Unreliable discrimination

[DickyC]

From the Telegraph on line.

[10 Pence Short]

The Jobcentre?

Is that the useless depressing place full of people with no interest in actually helping you get back to work?

[Lost soul]

DickyC said:

From the Telegraph on line.

This is just another example of what is wrong in the UK

[eccles]

Never let the facts get in the way etc.

[Lost soul]

eccles said:

Never let the facts get in the way etc.

please elaborate

[Mannginger]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7079231/Adv...

Story seems to suggest it was placed online, so I wonder what the angle is?

[Lost soul]

Mannginger said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7079231/Adv...

Story seems to suggest it was placed online, so I wonder what the angle is?

But would you be supprised if it was a genuine story

[Mannginger]

Lost soul said:

Mannginger said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7079231/Adv...

Story seems to suggest it was placed online, so I wonder what the angle is?

But would you be supprised if it was a genuine story

No indeed I wouldn't!

[DickyC]

Text of article:

Nicole Mamo, 48, wanted to post an advert for a £5.80-an-hour domestic cleaner on her local Jobcentre Plus website.

The text of the advert ended by stating that any applicants for the post "must be very reliable and hard-working".

A Jobcentre Plus worker claimed that the word "reliable" meant they could be sued for discriminating against unreliable workers.

Ms Mamo, a mother-of-two, from Boreham Wood, Herts., said the situation was "ridiculous".

"I placed the advert on the website and when I phoned up to check I was told it hadn't been displayed in the job centre itself," she said. "She said 'oh we can't put that advert on the job points'. She said it was because they could have cases against them for discriminating against unreliable people.

"I laughed because I thought that was crazy. We supply the NHS with staff so it's very important for the patients that we have reliable workers.

"We find jobs for hundreds of temporary staff every week and are proud of our workers but our reputation is at stake if they aren't reliable.

"We are taking people off the dole and finding them jobs so not displaying the advert just seems absolutely ridiculous to me."

Ms Mamo, who runs Devonwood recruitment agency and employs eight people, placed her advert on the Thetford Jobcentre Plus website on January 21.

A spokeswoman for the Campaign Against Political Correctness said: "This situation is absolutely ridiculous - of course people want reliable workers and of course employers should be able to ask for them.

"If they can't advertise for what they actually want then the system is broken. They won't be able to find workers who meet their criteria. In order to have decided that the word 'reliable' can't be used they must have put a great deal of thought and time into it.

"That time could be better spent getting the right people to apply for the right jobs - which is what this advert was trying to do in the first place."

A spokeswoman for the Department for Work and Pensions refused to comment on the phone call made to Nicole Mamo.

She said: “We cannot comment about the phone call. I can confirm that we took the advert from the employer and put it onto our website. Every advert goes onto our website and onto the job points.

“Reliability is important to employers, as it is for Jobcentre Plus - and we welcome ads seeking reliable applicants.”

[massivemoto]

Lost soul said:

Mannginger said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7079231/Adv...

Story seems to suggest it was placed online, so I wonder what the angle is?

But would you be supprised if it was a genuine story

I'd be extremely surprised, because of the reliability record of where it appears.
If it happened at all, it would be an error by one employee, not a result of Jobcentre Plus policy (as the article itself admits). Many people do not understand employment law and miss-quote it. Only the very stupid, or excessively politically motivated would consider one such comment worthy of publication.

[Muntu]

massivemoto said:

I'd be extremely surprised, because of the reliability record of where it appears.

If it happened at all, it would be an error by one employee, not a result of Jobcentre Plus policy (as the article itself admits). Many people do not understand employment law and miss-quote it. Only the very stupid, or excessively politically motivated would consider one such comment worthy of publication.

The Telegraph is unreliable and excessively politically motivated?

ps, you might just want to consider that maybe your post contains the very traits that you project onto The Daily Telegraph

[eldar]

Muntu said:

massivemoto said:

I'd be extremely surprised, because of the reliability record of where it appears.

If it happened at all, it would be an error by one employee, not a result of Jobcentre Plus policy (as the article itself admits). Many people do not understand employment law and miss-quote it. Only the very stupid, or excessively politically motivated would consider one such comment worthy of publication.

The Telegraph is unreliable and excessively politically motivated?

ps, you might just want to consider that maybe your post contains the very traits that you project onto The Daily Telegraph

Is there an icon for caught by your own petard?

[Muntu]

eldar said:

Muntu said:

massivemoto said:

I'd be extremely surprised, because of the reliability record of where it appears.

If it happened at all, it would be an error by one employee, not a result of Jobcentre Plus policy (as the article itself admits). Many people do not understand employment law and miss-quote it. Only the very stupid, or excessively politically motivated would consider one such comment worthy of publication.

The Telegraph is unreliable and excessively politically motivated?

ps, you might just want to consider that maybe your post contains the very traits that you project onto The Daily Telegraph

Is there an icon for caught by your own petard?

Not that I can see.

[LukeBird]

Jesus Christ...

[fadeaway]

Well I think it's appalling. The job advert also asked for a "hard working" individual. That clearly discriminates against lay-about, lazy and loafing types, and the job centre missed it completely ... you just can't get the staff

[Lost soul]

fadeaway said:

Well I think it's appalling. The job advert also asked for a "hard working" individual. That clearly discriminates against lay-about, lazy and loafing types, and the job centre missed it completely ... you just can't get the staff

obviously unreliable ,, now if only Dohhh

[massivemoto]

Muntu said:

massivemoto said:

I'd be extremely surprised, because of the reliability record of where it appears.

If it happened at all, it would be an error by one employee, not a result of Jobcentre Plus policy (as the article itself admits). Many people do not understand employment law and miss-quote it. Only the very stupid, or excessively politically motivated would consider one such comment worthy of publication.

The Telegraph is unreliable and excessively politically motivated?

ps, you might just want to consider that maybe your post contains the very traits that you project onto The Daily Telegraph

If the comment had reflected official policy of the JC, that would be a massive story, worthy of reporting. That one person (amongst the millions who over-estimate the scope of descrimination law every day) was wrongly over-cautious is not. I encounter similar errors every day. To have reported such trivia suggests a motive other than simply to inform.
The Telegraph is better paper than many, but it is not without political agenda. Very few papers are.

[Muntu]

massivemoto said:

Muntu said:

massivemoto said:

I'd be extremely surprised, because of the reliability record of where it appears.

If it happened at all, it would be an error by one employee, not a result of Jobcentre Plus policy (as the article itself admits). Many people do not understand employment law and miss-quote it. Only the very stupid, or excessively politically motivated would consider one such comment worthy of publication.

The Telegraph is unreliable and excessively politically motivated?

ps, you might just want to consider that maybe your post contains the very traits that you project onto The Daily Telegraph

If the comment had reflected official policy of the JC, that would be a massive story, worthy of reporting. That one person (amongst the millions who over-estimate the scope of descrimination law every day) was wrongly over-cautious is not. I encounter similar errors every day. To have reported such trivia suggests a motive other than simply to inform.
The Telegraph is better paper than many, but it is not without political agenda. Very few papers are.

Perhaps it was reported because it is one of an ever increasing number of examples of the excessive political correctness that permeates every strata of our society.

[Puggit]

Nicky Campbell asked Harperson about this, this morning. She said it wasn't due to Labour policy but was the responsibility of the manager who canned the ad.

Or something...

[massivemoto]

Muntu said:

massivemoto said:

Muntu said:

massivemoto said:

I'd be extremely surprised, because of the reliability record of where it appears.

If it happened at all, it would be an error by one employee, not a result of Jobcentre Plus policy (as the article itself admits). Many people do not understand employment law and miss-quote it. Only the very stupid, or excessively politically motivated would consider one such comment worthy of publication.

The Telegraph is unreliable and excessively politically motivated?

ps, you might just want to consider that maybe your post contains the very traits that you project onto The Daily Telegraph

If the comment had reflected official policy of the JC, that would be a massive story, worthy of reporting. That one person (amongst the millions who over-estimate the scope of descrimination law every day) was wrongly over-cautious is not. I encounter similar errors every day. To have reported such trivia suggests a motive other than simply to inform.
The Telegraph is better paper than many, but it is not without political agenda. Very few papers are.

Perhaps it was reported because it is one of an ever increasing number of examples of the excessive political correctness that permeates every strata of our society.

Unfortunately those examples only exist in the press, or as a result of fear generated by the press. People over-react on what is otherwise very simple and entirely logical.