Racism is alive and well in Britain

[bpesta22]

People use the basic level almost always when talking about things-- that's an apple; not a fruit nor a macintosh apple. The only time we go non-basic is if the distinction is important.

The distinction is likely important here. An internship is a type of job that includes employee training.

But, the context is important:

In an interview and on a resume, I'd list it as a paid internship.

But, would you say this:

Bye honey, I'm going to work

or

Bye honey, I'm going to my internship.

Would it be wrong to say you're getting on the job training as part of your internship?

If you got fired or laid off, would you tell people you lost your job ?

Beating this to death; you may have the last word!

 

[Ziggurat]

Once you've distinguished internships from other forms of employment, what word would you like to use for the non-internship jobs?

I can't think of any common cases where I would need to, but assuming I did, why would it need to be one word? "Non-internship jobs" works just fine. Like "non-tiger cats" works fine to indicate all cats that are not tigers, but "cats" does not.

If you don't deny there's an important distinction

Important for what purpose? For the purpose of the law? Sure, the distinction is important, but the law doesn't use the term "job" anyways (it uses "employment", of which it appears internships are a subset). But regardless, the importance of the distinction is not license to abuse language.

why were you pissy about the word "job" in the first place?

Nice poisoning of the well there, TW.

When the original point was made, distinguishing internships from "jobs," for the lack of a better term

Except there is a better term, and an obvious one. You even used this better term: non-internship jobs.

(I don't recall who brought this up), was the meaning not clear?

No, actually, the meaning was not clear, the usage of "job" was in fact contrary to what the word actually meant.

In your zeal to condemn this exceedingly mild program you first attempted to challenge the distinction made.

In your zeal to defend this program, you missed the fact that I haven't actually attacked it at all. Part of the reason is because I do not in fact trust the Mail to have accurately described the situation (I've seen lots of jobs where the advertisements say that they "encourage" minorities and women to apply, but are quite willing to hire well-qualified white men). I have objected to two things: discrimination as a method for ending discrimination (but that was separate from the issue of "jobs"), and the abuse of language.

When it became obvious you doubled-down on the trivial

The abuse of language is not trivial. It can lead to all sorts of mischief. Why do you feel you need to defend the abuse of language? If the exact terminology is not important to your argument, why not concede that point and move on to what you really care about? Why are YOU fighting a fight that you don't think is important?

 

[Darat]

Oh come on darat, two years is an eternity nowadays. How long would a "training opportunity" have to be to call it a job?

It would have to be a job, degree courses (as just one example) are often 3 or 4 years. Apprenticeships (those that remain) are often a lot longer than 2 years.

But the council was decidedly stupid for advertising this way. Leave it open, interview all those with claims and discriminate (lawfully) by selecting exactly the minorities you want. That's the way it's always been done.

That would have been illegal.

 

[lionking]

"Internships" are called "traineeships" in Australia. They are unarguably jobs. Our systems are not far different from the UK.

 

[Darat]

This is a laughable assertion. ...snip...

If you read the articles and the comments from the local authority you will find it is not an assertion it is a fact.

 

[lionking]

That would have been illegal.

But it can't be proven that the interviewers discriminated. Unless the interviewers are seriously stupid.

 

[Darat]

I always thought the sending out ghost CV's with identical qualifications. 50% having European names and the other 50% being African/Middle Eastern ect and then informing the company if they showed any quantifiable bias was a very good idea. I always thought it would be the more subconcious rather than overt racism which is the bigger problem.

Such exercises have been carried out in the UK and unfortunately it would seem that simply having a "foreign" name will result in you being less successful at even getting an interview.

An article that discusses a way to get around this bias: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/jan/01/job-discrimination-anonymous-cvs-report

 

[lionking]

It would have to be a job, degree courses (as just one example) are often 3 or 4 years. Apprenticeships (those that remain) are often a lot longer than 2 years.

Not always, actually far from it. I believe that I know more about the UK apprenticeship system than you - it's part of my job. We've actually pinched a couple of ideas from you lot. Just a couple because I really think we do apprenticeships and traineeships pretty well.

Sorry about the slight derail.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you read the articles and the comments from the local authority you will find it is not an assertion it is a fact.

It is a fact that the appointment is for two years, with no guarantee of a job at the end of it. But that wasn't what I was contesting. I was contesting your assertion that the appointments were not jobs. I don't care if the local authorities refuse to call them jobs, that's still what they are. And it remains laughable to claim that they are not jobs, no matter who makes the claim.

 

[Darat]

Not always, actually far from it. I believe that I know more about the UK apprenticeship system than you - it's part of my job. We've actually pinched a couple of ideas from you lot. Just a couple because I really think we do apprenticeships and traineeships pretty well.

Sorry about the slight derail.

And I never said always.

 

[Darat]

It is a fact that the appointment is for two years, with no guarantee of a job at the end of it. But that wasn't what I was contesting. I was contesting your assertion that the appointments were not jobs. I don't care if the local authorities refuse to call them jobs, that's still what they are. And it remains laughable to claim that they are not jobs, no matter who makes the claim.

That was not an assertion I made, the facts in this instance is that these positions are training positions. That you claim they are not doesn't alter what the facts are.

"We are looking for two enthusiastic graduates with a degree in any discipline to undertake a two-year management training programme at Bristol City Council.

You should have a strong interest in the delivery of local public services, be able to take the initiative and have the confidence to relate to people at all levels within the Council.

The traineeship will involve rotating placements in different services of the City Council where you will be where you will be given 'on the job' training and undertake projects including policy and research work.

You will need to be flexible and able to learn quickly in changing environments. The successful candidates will be offered a postgraduate diploma in Management Studies, a tax free training allowance and mentoring and support throughout the traineeship."

 

[lionking]

That was not an assertion I made, the facts in this instance is that these positions are training positions. That you claim they are not doesn't alter what the facts are.

So what? They're paid. They're jobs. Stubbon refusal to acknowledge this notwithstanding.

 

[Darat]

So what? They're paid. They're jobs. Stubbon refusal to acknowledge this notwithstanding.

And what is the pay?

(ETA: And that was sarcasm)

 

[lionking]

And what is the pay?

Does it matter? Trainees here get a training wage, slightly (about 10%) lower than the award rate. But paid work = job by any rational standard.

 

[Darat]

I've gone back over the thread and there has been no evidence presented that these positions are not training positions.

If you wish to claim that they are not training positions (as applies to the UK of course) then I would like to see it, otherwise I will stick to what the evidence we have so far i.e. that they are training positions.

E.g.

We are looking for two enthusiastic graduates with a degree in any discipline to undertake a two-year management training programme at Bristol City Council.

...snip...

'The traineeship will involve rotating placements in different services of the City Council where you will be where you will be given 'on the job' training and undertake projects including policy and research work.

'...snip... The successful candidates will be offered a postgraduate diploma in Management Studies, a tax free training allowance and mentoring and support throughout the traineeship.'

...snip...

This traineeship was started because of the marked under-representation of ethnic minorities in our workforce.

'The normal recruitment process was not rectifying this unacceptably low trend so there was a strong case for this small positive recruitment traineeship for two ethnic minority graduates a year.

'We have a workforce of more than 9,000 employees, excluding school staff, so this is a small training programme.

...snip...

'It is also worth remembering that this is a training position - at the end of the two years there is no guarantee of work and the successful candidates would have to apply for a job with the council in the usual way on the open market.'

 

[Primus]

Such exercises have been carried out in the UK and unfortunately it would seem that simply having a "foreign" name will result in you being less successful at even getting an interview.

An article that discusses a way to get around this bias: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/jan/01/job-discrimination-anonymous-cvs-report

I was actually referring to this but couldn't remember when it happened to get a link. I was saying that they should have kept this up. It seemed to me a very effective way of flagging up problems with racist recruitment policies. Do it once and let them know privately the first time. If they still don't sort it out then you let them know publicly and if there are still problems then by all means throw the book at them.

In my mind better than specifying jobs or training schemes or whatever you guys decide you want to call them for specific ethic groups.

Also the point which hasn't been picked up on is that most of the low % of ethnic groups in specific workplaces is due to a low number of applications rather than discrimination in the recruitment process.

 

[Cuddles]

This is a rather perverse view of things. Try this:

1) People should be treated equally and not discriminated against based on race.
2) People aren't treated equally and are discriminated against based on race.
3) Measures have to be taken to correct this historical fact.
4) Requiring that employers bring populations into their work force that are being systematically excluded for factors beyond their control is one method of correction.

Not that complicated, really.

Oh, certainly not complicated. Incredibly stupid, but not at all complicated. Oddly enough, you haven't actually addressed my post at all, but merely restated the position I was arguing against in the first place. I'll try and put it in even shorter words this time, using quotes from your own post:

1) People should be treated equally and not discriminated against based on race.
4) Requiring that employers bring populations into their work force

Point 4) directly contradicts point 1). Point one is the goal of the entire exercise. Arguing that racism is a good way to prevent racism is just plain stupid. If you're being racist, then no matter what your reasons for being racist are, it is physically impossible for the result to be people being treated equally, because you're not actually treating people equally.

In addition, a point others have raised that I didn't mention before is that now is not history. The people you want to be racist in favour of are not the people who were discriminated against in the past. Your point 4) assumes that to be the case. That some people were systematically excluded does not necessarily mean that the same is true now. If the same is not true now, there's yet another reason your solution is completely useless.

All that is required for people to be treated equally right now is for people to be treated equally right now. There isn't some kind of balance where we need a certain amount of racism in both directions to somehow make it fair. Eye for an eye does not correct anything, it just ends up leaving everyone blind.

I've gone back over the thread and there has been no evidence presented that these positions are not training positions.

This is a rather odd straw man you keep bringing up. As far as I can see, no-one has ever claimed that they are not training positions. All they have been saying is that a training position is often also a job, and that that is the case here. You're not doing anything to counter that point by just insisting that these jobs are also training positions.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

This is a rather odd straw man you keep bringing up. As far as I can see, no-one has ever claimed that they are not training positions. All they have been saying is that a training position is often also a job, and that that is the case here. You're not doing anything to counter that point by just insisting that these jobs are also training positions.

I've not created a strawman several people in this thread have claimed that these are jobs and not training position:

E.g.

"So what? They're paid. They're jobs. ..."

"... I don't care if the local authorities refuse to call them jobs, that's still what they are. ...."

​

These are training positions that is just what they are - that is why there is no job description as such included, why it is of a set period, why there is a qualification at the end of it, why there is a a tax free training allowance associated with the position.

Whether you or anyone else agrees with how it is defined is beside the point, in the UK this type of position is considered a training position which is why they can use forms of discrimination that would be illegal if the position was a "job".

 

[TraneWreck]

1) People should be treated equally and not discriminated against based on race.
4) Requiring that employers bring populations into their work force

Point 4) directly contradicts point 1). Point one is the goal of the entire exercise. Arguing that racism is a good way to prevent racism is just plain stupid. If you're being racist, then no matter what your reasons for being racist are, it is physically impossible for the result to be people being treated equally, because you're not actually treating people equally.

Only in a vacuum. Here in the real world sometimes principle has to be adjusted to deal with the facts.

This is a typical wail from right-wingers in America (I don't know if you are one or not, but this argument comes up all the time). Acknowledging the existence of racial discrimination is not itself racist.

Note the definition of racism:

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Affirmative Action programs take the exact opposite stance. Race is not the primary determinant of capacities, therefore the massive racial inequalities in our nation (I don't want to speak for the UK here) are unjust. No one race is superior to the other, therefore steps have to be taken to correct the historical FACTS of discrimination.

This is not an argument from pure principal. It's a recognition that something is deeply wrong with American procedure and needs to be corrected. The judgment is made, based upon the facts, that it's necessary to start including minorities in the culture if progress is ever to be made.

As an aside, I would LOVE to get rid of Affirmative Action. This country works best when just procedure is secured, not just outcomes. AA repairs procedural problems by trying to correct unjust outcomes.

If serious changes to the educational and social structure of this country were made, then I would gladly do away with AA. As it stands right now, however, AA is more just than allowing citizens to discriminate against each other, which is what motivated the program in the first place.

All that is required for people to be treated equally right now is for people to be treated equally right now. There isn't some kind of balance where we need a certain amount of racism in both directions to somehow make it fair. Eye for an eye does not correct anything, it just ends up leaving everyone blind.

This is such an astonishingly Pollyanna-ish view of the world that I don't even know what to say. That is just a blatantly false statement. There are deep racial inequities in this society that persist. Here's a recent article on the issue. I can gather more statistics if you want:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/25/black.america.report/index.html

Now what's you explanation for this? African Americans are lazy? They don't work as hard as whites? It has nothing to do with the violent racial history of this country?

Explain those gaps.

 

[Debaser]

Apropos of nothing.

I can remember seeing a TV program in the late nineties wherein the British presenter tried to get some sort of job in the US, or was handing out his CV.

He was told (by the white American woman) that because he was English, not only was he classed as white...he was ultra white, and therefore didn't stand a chance. (From faded memory being English made him 'whiter' than someone from France, Spain or Italy, on whatever bizarre metric she was using).

Could that be why its generally cold over here? Every time the sun comes out, we look up and our (90%) ultra-white faces increase the albedo of our island?