Job Selection Ciriteria
Discussion
Was having a conversation at work today, thought I would put the jist out in PH world.
How far will political correctness and or discrimination prevention go in the job selection process?
At the moment certain criteria are thought of as discriminatory: Gender, age, physical size. In some cases these must surely matter. Being careful I am not going to mention any exceptions yet.
How far will it go? I am sure there will be examples where someone has been hired because of their gender. Two people applying for a job, one male, one female. One is deemed more suitable for the position but the other is chosen because said company already has a deemed bias towards the opposite gender!
Will it reach the point where you cannot NOT employ someone because they dont have a qualification. ie you should provide them with training. Employ a person to be a teacher when they dont have the qualification because not choosing them is deemed as discrimination
How far will political correctness and or discrimination prevention go in the job selection process?
At the moment certain criteria are thought of as discriminatory: Gender, age, physical size. In some cases these must surely matter. Being careful I am not going to mention any exceptions yet.
How far will it go? I am sure there will be examples where someone has been hired because of their gender. Two people applying for a job, one male, one female. One is deemed more suitable for the position but the other is chosen because said company already has a deemed bias towards the opposite gender!
Will it reach the point where you cannot NOT employ someone because they dont have a qualification. ie you should provide them with training. Employ a person to be a teacher when they dont have the qualification because not choosing them is deemed as discrimination
finnie said:
Employ a person to be a teacher when they dont have the qualification because not choosing them is deemed as discrimination
Strictly speaking not employing someone because they aren't qualified is discrimination. What gets forgotten is that there is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination, if you have more applicants that jobs then you have to discriminate, the issue is how you discriminate. But people who cry 'discrimination' as if it's automatically wrong don't seem to get that.
There are no laws saying you have to have a gender / race / disability etc "quota" or any other kind of balance in a workforce. Any sensible company would have a recruitment assessment process in place to get the best candidate they can and any other characteristics are not applicable. There are very few exceptions such as you wouldn't really want to hire a blind person if you were in the business of forgery detection being flippant). There are some companies out there (most notably public and charity sector) who will try and replicate where possible the demographics of the area they are serving or similar but not many.
I can never forsee a situation where someone would be recruited who needs to be trained to do the job when there are better candidates available.
Your post sounds like the start of a beef that someone got a job over you / someone you know because they were black / disabled / a woman etc to try to balance an organisation. There are laws against positive discrimination (employing a woman say just because you don't have any in your company) but there are no laws against positive action (making it easier for someone to get a job in your company when they have certain characteristics - two tick guaranteed interview scheme for disabled people is one such scheme)
I can never forsee a situation where someone would be recruited who needs to be trained to do the job when there are better candidates available.
Your post sounds like the start of a beef that someone got a job over you / someone you know because they were black / disabled / a woman etc to try to balance an organisation. There are laws against positive discrimination (employing a woman say just because you don't have any in your company) but there are no laws against positive action (making it easier for someone to get a job in your company when they have certain characteristics - two tick guaranteed interview scheme for disabled people is one such scheme)
finnie said:
At the moment certain criteria are thought of as discriminatory: Gender, age, physical size. In some cases these must surely matter.
In the cases where they matter, you can discriminate. Unfair discrimination is not allowed, but fair and reasonable discrimination is lawful.So, you are under no obligation to interview a male for the job of bra fitter, or a 55 yr old to play in the premier league, or Denzil Washington to play the part of Boris Johnson in a film.
PH XKR said:
Where will it end? It will end where white men can no longer get a job, especially white middle class men because lets face it working class jobs don't attract the sort of hiring mentality that applies political correctness - can you turn a spanner? Good, you're hired.
I wouldn't worry. Being a white, middle class male is still comfortably the ethnicity/class/gender mix that yields the greatest advantage in society. We may suffer some unfairness but it's lesser than others.BJG1 said:
PH XKR said:
Where will it end? It will end where white men can no longer get a job, especially white middle class men because lets face it working class jobs don't attract the sort of hiring mentality that applies political correctness - can you turn a spanner? Good, you're hired.
I wouldn't worry. Being a white, middle class male is still comfortably the ethnicity/class/gender mix that yields the greatest advantage in society. We may suffer some unfairness but it's lesser than others.PH XKR said:
For the time being...
I think as things come to a balance the current trend will stop and we will all get on as normal. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with a lot of positive discrimination policies (especially ones mandated by the government) but I have a bit of faith they will stop when they're no longer deemed needed anyway.BJG1 said:
PH XKR said:
Where will it end? It will end where white men can no longer get a job, especially white middle class men because lets face it working class jobs don't attract the sort of hiring mentality that applies political correctness - can you turn a spanner? Good, you're hired.
I wouldn't worry. Being a white, middle class male is still comfortably the ethnicity/class/gender mix that yields the greatest advantage in society. We may suffer some unfairness but it's lesser than others.BJG1 said:
I wouldn't worry. Being a white, middle class male is still comfortably the ethnicity/class/gender mix that yields the greatest advantage in society. We may suffer some unfairness but it's lesser than others.
How much discrimination should we suffer until it becomes unfair.craigjm said:
Your post sounds like the start of a beef that someone got a job over you / someone you know because they were black / disabled / a woman etc to try to balance an organisation. There are laws against positive discrimination (employing a woman say just because you don't have any in your company) but there are no laws against positive action (making it easier for someone to get a job in your company when they have certain characteristics - two tick guaranteed interview scheme for disabled people is one such scheme)
For once on pistonheads it wasn't. I just see that PC ness in the UK is going nuts. How can a person honestly be offended by the board at the front of a class be called a blackboard!Snooker to be banned next as it is obviously a white supremacy game!
voyds9 said:
BJG1 said:
I wouldn't worry. Being a white, middle class male is still comfortably the ethnicity/class/gender mix that yields the greatest advantage in society. We may suffer some unfairness but it's lesser than others.
How much discrimination should we suffer until it becomes unfair.voyds9 said:
How much discrimination should we suffer until it becomes unfair.
I think it's very rare for a white male to suffer meaningful discrimination but of course it's always unfair to suffer discrimination. It becomes a meaningful problem though, when it outweighs the advantages, we are nowhere near that point.If you were a black female, all other things being equal, you'd be much worse off.
finnie said:
craigjm said:
Your post sounds like the start of a beef that someone got a job over you / someone you know because they were black / disabled / a woman etc to try to balance an organisation. There are laws against positive discrimination (employing a woman say just because you don't have any in your company) but there are no laws against positive action (making it easier for someone to get a job in your company when they have certain characteristics - two tick guaranteed interview scheme for disabled people is one such scheme)
For once on pistonheads it wasn't. I just see that PC ness in the UK is going nuts. How can a person honestly be offended by the board at the front of a class be called a blackboard!Snooker to be banned next as it is obviously a white supremacy game!
BJG1 said:
I think it's very rare for a white male to suffer meaningful discrimination
Indeed, most discrimination isn't malicious and often comes about through lack of thought and different life experiences. We often recruit people like us because we get on with them in terms of rapport in the recruitment process. Thats why it is important to have as many people as possible involved in the recruitment decision and for candidates to be tested beyond the traditional interview.As this is in NPE and not the employment section, discrimination goes far wider than competition for jobs. I spent a bit of time in a wheelchair after breaking both my legs and it suddenly makes you see the world very differently indeed.
Edited by craigjm on Sunday 21st August 16:41
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff