Happy discrimination

[stitched]

Chatting to my hairdresser today.
She is looking to recruit a stylist to replace a lady who is self isolating, she's worked out her figures and decided she can employ both of them should her previous employee come out of isolation.
Advert sent to jobcentre reads 'this is a busy HAPPY salon so only HAPPY people need to apply.
She has been told they will not run an advert as it contains discriminatory words.
When challenged it appears they think happy is discriminating against miserable people.
Happy new world

[anonymous-user]

Well at least she's being honest

[OldGermanHeaps]

Miserable s can go and work in the job centre surely?

[Deathmole]

[shtu]

Slightly different wording like "outstanding customer-facing skills essential" would skirt round that no bother. Though the job centre people are muppets.

Many years ago, when recruiting admin staff for a construction site, it would be described as "a robust office environment", shorthand for "needs to cope with grumpy site agents swearing occasionally"

[Doofus]

'Happy' is not what they consider discriminatory. What they (correctly) don't like, is the statement that if you don't fit the preconceived idea of who we will employ, then don't bother applying.

Replace "happy" with 'white', 'heterosexual' or 'attractive', and it's obviously discriminatory, and in this case 'attractive' is the closest comparative, because 'attractive' and 'happy' are objective qualities.

[catman]

I read of a similar refusal to run an ad for "hardworking people." They actually said that it discriminated against people less inclined to do a hard day's work...

[Johnnytheboy]

I saw one the other day which I thought sailed very closed to the wind on this sort of thing.

It didn't specifically ask for a young energetic bar person, but a bar person to join their young energetic team.

[stitched]

Doofus said:

'Happy' is not what they consider discriminatory. What they (correctly) don't like, is the statement that if you don't fit the preconceived idea of who we will employ, then don't bother applying.

Replace "happy" with 'white', 'heterosexual' or 'attractive', and it's obviously discriminatory, and in this case 'attractive' is the closest comparative, because 'attractive' and 'happy' are objective qualities.

Are they (correctly) allowed to ask if she can cut hair?

[Doofus]

stitched said:

Doofus said:

'Happy' is not what they consider discriminatory. What they (correctly) don't like, is the statement that if you don't fit the preconceived idea of who we will employ, then don't bother applying.

Replace "happy" with 'white', 'heterosexual' or 'attractive', and it's obviously discriminatory, and in this case 'attractive' is the closest comparative, because 'attractive' and 'happy' are objective qualities.

Are they (correctly) allowed to ask if she can cut hair?

They can advertise for people with the requisite skills, but they can't profile.

[MikeM6]

Doofus said:

'Happy' is not what they consider discriminatory. What they (correctly) don't like, is the statement that if you don't fit the preconceived idea of who we will employ, then don't bother applying.

Replace "happy" with 'white', 'heterosexual' or 'attractive', and it's obviously discriminatory, and in this case 'attractive' is the closest comparative, because 'attractive' and 'happy' are objective qualities.

I think this is correct, it is the inference that the wrong kind of person is not welcome which falls foul of expectations.

It is always worth looking at these things with objectivity and trying to understand the nuances, rather than resorting straight to an outraged emotional response.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Doofus said:

'Happy' is not what they consider discriminatory. What they (correctly) don't like, is the statement that if you don't fit the preconceived idea of who we will employ, then don't bother applying.

Replace "happy" with 'white', 'heterosexual' or 'attractive', and it's obviously discriminatory, and in this case 'attractive' is the closest comparative, because 'attractive' and 'happy' are objective qualities.

Race and sexuality are protected characteristics. Legally you cannot discriminate on those grounds. Being happy or miserable aren't. You couldn't refuse to employ someone because they were black or gay. But you can refuse to employ someone because you didn't think they were cheerful enough. So I'm not sure what the issue is.

[Doofus]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Doofus said:

'Happy' is not what they consider discriminatory. What they (correctly) don't like, is the statement that if you don't fit the preconceived idea of who we will employ, then don't bother applying.

Replace "happy" with 'white', 'heterosexual' or 'attractive', and it's obviously discriminatory, and in this case 'attractive' is the closest comparative, because 'attractive' and 'happy' are objective qualities.

Race and sexuality are protected characteristics. Legally you cannot discriminate on those grounds. Being happy or miserable aren't. You couldn't refuse to employ someone because they were black or gay. But you can refuse to employ someone because you didn't think they were cheerful enough. So I'm not sure what the issue is.

You can refuse to employ somebody for whatever reason you choose, but you're not necessarily allowed to tell them the reason.

You can interview somebody and decide they're not happy/white/straight enough for your team; fair enough, but you can't make those bkanket exclusions up front.

I think the sentiment is right, but in practice, employers will make their own decisions based upon subjective measures, and dress them up however they wish. If you don't like a candidate who happens to be black/gay/sad, you don't have to employ them anyway just because they're black/gay/sad, but that can't be the reason not to.

[stitched]

Doofus said:

stitched said:

Doofus said:

'Happy' is not what they consider discriminatory. What they (correctly) don't like, is the statement that if you don't fit the preconceived idea of who we will employ, then don't bother applying.

Replace "happy" with 'white', 'heterosexual' or 'attractive', and it's obviously discriminatory, and in this case 'attractive' is the closest comparative, because 'attractive' and 'happy' are objective qualities.

Are they (correctly) allowed to ask if she can cut hair?

They can advertise for people with the requisite skills, but they can't profile.

Sorry,
It appears you were correct, to specify characteristics of people whose applications would be rejected is discrimination.
Weird and wholly wrong but apparently legally correct.
apologies.

[hotchy]

I did happen to have an advert refused because it said older lady. Slightly ageist and sexist I suppose lol.

[Last Visit]

I'd rather my hair was cut by a competent miserable sod than someone chirpy who hasnt got a clue.

That said, working with miserable people is soul destroying.

[Johnnytheboy]

The objectionable bit is the "if not happy don't apply".

As per my bar work example above, you can say "to join our young, happy team" without discriminating on grounds of age or mood.

[otolith]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Race and sexuality are protected characteristics. Legally you cannot discriminate on those grounds. Being happy or miserable aren't. You couldn't refuse to employ someone because they were black or gay. But you can refuse to employ someone because you didn't think they were cheerful enough. So I'm not sure what the issue is.

Disability is a protected characteristic. Mental health, including depression, comes under that.

[Sticks.]

I suspect it's similar to when you used to see ad's, usually for bar staff, which would specify a 'bubbly personality', which implied women. I'm not sure they're right to do so, but my guess is that's their interpretation of the regulations.

Edited by Sticks. on Thursday 3rd September 10:20

[LeadFarmer]

Ageism as a fantastic form of discrimination.

Due to laws surrounding age discrimination i have just had my pension pot boosted thanks to a legal victory in the courts relating to a blanket act of ageism committed by the government on all public sector staff. I look forward to being discriminated again for something else, but I doubt that will happen as I'm stereotypical white middle aged male. But Im a bit fat, so maybe theres a chance....