[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

See, I dont understand this, the same as I dont understand the 'equality in the workplace' stuff, they say ethnicity doesn't matter, yet they ask on interview forms if you are british/African/chinese or whatever...why? If it doesnt matter?

Anyway, the best person for the job, should get the job simple as. I dont care if the workplace is filled with purple people...a purple person goes for a job, and a green person goes for a job, the purple happens to be more qualified. Is there any reason why the green person should get the job, just because greens are under-represented? and I purposely used dodgy colours...otherwise whichever way I put it would cause arguments...

Its the same principle though. Whoever is best for the job, should get it, simple...or you would think so

The questions about ethnicity should now be on a separate form from the job application and are actually only monitored for statistical purposes in just about all jobs. Unfortunately they are now a legal requirement.

In some areas of the public sector they are used to ensure a certain percentage of ethnic minorities are pushed through the initial screening. This is actually an illegal practice which is overlooked because of the imposed requirements set by Europe and Westminster.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Shasown

The questions about ethnicity should now be on a separate form from the job application and are actually only monitored for statistical purposes in just about all jobs. Unfortunately they are now a legal requirement.

In some areas of the public sector they are used to ensure a certain percentage of ethnic minorities are pushed through the initial screening. This is actually an illegal practice which is overlooked because of the imposed requirements set by Europe and Westminster.

Exactly right. So called "positive" discrimination, is still "discrimination" whichever way people want to dress it up.

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by angus58

Exactly right. So called "positive" discrimination, is still "discrimination" whichever way people want to dress it up.

I can't help but notice this anti-discrimination discrimination is discriminatory far too often.
Example:
I have NEVER seen anyone using these race laws to go through (for example) Channel 4 and determine a disproportionate number of Jews holding positions and higher positions and making (on average) a much higher pay rate than (for example) Irish Catholics.

Never saw a University using these to determine a disproportionate number of their Professors were Jews compared to the general population.

In the same ways I never once saw these 'enforcers' getting into the Chinese Restaurant business and questioning why almost EVERY employee from top to bottom is Chinese ethnicity??

Look, I don't know why so many White Anglican type of people love being in my Insurance company and why that business attracts them or why they are so good at it,
but,
in a real way I do not care AS LONG as they are there because they were the best at their jobs. The free market can sort that out very quickly,
and,
likewise I don't really know why all the people in my local Punjabi restaurant are Indians and *****,
but,
all I know is they are there because they are good at it and so be it.

I don't need some creepy Big Brother sorting people into ethnic categories and going in there forcing them to fire Indians and hire a white guy to make some stupid 'race assignment list'.

Geez UK.. when is enough enough with this absolutely creepy PC Orwellian ultra-leftist Lennonist (that is correct) society already?
Knock it off!