Racism is alive and well in Britain

[funk de fino]

This is unAmerican and I will pray for you.

I am in America. I work for an American company. I do not talk about USA matters using European laws as my reference. That would be remarkably stupid. As would praying for me.

I guess none of the yankee doodle dandees have heard of the YOP or YTS schemes.

 

[Ziggurat]

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. ...."

​

Umm... Darat... neither statement indicates that they aren't training positions. "Job" and "training position" are not mutually exclusive categories. Nobody has claimed they are, and in fact multiple people (myself included) who are making the argument that they are jobs have EXPLICITLY stated that such jobs are ALSO training positions.

So, yeah, Cuddles was right, you have created a strawman. The fact that you didn't even recognize that it was a strawman does not speak well for your understanding of your opponent's 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".

Well, no. I read that 1974 act that was referred to in an earlier post. That act does not use the word "job", so we aren't working with a legal definition, but the common one. It uses the term "employment". And while such training jobs allow for discrimination which would not be legal for most jobs, nothing about that exception indicates that the positions are not employment OR a job. In fact, if they weren't legally considered employment, the act wouldn't even need to make an exception for them.

 

[TraneWreck]

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.

I find that amusing, "Hey, Charlie, how's the non-internship job hunt going?"

This is a purely ad hoc development based on the course of this conversation. The substance of the debate was never in question, it was just haggling over terminology that everyone understood.

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.

[...]

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?

I only hit it because I love it so much...

 

[Ziggurat]

I find that amusing, "Hey, Charlie, how's the non-internship job hunt going?"

Why would I need to specify that it's a non-internship job in that case? I wouldn't. It's perfectly OK to use a more general term even when the search is more specific. That information is typically either already known to all participants of the conversation, irrelevant to the question, or both.

The substance of the debate was never in question, it was just haggling over terminology that everyone understood.

Evidently everyone didn't, or people wouldn't be trying to deny that these were jobs. And if it is irrelevant to the substance of the debate, why are you still debating it?

I only hit it because I love it so much...

OK, that's an amusing response, I'll give you points for that. But it doesn't answer my question. If you think the semantics are irrelevant, why not just concede the point and move on to what you think is important?

 

[TraneWreck]

OK, that's an amusing response, I'll give you points for that. But it doesn't answer my question. If you think the semantics are irrelevant, why not just concede the point and move on to what you think is important?

Done and done.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Evidently everyone didn't, or people wouldn't be trying to deny that these were jobs.

I agree that the "jobs" argument is stupid, and we should get back to the point. Here's my point:
1) How Bristol selects for trainee positions should be evaluated separately from their general hiring practices, as they may very well have minority-only trainee positions but no minority-only permanent positions.
2) Minority-only trainee positions should be evaluated in line with affirmative action in education, not affirmative action in the workplace.

 

[Darat]

Umm... Darat... neither statement indicates that they aren't training positions. "Job" and "training position" are not mutually exclusive categories. Nobody has claimed they are, and in fact multiple people (myself included) who are making the argument that they are jobs have EXPLICITLY stated that such jobs are ALSO training positions.

...snip....

You claimed they are jobs, they are not, I made up no strawman.

 

[Ziggurat]

You claimed they are jobs, they are not

Yes, they are. It's quite simple, Darat: when someone pays me to do something that they want me to do, that's a job. And that's exactly what's going on here. It's a job. Your refusal to call a job a job is not going to change the obvious reality that it's a job.

I made up no strawman.

You did when you claimed that anyone said that they are NOT training positions. See here and here.

 

[Slayhamlet]

I am in America. I work for an American company. I do not talk about USA matters using European laws as my reference. That would be remarkably stupid. As would praying for me.

I guess none of the yankee doodle dandees have heard of the YOP or YTS schemes.

Are you always such humorless git?

Never mind, I already know the answer to that question.

Please keep the tone civil. Thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[Darat]

Yes, they are. It's quite simple, Darat: when someone pays me to do something that they want me to do, that's a job. And that's exactly what's going on here. It's a job. Your refusal to call a job a job is not going to change the obvious reality that it's a job.

The facts remain the facts no matter how much you don't like them.

 

[Darat]

I agree that the "jobs" argument is stupid, and we should get back to the point. Here's my point:
1) How Bristol selects for trainee positions should be evaluated separately from their general hiring practices, as they may very well have minority-only trainee positions but no minority-only permanent positions.
2) Minority-only trainee positions should be evaluated in line with affirmative action in education, not affirmative action in the workplace.

And that is what is happening in this instance, after all these are training positions, they are not being employed to do a job.

My problem with this type of approach is that I suspect it is not based on any research into why there is an issue with representation of the population in the local authority.

If there is a problem i.e. there is a bias against or for any "ethnicity" either in either gaining employment (and we know that this can be the case - see the article I linked to earlier) or in access to the relevant education and training then this could be a way to address it. However just because there is a difference in the percentage of "ethnic minorities" in local authority jobs compared to the percentage of "ethnic minorities" in the population the local authority covers is not (in my view) grounds enough to create training places only for those in the "ethnic minorities".

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

They should be honest and call it the Token Traineeship.

 

[Ziggurat]

The facts remain the facts no matter how much you don't like them.

Indeed. And the fact remains that it's a job, even though you don't like that it's a job, and cannot present an argument for why it's not a job, but can only insist that it's not a job.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Indeed. And the fact remains that it's a job, even though you don't like that it's a job, and cannot present an argument for why it's not a job, but can only insist that it's not a job.

And the fact remains that you're ignoring the substance of the thread to obsess regarding the word "job" and whether it applies.

See #146 for the actual discussion.

 

[bpesta22]

Darat are you of the opinion that job and training position are mutually exclusive?

Why pay someone to be trained?

 

[Information Analyst]

Darat are you of the opinion that job and training position are mutually exclusive?

Why pay someone to be trained?

Funding from central government for just that purpose? I don't know if it applies in this case, but UK employers do receive fianncial encouragement to train.

 

[Darat]

Indeed. And the fact remains that it's a job, even though you don't like that it's a job, and cannot present an argument for why it's not a job, but can only insist that it's not a job.

I have based my claims on what the evidence we have before us actually is i.e.

"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."

From the spokesperson from teh council:

.... "This traineeship was started .... '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.'

The Race Relations Act 1976 states that if a racial group is under-represented councils can offer training to individuals from that group.

Your claims seem to be based on what you want the evidence to be.

 

[Ziggurat]

I have based my claims on what the evidence we have before us actually is i.e.

ie, you think (for reasons unexplained) that training and job are mutually exclusive. But there's no logical reason for you to believe that, and you alone seem to be making that claim. You have even gone so far as to falsely claim that others have taken this position.

Your claims seem to be based on what you want the evidence to be.

No, Darat. Pay attention. My claim is based on the fact that they are being paid for their time, during which they do what the city tells them to do. That's a job. I have already stated this, and you have not contested it.

 

[Darat]

Darat are you of the opinion that job and training position are mutually exclusive?

Not at all - and I can't see how you can have got that from what I've posted - I've simply repeated what the evidence is. i.e. this particular position is a training position.

Why pay someone to be trained?

According to the article linked to from the OP:

...The Race Relations Act 1976 states that if a racial group is under-represented councils can offer training to individuals from that group....​

In other words a local authority can create training positions that are only open to members of a particular "racial group" if there is under-representation. It cannot however create jobs that are only open to members of a particular "racial group" even if there is under-representation

 

[ZirconBlue]

That's not to say we shouldn't try to change things at all. If a certain group tends to have poor education, and worse health as a result, you can certainly try to encourage them to become better educated.

Good idea. Perhaps they could come up with some sort of training program to address the issue.

Why pay someone to be trained?

So that they can afford to take the training program. From the description it sounds more like a scholarship or student stipend than as salary.

I got scholarship money for 4 years of college, sufficient to cover all tuition, books, etc., and then some. Did that make being a student a "job"?