Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2021 11:55:56 GMT
Interesting article. It doesn't go that in depth with the data though. It's not just about being diverse,the opportunity should be there of course, but equal opportunity does not always mean equal outcome. Do we really want to have some sort of affirmative action where people are simply employed or promoted to a role simply because of what nationality, race, gender or sexual orientation they are rather than their suitability to the role? I'm pretty sure that in the UK hiring someone simply because of their nationality, race, gender or sexual orientation or any other status, without regard to their performance, is illegal isn't it? However im pretty sure the law in the UK does allow for any person regardless of their nationality, race, gender or sexual orientation to be considered in hiring and promotion when the group is under-represented and if the candidates are of equal merit. I.e equal opportunity but that doesn't mean equal outcome. It's a double edged Sword. Also it mentions in the article that people sought better prospects in the US, possibly because in the US they have affirmative action. Yeah all levels of discrimination are illegal unless it has something to do with visas. I think you are allowed to choose a candidate who is British, over a candidate with a visa. Could be wrong though. I agree with much of your post, the question really is equal opportunity there? On paper it is but where I think the real issue lies is the direct hiring managers. This goes beyond race too, it’s all levels of discrimination. As an example, if you were choosing a candidate between a pregnant lady vs a 30 year old man - i’d put my neck on the line that 99% of times the man will be hired. The only way he wouldn’t was if the woman was 100000x better. And it’s the same with race too, there may be equal opportunity on paper - but is there really? It’s why I think we need to be much tougher on all forms of discrimination because if the public’s opinion doesn’t change/improve then you’re not really doing enough, IMO. Yep. It sounds better to say there should be equal discrimination towards everyone! To say that people should be given jobs based on their appearance is a stupid argument what ever way you look at it. The distribution of jobs is corrupt anyway, skin colour is probably the most evident as it can be visualised, but there are huge class & social barriers too. |
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Feb 3, 2021 11:59:05 GMT
Interesting article. It doesn't go that in depth with the data though. It's not just about being diverse,the opportunity should be there of course, but equal opportunity does not always mean equal outcome. Do we really want to have some sort of affirmative action where people are simply employed or promoted to a role simply because of what nationality, race, gender or sexual orientation they are rather than their suitability to the role? I'm pretty sure that in the UK hiring someone simply because of their nationality, race, gender or sexual orientation or any other status, without regard to their performance, is illegal isn't it? However im pretty sure the law in the UK does allow for any person regardless of their nationality, race, gender or sexual orientation to be considered in hiring and promotion when the group is under-represented and if the candidates are of equal merit. I.e equal opportunity but that doesn't mean equal outcome. It's a double edged Sword. Also it mentions in the article that people sought better prospects in the US, possibly because in the US they have affirmative action. Yeah all levels of discrimination are illegal unless it has something to do with visas. I think you are allowed to choose a candidate who is British, over a candidate with a visa. Could be wrong though. I agree with much of your post, the question really is equal opportunity there? On paper it is but where I think the real issue lies is the direct hiring managers. This goes beyond race too, it’s all levels of discrimination. As an example, if you were choosing a candidate between a pregnant lady vs a 30 year old man - i’d put my neck on the line that 99% of times the man will be hired. The only way he wouldn’t was if the woman was 100000x better. And it’s the same with race too, there may be equal opportunity on paper - but is there really? It’s why I think we need to be much tougher on all forms of discrimination because if the public’s opinion doesn’t change/improve then you’re not really doing enough, IMO. I don't necessarily disagree, however, its very hard to prove isn't it? If suddenly there's a plethora of people from Black and Ethnic minority backgrounds being hired/promoted to senior positions it'll be 'They're only there because the company wants to be seen as being diverse", likewise on the other side of the coin, if there isn't as the article suggests, it's a case of "Companies not being diverse enough", as I said it's a double edged Sword. On the point of a pregnant woman v 30 year old male, it could just be the fact that the majority of women, take maternity leave for sustained periods of time, I dont have the exact figures but im sure the amount of women who take maternity leave far outweighs the men taking paternity, so taking that into account, hiring a pregnant woman whose going to be away from work for a year/18 months/2 years or whatever comes into the consideration. Again, very hard to prove. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Feb 3, 2021 12:06:17 GMT
Yeah all levels of discrimination are illegal unless it has something to do with visas. I think you are allowed to choose a candidate who is British, over a candidate with a visa. Could be wrong though. I agree with much of your post, the question really is equal opportunity there? On paper it is but where I think the real issue lies is the direct hiring managers. This goes beyond race too, it’s all levels of discrimination. As an example, if you were choosing a candidate between a pregnant lady vs a 30 year old man - i’d put my neck on the line that 99% of times the man will be hired. The only way he wouldn’t was if the woman was 100000x better. And it’s the same with race too, there may be equal opportunity on paper - but is there really? It’s why I think we need to be much tougher on all forms of discrimination because if the public’s opinion doesn’t change/improve then you’re not really doing enough, IMO. I don't necessarily disagree, however, its very hard to prove isn't it? If suddenly there's a plethora of people from Black and Ethnic minority backgrounds being hired/promoted to senior positions it'll be 'They're only there because the company wants to be seen as being diverse", likewise on the other side of the coin, if there isn't as the article suggests, it's a case of "Companies not being diverse enough", as I said it's a double edged Sword. On the point of a pregnant woman v 30 year old male, it could just be the fact that the majority of women, take maternity leave for sustained periods of time, I dont have the exact figures but im sure the amount of women who take maternity leave far outweighs the men taking paternity, so taking that into account, hiring a pregnant woman whose going to be away from work for a year/18 months/2 years or whatever comes into the consideration. Again, very hard to prove. It's incredibly hard to prove, but which is why we have to always keep conversations fresh, support movements (if done correctly), train colleagues etc. And I think it's not just enough to put this on companies, we need to do this as early as possible, in our education system. Babies aren't born being racist, after all. (whether that's active or inactive racism). On pregnant women, yes I agree. But what you've described is illegal. They've discriminated against the woman because she is having a baby. And there lies a deeper problem that women are always discriminated against for having children, because the system doesn't support them properly. Happy to discuss that too, but appreciate it's a completely different topic. |
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Feb 3, 2021 12:19:00 GMT
I don't necessarily disagree, however, its very hard to prove isn't it? If suddenly there's a plethora of people from Black and Ethnic minority backgrounds being hired/promoted to senior positions it'll be 'They're only there because the company wants to be seen as being diverse", likewise on the other side of the coin, if there isn't as the article suggests, it's a case of "Companies not being diverse enough", as I said it's a double edged Sword. On the point of a pregnant woman v 30 year old male, it could just be the fact that the majority of women, take maternity leave for sustained periods of time, I dont have the exact figures but im sure the amount of women who take maternity leave far outweighs the men taking paternity, so taking that into account, hiring a pregnant woman whose going to be away from work for a year/18 months/2 years or whatever comes into the consideration. Again, very hard to prove. It's incredibly hard to prove, but which is why we have to always keep conversations fresh, support movements (if done correctly), train colleagues etc. And I think it's not just enough to put this on companies, we need to do this as early as possible, in our education system. Babies aren't born being racist, after all. (whether that's active or inactive racism). On pregnant women, yes I agree. But what you've described is illegal. They've discriminated against the woman because she is having a baby. And there lies a deeper problem that women are always discriminated against for having children, because the system doesn't support them properly. Happy to discuss that too, but appreciate it's a completely different topic. On The pregnant woman issue I wouldn't say she's discriminated against because she's pregnant, it's the suitability to the role. It's no different to any of us not getting a role because we're going travelling for 2 years or whatever. "I'd love the role, starting tomorrow the only thing is I'm going backpacking in East Asia for 2 years in a couple of weeks". I am sure we wouldn't be hired. It's the suitability to the role. Would it be wise for Bristol Rovers to hire a new manager who wouldn't be available to work for 2 years, for example? I would suggest it would be bad business practice. So it would surely be best to look at other candidates. I wouldn't say it's discrimination. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2021 12:25:04 GMT
It's incredibly hard to prove, but which is why we have to always keep conversations fresh, support movements (if done correctly), train colleagues etc. And I think it's not just enough to put this on companies, we need to do this as early as possible, in our education system. Babies aren't born being racist, after all. (whether that's active or inactive racism). On pregnant women, yes I agree. But what you've described is illegal. They've discriminated against the woman because she is having a baby. And there lies a deeper problem that women are always discriminated against for having children, because the system doesn't support them properly. Happy to discuss that too, but appreciate it's a completely different topic. On The pregnant woman issue I wouldn't say she's discriminated against because she's pregnant, it's the suitability to the role. It's no different to any of us not getting a role because we're going travelling for 2 years or whatever. "I'd love the role, starting tomorrow the only thing is I'm going backpacking in East Asia for 2 years in a couple of weeks". I am sure we wouldn't be hired. It's the suitability to the role. Would it be wise for Bristol Rovers to hire a new manager who wouldn't be available to work for 2 years, for example? I would suggest it would be bad business practice. So it would surely be best to look at other candidates. I wouldn't say it's discrimination. Ben garner didn't work for almost 2 years. Your point is valid. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Feb 3, 2021 13:11:55 GMT
It's incredibly hard to prove, but which is why we have to always keep conversations fresh, support movements (if done correctly), train colleagues etc. And I think it's not just enough to put this on companies, we need to do this as early as possible, in our education system. Babies aren't born being racist, after all. (whether that's active or inactive racism). On pregnant women, yes I agree. But what you've described is illegal. They've discriminated against the woman because she is having a baby. And there lies a deeper problem that women are always discriminated against for having children, because the system doesn't support them properly. Happy to discuss that too, but appreciate it's a completely different topic. On The pregnant woman issue I wouldn't say she's discriminated against because she's pregnant, it's the suitability to the role. It's no different to any of us not getting a role because we're going travelling for 2 years or whatever. "I'd love the role, starting tomorrow the only thing is I'm going backpacking in East Asia for 2 years in a couple of weeks". I am sure we wouldn't be hired. It's the suitability to the role. Would it be wise for Bristol Rovers to hire a new manager who wouldn't be available to work for 2 years, for example? I would suggest it would be bad business practice. So it would surely be best to look at other candidates. I wouldn't say it's discrimination. It’s total discrimination. And maternity is not comparable to someone going travelling. It’s a disgraceful comment tbh. Your scenario is also extreme. To assume women will go for an interview the day before they give birth and for 2 years. Statutory pay lasts 9 months and the average length of time women take off is 101 days in 2014 (most recent data I found as I’m on my phone). That’s roughly 3 months, not 2 years. The fact is, it is illegal to discriminate against a woman because she is pregnant, how ever way you like to try and justify it. Yes it is bad business sense, but it’s still illegal and unfair on the woman. It also benefits men. That’s why I said the system isn’t fair and needs improvement because people will discriminate because it’s what is best for their business. The system is wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Feb 3, 2021 13:37:26 GMT
On The pregnant woman issue I wouldn't say she's discriminated against because she's pregnant, it's the suitability to the role. It's no different to any of us not getting a role because we're going travelling for 2 years or whatever. "I'd love the role, starting tomorrow the only thing is I'm going backpacking in East Asia for 2 years in a couple of weeks". I am sure we wouldn't be hired. It's the suitability to the role. Would it be wise for Bristol Rovers to hire a new manager who wouldn't be available to work for 2 years, for example? I would suggest it would be bad business practice. So it would surely be best to look at other candidates. I wouldn't say it's discrimination. It’s total discrimination. And maternity is not comparable to someone going travelling. It’s a disgraceful comment tbh. Your scenario is also extreme. To assume women will go for an interview the day before they give birth and for 2 years. Statutory pay lasts 9 months and the average length of time women take off is 101 days in 2014 (most recent data I found as I’m on my phone). That’s roughly 3 months, not 2 years. The fact is, it is illegal to discriminate against a woman because she is pregnant, how ever way you like to try and justify it. Yes it is bad business sense, but it’s still illegal and unfair on the woman. It also benefits men. That’s why I said the system isn’t fair and needs improvement because people will discriminate because it’s what is best for their business. The system is wrong. It's not discrimination. At least imo anyway I'm just going on your scenario of a pregnant woman vs a 30 year old man being offered a role, I am sure the time spent off with maternity leave is taken into consideration, if her partner took paternity instead, I am sure that would be taken into consideration as well. I am sure a 30 year old woman who isn't pregnant could also be a better candidate too, again it all depends on the suitability of the role and different scenario's doesn't it? Perfect example is if Serena Williams was pregnant, is it discrimination to say she can't participate at Wimbledon or the French Open? Or is it sensible because she's pregnant. Different scenarios, in different fields will have different outcomes. I'm not disputing statutory pay or how "Unfair" it is, i'm just going on discrimination towards pregnant women in regards to being given roles in companies or any other field of work. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Feb 3, 2021 17:09:27 GMT
It’s total discrimination. And maternity is not comparable to someone going travelling. It’s a disgraceful comment tbh. Your scenario is also extreme. To assume women will go for an interview the day before they give birth and for 2 years. Statutory pay lasts 9 months and the average length of time women take off is 101 days in 2014 (most recent data I found as I’m on my phone). That’s roughly 3 months, not 2 years. The fact is, it is illegal to discriminate against a woman because she is pregnant, how ever way you like to try and justify it. Yes it is bad business sense, but it’s still illegal and unfair on the woman. It also benefits men. That’s why I said the system isn’t fair and needs improvement because people will discriminate because it’s what is best for their business. The system is wrong. It's not discrimination. At least imo anyway I'm just going on your scenario of a pregnant woman vs a 30 year old man being offered a role, I am sure the time spent off with maternity leave is taken into consideration, if her partner took paternity instead, I am sure that would be taken into consideration as well. I am sure a 30 year old woman who isn't pregnant could also be a better candidate too, again it all depends on the suitability of the role and different scenario's doesn't it? Perfect example is if Serena Williams was pregnant, is it discrimination to say she can't participate at Wimbledon or the French Open? Or is it sensible because she's pregnant. Different scenarios, in different fields will have different outcomes. I'm not disputing statutory pay or how "Unfair" it is, i'm just going on discrimination towards pregnant women in regards to being given roles in companies or any other field of work. Fair enough, thats your opinion. But legally speaking, it is. I'm not sure vacation being compared to maternity is from my scenario, but we'll move on. It does actually work both ways, its not specifically against women (although it tends to be), but if you had a man taking 6 months paternity then most likely he'd be discriminated against too. No one should be discriminated against because they're having a child, I'm sure we agree? What you're saying is they're picking a candidate due to the time off, rather than being pregnant - but the two come hand in hand. It's the equivalent of not hiring someone disabled being they're in a wheelchair and it isn't practical for you. You might be doing something thats practical for the business, but the reason they're in the wheelchair is because they're disabled - so they've been discriminated against, based on their disability - or back in our example, due to their pregnancy. Sporting is a different scenario as they're not on a work contract and probably not protected by employment law, but sure lets explore. If she wants to compete, she is more than welcome to do so, I doubt there was a rule that says she can't. The point is that if she wants to compete she should be allowed to. Do you think it's right that the organisers of the French Open say, "No Serena, you can't compete because you're pregnant"? (Genuine question). It's her choice to work, and not anyone else's. Therefore it's discrimination because she's pregnant. |
|
|
|
Post by oldgas on Feb 3, 2021 17:24:05 GMT
Just coming in on the back of this discussion, but don’t all the safeguards apply more to women who are already in work and then become pregnant and that is when the protection kicks in?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Feb 3, 2021 17:31:08 GMT
It's not discrimination. At least imo anyway I'm just going on your scenario of a pregnant woman vs a 30 year old man being offered a role, I am sure the time spent off with maternity leave is taken into consideration, if her partner took paternity instead, I am sure that would be taken into consideration as well. I am sure a 30 year old woman who isn't pregnant could also be a better candidate too, again it all depends on the suitability of the role and different scenario's doesn't it? Perfect example is if Serena Williams was pregnant, is it discrimination to say she can't participate at Wimbledon or the French Open? Or is it sensible because she's pregnant. Different scenarios, in different fields will have different outcomes. I'm not disputing statutory pay or how "Unfair" it is, i'm just going on discrimination towards pregnant women in regards to being given roles in companies or any other field of work. Fair enough, thats your opinion. But legally speaking, it is. I'm not sure vacation being compared to maternity is from my scenario, but we'll move on. It does actually work both ways, its not specifically against women (although it tends to be), but if you had a man taking 6 months paternity then most likely he'd be discriminated against too. No one should be discriminated against because they're having a child, I'm sure we agree? What you're saying is they're picking a candidate due to the time off, rather than being pregnant - but the two come hand in hand. It's the equivalent of not hiring someone disabled being they're in a wheelchair and it isn't practical for you. You might be doing something thats practical for the business, but the reason they're in the wheelchair is because they're disabled - so they've been discriminated against, based on their disability - or back in our example, due to their pregnancy. Sporting is a different scenario as they're not on a work contract and probably not protected by employment law, but sure lets explore. If she wants to compete, she is more than welcome to do so, I doubt there was a rule that says she can't. The point is that if she wants to compete she should be allowed to. Do you think it's right that the organisers of the French Open say, "No Serena, you can't compete because you're pregnant"? (Genuine question). It's her choice to work, and not anyone else's. Therefore it's discrimination because she's pregnant. Let's keep it on the sporting theme for a second. So it's discrimination that Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea or Bristol Rovers for that matter don't sign a GK whose disabled and in a Wheelchair? Course it isn't. It's suitability to the role. Would you or any other fan be happy if we actually did sign a GK that was in a Wheelchair? It's no different to any form of business C'mon let's get real. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Feb 3, 2021 17:32:08 GMT
Fair enough, thats your opinion. But legally speaking, it is. I'm not sure vacation being compared to maternity is from my scenario, but we'll move on. It does actually work both ways, its not specifically against women (although it tends to be), but if you had a man taking 6 months paternity then most likely he'd be discriminated against too. No one should be discriminated against because they're having a child, I'm sure we agree? What you're saying is they're picking a candidate due to the time off, rather than being pregnant - but the two come hand in hand. It's the equivalent of not hiring someone disabled being they're in a wheelchair and it isn't practical for you. You might be doing something thats practical for the business, but the reason they're in the wheelchair is because they're disabled - so they've been discriminated against, based on their disability - or back in our example, due to their pregnancy. Sporting is a different scenario as they're not on a work contract and probably not protected by employment law, but sure lets explore. If she wants to compete, she is more than welcome to do so, I doubt there was a rule that says she can't. The point is that if she wants to compete she should be allowed to. Do you think it's right that the organisers of the French Open say, "No Serena, you can't compete because you're pregnant"? (Genuine question). It's her choice to work, and not anyone else's. Therefore it's discrimination because she's pregnant. o it's discrimination that Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea or Bristol Rovers for that matter don't sign a GK whose disabled and in a Wheelchair? Course it isn't. It's suitability to the role. Would you or any other fan be happy if we actually did sign a GK that was in a Wheelchair? C'mon let's get real. I've noticed you haven't (couldn't?) debate the other points? Instead choosing rare and stupid scenarios as a basis for everything. I said sport works differently, everyone knows it. You're better than that. I think. EDIT: I see you've now edited the post. You actually think sports and business works the exact same? Christ. You've chosen a stupid scenario because you know that the others have shown you to be wrong. It would be good to enter actual debate, rather than silly made up areas. |
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Feb 3, 2021 17:40:29 GMT
o it's discrimination that Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea or Bristol Rovers for that matter don't sign a GK whose disabled and in a Wheelchair? Course it isn't. It's suitability to the role. Would you or any other fan be happy if we actually did sign a GK that was in a Wheelchair? C'mon let's get real. I've noticed you haven't (couldn't?) debate the other points? Instead choosing rare and stupid scenarios as a basis for everything. I said sport works differently, everyone knows it. You're better than that. I think. EDIT: I see you've now edited the post. You actually think sports and business works the exact same? Christ. You've chosen a stupid scenario because you know that the others have shown you to be wrong. It would be good to enter actual debate, rather than silly made up areas. I already have debated them with you. It was you that brought up the disabled scenario as well as the 30 year old male v pregnant woman one. I'm just using your logic to other scenarios just to show how absurd it actually is to claim it as discrimination. Not everything is discrimination, and sums up my point about modern day "Progressiveness" and "Liberalism" perfectly. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Feb 3, 2021 17:43:26 GMT
Just coming in on the back of this discussion, but don’t all the safeguards apply more to women who are already in work and then become pregnant and that is when the protection kicks in? If you're employed and take leave, then whilst the system still has flaws, yes you're definitely more protected. I have a good example actually for this. My partner is now off on maternity, she was employed at a company and they would have given her 10 weeks full maternity pay. I recommended her for a job at my company which was all handled online. She didn't legally have to tell them she was pregnant and thankfully because of Covid, no one knew. Would she have got the job though, if interviews were face to face? On top of that, she actually gave up her maternity pay by switching companies. When I was living abroad, maternity was paid by the state (and contributed to by the company) rather than purely on the company. Is it fair that a woman working her entire life had to give up maternity pay and go on statutory pay? Sure it was her choice, I'll admit that, but it was a tough scenario - stay in the job you don't like and receive more maternity pay, or go into a job you will love but receive next to nothing. When she eventually told them, she was actually really nervous and felt a bit of a cheat. Thankfully our company is very relaxed about these things and weren't bothered, they were happy for us. But the point is that she also shouldn't feel nervous about it, she did nothing wrong. She didn't do anything wrong by not telling them, but I'm pretty confident many women go through this issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Feb 3, 2021 17:46:53 GMT
I've noticed you haven't (couldn't?) debate the other points? Instead choosing rare and stupid scenarios as a basis for everything. I said sport works differently, everyone knows it. You're better than that. I think. EDIT: I see you've now edited the post. You actually think sports and business works the exact same? Christ. You've chosen a stupid scenario because you know that the others have shown you to be wrong. It would be good to enter actual debate, rather than silly made up areas. I already have debated them with you. It was you that brought up the disabled scenario as well as the 30 year old male v pregnant woman one. I'm just using your logic to other scenarios just to show how absurd it actually is to claim it as discrimination. Not everything is discrimination, and sums up my point about modern day "Progressiveness" and "Liberalism" perfectly. Oh ok, you just didn't reply to it and instead chose a made up scenario. I had never said about a wheelchair bound GK. You made that up and used that as your example on disability discrimination for everything. Do you think that makes sense? If you have something to debate on the Serena or man taking paternity, I'd love to hear it. Not everything is discrimination, I haven't said it is - so it doesn't back up any point. I'm saying that if you choose not to hire a woman because she's pregnant, you're discriminating against her and it's illegal. You can call that 'liberalism' all you want, but you're breaking the law. |
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Feb 3, 2021 18:03:28 GMT
I already have debated them with you. It was you that brought up the disabled scenario as well as the 30 year old male v pregnant woman one. I'm just using your logic to other scenarios just to show how absurd it actually is to claim it as discrimination. Not everything is discrimination, and sums up my point about modern day "Progressiveness" and "Liberalism" perfectly. Oh ok, you just didn't reply to it and instead chose a made up scenario. I had never said about a wheelchair bound GK. You made that up and used that as your example on disability discrimination for everything. Do you think that makes sense? If you have something to debate on the Serena or man taking paternity, I'd love to hear it. Not everything is discrimination, I haven't said it is - so it doesn't back up any point. I'm saying that if you choose not to hire a woman because she's pregnant, you're discriminating against her and it's illegal. You can call that 'liberalism' all you want, but you're breaking the law. So going back to your statement "It's the equivalent of not hiring someone disabled being they're in a wheelchair and it isn't practical for you. You might be doing something thats practical for the business, but the reason they're in the wheelchair is because they're disabled - so they've been discriminated against, based on their disability" So I'm using another scenario, imagine a Quadriplegic person, who hasn't got any use of their arms or legs, if an Airline doesn't hire them as a pilot, or a haulage company doesn't hire them as a HGV driver. It's discrimination and illegal? Cmon. Yeah, they maybe extreme, but it shows how absurd it is. I don't have an issue with men taking paternity. As for Serena Williams I believe she has already played in a Grand Slam while in the early stages of pregnancy, that's not an issue, but if she was due to give birth within days of a match, again its a completely different scenario. It wouldn't be discrimination. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Feb 3, 2021 18:15:29 GMT
Oh ok, you just didn't reply to it and instead chose a made up scenario. I had never said about a wheelchair bound GK. You made that up and used that as your example on disability discrimination for everything. Do you think that makes sense? If you have something to debate on the Serena or man taking paternity, I'd love to hear it. Not everything is discrimination, I haven't said it is - so it doesn't back up any point. I'm saying that if you choose not to hire a woman because she's pregnant, you're discriminating against her and it's illegal. You can call that 'liberalism' all you want, but you're breaking the law. So going back to your statement "It's the equivalent of not hiring someone disabled being they're in a wheelchair and it isn't practical for you. You might be doing something thats practical for the business, but the reason they're in the wheelchair is because they're disabled - so they've been discriminated against, based on their disability" So I'm using another scenario, imagine a Quadriplegic person, who hasn't got any use of their arms or legs, if an Airline doesn't hire them as a pilot, or a haulage company doesn't hire them as a HGV driver. It's discrimination and illegal? Cmon. Yeah, they maybe extreme, but it shows how absurd it is. I don't have an issue with men taking paternity. As for Serena Williams I believe she has already played in a Grand Slam while in the early stages of pregnancy, that's not an issue, but if she was due to give birth within days of a match, again its a completely different scenario. It wouldn't be discrimination. If you had prosthetic arms & legs and could do the job as a HGV driver, then yes it's illegal. There is a difference between ability to do a job and not picking someone because they're disabled. This really isn't a complex issue to understand, I'm not sure why it is for you? "The ADA only prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. It makes it unlawful to refuse to hire a qualified applicant with a disability because he is disabled or because a reasonable accommodation is required to make it possible for this person to perform essential job functions". If they can't do the job functions then not hiring them isn't discriminating against them. If they can do the job function and you choose not to hire them because of their disability, then yes it is illegal. It's not hard to understand? I suggest you do some reading on the subject, Gastafari. You can do some here, www.gov.uk/government/publications/employing-disabled-people-and-people-with-health-conditions/employing-disabled-people-and-people-with-health-conditionsThere's a whole section on disability discrimination for you. If Serena was due to give birth in days and she wanted to play, then so be it. She'll lose though. But if the tournament organisers said to her "no you cant play because you're pregnant" then yes - it's discrimination. None of this is 'liberalism'. It's called the law. This isnt a dig, but I can only assume you haven't been a hiring manager before? I've had a lot of training on this subject in previous companies and roles. |
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Feb 3, 2021 18:23:00 GMT
So going back to your statement "It's the equivalent of not hiring someone disabled being they're in a wheelchair and it isn't practical for you. You might be doing something thats practical for the business, but the reason they're in the wheelchair is because they're disabled - so they've been discriminated against, based on their disability" So I'm using another scenario, imagine a Quadriplegic person, who hasn't got any use of their arms or legs, if an Airline doesn't hire them as a pilot, or a haulage company doesn't hire them as a HGV driver. It's discrimination and illegal? Cmon. Yeah, they maybe extreme, but it shows how absurd it is. I don't have an issue with men taking paternity. As for Serena Williams I believe she has already played in a Grand Slam while in the early stages of pregnancy, that's not an issue, but if she was due to give birth within days of a match, again its a completely different scenario. It wouldn't be discrimination. If you had prosthetic arms & legs and could do the job as a HGV driver, then yes it's illegal. There is a difference between ability to do a job and now picking someone because they're disabled. This really isn't a complex issue to understand, I'm not sure why it is for you? "The ADA only prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. It makes it unlawful to refuse to hire a qualified applicant with a disability because he is disabled or because a reasonable accommodation is required to make it possible for this person to perform essential job functions". If they can't do the job functions then not hiring them isn't discriminating against them. If they can do the job function and you choose not to hire them because of their disability, then yes it is illegal. It's not hard to understand? I suggest you do some reading on the subject, Gastafari. You can do some here, www.gov.uk/government/publications/employing-disabled-people-and-people-with-health-conditions/employing-disabled-people-and-people-with-health-conditionsThere's a whole section on disability discrimination for you. If Serena was due to give birth in days and she wanted to play, then so be it. She'll lose though. But if the tournament organisers said to her "no you cant play because you're pregnant" then yes - it's discrimination. None of this is 'liberalism'. It's called the law. This isnt a dig, but I can only assume you haven't been a hiring manager before? I've had a lot of training on this subject in previous companies and roles. Christ. Just like I said, there's a difference between discrimination and suitability to the role, right at the start of the discussion on this subject. We even agreed on it. For christ sake. You brought up the disabled scenario, so I've just put them in other scenarios, whether it be sport or otherwise to see how absurd it is. I know full well what the laws are 🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Feb 3, 2021 18:31:04 GMT
If you had prosthetic arms & legs and could do the job as a HGV driver, then yes it's illegal. There is a difference between ability to do a job and now picking someone because they're disabled. This really isn't a complex issue to understand, I'm not sure why it is for you? "The ADA only prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. It makes it unlawful to refuse to hire a qualified applicant with a disability because he is disabled or because a reasonable accommodation is required to make it possible for this person to perform essential job functions". If they can't do the job functions then not hiring them isn't discriminating against them. If they can do the job function and you choose not to hire them because of their disability, then yes it is illegal. It's not hard to understand? I suggest you do some reading on the subject, Gastafari. You can do some here, www.gov.uk/government/publications/employing-disabled-people-and-people-with-health-conditions/employing-disabled-people-and-people-with-health-conditionsThere's a whole section on disability discrimination for you. If Serena was due to give birth in days and she wanted to play, then so be it. She'll lose though. But if the tournament organisers said to her "no you cant play because you're pregnant" then yes - it's discrimination. None of this is 'liberalism'. It's called the law. This isnt a dig, but I can only assume you haven't been a hiring manager before? I've had a lot of training on this subject in previous companies and roles. Christ. Just like I said, there's a difference between discrimination and suitability to the role, right at the start of the discussion on this subject. We even agreed on it. For christ sake. You brought up the disabled scenario, so I've just put them in other scenarios, whether it be sport or otherwise to see how absurd it is. I know full well what the laws are 🤣 So then why are you making up scenarios about sports & other roles that I've never argued for, and suggested I believe it's discrimination? You've made up a lot of scenarios and tried to suggest they're my view - why? I'd suggest you don't know full well what the laws are, considering you don't think its discrimination to not hire a woman because she's pregnant. What was it you said, 'good business sense'? |
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Feb 3, 2021 18:49:11 GMT
Christ. Just like I said, there's a difference between discrimination and suitability to the role, right at the start of the discussion on this subject. We even agreed on it. For christ sake. You brought up the disabled scenario, so I've just put them in other scenarios, whether it be sport or otherwise to see how absurd it is. I know full well what the laws are 🤣 So then why are you making up scenarios about sports & other roles that I've never argued for, and suggested I believe it's discrimination? You've made up a lot of scenarios and tried to suggest they're my view - why? I'd suggest you don't know full well what the laws are, considering you don't think its discrimination to not hire a woman because she's pregnant. What was it you said, 'good business sense'? I'm making them up because it shows how absurd it is, that you're mentioning certain things as discrimination. You stated "As an example, if you were choosing a candidate between a pregnant lady vs a 30 year old man - i’d put my neck on the line that 99% of times the man will be hired. The only way he wouldn’t was if the woman was 100000x better" I then stated "On the point of a pregnant woman v 30 year old male, it could just be the fact that the majority of women, take maternity leave for sustained periods of time, I dont have the exact figures but im sure the amount of women who take maternity leave far outweighs the men taking paternity, so taking that into account, hiring a pregnant woman whose going to be away from work for a year/18 months/2 years or whatever comes into the consideration" So there you have it, it's not just the fact they're pregnant,there's other factors in it, and as I said, which we both agreed on it's hard to prove whether it's just because they're pregnant. The other factors come into it, which goes back to suitability to the role and also depending on what the role is. I didn't say anything about good business sense. I did say it would make bad business sense to employ somebody if they're not going to be able to do the role they've been employed to do for a substantial amount of time, however. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Feb 3, 2021 19:31:13 GMT
So then why are you making up scenarios about sports & other roles that I've never argued for, and suggested I believe it's discrimination? You've made up a lot of scenarios and tried to suggest they're my view - why? I'd suggest you don't know full well what the laws are, considering you don't think its discrimination to not hire a woman because she's pregnant. What was it you said, 'good business sense'? I'm making them up because it shows how absurd it is, that you're mentioning certain things as discrimination. You stated "As an example, if you were choosing a candidate between a pregnant lady vs a 30 year old man - i’d put my neck on the line that 99% of times the man will be hired. The only way he wouldn’t was if the woman was 100000x better" I then stated "On the point of a pregnant woman v 30 year old male, it could just be the fact that the majority of women, take maternity leave for sustained periods of time, I dont have the exact figures but im sure the amount of women who take maternity leave far outweighs the men taking paternity, so taking that into account, hiring a pregnant woman whose going to be away from work for a year/18 months/2 years or whatever comes into the consideration" So there you have it, it's not just the fact they're pregnant,there's other factors in it, and as I said, which we both agreed on it's hard to prove whether it's just because they're pregnant. The other factors come into it, which goes back to suitability to the role and also depending on what the role is. I didn't say anything about good business sense. I did say it would make bad business sense to employ somebody if they're not going to be able to do the role they've been employed to do for a substantial amount of time, however. So what points did I say that were absurd? And what you're saying is that a pregnant woman taking time off should not be selected for a role because she is taking time off because she's pregnant. You say you know the law, but if you did that, you'd be breaking it. That is a fact. It doesn't matter how you try and rephrase it, you're discriminating against her because she is going to have a baby. As it comes to it, I totally understand why you'd do it. But it still doesn't change the fact that its illegal and the system isnt good enough at protecting people from discrimination. |
|
