Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter
All this means is that employers are able to use positive action to increase the number of employees from underepresented groups in the total workforce without fear of prosecution for discrimination. There is no requirement for them to this, which I took you to mean.
|
It should not be a requirement. If you have two candidates who equally meet the person specification, you should be able to use other criteria to determine the best fit, such as being able to come up with imaginative alternatives as demonstrated in answer to interview questions, or has practical experience of dealing with circumstances that have proved problematical to the previous incumbents of that position, for example. As long as there is a non-discriminatory reason for the selection, that’s all that should matter.
Positive discrimination requirements forced on people by the state cause resentment, which can lead to bad feelings towards the minority group concerned.
You cannot make people perfect because human beings aren’t perfect. And the more you try to force people to abide by a myriad of rules in the flawed objective of achieving ‘equality’, the less people will want to do the job and the more those who end up doing the job will find ways around them.
The perfect job can become the perfect nightmare when you tie people up with bureaucracy. It’s not on, Richard, and we should not be proceeding down this road.