with me. We employ grafters and are too small a company to carry any dead wood. So if an ethnic bod turned out to be not so good at grafting then I could see the sacking being contentious based not only on the lack of graft but also on the race thing.

Mebbe?

That's an interesting point - is that a barrier to you hiring someone who may be good enough but you obviously don't know for sure until they have been in the job long enough?

As you are wary of being accused of racism for sacking them, you would rather miss out on a potential asset than risk the perceived potential aggravation of sacking them.

Would a solution in this case be to have the terms of employment and termination clearly laid out , but also have examples of where the sacking in similar circumstances applied to people who were not minorities.
I would also suggest that the fact that you employ /give a chance to minorities would be a good defence against accusations of racism purely on grounds of sacking them in line with your policy.

When employing people before, as labourers or tradesmen, there was never any pressure either way on hiring or firing, regardless of background and I was never accused of discrimination when sacking anyone that did not pull their weight or over quality of work, although there were occasional arguments about it.

 

[cajar]

Prediction and technique.

Reply with quote after quote after quote...

Mix with question after quote after question after quote and acusation after quote after missrepresentation and no one else on the thread either cares or has the will to bother keeping up other than watching an e-fight in a voyeuristic way.

So we then give up and he feels victorious.

Then, this very post I write comes under scrutiny as defeatist and argument lost. (There's a Latin phrase could insert here).

He did not answer my question with a simple yes or no. But it's been noted what the reply or non reply was.

Rumbled Troll? Don't know. But I know he loves this stuff.

To feed or not to feed? That is the question

Got it nailed there Tone. Rather than distilling the points of his opponent's post into one or two ideas which can then be answered with a single paragraph or two, every sentence must be separated and commented on, however inane the point is. It's not a debate or discussion, it's a war of attrition.