No evidence the UK is institutionally racist
Discussion
Greg_D said:
and therein lies the rub...
as counter-intuitive as it may seem, if the government outlawed any employment claims on race/gender/sexuality grounds, then the problem would ease almost overnight as people could employ with confidence based PURELY on ones ability to complete the task.
The point being made is that the landscape has tilted so far in favour of the minority that joe average white boy employer is scared witless to employ them in case you end up in court if you need to get rid of them.
it obviously won't happen, but it would solve the problem. it's got to be worth a try!!!! or don't the aggrieved actually want a pragmatic solution?
Sorry if I've misunderstood but your solution is to outlaw making an employment claim based on race/gender/sexuality?as counter-intuitive as it may seem, if the government outlawed any employment claims on race/gender/sexuality grounds, then the problem would ease almost overnight as people could employ with confidence based PURELY on ones ability to complete the task.
The point being made is that the landscape has tilted so far in favour of the minority that joe average white boy employer is scared witless to employ them in case you end up in court if you need to get rid of them.
it obviously won't happen, but it would solve the problem. it's got to be worth a try!!!! or don't the aggrieved actually want a pragmatic solution?
Blib said:
DeepEnd said:
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:JuanCarlosFandango said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Fair enough so what term would you use for that sort of discrimination?
I'm no grievance nomenclaturist, but I'd probably call it a rational decision in a case where nothing else differentiates 2 candidates but one has a higher risk (however small) of causing serious problems, and is potentially more difficult to get rid of.The perception of the risk is probably greater than the actual risk but I suspect that reasoning is at least as common as out and out 'don't like brown people' racism in reasons for rejecting CVs. Although I'm sure the latter exists to some degree.
And the term you'd use for that is a "rational decision".
Seriously?
This is textbook racism, whilst interestingly proving that for many perps they are also very clear in their own mind that their racism isn't real racism.
In the same way Nigel doesn't think he is a racist/xenophobic when he demonises Romanians next door. But most can see that he is.
I'm not sure this report is moving the country forward as it has already clearly allowed those who want to claim "see there is no problem" to argue it supports their view. It certainly seems to have gone down well with many of "Boris' supporters" and letter box defenders - which perhaps should tell us all something.
Part of their remit is dealing with claims brought by sacked employees. 99 out of 100 women who bring a grievance cite sex discrimination and 99 out of 100 workers from an ethnic minority cite racism. It is part of the process: one grabs whatever legislation one can to win one's case.
Claims of racism that are upheld by tribunal are vanishingly rare.
However, what these claims do is what is described above. Put in its simplest terms it is less risky to employ the white, 30ish male as he is less likely to bring a complicated claim against his manager if he's fired.
Racist or pragmatic? You decide.
definitions said:
Race discrimination is when people are treated unfairly because of their race, or because of the race of someone they are connected with, such as their partner. If race discrimination takes place (in certain situations, including at work) it is illegal.
What JCF is posting about (supporting?) is illegal race discrimination. The report yesterday didn't suddenly say that was OK, thought reading this thread you have to wonder if some thought it did.
mpkayeuk said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: there's nothing to be gained or learned from that sort of thing.
To be fair to the government, that's what the evidence shows. It simply doesn't work. When you have a diversity grifter admitting, " for it to be effective, it has to be ongoing and long-term." you know you're not onto a winner. I suspect if I were asked to do something like weekly on an ongoing basis I'd get sick and tired and possibly resentful of it too.
It's more the way some people think they're being accused of practically being in the KKK at the very thought of being asked to do that kind of thing at all.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Greg_D said:
and therein lies the rub...
as counter-intuitive as it may seem, if the government outlawed any employment claims on race/gender/sexuality grounds, then the problem would ease almost overnight as people could employ with confidence based PURELY on ones ability to complete the task.
The point being made is that the landscape has tilted so far in favour of the minority that joe average white boy employer is scared witless to employ them in case you end up in court if you need to get rid of them.
it obviously won't happen, but it would solve the problem. it's got to be worth a try!!!! or don't the aggrieved actually want a pragmatic solution?
Sorry if I've misunderstood but your solution is to outlaw making an employment claim based on race/gender/sexuality?as counter-intuitive as it may seem, if the government outlawed any employment claims on race/gender/sexuality grounds, then the problem would ease almost overnight as people could employ with confidence based PURELY on ones ability to complete the task.
The point being made is that the landscape has tilted so far in favour of the minority that joe average white boy employer is scared witless to employ them in case you end up in court if you need to get rid of them.
it obviously won't happen, but it would solve the problem. it's got to be worth a try!!!! or don't the aggrieved actually want a pragmatic solution?
Greg_D said:
My post was pretty self explanatory.
Yes it was I'm just thinking it through.Employer says to employee "you're fired because you're black".
And the Government have outlawed employment claims on race/gender/sexuality grounds.
I don't understand what you're suggesting you do you do next if you're the employee?
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Yes it was I'm just thinking it through.
Employer says to employee "you're fired because you're black".
And the Government have outlawed employment claims on race/gender/sexuality grounds.
I don't understand what you're suggesting you do you do next if you're the employee?
How did they get hired in the first place?Employer says to employee "you're fired because you're black".
And the Government have outlawed employment claims on race/gender/sexuality grounds.
I don't understand what you're suggesting you do you do next if you're the employee?
I don't see how the current employment laws stop people from being racist in their hiring approach, you can just say not the right fit and job done, nobody can prove what your thoughts were.
amusingduck said:
How did they get hired in the first place?
I don't see how the current employment laws stop people from being racist in their hiring approach, you can just say not the right fit and job done, nobody can prove what your thoughts were.
Hiring boss wasn't racist but the new boss is maybe.I don't see how the current employment laws stop people from being racist in their hiring approach, you can just say not the right fit and job done, nobody can prove what your thoughts were.
Tribunals exist to rule on the "nobody can prove what your thoughts were" stuff.
amusingduck said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Yes it was I'm just thinking it through.
Employer says to employee "you're fired because you're black".
And the Government have outlawed employment claims on race/gender/sexuality grounds.
I don't understand what you're suggesting you do you do next if you're the employee?
How did they get hired in the first place?Employer says to employee "you're fired because you're black".
And the Government have outlawed employment claims on race/gender/sexuality grounds.
I don't understand what you're suggesting you do you do next if you're the employee?
I don't see how the current employment laws stop people from being racist in their hiring approach, you can just say not the right fit and job done, nobody can prove what your thoughts were.
but my solution would mean that more minority people would be hired in the first place by those employers who aren't racist (ie just about everybody) as trumped up tribunals would be a thing of the past. Do you get it yet?
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Hiring boss wasn't racist but the new boss is maybe.
Tribunals exist to rule on the "nobody can prove what your thoughts were" stuff.
How does a new hiring boss enact this master plan, exactly? They need to get rid of black employees whose performance is at least adequate, otherwise they'd be gone already, without anyone higher up (who are not racist) suspecting that their motives are racist? Tribunals exist to rule on the "nobody can prove what your thoughts were" stuff.
Are tribunals held over job application rejections? That would surprise me.
Greg_D said:
bingo, someone gets it. Let's say that new boss is a massive actual racist, that employee would be gone regardless, even if it were more nuanced than 'you're black' micro-management, restructuring, trumped up grievance, redundancy etc... so same net effect.
but my solution would mean that more minority people would be hired in the first place by those employers who aren't racist (ie just about everybody) as trumped up tribunals would be a thing of the past. Do you get it yet?
You have a very touching faith in employers.but my solution would mean that more minority people would be hired in the first place by those employers who aren't racist (ie just about everybody) as trumped up tribunals would be a thing of the past. Do you get it yet?
The new "credulous right" are a fascinating bunch.
amusingduck said:
How does a new hiring boss enact this master plan, exactly? They need to get rid of black employees whose performance is at least adequate, otherwise they'd be gone already, without anyone higher up (who are not racist) suspecting that their motives are racist?
Are tribunals held over job application rejections? That would surprise me.
I took "outlawed any employment claims on race/gender/sexuality grounds" to mean exactly that.Are tribunals held over job application rejections? That would surprise me.
Do we just mean during hiring?
If so can you now say "I'm not hiring you because you're black" and the poor sod on the end of that can't bring a claim on race/gender/sexuality grounds?
You can see how I'm a little unclear how this would work.
JeffreyD said:
Greg_D said:
bingo, someone gets it. Let's say that new boss is a massive actual racist, that employee would be gone regardless, even if it were more nuanced than 'you're black' micro-management, restructuring, trumped up grievance, redundancy etc... so same net effect.
but my solution would mean that more minority people would be hired in the first place by those employers who aren't racist (ie just about everybody) as trumped up tribunals would be a thing of the past. Do you get it yet?
You have a very touching faith in employers.but my solution would mean that more minority people would be hired in the first place by those employers who aren't racist (ie just about everybody) as trumped up tribunals would be a thing of the past. Do you get it yet?
The new "credulous right" are a fascinating bunch.
surely a little faith is better than a status quo that clearly isn't working!
The only thing these protests will achieve will be more quiet bias from smaller employers. Is that doing anyone any good? even the employers, they are probably missing out on some superb staff.
If all the heat was taken out of the situation, then everyone could get on with simply employing the best staff member.
Greg_D said:
ooh, yay, i've got a label... how nice for me!
surely a little faith is better than a status quo that clearly isn't working!
The only thing these protests will achieve will be more quiet bias from smaller employers. Is that doing anyone any good? even the employers, they are probably missing out on some superb staff.
If all the heat was taken out of the situation, then everyone could get on with simply employing the best staff member.
It's demonstrable that things have got significantly better since the employment discrimination legislation was introduced. Very few people deny that.surely a little faith is better than a status quo that clearly isn't working!
The only thing these protests will achieve will be more quiet bias from smaller employers. Is that doing anyone any good? even the employers, they are probably missing out on some superb staff.
If all the heat was taken out of the situation, then everyone could get on with simply employing the best staff member.
So rather than go back to the old, failed ways why not build on the law that has produced an improvement - even if it's not sufficient as even this report shows.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I took "outlawed any employment claims on race/gender/sexuality grounds" to mean exactly that.
Do we just mean during hiring?
If so can you now say "I'm not hiring you because you're black" and the poor sod on the end of that can't bring a claim on race/gender/sexuality grounds?
You can see how I'm a little unclear how this would work.
ISTM that hiring covers the vast majority of it. To get rid of an existing employee due to their skin colour, as far as I can see, means that you have a very high level of authority and you weren't around when they were hired (or you could have found a way to avoid it at that point). I find it hard to believe that there are people out there who are willing to risk their livelihood and reputation to get rid of people for having the wrong skin colour. Presumably they'd have to be so obsessed that people would notice quite quickly what their underlying feelings were.Do we just mean during hiring?
If so can you now say "I'm not hiring you because you're black" and the poor sod on the end of that can't bring a claim on race/gender/sexuality grounds?
You can see how I'm a little unclear how this would work.
If you got rid of any claims, yes, you could say "I'm not hiring you because you're black". I imagine they'd still stick with the not the right fit etc to avoid public backlash. Or just google the applicant and don't ask them to interview in the first place.
DeepEnd said:
It's really not for me to decide.
The Race Discrimination Act is only relevant once one is employed. Which is kinda the point. definitions said:
Race discrimination is when people are treated unfairly because of their race, or because of the race of someone they are connected with, such as their partner. If race discrimination takes place (in certain situations, including at work) it is illegal.
deeen said:
Blib said:
The Race Discrimination Act is only relevant once one is employed. Which is kinda the point.
I think the Equalities Act applies throughout society, not just relating to employment.
Blib said:
deeen said:
Blib said:
The Race Discrimination Act is only relevant once one is employed. Which is kinda the point.
I think the Equalities Act applies throughout society, not just relating to employment.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff