Fostering Discrimination

[Lonan3]

IE; Bricklayers Labourer needed. Ideally a young, fit , man or woman. Must be prepared to work stripped to the waist in hot weather.

And that (probably) narrows it down a bit further.

[BigDave]

They will employ who they want to anyway - so if they want someone young why not just say so and save getting all the oldies hopes up?

[Albert Tatlock]

In my experience as a contractor etc. 'young' stated in most job adverts usually means 'crap pay, working for someone in their late 20s and willing to be moulded'.

 

In the media business there is a glut (or is it a git?) of 'qualified' people, so they will get a lot of people applying for this particular role anyway.

[Pragmatopian]

A meritocracy tends to be the most productive state of affairs. I don't care about someone's sex, race, religion, age or disability as long as they are able to do the job better than anyone else who has applied and on the terms I can offer.

 

I'm happy to accept that the law should prevent me from dissuading applications or dismissing applications out of hand on the basis of some arbitrary prejudice. I'm less comfortable with the extent that employment and discrimination law goes to force me to make concessions that it should be at my discretion to make. Maternity and paternity leave are the big ones that spring to mind - I'm happy to employ parents or prospective parents provided they are good at their jobs and can work to my terms, yet the law makes it disadvantageous for me to employ them.

[Declan]

I don't mind laws being brought in that create a level playing field for young and old.

 

But what worries me is that potential employees might not be able to discriminate between jobs before applying. It is bad enough the Government wasting people's time by advertising jobs, which mysteriously get offered to internal candidates, without being unable to tell if a job is an office junior or one that requires years of experience that I don't have.

[Manxman In Exile]

Surely, its a companies own business how they decide to advertise a job?

 

Not in the UK, it isn't.

 

The new age discrimination legislation introduced on 1 October means that not only is it illegal for companies to state an age range in an ad, but they may not even infer it (using words like "energetic", "mature" or even "responsible" could lead to prosecution).

 

Nor may they specify a level of experience required in an ad, or use this as a criterion for shortlisting and selection. In theory, this is because older people may perfectly complement a young team, or very young executives may have leadership skills well beyond their years. In practice, it will mean 59 year olds applying to work at New Look and 22 year olds applying to be the Chief Executive of ICI - and both parties being prepared to have recourse to law if their applications are not taken seriously.

 

Sadly, since the current trend seems to be for Tynwald to adapt UK legislation, we will almost inevitably end up with the same restrictions here at some point.

 

 

Yes, but this isn't the UK.

[Politician]

Surely, its a companies own business how they decide to advertise a job?

 

Not in the UK, it isn't.

 

The new age discrimination legislation introduced on 1 October means that not only is it illegal for companies to state an age range in an ad, but they may not even infer it (using words like "energetic", "mature" or even "responsible" could lead to prosecution).

 

Nor may they specify a level of experience required in an ad, or use this as a criterion for shortlisting and selection. In theory, this is because older people may perfectly complement a young team, or very young executives may have leadership skills well beyond their years. In practice, it will mean 59 year olds applying to work at New Look and 22 year olds applying to be the Chief Executive of ICI - and both parties being prepared to have recourse to law if their applications are not taken seriously.

 

Sadly, since the current trend seems to be for Tynwald to adapt UK legislation, we will almost inevitably end up with the same restrictions here at some point.

 

Yes, but this isn't the UK.

 

Yes, I know. I was making a comparison (or possibly a prophecy, as quite a bit of the UK's legislation does eventually seem to get implemented by Tynwald with only minor amendments).

[Juan Kerr]

I need a new job. Is 34 young???

 

You know the answer. Don't embarrass yourself!!!!!

[Cholmondley-Warner]

I have a simple way off how I give, or not give, people jobs.

 

They arrive, I ask them questions.

 

They ask me questions.

 

Different papers are passed between each other. I cross check things on their papers as, experiance, jobs done and references and such.

 

I use common sense and give the job to the best i think will be a benefit to me and the company or companies.

 

I don't need some fuckwit law to tell me that i've posted the job wrong or some arsesole who never got the job , to give me a hard time. ( does that ring bells Copycat , not that i've ever offered you a job ).

 

In saying that , if, I had to post a job, I would be inclined to post the job in a way as to not cuase offence.

 

IE; Bricklayers Labourer needed. Ideally a young, fit , man or woman.

 

How many 50 yrs old would you think would apply for that, Copycat?

 

Yet you imply that is against the law. Bollox.

 

Sorry, but i'll still employ people for the 3 companies I have, untill some useless arsehole sues me and then i'll retire.

 

IMO, if you're good enough for the job you, MIGHT, get it.

 

If you're not lucky at that time, you re-apply for that job and you should get something.

 

Quality counts in my book, I'm not there to Employ people who think they have the right to a job.

 

They have to earn that right.

 

I will give the job, or a job, to the person who rightly deserves it. No more, no less.

 

Mostly agree with you, but someone who could spell and punctuate would definitely be top of my shortlist - sorry just back from the pub!

[Grumble]

The world is going fucking mad.

 

Or is it just me who can't understand how it is that an employer these days can't specify the kind of person they want for a position? Greenlight is a dynamic company with a young and energetic staff who work crazy hours to meet impossible deadlines - the last thing they need is some retired Rediffusion duffer who still thinks 2" Quad VT is state of the art...so why should they waste time having ANYONE bother applying who doesn't fit in with their 'model' new hire? It's THEIR money, their company, THEIR choice. Making it clear what they're looking for from the outset saves everybody a lot of time and wasted effort.

 

And remember, this is from some old duffer who is MOST likely to be the kind of person discriminated against!

[willstain]

The world is going fucking mad.

 

Or is it just me who can't understand how it is that an employer these days can't specify the kind of person they want for a position? Greenlight is a dynamic company with a young and energetic staff who work crazy hours to meet impossible deadlines -

 

 

In the 50's in the UK there used to be signs for rooms to let with the addition:

No Blacks, no Irish, no dogs

[Albert Tatlock]

In the 50's in the UK there used to be signs for rooms to let with the addition:

No Blacks, no Irish, no dogs

Small wonder my black irish wolfhound looks so depressed.

 

[Grumble]

In the 50's in the UK there used to be signs for rooms to let with the addition:

No Blacks, no Irish, no dogs

 

And if you were renting rooms, would you necessarily want some mutt shiting all over it and infesting it with fleas? People still advertise here for 'no pets, no kids, no smokers', and whilst that discriminates against ME I think it's absolutely their right.

 

Used to be that discrimination was something to be applauded - having a 'discriminating palate' etc. What all this PC bollocks does is waste the time of the people it's designed to protect - the black man is no more likely to get those rooms now than he was in 1950, it's just that he has to go through the charade of having his application 'considered'.

[Pragmatopian]

In the 50's in the UK there used to be signs for rooms to let with the addition:

No Blacks, no Irish, no dogs

 

And if you were renting rooms, would you necessarily want some mutt shiting all over it and infesting it with fleas? People still advertise here for 'no pets, no kids, no smokers', and whilst that discriminates against ME I think it's absolutely their right.

 

Used to be that discrimination was something to be applauded - having a 'discriminating palate' etc. What all this PC bollocks does is waste the time of the people it's designed to protect - the black man is no more likely to get those rooms now than he was in 1950, it's just that he has to go through the charade of having his application 'considered'.

 

I think there's a difference between allowing an employer to discriminate (in the wider sense of the word) based on a candidate's abilities and to discriminate (in the most common modern interpretation) based on unfounded prejudices. Being black would not make me a less eligible tenant, and nor would being old make me a less competent or energetic video editor and it would be wrong to deny me the opportunity on that basis.

 

On the point of the Greenlight ad, I think that they are being rather tongue-in-cheek, and that suitably qualified editors of any age would apply and be considered on their merit. After all, 'young' is as much a state of mind as it is a number Come to think of it, 'hotshot' is often a state of mind too

[Tugger]

In the 50's in the UK there used to be signs for rooms to let with the addition:

No Blacks, no Irish, no dogs

 

And if you were renting rooms, would you necessarily want some mutt shiting all over it and infesting it with fleas? People still advertise here for 'no pets, no kids, no smokers', and whilst that discriminates against ME I think it's absolutely their right.

 

Used to be that discrimination was something to be applauded - having a 'discriminating palate' etc. What all this PC bollocks does is waste the time of the people it's designed to protect - the black man is no more likely to get those rooms now than he was in 1950, it's just that he has to go through the charade of having his application 'considered'.

 

I think the discrimination against dogs was besides the point. I don't think age alone can define one's suitability for a job. Look at Rupert Murdoch or Sumner Redstone. By all means if the person turns out to be inappropriate, hire accordingly.