Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
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.
|
But we weren't discussing whether this should be compulsory or not, it was you that insinuated that it was "the law" that meant that this was compulsory.
It's almost as if you're trying to swerve the fact that you misinterpreted what the Equality Act says about the subject.
People's language can be improved over time. When I was a child, the N word was in common usage. After years of societal disapproval and subsequent legislation, I have not heard anyone use the word in a derogatory sense since 1986.
As children grow up, they don't get to hear the word and its usage falls into disuse.
Last time a racially abusive word was used in my company, I found young people looking confused as they'd never heard the term before and had to actually ask what it meant.
---------- Post added at 20:20 ---------- Previous post was at 20:03 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qtx
This should always be the case but unfortunately has not been reality for years because of quotas and stuff for diversity.
It leads to bizarre things too in media. Ignoring the 50% female quota on panel shows quota that Cohen brought in, meaning instead of comedians they are having random non-funny females who look lost to fit that quota, we also have comedians who can't speak clearly because of say cerebral palsy or not at all like lost-voice guy or whatever his name is.
We wouldn't employ someone with no arms to be a carpenter fitting kitchens because....common sense but that seems to go out the window when it comes to tv and movie. But I don't get why diversity quotas are used to select the no-where near front runner candidate in many jobs. Its plain stupid.
|
Because, despite their difficulties communicating due to disability, right thinking people would rather give disabled people a chance to participate in their chosen field as opposed to excluding them from society.
Lost voice guy has indirectly helped the disabled on many levels and was chosen to be the winner of Britain's Got Talent on merit alone.
Would you prefer that he remained on benefits living an unfruitful life?
Don't forget that nobody is immune from disability, in fact most of us will become disabled at some point in our lives and nobody is forcing you to watch any comedian that you don't enjoy.