To be annoyed by obvious waste by nhs

PECS, positive discrimination does cause people to feel discriminated against negatively. The policy is outdated and in need of radical change. It may have worked back in the 80s or 90s but it's not working now. It has not changed the fact that in certain areas or careers the make up of those employed does not reflect the make up of the population. There is more involved than just ethnicity.

Mabel2 I agree there are still far too many situations where clear inequality and prejudice jeopardises opportunities for perfectly well qualified people. Sadly positive discrimination has not had any real impact as the statistics speak for themselves in showing that white middle class able bodied heterosexual men are more likely to be employed than any other group! We need to think of other ways to improve equity.

Interesting article about positive discrimination and its effects
www.ft.com/content/234e404c-1da2-11e6-a7bc-ee846770ec15

My husband worked in HR in one of the public services, liaising with many more departments including County Councils, local Government, etc. These places are audited regularly to ensure that they have a diverse work force and certainly the need to tick a box to prove that means that there is positive discrimination happening regularly. It influences decisions where there might be two ethnically diverse people up for the same job who have similar qualifications, experience, etc, in that the box can be ticked. This can happen across the board for sex, disabilities, etc. However, I have heard many times where the minority person is picked even though they are not as qualified or experienced and that does cause resentment.
It is the same with most Universities. A young person who is from a Public School is expected to get much higher grades than someone from a State School. They are also expected to have a much higher profile even though the chances are they will be expected by their schools to fit in much more than someone from a State School. I understand all the reasons for it but I can't help thinking that if you are the person having to jump through the hoops, it can seem quite unfair.

Not as unfair as having fought discrimination and difficulty all your life though!

Within a couple of months of returning to work after maternity leave, I was short listed, then selected from a panel of 8 for my first middle management job. I then heard two of the men who'd been interviewed grumbling that "you have to be a breast feeding mother to get a management post these days".
They clearly believed that my appointment was some kind of box ticking exercise.
icanhandthemback - research shows that many of the young people who achieve better exam results because of the extra support they get in private school, go on to find university work more demanding than young people who went to state schools. Our MP's are still largely white, privately educated men. It's the same in the city, in leading law firms, accountancy, finance, the list is endless. How on earth does that support the suggestion made here that white middle class males suffer most from positive discrimination?

Iam64, I have no doubt that the majority of people get the job on their own merits. I just think that a policy of positive discrimination doesn't necessarily help because it automatically makes the minority seem like they are getting something they shouldn't. However, I don't claim to have the answer for countering discrimination which I also recognise happens.
Yes, there is more support for private schools but there is more pressure for them to give up their evenings and weekends too for school sports, drama, etc. I have had 5 go through State School and 1 through Private; the difference has not been better teachers at the latter, it has been the accepted standard of behaviour from the pupils. The one at the private school has gone to a school for a full day, just for the education part, has a decent lunch time and breaks so are ready for study unlike the State Schools where they get 40 minutes for lunch, no social time, etc. I would like to see the proper funding and organisation of State Schools to give all children the tools to get on in their university and working lives rather than discrimination in any form.

PECS I can't provide evidence but can assure you that what I said is true. To provide such evidence would suggest my identity and I am not prepared to do that. However, I'm sure if you look on public sector recruitment websites you will see the type of format I refer to.

An interesting recent situation: a woman, born in Jamaica and now a well qualified social worker has applied for a few jobs where she has got to the interview stage. She saw shock and confusion when she walked into the interviews because she is white. It became quite clear as the interviews progressed that she had no chance of getting the job. No, it wasn't in a newspaper (as far as I know) it was a friend.

If that is the case Nonnie I suggest she complains not about the outcome but about the behaviour of the interviewers. No interviewer should reveal at any time any indication of what the outcome may be. Indeed it would be difficult to know how she would know this, interviews are usually carefully planned with set questions and required answers and only after proper consultation afterwards can a candidate be ruled out.

It would be naive to expect interviewers not to put their own bias on any candidate regardless of 'set questions'. The interviewee can easily pick up on this, we all have a gut reaction to how a situation has gone.

trisher I don't know if recruitment is your 'specialist subject' but it is mine. I can assure you that many people who are not professional recruiters interview candidates, probably far more who are simply managers and not recruiters so it is rather naive to think that they would not show their surprise at what they had assumed to be a black candidate who turned out to be white. Once again it appears that you are talking about theories rather than reality.

Mabel2, I think this is very true. The person wanting a job role filled can make sure the criteria is quite specific to a person to rule out other candidates. My DH saw this happening in his HR role.

Nonnie, you are very right here. My father faced just that reaction whenever anyone saw his place of birth, an ex British colony in Africa, and indeed was greeted with 'but your not black' on numerous occasions in the 60's and early 70's. I was told at school that I was a half caste, despite having two white parents, whilst doing a family history project. I put this down to people's ignorance and ignore them as my father taught me to.

tidyskatemum said "We spend more per head for poorer outcomes" so I thought I would just Google to see if this was true.
According to the Office for National Statistics
"As a percentage of GDP, the UK spent less on healthcare than USA, Japan, France and Germany and a similar percentage to Canada. The USA spent the most on healthcare as a percentage of GDP at 16.6%." Looks to me that we get a good deal for the money we spend.

In today's British society, I can't see how anyone could be described as looking like they might not be British.

Ilovecheese I don't understand that statistic for the US. Surely it can't be the money the state spends on healthcare can it? I thought people had to buy insurance?

It is not just what the state spends on healthcare, it is the total.

Reality Check: Does UK spend half as much on health as US?

Thanks Elegran that takes into account all the profits from the insurance companies in the US. It is not possible therefore to make comparisons.