Harman pushes discrimination plan

[cookie_monster]

BBC NEWS | Politics | Harman pushes discrimination plan

 

"The equalities minister said firms should be able to choose a woman over a man of equal ability if they wanted to"

 

Can't this work both ways?

 

 

"We've got a new post coming up, we've got equally qualified men and women going for it, we are going to pick the woman because we want to have a more balanced top team."

 

Surely that must work the same in reverse. I know people who work in HR and say allot of HR teams are all female, they can't just hire a male to balance the team due to discrimination issues.

 

 

This is just common sence in my oppinion, if a company has a good case for wanting a male or female then they should be able to do it. Not quite sure why this law has to be slanted in favour of women, what's needed is a bigger push for equality.

 

 

What you all think?

Edited June 26, 2008 by cookie_monster

[Hightower]

I think equality is mental.

 

People who have worked for the LEA for a few years here get a maximum of 31 days (or even 32 days holidays) where as new starters can only achieve 27 (I think).

 

That's a whole 4 days difference between new starters and older employee's. It's outragious, and the council are one of the biggest culprits for it.

 

Where my Dad works (council, but not saying where) they took out the kitchen and turned it into a prayer room!

[cookie_monster]

I don't have a problem with equality, it's the creation of a law that will allow discrimination against a group that i find shocking.

[Gatt]

Which means that people will now get turned down for a job so that they can meet their "equality" targets...

[cookie_monster]

What she seems to be saying is that you could legaly hire a woman into an all male team over male candidates just for that reason but you couldn't hire a male into an all female team for that reason only. So yes i suppose you're right there.

 

I'm sorry but promoting equality through inequality is absolutly barking

Edited June 26, 2008 by cookie_monster

[Gatt]

which in itself is discriminatory against male employees ...

[davyboi]

Age discrimination will also be outlawed in the provision of goods and services, such as holidays and insurance

 

hmm so does that mean insurance companies wont be allowed to charge hundreds of pounds extra because a driver is only 19?

[cookie_monster]

I'm also confused by this statement

 

Female part-time workers still earned 40% less per hour than their full-time male counterparts

 

Why not compare part-time female workers with part-time male workers? Or full-time female workers with full-time male workers?

[TechMonkey]

This is the problem, when they want equality they mean their version of equality which means picking the people they want you to hire. Was reading about the police entrance requirements and found out we are one of the few countries who don't require a proper fitness test to enter. Apparently it was scrapped as it reduced the numbers they could choose from for equality!? Go figure

[torledo]

I'm also confused by this statement

 

 

 

Why not compare part-time female workers with part-time male workers? Or full-time female workers with full-time male workers?

 

yeah, i too found that statement a bit bizarre.......but i do understand the point being made by the govt. and campaigners . I fully appreciate that women do feel a certain amount of discrimination in terms of pay and career progression if they opt or part-time work due to family commitment, AND that they can often accomplish as much, if not more, during their part-time hours than colleagues who do the same role full-time becuase they are more focused.....

 

unfortunately the words part-time and low paid are inextricably linked in this country as are the words working mom and part-time admin....the idea of going home at 3:00 pm every day and having fridays off may not be a big deal to our continental cousins....but here, for some reason it's regarded as being a bit of a lightweight and the pay reflects the status of part-timers, and the general view that the (predomaintly female) part-time workforce are not serious about their careers - which is ofcours balony... I believe this attitude has to change, as should the attitude toward pro-rata/term-time emplotees...we must regard and treat pro-rate and part-time employees as professionals, but some jobs just cannot be done part-time and these full-time workers should have this fact acknowledged in improved pay and acknowledgement of duties commensarate with the role which are undertaken outside of the already hectic full-time working week. hint hint.

 

The legislation will cover reverse-postivie-discrimination...so a headteacher in a primary picking a male candidate over an equally qualfied female candidate to address any gender imbalance for instance.

 

There's really nothing to worry about with this legislation...the mail and express have already seized on it as emanciating the white-working class male...but in practice the legislation will do nothing of the sort. I'm sad that we need legislation such as this, and i truly belive in our industry we don't need it, but it's something that has to be done overall.

Edited June 26, 2008 by torledo

[cookie_monster]

I'll be interested to see the legislation on reverse-postivie-discrimination, this quote makes her intentions unclear though i'm sure that probably down to poor reporting.

 

"We've got a new post coming up, we've got equally qualified men and women going for it, we are going to pick the woman because we want to have a more balanced top team."

 

I'm still not a fan of everyone having to reveal their salary 'but' there could be a system where jobs are compared and any massive salary difference for similar roles are flagged and queried. These problems could then be addresses during company audits.

[srochford]

hmm so does that mean insurance companies wont be allowed to charge hundreds of pounds extra because a driver is only 19?

 

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.

[GrumbleDook]

This is the problem, when they want equality they mean their version of equality which means picking the people they want you to hire. Was reading about the police entrance requirements and found out we are one of the few countries who don't require a proper fitness test to enter. Apparently it was scrapped as it reduced the numbers they could choose from for equality!? Go figure

 

 

 

Posted via Mobile DeviceThe idea behind thi is that most people that pass the basic stage of selection can be trained up to a decent standard of fitness. Fitness has gone from police selection due to the growing lack of 'running criminals down' since they are in cars rather than being on foot, etc.

[MK-2]

we are one of the few countries who don't require a proper fitness test to enter.

 

 

who needs a fitness test to sit at the side of the road with a speed camera?

 

[somabc]

BBC NEWS | Politics | Harman pushes discrimination plan

 

 

 

Can't this work both ways?

 

 

 

 

Surely that must work the same in reverse. I know people who work in HR and say allot of HR teams are all female, they can't just hire a male to balance the team due to discrimination issues.

 

 

This is just common sence in my oppinion, if a company has a good case for wanting a male or female then they should be able to do it. Not quite sure why this law has to be slanted in favour of women, what's needed is a bigger push for equality.

 

 

What you all think?

 

It could work in reverse. On the news this morning the example given was where Male primary school teachers will be hired over Female primary school teachers.

[StewartKnight]

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!!!

[somabc]

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?

[cookie_monster]

@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.

[srochford]

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)

[somabc]

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!

[flyinghaggis]

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.

[ZeroHour]

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.

[srochford]

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.

[witch]

 

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

[cookie_monster]

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

Edited June 26, 2008 by cookie_monster