Diversity quota.

As previous posters have said, it's not about how you choose the best applicant. This has with very small exceptions (positive discrimination was lawful & even in a few instances used in the late 80's/ 90's- don't think its even legal any more) always been one on who best fits the job specification for the role & performs best at interview.It's about publicising the role in a variety of places so everyone gets to see it, encouraging subsets of employees who don't statistically go for promotion, to feel more able to, via pushing training schemes & mentoring good potential candidates. I agree it's difficult for a manager to "procure" LGBT candidates, but there are things they should be able to list that make their team a place where these minorities would be happy to work or to go for promotion. When shortlisting in a big organisation, I did feel that even now discriminatory criteria are being used by some, & so reminding managers of their responsibilities under the Equalities Act is still useful imo.The quota is what is aimed for - it does not mean compulsory recruitment of someone from that category.

A recent advertisement for a position at my local symphony hall stated roughly that “In the interests of diversity, applicants of ethnicity are particularly welcomed”
Is this allowed and would I (if young enough and eligible) be turned down whatever my qualifications and experience?

Well said Merseymog. It's high time these diversity quotas were well and truly quashed, it's no way to choose someone who is right for the job.

First off, surely a lot of forms one fills in usually have a box marked "Prefer not to say" when it comes to sexuality.
Secondly, what happens if there are no gay, bi, or trans applicants for a position? Is the employer supposed to go out on the street and hunt for some?
"Wokery" isn't employing someone who went to a similar school to you keepingquiet "Wokery" is making sure you give everyone an opportunity, whatever background they come from.

The above was taken from the 2010 employment doce of practice/ 2010 equality act.

Reading some of the posts makes me want to weep. I don't know what company Kirkcubbin's daughter works for but clearly they have absolutely no idea what good employment practice is. The key words are unbiased and inclusive, underpinned by an organisational understanding of what it wishes to achieve in terms of "diversity".
In the 90's I trained senior management in recruitment and training, the focus in those days was gender and ethnicity but it was never about employing a woman or a person of colour in preference to a white male. It was absolutely about ensuring that recruitment practice encouraged applications from suitably qualified people regardless of gender or ethnicity, short listing and interviewing fairly ranked candidates to the job spec and the skills and experience required and the aim was to ensure you offered the job to the "best" candidate. If two candidates were equally suitable then the company could look at their equal opportunities/diversity strategy and appoint according to that. So much "rubbish" is talked these days, it is possible to take an employer to a tribunal on the basis that someone of colour has been given preference over someone, who is more qualified who is white.
Meaning of ‘racial group’
2.46 A racial group is a group of people who have or share a colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins. For example, a racial group could be ‘British’ people. All racial groups are protected from unlawful discrimination under the Act.

My son is gay. He is a successful barrister and KC. He has achieved what he has achieved because he is good at his job, not because he is gay. That’s how it should be.

Years ago we had to encourage women to enter the workforce and burst through the glass ceiling.

I was told I was taken on in my first job because I had good legs, seems a great asset in my manager's eyes!

There is nothing wrong with positive discrimination.

Providing a step for someone with shorter legs than you isn't wokery but creating an equal vantage point for both parties.

Giving the smaller legged person a higher step is tokenism- which is the opposite of discrimination but an advantage to no one.

Personally I can't stand the wokery of employing people who went to a 'good' school similar to the one you went to.

Moving a portrait isn't rewriting history . Apparently KS doesn't like portraits - he also moved (not 'banished') one of Margaret Thatcher. So what? Have people really reached the point of criticising him for which pictures he wants on his walls?

Anyway - EDI is usually about ensuring that the language and distribution of job ads reaches a range of applicants (eg there is a good chance that an ad in Manly Man Magazine for a role that would 'suit someone under 40 with a wife to assist' wouldn't reach many older women who may be perfectly well qualified for the role, and could rule out gay men too.

As has been pointed out, sexuality (which of course has nothing to do with so-called 'gender') should only be asked about for monitoring purposes, to ensure that there is no active discrimination - eg if no gay people had been employed in a large organisation for 20 years there is probably a reason somewhere in the appointment process. The monitoring data should not be linked to the applicants.

If a transwoman is appointed, it is important that the appointment is recorded as male for statistical purposes, or the number of women may be skewed to appear greater than it is, particularly in more senior roles.

mae13

Wokery at it's stupid worst.
On the subject of woke-ishness, an item in The Guardian pointed out that Keir Starmer has banished a portrait of William Gladstone from No 10 due to supposed historical links to slavery.
Nothing like attempting to re-write history......

How is it rewriting history? The Gladstone family built their wealth on slavery, William Gladstone defended his father's ownership of slaves and seems happy to have enjoyed the money they provided. Wouldn't rewriting history be pretending that he had no involvement in slavery?

GrannyGravy13

mae13

Wokery at it's stupid worst.
On the subject of woke-ishness, an item in The Guardian pointed out that Keir Starmer has banished a portrait of William Gladstone from No 10 due to supposed historical links to slavery.
Nothing like attempting to re-write history......

I do not think the current PM likes portraits of previous PMs, maybe they make him feel inferior?

Maybe he looks to the future not the past?

mae13

Wokery at it's stupid worst.
On the subject of woke-ishness, an item in The Guardian pointed out that Keir Starmer has banished a portrait of William Gladstone from No 10 due to supposed historical links to slavery.
Nothing like attempting to re-write history......

I do not think the current PM likes portraits of previous PMs, maybe they make him feel inferior?

Wokery at it's stupid worst.
On the subject of woke-ishness, an item in The Guardian pointed out that Keir Starmer has banished a portrait of William Gladstone from No 10 due to supposed historical links to slavery.
Nothing like attempting to re-write history......

David49

Positive discrimination happens routinely whether it is lawful or not. Political parties discriminate to get whatever “balance” of MPs they think is expedient.
Companies and LAs do exactly the same.

Political parties aren't the employers of MPs so employment law doesn't have any impact on the parties relationship with MPs.

David49

Positive discrimination happens routinely whether it is lawful or not. Political parties discriminate to get whatever “balance” of MPs they think is expedient.
Companies and LAs do exactly the same.

it depends what you mean by expedient? It seemed to me to have been reasonable to try and make specific efforts to get an adequate representation of women in parliament, for example, on the grounds that men and women do bring differing perspectives to the world at times and they are actually making legislation for the population as a whole.

But on the question of LGBT job candidates or employees it is very bad form indeed to ask anyone about their sexuality or trans status and the Op's daughter could have replied as such.
As well as emphasising back to them exactly how wrong this would be.

Positive discrimination happens routinely whether it is lawful or not. Political parties discriminate to get whatever “balance” of MPs they think is expedient.
Companies and LAs do exactly the same.

This has been happening for years. I retired 15 years ago from the Civil Service. It was happening there. I believe it happens in most organisations.

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.

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.

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.

👏👏

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.

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".

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.

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!)