What is equality to you?

[danot]

Okay. Let's break this down.  A white employer prefer's candidates with white sounding names.  Candidate's are then hired on merit. 

 

The same employer specifically sets out to hire an equally capable none white candidate with a foreign sounding name purely because he wants to hire a none white with a foreign sounding name.  The candidate is then hired, not on merit, but as a token gesture that honour's his equal opportunities obligations. Has it really come to this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WiseOwl182]

19 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

 

So when both equally qualified candidates are from an under represented ethnic minority, and one candidate is given the job.

 

Who is discriminated against?

That depends on how they decide who to give the job to?

21 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Wow, you don't and yes they are.

 

 

Yes you do, and no they aren't.

 

Here is your assertion again:

 

"

Well that all depends if the employer explicitly decides that a person doesn't get a job based on their race/gender.

 

That would be illegal

 

or deciding that  a under represented minority candidate who is equally capable does get the job to increase the representation of that minority.

 

That's legal, and not discrimination"

 

To decide an under represented minority candidate gets the job means that, by definition, you are deciding that the majority candidate doesn't. Therefore, you are deciding that other candidate doesn't get the job based on their race/ gender - the first scenario. They are dependent, not mutually exclusive. QED.

[SnailyBoy]

6 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

That depends on how they decide who to give the job to?

It's the same as the whole thread, purely based on increasing the representation of ethinic minorities.

 

Who is discriminated against?

Edited March 7, 2019 by SnailyBoy

[WiseOwl182]

Just now, SnailyBoy said:

It's the same as the whole thread, purely based on increasing the representation of ethinic minorities.

 

Who is discriminated against?

No it's not the same, as you stated they are both minority candidates. On what grounds are they giving the job to one over the other?

[SnailyBoy]

Just now, WiseOwl182 said:

No it's not the same, as you stated they are both minority candidates. On what grounds are they giving the job to one over the other?

The only difference is that one of the two candidates isn't white, but another ethnic minority.

 

The employer is still looking to increase the representation of ethinic minorities through positive action, it just so happens that both candidates are from an ethnic minority.

 

You're now struggling with your discrimination claim, aren't you?

[WiseOwl182]

3 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

The only difference is that one of the two candidates isn't white, but another ethnic minority.

 

The employer is still looking to increase the representation of ethinic minorities through positive action, it just so happens that both candidates are from an ethnic minority.

 

You're now struggling with your discrimination claim, aren't you?

No, I'm struggling to answer a specific question posed in such a vague way.

 

Two candidates, one is non white, so what's the other? What quota does the employer have to fill?

 

Ps. I notice you've ignored me completely disproving your mutually exclusive claim.

Edited March 7, 2019 by WiseOwl182

[SnailyBoy]

16 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

No, I'm struggling to answer a specific question posed in such a vague way.

 

Two candidates, one is non white, so what's the other? What quota does the employer have to fill?

 

Ps. I notice you've ignored me completely disproving your mutually exclusive claim.

Oh dear, you really are struggling.

 

You see, this proves the mutually exclusive claim, ironically using your own example.

 

Your discrimination claim is predicated on a white candidate not getting a job when an employer uses positive action.

 

Your claim falls down when the employer uses positive action for recruitment and the choice happens to be between two equally qualified candidates from an ethnic minority.

 

For your 'not mutually' exclusive claim to work, the employer would have to decide that one candidate didn't get the job because of race, therefore discriminating against that candidate.

 

Or does discrimination only count if a white person is involved?

 

 

Edited March 7, 2019 by SnailyBoy

[WiseOwl182]

9 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Oh dear, you really are struggling.

 

You see, this proves the mutually exclusive claim, ironically using your own example.

 

Your discrimination claim is predicated on a white candidate not getting a job when an employer uses positive action.

 

Your claim falls down when the employer uses positive action for recruitment and the choice happens to be between two equally qualified candidates from an ethnic minority.

 

For your 'not mutually' exclusive claim to work, the employer would have to decide that one candidate didn't get the job because of race, therefore discriminating against that candidate.

 

Or does discrimination only count if a white person is involved?

 

 

I'm struggling because your hypothetical scenario lacks sufficient detail. 

 

So, both candidates are from an ethnic minority. What deciding factor did the "positive action" use? There must be a differentiating factor.

[woodview]

14 hours ago, SnailyBoy said:

That would be illegal.

 

Positive action is legal.

 

' Positive action is when an employer takes steps to help or encourage certain groups of people with different needs, or who are disadvantaged in some way, access work or training. Positive action is lawful under the Equality Act.'

 

What's wrong with that? 

I didn't say positive action is illegal. If you cant distinguish between a discussion about what is right, moral or fair, and illegal, then you show yourself as being a bit off the ball.

[SnailyBoy]

2 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

I'm struggling because your hypothetical scenario lacks sufficient detail. 

 

So, both candidates are from an ethnic minority. What deciding factor did the "positive action" use? There must be a differentiating factor.

Lol, sorry I'm out

 

Life's too short for this.