"Protected Characteristics"- Discrimination of the Majority?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Commissar, Apr 3, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The devastating blow of positive action - Home News, UK - The Independent

    "From Wednesday it will be legal to recruit or promote a candidate of equal merit to another candidate if the employer reasonably thinks that person is under-represented in the workforce or they suffer a disadvantage.

    The new Act, according to the Government, protects those in certain groups, relating to age, disability, gender, sexual orientation, race, religion and pregnancy.

    The Act does not allow an employer to appoint a less suitable candidate just because they have a protected characteristic that is under-represented or disadvantaged – that is positive discrimination. This often involves setting quotas to recruit a minority, because they have relevant characteristics."

    Is it time that we re-examine our thinking on this, when a good many people from all denominations are out of work should any have a legal advantage simply given to them, or should it be up to the employer to decide who fits into their organisation better?
  2. "From Wednesday it will be legal to recruit or promote a candidate of equal merit to another candidate if the employer reasonably thinks that person is under-represented in the workforce or they suffer a disadvantage".
    Reads to me that an employer can "reasonably" give a job to who he/she wants to. Who's to say what under representation is?
  3. I may be wrong in this, but bolstering equality laws to include "the others" is all well and good, all for equality, however no surprise to see that different treatment because of age is not unlawful direct or indirect discrimination if you can justify it (for example if you can demonstrate that it is a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim). So go self employed if you're older, and fcuk the young bloods.

    "Age is the only protected characteristic that allows employers to justify direct discrimination". In theory and in law anyway. Those of us who are self employed can stick two fingers up , no bosses. Also means we can legally employ any legitimate candidate we want to, and fcuk the bigots.
  4. In other words: someone with a disadvantage who can achieve the same standard as someone without it can now be legally recognised as a better candidate. Good law to me.

    I've always wondered how hard it is to prove discrimination mind, since surely the boss would say 'I need to get on with my workers; I got on with this man better' and it would be impossible to prove otherwise?
  5. Not a Lawyer but IAG 3/CAB only so WTF do I know? He/she might need to establish cause based on an employee's conduct / performance? or capability. If an employee is disliked , it's going to be difficult, and something the Act/Protected Characteristics don't cover. Savvy employers usually get their way but it's not so easy to get rid of someone as has been in the past.
  6. Why do they need a law to recognise them as a better candidate? Either they are or they are not. No law will change that. Sounds like typical ZaNuLabour crap to me. Unless employers can be forced to employ the "disadvantaged" what is the poit of this law? If employers are forced to recruit these special people, why bother with a recruitment programme at all?
  7. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    There were a few quite major bits of legislation, and other disreputable activities, which Labour did before leaving power purely it seems to **** up the Tories - that they damage the rest of the country is of no concern to Labour, it just means they can blame the ConDems. This Equalities Act is one of them, put forward specifically by Harriet H to enforce her version of 'equality'. The Bribery Act is another, and the worst of all - Darling signing us up to pay a share of the rescue fund for those Euro countries in hock. And he did that after the Election!
  8. Whos ****ing country is this ?
  9. Another bit of what looks, to the man on the street, to be a meaningless bit of legislation. I have no doubt that once the lawyers get hold of it we will see a raft of claims in courts and industrial tribunals. Employers will try to apply it and get hauled over the coals for doing so. I can just see it now " I tried to hire a woman because they were under-represented however I genuinely didn't realise there were 30% fewer pregnant lesbians in my business your honour" - "Ignorance is no excuse - Guilty as charged -pay compo, costs and a massive fine".

    Has Battie Hattie ever introduced legislation that didn't harm business or have an ulterior motive? Time for Cameron & Co to deliver on promises of a bonfire of pointless legislation and consign this bill to the incinerator.
  10. Before the bus is fired up, please read the OP. It seems to say that, given equal ability, an employer can employ who he/she likes with simple justification. ie. "I think we need more white, middle class, 25 year old women as they are under represented, in my opinion". If anything would seem to drive a coach and four through HH's efforts?
  11. Not ours.

    • Like Like x 1
  12. Will this ruling affect "wimmen" only shortlists?
  13. Sounds good for firing people, but less good for having two candidates at an interview.

    The idea is that it's a guideline for employers when faced with two equal candidates, I think - the point being that if two people can get to the same place but one person's got something holding him back, he's probably got more stuff about him than the other guy. It might also avoid cries of racism from the white bloke who doesn't get the job as well, but I don't think that was its primary purpose.
  14. First bold
    What exactly would be holding him back?
    Second bold
    Thats exactly what it is. Just because the state says its okay, its still prejudiced to chose someone because they are a minority over someone who isnt.
  15. Either the fact that being disabled or so on actually makes it harder for them to get anywhere, or the fact that they have possibly been discriminated against before and therefore without discrimination would have got further, or the fact that growing up in the rough part of town meant that their schooling wasn't the best and so to get 3 As says more from them than it does for someone at Eton. Plenty of reasons, in short.

    Yes, except that the rationale behind the choice is that being a minority means it's more likely they're a better candidate (if you agree with my reasoning), so I'd say that was OK.