Job applications screening for privilege.

Glorianny

Ah so now we've moved from the quality of the product to the identity of the consumer. Why not try addressing the real issue, do you or do you not approve of positive discrimination in order to create opportunities for under represented minority groups?
As I said before this happened with Virago which was established as a feminist publisher for women's writing, because women found difficulties in having work published. Was that right? And is it now OK that other organisations use positive discrimination to ensure more diversity?

The whataboutery is getting boring.

It certainly is (getting boring). The bottom line is that you are continuing to look for Gotchas because your hypothetical situation is not fit for purpose.

I have to say that I was extremely pleased when Virago started publishing women authors.. I worked in a modern building near Fleet Street which had a public library in the basement. The librarian placed all the Virago books on circular stands through the library and consequently I discovered many out of print authors of whom I'd not heard.

Doodledog

Glorianny

Ah so now we've moved from the quality of the product to the identity of the consumer. Why not try addressing the real issue, do you or do you not approve of positive discrimination in order to create opportunities for under represented minority groups?
As I said before this happened with Virago which was established as a feminist publisher for women's writing, because women found difficulties in having work published. Was that right? And is it now OK that other organisations use positive discrimination to ensure more diversity?

The whataboutery is getting boring.

It certainly is (getting boring). The bottom line is that you are continuing to look for Gotchas because your hypothetical situation is not fit for purpose.

The example I posted is not an actuality but I assure you it is typical of what is happening in certain fields and has happened to my DS. The fact that you continue to dispute this and that no one is prepared to either acknowledge that it may be happening, or post your opinion about it says more about you than anything else.
I don't propose to post any further details on a public forum. But it is interesting that you refuse to even discuss the matter and in fact fail to even consider it as an actuality.

Doodledog

That's interesting. In what way can someone 'lose out' because of positive discrimination? That shouldn't happen if good practice (and Equal Opportunity laws) are adhered to.

The demographic data is separate and used for monitoring, not selection. There can be things like all female shortlists if the role requires it, or exemptions under the Equality Act if the role is working in a private home, or involving personal care*, or needs someone from a particular background (usually ethnic background) to do it.

I can't think of circumstances where someone could lose out, as they wouldn't meet the criteria for application if demographic information were taken into account. After the screening stage, interviews should always be on an equal footing, with everyone taken on merit (although there is always someone who won't accept that a woman, or a person of colour could get a job just because they were a better candidate ).

I know this isn't what you were getting at, but in many ways screening by qualifications is discriminating against people who would be unsuitable because they didn't have the relevant ones, but nobody gets upset about that.

*although self-id around so-called 'gender' shoots holes in that, of course.

Any decent recruiter will have a list of required and desired criteria for the role. Educational qualifications might be one criterion. If not, they shouldn't matter. I agree - nobody seems to get upset about them.

No, that is not the case, Glorianny. I tried to discuss the case, but was met with sarcastic and unnecessary replies. I have engaged with your hypothetical scenario, as did GSM and Elegran, but instead of joining in, you have instead attempted to pick holes in tiny parts of our posts and imply (or state) that we are prejudiced or in some way being 'unkind'.

I fully understand not wanting to post identifying details, but if you want to make a point by quoting a for instance, it has to hold water, and this one doesn't, whether you like it or not. That says nothing about me at all.

Doodledog

No, that is not the case, Glorianny. I tried to discuss the case, but was met with sarcastic and unnecessary replies. I have engaged with your hypothetical scenario, as did GSM and Elegran, but instead of joining in, you have instead attempted to pick holes in tiny parts of our posts and imply (or state) that we are prejudiced or in some way being 'unkind'.

I fully understand not wanting to post identifying details, but if you want to make a point by quoting a for instance, it has to hold water, and this one doesn't, whether you like it or not. That says nothing about me at all.

It says you are not actually prepared to say if you approve of such positive discrimination or not, which says just as much about you.
I fully agree it is a difficult concept to deal with. My initial response was to reject it, but after conversations with my DS I feel I have more understanding and appreciate more why it matters. Because as he said if the people making the decisions are white privileged men for the most part, how else is a more diverse, and inclusive culture, which is more representative of the population, to be created?

Oh for goodness sake!! If you had read the thread you would know that I approve of monitoring and positive discrimination to the point of shortlisting, and that IMO there are circumstances in which an all-female shortlist (or ones that insist on another characteristic) can be justified.

All I have questioned is the idea that someone should lose out because of positive discrimination. How would they know? Either they wouldn’t make the shortlist in the first place (eg if an employer wanted a particular demographic and this was allowed in law) or they would have the same chance as others. But this isn’t about employment apparently. It is vaguely about procurement? Or something. But we don’t know. So it is impossible to know whether I would approve or not, as I have no idea what you are talking about.

Positive discrimination is discrimination though by its own definition. Shouldn’t it be the best person, male, female or whatever for the job ?

Are we now bad people if we dont support positive discrimination. That seems to me quite simplistic. As I have said in terms of women the information seems to be that the countries that have strongest equality legislation tend to have lower representation of women in say STEM. I am therefore not going to cheer on something that I am not sure works for women.

I was thinking if I got a job and it was through positive discrimination I would feel that I wasn’t quite welcome and that I was really second best. They were just abiding by a set of rules. I wouldn’t want to work for a company like that.

nanna8

I was thinking if I got a job and it was through positive discrimination I would feel that I wasn’t quite welcome and that I was really second best. They were just abiding by a set of rules. I wouldn’t want to work for a company like that.

For most jobs in the professions there does not seem to be any discrimination recruiting graduates, the female candidates are usually better than males. In fact one estate agency boss said he preferred women because most young men are too aggressive dealing with clients.
However when it comes to promotion and the prospect of maternity it’s very different in many companies, especially if direct relationship with clients is needed. Clients really hate having to to change their relationship contact before a long term transaction is complete

That’s true, and I remember hearing many comments about how people must only have got the job because they ‘ticked a box’. It is so dismissive and arrogant to assume that the only reason a white man wasn’t automatically promoted must be because the successful candidate had a policy on their side.

"However when it comes to promotion and the prospect of maternity it’s very different in many companies, especially if direct relationship with clients is needed. Clients really hate having to to change their relationship contact before a long term transaction is complete"

well, its certainly true in the caring professions as well as say Estate Agents or solicitors or banking or even the local library - naturally we human beings become attached to individuals.

However it's certainly problematic to me to suggest that maternity/pregnancy could therefore be an obstacle to the degree someone is to considered for employment. And possibly sexist in these days when sometimes men take paternity leave instead - you may be emplying a bloke who takes this route.

Changes in client contact happen for a whole number of reasons -

what really matters is that the organisation is structured in such a way so the person feels, "If I can't speak to person "a", then there is always "b" and "c" in the team.

what really matters is that the organisation is structured in such a way so the person feels, "If I can't speak to person "a", then there is always "b" and "c" in the team.

In practice it works with juniors if it’s the senior executive thats away from work for whatever reason it’s a problem because she/he makes the decision and there is no replacement that is familiar.
The client wants to know why.

The point is that organisations headed by white men tend to make choices that are a-typical of them. That was the reason that so many women writers were unable to get published and the reason for the establishment of Virago. It follows therefore that some means of developing inclusivity in areas where white men still dominate needs to be found. The areas are many because businesses are mostly funded and run by white men. Publishing was one, it has widened it base, but it is still unlikely that real equality is found there. Entertainment, be it computer games, broadcasting, film making, stage or any other media is still not fully representative. One of the reasons being that judgement is often a matter of taste and the basis of that taste is white privilege. The reason for positive discrimination then becomes apparent. Without it hundreds of women writers would never have been published because white men didn't think they were good enough. That happens in all sorts of areas still.

It does, and this is one of the reasons why many women object to men being able to just say they are women and expect to be included. All-women companies and shortlists are there for a reason, and IMO it is important that this continues to mean that they are not for men.

One of the areas of employment which has a serious lack of diversity is the NHS at consultant level. Women and particularly black women are underrepresented and fail to achieve promotion. Factors such as maternity leave and child rearing do affect this. More concerning is that black men who work as hard as their white counterparts are unlikely to progress as well www.surrey.ac.uk/news/women-and-ethnic-minorities-face-severe-disadvantages-reaching-top-rank-surgeons-research-says#:~:text=Ethnic%20minority%20women%20comprised%2015,number%20of%20hours%20in%20training.. www.surrey.ac.uk/news/women-and-ethnic-minorities-face-severe-disadvantages-reaching-top-rank-surgeons-research-says#:~:text=Ethnic%20minority%20women%20comprised%2015,number%20of%20hours%20in%20training.

I don't think that anyone is disputing that.

The research into disadvantage for particular groups relies on data about whether they apply for particular roles, whether they are shortlisted and so on, which is the point of the thread. If there is a diversity form attached to an application it is not to stop any particular applicant from losing out, it is to try to level the playing field by ensuring that people from all groups are represented as much as possible when the next round of vacancies takes place. Without that data there would be no way of knowing which groups don't even apply, which get as far as a shortlist and which don't, and which don't get through an interview.

This allows companies to consider where to advertise roles so that they are seen by the relevant people, to look at the essential and desirable criteria they are asking for to see whether these could be more inclusive, to consider whether the interview panel is representative of the local demography and so on.

If all of these things (if applicable) are in place, everyone should have an equal chance at interview, so nobody will lose out to anyone else - it will simply be fairer than it would have been before.