HiFi Subjectivist ¦ Audio Forum ¦ NVA User Group

savvypaul wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 12:36 pm

zebbo wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 12:31 pm Placing any defined percentage on employment applications is wrong plain and simple.

If you want to address an imbalance in the diversity of your workforce then it appears to be an entirely logical thing to do...

What's an imbalance in your workforce if everyone got their job on merit?

zebbo wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:06 pm

savvypaul wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 12:36 pm

zebbo wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 12:31 pm Placing any defined percentage on employment applications is wrong plain and simple.

If you want to address an imbalance in the diversity of your workforce then it appears to be an entirely logical thing to do...

What's an imbalance in your workforce if everyone got their job on merit?

If you want your workforce to mirror the diversity of society then an imbalance is when it does not do that...

What's an imbalance in your workforce if everyone got their job on merit?

Well, lets say (for example) just pick the person with best exam results. So make a comparison between someone from a poor comprehensive from a deprived area and someone with private tuition and fee paying schooling. Do you think that would create an equal workforce that mirrors society?

Lurcher300b wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:32 pm

What's an imbalance in your workforce if everyone got their job on merit?

Well, lets say (for example) just pick the person with best exam results. So make a comparison between someone from a poor comprehensive from a deprived area and someone with private tuition and fee paying schooling. Do you think that would create an equal workforce that mirrors society?

If they both meet the essential criteria for the role, then 70% of the time (using the BBC example) you would be appointing the person from the lower socio-economic background.

If your point is that the person from a poor comprehensive in a deprived area is less likely to have had the opportunity and support to enable them to meet the criteria of the role...I agree. That also needs to be addressed, obviously.

IF they both meet the required criteria then fine, take whichever. However, my point is that, to get 10 successful applicants 2 may well have been discriminated against for NOT being from a deprived background and that's acceptable is it?

My point was that a simplistic view like "everyone got their job on merit" will fail to redress larger scale discrimination, so in some cases positive discrimination is needed and justified.

zebbo wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:53 pm IF they both meet the required criteria then fine, take whichever. However, my point is that, to get 10 successful applicants 2 may well have been discriminated against for NOT being from a deprived background and that's acceptable is it?

If the goal is to create a fair and equal society then yes I think it is.

Lurcher300b wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:54 pm My point was that a simplistic view like "everyone got their job on merit" will fail to redress larger scale discrimination, so in some cases positive discrimination is needed and justified.

I'm always getting the wrong end of the stick...at least I'm consistent.

PS. I agree...

Lurcher300b wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:56 pm

zebbo wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:53 pm IF they both meet the required criteria then fine, take whichever. However, my point is that, to get 10 successful applicants 2 may well have been discriminated against for NOT being from a deprived background and that's acceptable is it?

If the goal is to create a fair and equal society then yes I think it is.

I agree...again.

At least I'm consistent.

Sorry, I'm afraid that's bollocks - again!
Discrimination is discrimination end of. For the record, I am from a council estate and attended a far from perfect comprehensive.