+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 29 of 29
General Chat Thread, Harman pushes discrimination plan in General; I once worked in a office where I was the only male, with 15 women..... never again..... My experience was ...
  1. #16
    StewartKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,587
    Thank Post
    2
    Thanked 27 Times in 21 Posts
    Rep Power
    30
    I once worked in a office where I was the only male, with 15 women.....
    never again.....

    My experience was that too many women working together is an object lesson in bitchyness!

    The things they thought they could say to me was appauling! (nothing sexual)

    I'm all for mixed equality!!!

  2. #17
    somabc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,337
    Thank Post
    83
    Thanked 388 Times in 258 Posts
    Rep Power
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by srochford View Post
    No - Harriet Harman talked about insurance this morning. Basically, if a company can show that there is increased risk for a particular group of people then they can charge on that basis. Young drivers statistically have more accidents than older drivers (and the accidents are more expensive) so will continue to pay more for insurance.
    But another example was over 70s could not get travel insurance and this law would enable them to buy that insurance.

    Surely it is statistically more likely that over 70s will get ill, die etc. on holiday so could the insurance companies use the rules you mentioned above to get out of that?

  3. #18
    cookie_monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    4,207
    Thank Post
    394
    Thanked 278 Times in 239 Posts
    Rep Power
    74
    @somabc: well that's ok then as i said it's not very clear, certainly from the BBC article. I'm still not sure about positive discrimination it was supposedly a massive failure in the U.S and Canada so why should it work here.

  4. #19

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,157
    Thank Post
    116
    Thanked 529 Times in 452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    124
    Suppose that you have 2 people doing the same job (eg IT technician); one works (say) 10-3, term time only and the other works 9-5 all year. These jobs could be pretty much identical and so you might expect the hourly rate to be the same. I'm guessing that's the point that's being made (but perhaps badly!)

    Just because someone is working part-time does not mean that they should be paid a different amount but at the moment it looks as if women doing the same job as men (but part time) are paid less *per hour* than the men (and I suspect that it discriminates more against women because more women work part time)

  5. #20
    somabc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,337
    Thank Post
    83
    Thanked 388 Times in 258 Posts
    Rep Power
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by srochford View Post
    Suppose that you have 2 people doing the same job (eg IT technician); one works (say) 10-3, term time only and the other works 9-5 all year. These jobs could be pretty much identical and so you might expect the hourly rate to be the same. I'm guessing that's the point that's being made (but perhaps badly!)

    Just because someone is working part-time does not mean that they should be paid a different amount but at the moment it looks as if women doing the same job as men (but part time) are paid less *per hour* than the men (and I suspect that it discriminates more against women because more women work part time)
    Thats it exactly. Its the same idea as job evaluation where a dinner lady should get the same hourly rate as road worker. I propose we solve the problem by banning part time work or even better banning full time work!

  6. #21
    flyinghaggis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,037
    Thank Post
    104
    Thanked 76 Times in 59 Posts
    Rep Power
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by somabc View Post
    But another example was over 70s could not get travel insurance and this law would enable them to buy that insurance.

    Surely it is statistically more likely that over 70s will get ill, die etc. on holiday so could the insurance companies use the rules you mentioned above to get out of that?
    Insurance companies are about the only folks who can legally 'discriminate'. They're allowed to do this because they take their figues from averages and statistics which can prove the reason they've charging "person A" more than "person B" which alledgedly 'proves' they not discriminating.
    It's a slightly dubious practive but I can see the reasoning behind why they're allowed to do it in most instances.

  7. #22

    ZeroHour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    5,647
    Thank Post
    932
    Thanked 1,342 Times in 820 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    449
    To say the least the parts with regards to discrimination are mad. Why does the sex of the candidate matter at all. Why do you have to balance a department at all. Surely if you are fair then the correct person got the job, not the correct sex. I know it happens but this will create a very unfair ethic of being allowed to discriminate if you can think of a good enough reason.
    There are a few exceptions but otherwise I think this reverse discrimination should be removed as being barking mad.

    The disclosing pay part as well I think would cause huge problems. The tories idea of only applying this to companies found to discriminate is much fairer and is less like to cause large problems in companies. People will try to attribute pay differences purely on the basis of sex and not of skill/work ethic.

    People need to realise not all jobs are truly part time compatible. An employer needs someone full-time for the job and hires a woman who then has children and moves to part time. The employer must then try and find someone other then a temp to take the drags of the hours she can not work for. This is not good as the company suffers for the lack of cover. This is when a boss could then try and find a excuse-of-sorts to hire a man in the role and then we are set back decades in equality.

    There is no excuse for discrimination in any form and to make exceptions and increase the scope for it is wrong, it already happens and its not caught often and now they will let you have a get out clause.

  8. #23

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,157
    Thank Post
    116
    Thanked 529 Times in 452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by flyinghaggis View Post
    Insurance companies are about the only folks who can legally 'discriminate'. They're allowed to do this because they take their figues from averages and statistics which can prove the reason they've charging "person A" more than "person B" which alledgedly 'proves' they not discriminating.
    It's a slightly dubious practive but I can see the reasoning behind why they're allowed to do it in most instances.
    What I think is suggested is that they should be more open about what they are doing and also less "broad brush" - for example, if you're over 70 (I think) travel insurance is almost impossible to buy. That makes no sense when many people are living beyond 90 but to say "if you're over 70 with a history of heart disease then you can't have insurance" is more reasonable.

  9. #24

    witch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Dorset
    Posts
    11,062
    Thank Post
    1,426
    Thanked 2,455 Times in 1,716 Posts
    Rep Power
    718
    Quote Originally Posted by ZeroHour View Post

    People need to realise not all jobs are truly part time compatible. An employer needs someone full-time for the job and hires a woman who then has children and moves to part time. The employer must then try and find someone other then a temp to take the drags of the hours she can not work for. This is not good as the company suffers for the lack of cover. This is when a boss could then try and find a excuse-of-sorts to hire a man in the role and then we are set back decades in equality.

    There is no excuse for discrimination in any form and to make exceptions and increase the scope for it is wrong, it already happens and its not caught often and now they will let you have a get out clause.
    Whilst I agree that some jobs are not part-time compatible I would point out that with a bit of effort, most can be - there are many more 'job-shares' out there now than there was before.
    I am also concerned that it is still presumed that it wil be a woman who 'has children and moves to part-time'. THIS is the thing that needs to change - more and more men are either becoming the primary carer of children or sharing care with their partner, both working part-time.If this is recognised this will help to cut discrimination in pay and conditions.
    As for part-timers getting paid less than full timers - I think it mostly applies to 'unskilled work' such as cleaners
    Although - I have never seen a full time tech job posted up that pays only the amount my job would pay if I did it full time- it is always a bit more - so perhaps that indicates a bit of 'part-time' discrimination

  10. #25
    cookie_monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    4,207
    Thank Post
    394
    Thanked 278 Times in 239 Posts
    Rep Power
    74
    I'm hoping as paternity leave is becoming longer now and the male could take months off to be the primary carer while the femail returns to work that things will 'start' to change. I'm planning on going the whole hog and just having the baby my self as well

    Interestingly (slightly off topic) the new meternity/paternity laws are self cert so no one checks how much of the entitlement you each take so you could pull a fast one and overlap by a couple of weeks
    Last edited by cookie_monster; 26th June 2008 at 08:40 PM.

  11. #26
    torledo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,928
    Thank Post
    168
    Thanked 155 Times in 126 Posts
    Rep Power
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by witch View Post
    I am also concerned that it is still presumed that it wil be a woman who 'has children and moves to part-time'. THIS is the thing that needs to change - more and more men are either becoming the primary carer of children or sharing care with their partner
    ah yes, nu labours 'men in pinnies'.....wonder if that's what blair and co. were thinking of when they talked about bringing democracy to iraq and other despot ruled far flung parts of the world.......give every iraqi man the opportunity to wear a frock and work part-time, just like us.

  12. #27

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Kendal, Cumbria
    Posts
    605
    Thank Post
    57
    Thanked 67 Times in 44 Posts
    Rep Power
    40
    ........... any woman who seeks equality with men ................









    .........................









    ......................


    lacks ambition!!!!!!

  13. #28
    duncane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dewsbury, West Yorkshire
    Posts
    156
    Thank Post
    66
    Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
    Rep Power
    17
    "The equalities minister said firms should be able to choose a woman over a man of equal ability if they wanted to"
    To me, the important bit there is the phrase "of equal abilitity", which means that you would pick the best candidate, but if there was no overall winner, it would be legal to choose on the basis of gender if it could be justified.

  14. #29
    somabc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,337
    Thank Post
    83
    Thanked 388 Times in 258 Posts
    Rep Power
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by duncane View Post
    To me, the important bit there is the phrase "of equal abilitity", which means that you would pick the best candidate, but if there was no overall winner, it would be legal to choose on the basis of gender if it could be justified.
    I foresee a lot of lawsuits over whether candidates were of "equal ablilty", surely that is a pretty subjective term.

    When you go for an interview will they be honest with you and say "I'm sorry Mr Smith, you were qualified to do the job and you interviewed well, but we gave the job to a black lesbian blind deaf jewish transexual who had similar qualifications and experience to you"

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 13th June 2008, 10:50 PM
  2. What do you think of this plan?
    By gshaw in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 9th May 2008, 12:58 PM
  3. The backup plan
    By kerrymoralee9280 in forum How do you do....it?
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 14th March 2008, 10:34 PM
  4. Development Plan
    By Wibbles in forum School ICT Policies
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 23rd May 2007, 08:59 AM
  5. ICT development plan
    By ranj in forum School ICT Policies
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 28th November 2006, 01:50 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •