Minority Groups "Special Rights"

[Fudbucker]

Because if you do your best to give minorities a fair go and still cant get them for legitimate reasons then you will be ok. opportunity vs outcome

Who decides if you did your best and what a "fair go" is?

 

[Belz...]

...can I suggest you read my post again?

I did. What happens if an employer fails to meet these requirements?

Because if you do your best to give minorities a fair go and still cant get them for legitimate reasons then you will be ok. opportunity vs outcome

That sounds great, actually, but how do they determine if you did your "best"?

 

[Darat]

By checking your procedures like we do for many other regulations and so on.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Some more evidence on women who earn more than their husbdands are less happy on average....

You tell me: does that study adjust for the generational lag times in creating expectations, or address the impact of early childhood on forming expectations about normalcy? Any studies showing women growing up in families with a woman as primary breadwinner have different or similar expectations to their peers who don't. Otherwise, static snapshots, magazine survey style, really don't elucidate, as they argue for the reigning status quo.

OK, took a look:

Rather, in examining women's marital quality and men's emotional investments in marriage, we find that dyadic commitment to institutional ideals about marriage and women's contentment with the division of household tasks are more critical.

Oh, nailed it....

 

[banquetbear]

I did.

...if you did: do you accept I didn't dodge? And that you quoted a response to one thing and claimed that it was a response to something else?

If you did read it again: why are you refusing to clarify your question?

What happens if an employer fails to meet these requirements?

When you clarify the question I will give you an answer.

 

[Belz...]

By checking your procedures like we do for many other regulations and so on.

Yeah, that's kind of obvious but that's also very vague. I'm genuinely interested in knowing how they'd manage to find out.

 

[Belz...]

...if you did: do you accept I didn't dodge?

Your post didn't address my point, which I repeated in the post you quoted. How about you do so?

why are you refusing to clarify your question?

I haven't refused anything. What a strange question.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the laws are enforced and the employers must hire minorities, or the laws are toothless and ineffective. You have to pick your poison here.

Talk about false dichotomy.

 

[Darat]

Yeah, that's kind of obvious but that's also very vague. I'm genuinely interested in knowing how they'd manage to find out.

Why not email the government department involved in such matters? I am sure they will be able to help you out.

In many UK companies the HR department will be tasked with checking company policies/procedures etc. are being met in regards to hiring (and firing). Most large companies will have HR folk who will, for example, explain how to evaluate CVs impartially, how to conduct interviews that don't (probably unintentionally) discriminate against certain groups etc.

If an interviewee or employee makes a claim of discrimination via an employment tribunal the company will have to provide evidence that they have taken steps to be non-discriminatory (in ways that are not legal - there is no problem with a company discriminating on say matters of talent or skills). A company that can't provide the evidence will more than likely (if the claim itself is found to have merit) be liable for a penalty payment as well as whatever is awarded by the tribunal to the employee.

 

[cullennz]

Why not email the government department involved in such matters? I am sure they will be able to help you out.

In many UK companies the HR department will be tasked with checking company policies/procedures etc. are being met in regards to hiring (and firing). Most large companies will have HR folk who will, for example, explain how to evaluate CVs impartially, how to conduct interviews that don't (probably unintentionally) discriminate against certain groups etc.

If an interviewee or employee makes a claim of discrimination via an employment tribunal the company will have to provide evidence that they have taken steps to be non-discriminatory (in ways that are not legal - there is no problem with a company discriminating on say matters of talent or skills). A company that can't provide the evidence will more than likely (if the claim itself is found to have merit) be liable for a penalty payment as well as whatever is awarded by the tribunal to the employee.

Is it even possible to evaluate a CV impartially?

Apart from Data out of STNG doing it

 

[Darat]

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the laws are enforced and the employers must hire minorities, or the laws are toothless and ineffective. You have to pick your poison here.

You seem to keep missing the aim of most employment anti-discrimination legislation which is to remove the discrimination in the realm of work. It is not about any set number (percentage or otherwise) of minorities being employed.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Ok I'm all ears: how do they do this without forcing them to do it if they fail to comply?

They are forced to have procedures in place that make their hiring equatable to anyone that applies. They are forced to have policies in place that make the workplace more attractive to minorities in the profession, things like sexual harassment policies. They are forced to make sure that they can accommodate minorities in the profession, you know, like having changing rooms and toilets for women, by providing appropriate safety gear for women instead of just giving them the standard issue male based stuff.

None of this forces them to hire on people that are unsuitable or less qualified that other applicants, and if they can show that they have made reasonable accommodations to attract those applicants, but the following their reasonable policies that no applicant was of a high enough level then the Government will do nothing. If they can't show that they were following their policies, or that they didn't have them in place, then they open themselves up to a civil suit case by either the failed applicants who feel wronged, of the Government on their behalf. Then yes, they would have to show in court that they were in compliance with the Law.

 

[Darat]

Is it even possible to evaluate a CV impartially?

Apart from Data out of STNG doing it

Yes - many companies will implement a "scoring system" to be used as companies will have set requirements for certain roles and anyone who has those skills should be interviewed - whatever their surname happens to be .....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34636464 for what I think is an interesting article that touches on this area and I especially like the last paragraph:

...snip...

"But the reality is that people carrying out interviews, at the next stage on from applications, are humans," says Azmat Mohammed, director general of the Institute of Recruiters. "The thing is for them to be able to analyse their own biases. Everybody has them and businesses are working to address this issue."

 

[cullennz]

Yes - many companies will implement a "scoring system" to be used as companies will have set requirements for certain roles and anyone who has those skills should be interviewed - whatever their surname happens to be .....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34636464 for what I think is an interesting article that touches on this area and I especially like the last paragraph:

Interesting

Cheers

 

[banquetbear]

Your post didn't address my point, which I repeated in the post you quoted. How about you do so?

...the post you quoted did address the previous post that you made. It didn't address the question that you asked, because I addressed the question that you asked in another sentence, a sentence that you chose to delete in your response to me.

I haven't refused anything. What a strange question.

What a strange response. Here is post 165:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11613905&postcount=165

The sequence of posts should be quite clear.

You made a statement: I responded to that statement.

You then asked a question.

I asked for clarification.

You didn't offer any clarification. Instead you ignored the request for clarification, quoted my statement in response to your statement, deleted my request for clarification then claimed I had dodged your question.

You are being disingenuous. I'm not sure why. Here is my request for clarification again:

"Are you asking for the law as you've recontextualized it, or for the law as it is actually written?"

Surely this time you can't miss the request for clarification.

 

[phiwum]

I have been hearing more people talking about the "Special Rights" that minority groups are getting, and how scary it is. We saw this as part of the so called "push back" in the US elections.

What I am confused about though are what these so-called special rights that groups, such as the LGBTQ community, have, actually are? What rights do they have or have been given that members of those groups don't have? What makes these rights special?

Is it the right to be judged as an employee by your work and qualifications and not your gender identity or sexuality?

Is it the right to be served as a customer at any business regardless of race, gender, or sexuality?

Is it the right to rent a home or a room at a hotel or B&B without being denied because of your race, or sexuality?

Is it the right to form a public and officially, legally, recognised and licensed relationship with the person you love regardless of their race or gender?

Is it the right to go to the bathroom of your choosing without being harassed and threatened because you fail to conform to gender stereotypes?

Is it the right to walk down the street without fear of being harassed, attacked, or worse because of your race, sexuality, or gender?

Is it the right not be be arrested and made into a criminal because of who you are or who you love?

What exactly are these special rights?

Perhaps someone on the Right can explain it to me, cause I don't get it.

Like heck you don't get it.

It is about marriage rights. It is about using the bathroom of your choice, regardless of your biological bits.

I'm not particularly right wing, but I kinda get some of these issues. The transgender thing is kinda troubling. I don't quite get it, to be honest. Now, that's fine, because I can understand that I don't quite understand what these folks are going through.

But surely you can also get the fact that some of us are a bit slow getting to the table. I have a few totally decent friends who don't feel comfortable with the transgender thing. They're okay guys, but don't quite get it. Hell, neither do I. It's not my problem, and I'll do what I can to accommodate these folk, but I can't imagine what it's like to be living as they do.

Okay, a little bit rambling, but yeah, I get some of the right wing perspective. They're not bad folk.

 

[Belz...]

Talk about false dichotomy.

Talk about vagueness. Are you able to write more than dismissive posts? So far you've posted a lot of "you're wrong" but without going into the detail of why I'm wrong. How is this a false dichotomy. What are the other choices I'm forgetting?

They are forced to have procedures in place that make their hiring equatable to anyone that applies.

Isn't that exactly the same as forcing them to hire minorities they usually wouldn't hire?

Why not email the government department involved in such matters? I am sure they will be able to help you out.

You're the ones telling me that this isn't how they work. Do you know how they work? If not, how can you say how it doesn't work? It seems that you're putting a lot of effort into not actually making an argument or a point. Several other posters have managed to do that, so what gives?

You seem to keep missing the aim of most employment anti-discrimination legislation which is to remove the discrimination in the realm of work.

I'm well aware of the aim, and it's laudable. It's the means I'm questioning. That's what you seem to keep missing.

 

[Belz...]

...the post you quoted did address the previous post that you made. It didn't address the question that you asked, because I addressed the question that you asked in another sentence, a sentence that you chose to delete in your response to me.

Ok now this sequence of sentences confuses me.

I asked for clarification.

No, you didn't. You made a comment phrased as a question.

 

[Belz...]

It is about using the bathroom of your choice, regardless of your biological bits.

...something the rest of us can't do. So although it's not a "right", one can see why people might thing that a minority group has a "special right".

 

[banquetbear]

Ok now this sequence of sentences confuses me.

...because you keep doing confusing things.

In post 169 you claimed that with this response I dodged your question:

...employers are required to "instituting such positive policies and practices and making such reasonable accommodations."

This is the requirement of the employer.

The second sentence is the expected outcome of implementing policies/practices and making reasonable accommodations.

Laws do do something. And this law asks employers to institute positive policies, practices and make reasonable accommodation.

Laws are written and carefully crafted so that they do very specific things. When you change what is written, as you clearly and obviously have, they don't mean the same thing.

But that response was in response to this statement. Not to your question.

That's what laws do: you must do something.

You either are confused: or you did it on purpose.

My response to your question was a request for clarification:

What do you think happens to employers who don't?

Are you asking for the law as you've recontextualized it, or for the law as it is actually written?

No, you didn't. You made a comment phrased as a question.

"Are you asking for the law as you've recontextualized it, or for the law as it is actually written?"

That is not a comment. That is a question. It even has a question mark after it.