Racism is alive and well in Britain

[Darat]

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. ...snip...

Since I've never made that argument I believe what you have created is generally called a "strawman"

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.

You can assert "That's a job" as many times as you like however that will not make it a fact. So far you have failed to provide one iota of evidence for your claim.

 

[AvalonXQ]

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.

Are you actually going to discuss anything of substance, or are you stuck on the word "job"?

Arguing about the word "job" is continuing to distract from the actual point. Whether or not these training positions should qualify as "jobs", they're distinct from Bristol's normal hiring procedures and would most correctly be viewed as affirmative action in an educational program.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Arguing about the word "job" is continuing to distract from the actual point. Whether or not these training positions should qualify as "jobs", they're distinct from Bristol's normal hiring procedures and would most correctly be viewed as affirmative action in an educational program.

Well I have given my view on this point but it seems some folk aren't wanting to discuss anything of actual substance...

To expand on what I said earlier - I really would like to see what evidence there is that these types of schemes fulfil their goals, so do we see that more of the "ethnic minorities" go onto to employment after one of these training schemes?

Also I am always very dubious in the UK about this issue of a percentages. I live in an area that, depending on where in a space of less than 3 miles you draw your boundary line, I would be judged to live in either an area that has a well below the UK "average" of non-white "ethnicity" or in an area with the most ethnically diverse population outside London.

 

[Ziggurat]

Since I've never made that argument I believe what you have created is generally called a "strawman"

It's ironic that you're trying to accuse me of a strawman, given your posts #135 and #138. But if I'm wrong that you don't believe them to be mutually exclusive, then that simply means those earlier posts of yours were not only straw men, but nonsensical too. So I will concede the point: that was not your position, you simply had no internal logical consistency.

You can assert "That's a job" as many times as you like however that will not make it a fact. So far you have failed to provide one iota of evidence for your claim.

I provided the criteria I believe necessary to define a job. I believe those criteria are clearly met in this case. If you want to refute my position, you can do one of two things: demonstrate that the criteria are not met, or show that my criteria are wrong. You have not attempted to do either. In fact, you seem oblivious to the logical requirements of the argument entirely.

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you actually going to discuss anything of substance, or are you stuck on the word "job"?

I do not consider the deliberate abuse of language to be of no substance.

Arguing about the word "job" is continuing to distract from the actual point.

It may be a distraction from your point, but you are free to not argue about it.

 

[AvalonXQ]

It's reasonable to assert that a "job" is defined according to the experience of an employee: if you are paid in exchange for behaving as the employer requires, you have a "job". In this way, a paid training position is reasonably assessed to be a form of employment.
But, from the perspective of the employer, the definition can reasonably differ: if you pay an individual in exchange for the value of their labor, that's a "job", but if you pay the individual without receiving the value of their labor, that's something other than a "job". This distinction is important to employers because it matters who they pay, why they pay that person, and under what circumstances they should continue paying that person.
It's silly to insist that an employer's hiring practices are defined, not by how they select and evaluate their regular employees, but rather by how they select and evaluate their temporary training positions.
And while those training positions are technically employment (and I don't think it's wrong to characterize them as "jobs"), they are not an economic exchange of labor for money (and so I don't think it's wrong to argue that they're not "jobs", or alternatively not "real jobs").
It's certainly disingenuous to talk about two training positions as if it's characteristic of policies in hiring. Recruiting interns or trainees is different from hiring employees, regardless of whether the former are technically forms of employment or not.

 

[Darat]

It's ironic that you're trying to accuse me of a strawman, given your posts #135 and #138. But if I'm wrong that you don't believe them to be mutually exclusive, then that simply means those earlier posts of yours were not only straw men, but nonsensical too. So I will concede the point: that was not your position, you simply had no internal logical consistency.

...snip...

That you create a strawman of what I have stated is your problem - and I have no intention of further discussing your strawman.

I provided the criteria I believe necessary to define a job. I believe those criteria are clearly met in this case. If you want to refute my position, you can do one of two things: demonstrate that the criteria are not met, or show that my criteria are wrong. You have not attempted to do either. In fact, you seem oblivious to the logical requirements of the argument entirely.

I have highlighted the problem with your assertion - that you believe something to be true does not make true. To date you have not provided any evidence that contradicts the evidence that I have supplied, in fact you've supplied zero evidence for your assertion.

 

[Aitch]

Back in the dim and distant past, I did a 'sandwich' degree course - 3 years at Teesside Poly (I told you it was a long time ago) and one year in industry. The industrial placement year was paid for by the company and they got a couple of completed projects out of it. I got a lot in the way of real-life job training etc. Was that a job or training?

And don't get me started on the subject of apprenticeships!

 

[Darat]

Back in the dim and distant past, I did a 'sandwich' degree course - 3 years at Teesside Poly (I told you it was a long time ago) and one year in industry. The industrial placement year was paid for by the company and they got a couple of completed projects out of it. I got a lot in the way of real-life job training etc. Was that a job or training?
And don't get me started on the subject of apprenticeships!

It could have been both at once or just one of them - didn't they tell you what it was?

The issue at hand is not whether something can be both a job and a training position or just one of them, it's about these specific positions which are (according to all the evidence presented in this thread) training positions and whether it is a good or bad idea to have discrimination based on ethnicity as the selection criteria for such training positions.

 

[Ziggurat]

I have highlighted the problem with your assertion - that you believe something to be true does not make true.

And what of you, Darat? Are you an oracle? No, of course not. You too believe in certain criteria for something to be a job too. And your belief does not make it true either. But unlike me, you can't even state what those criteria are.

To date you have not provided any evidence that contradicts the evidence that I have supplied

Because the evidence you supplied was to attack a strawman (the claim that anyone said that the jobs were NOT training positions). Since that evidence does not contradict my position, why should I want to contradict that evidence?