Diversity quota.

My view has always been that such quotas are no substitute for selection on merit alone. The best person for the job irrespective of ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religon should get the post.

How ridiculous! You're not supposed to ask about things like age, marital status or sexuality on application forms or in interviews, so how would you know? What's more, it's their business and, as long as they're doing their job properly, it doesn't matter.

I would have been tempted to tell them that both men were transgender.
Did your daughter challenge the management?

Ludicrous behaviour by work management.
Unless she works in that sort of field.

DS works for a very large insurance company and he says they are fixated with diversity at the moment. He too believes that recruitment should be on merit and qualification to the exclusion of any other criteria. He can’t wait to retire.

Another reason why this country is on its knees.
Wokery!
What happened to meritocracy.

I would call this total and utter bollocks on the part of the employer. What right have they to nosy into people’s personal beliefs and sexual orientation? None of their damn business.

Their overall percentage of the population is minute. Why does anyone need to know about a prospective colleague's sexual orientation anyway in a workplace context, surely it's the individual's ability to be the best candidate that matters. Did anyone ever feel the need to add this when being interviewed a few years ago. "By the way, I'm hetrosexual/gay, just thought you should know"

positive bias is still discrimination,, people should be employed on merit

This kind of intervention was initially introduced for very good reasons, ie the time when women and people of colour were actively discriminated against. (which the O/P's daughter had assumed)

But I can see no value or benefit in questions on sexual orientation.

What a complete waste of time, and the wrong focus. The focus should always be on getting the job done properly and efficiently. Whoever is best for the job should be the person doing the job.

Positive discrimination causes much disappointment and anger for those who are better qualified but passed over in the name of diversity.
So I disapprove, however in business it didn’t affect me, most of the roles suited women, retail, catering, animal care and accounts, so was a happy workplace.

The answer should be; treat them exactly the same as every one else.
Why should they be accorded different treatment because of a different sexual orientation?

David49

Positive discrimination causes much disappointment and anger for those who are better qualified but passed over in the name of diversity.
So I disapprove, however in business it didn’t affect me, most of the roles suited women, retail, catering, animal care and accounts, so was a happy workplace.

Positive discrimination is not lawful in the UK so it shouldn't be causing disappointment or anger.

I used to work in police admin, a young white man was telling me how unfair it was that he kept getting turned down when he applied to join the police because he was white and male and the police weren't taking on any white men. I pointed to a group of recruits on their way to a meeting/lecture and said how many of them are white men (here's a clue the majority were white men.)

I think sometimes people blame positive discrimination when they can't accept they weren't the best person for the job.

It is absolute Bo***cks!

The only reason a person should get the job is because they are the best candidate for the job, never mind their creed, colour or sexual orientation!

I remember positive discrimination in the Midlands in the 1980s. A college lecturer applied for a job as Head of Department, which he had run successfully during the failing health of the incumbent, but was replaced by a black candidate, far less experienced or qualified, and told it was because 'we have to consider ethnic minorities.'
Because of that casual remark he was able to sue and won his case for discrimination, but the College lost a very good lecturer because he no longer wished to work for that authority. It also happened with graduates of the local Training College for Mature Students; many were shoe-horned into posts of responsibility based on age, not experience or ability.
It should always be : the best candidate for the job.

Utterly ridiculous and I wonder how they expected your DD to know if she had any LGBT or trans in her team.

When I worked in a library, anyone wanting to join had to fill in a form that asked (among other things) about sexual orientation. Why on earth they needed to know I still don’t understand - except that the council was obsessed with ‘diversity’. (Probably still is….🙁);

IIRC there was a ‘prefer not to say’* box, but I always told people anyway that they mustn’t feel obliged to reveal anything so personal.
*IMO it should of course have been a MYOB box! (Mind your own business!)

Presumably the interviewers had to fill in some sort of form for some sort of survey and couldn't think of any other way of doing it. Unless the OP tells us more, no need to assume that they were suggesting positive discrimination.

There will always be examples of poor or clumsy decisions made, and that was clear in your example, easybee.

However it undoubtedly was the case going back in time that there was that "glass ceiling" for women and for people of colour.

The steps that were taken have changed the world of employment so we can now all say, "it should be the best candidate for the job".

eazybee

I remember positive discrimination in the Midlands in the 1980s. A college lecturer applied for a job as Head of Department, which he had run successfully during the failing health of the incumbent, but was replaced by a black candidate, far less experienced or qualified, and told it was because 'we have to consider ethnic minorities.'
Because of that casual remark he was able to sue and won his case for discrimination, but the College lost a very good lecturer because he no longer wished to work for that authority. It also happened with graduates of the local Training College for Mature Students; many were shoe-horned into posts of responsibility based on age, not experience or ability.
It should always be : the best candidate for the job.

The 80s are a long time ago and working in HR back then I can tell you lots of managers and business owners didn't understand the law. The level of ignorance has reduced drastically over the last 40 to 50 years and that is good for everyone.

Merseymog

My view has always been that such quotas are no substitute for selection on merit alone. The best person for the job irrespective of ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religon should get the post.

👏👏

Smileless2012

Utterly ridiculous and I wonder how they expected your DD to know if she had any LGBT or trans in her team.

Absolutely! I think it would be most inappropriate to initiate a highly personal discussion about any of these issues in the work place, and, could lead to a complaint being made about probing into areas of sensitivity. It is NO ONE's business what sexual orientation anyone happens to be and certainly irrelevant in a context of wanting to join a library.

I agree - ludicrous on a library form.
Different in terms of a census.

Change has not just come out of the ether to reach a point when we can simply say, "best person for the job" and assume that there will be no. discrimination:

It's been based on real past discrimination and a combination of laws, raising awareness, and some quite brave individuals who have brought about this change.

I shall never forget the mockery and hatred towards a gay man at work in the 1980's simply because he was gay. It came out accidentally - he had spent a life of hiding: I can also recall the struggles of women to get equal pay for equal work, also well within most of our lifetimes.

Worriedwell 's example of the young man convinced he had been discriminated against is an attitude that has by no means disappeared altogether.

If we have reached a point where the questions the O/P's DD was asked are no longer as pertinent, then time for change.