maomao
普費斯
"onboarding"?
I was going to get all huffy and say it's called zero derivation not verbing but apparently verbing is a real word:
Conversion (word formation) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lots of employers and recruitment agencies breach equality legislation every day
- Thread starter stuff_it
- Start date
I was going to get all huffy and say it's called zero derivation not verbing but apparently verbing is a real word:
Conversion (word formation) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Puddy_Tat
🐈⬛
Wouldn't argue that (although obviously no direct personal experience) - and there's still organisations out there that haven't quite got to grips with the sex / race discrimination laws that came in to effect 40 years ago.
Depends what they mean. Not sure how they could define 'good university' in a way that makes sense - I'm not expert here, but I'm pretty sure that any institution offering a (genuine) degree has to be accredited / approved by Government in some way. And there are a number of dodgy degree by e-mail if you send them some money outfits around.
If they were specifying X or Y university (on paper - there are plenty of organisations, including the house of commons, where Oxbridge seems to be preferred at least covertly) then it might be contrary to discrimination law, firstly on discrimination by nationality, and secondly, if it could be proved that (for example) those universities had very low representation of ethnic minorities, then there might be a case.
I've tried to find something about ethnic minorities and going to university - I can find something published in 2015 which the telegraph seemed to be saying white people were under-represented and the guardian seemed to be saying that ethnic minorities were under-represented.
Ultimately, a lot in the UK still depends on social capital / perceptions of social class / having money. None of them fall within the Equalities Act.
Maybe the organisation I work for is old-fashioned. It still has a personnel department...
minimum X years' experience might be arguable on age discrimination grounds.
i'm not sure whether to
or 
stuff_it
Too skool for cool
I bet it said something like "minimum 2:1" as well
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
CFY
zippyRN
Orange, Fuzzy, and allowed to possess Cat As
After having been offered a place within a company's Bank (temping within a company, for those who do not know) I completed registration forms last week.
One form asked for my marital status...I know that one cannot be asked this at an interview; however, my feeling is that it is also illegal to be asked this at the registration stage. There was the option of Prefer not to say but it really annoyed me that I was asked this in the first place. It has no bearing on the job.
Are you sure it's not a equality monitoring form?...
it's perfectly legit to ask these kind of questions on a monitoring form post offer, same as it's perfectly legit to ask health questions on a form going to Occy Health ...
as for types of degree - In some professions it's mandated to have an approved degree/ post grad qualification as you can't register with the statutory regulator without one ( law , health professions ...) ; In others an 'approved' degree could well be used as a factor as it verifies the content of the course ( e.g. Engineering, accountancy etc ) but in other professions it;s not as clear cut
Last edited:
Manter
Lunch Mob
If all the rest of your staff speak it, makes sense....I see lots of nanny ads for places like Kensington asking for a 'Tagalog speaker'
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
I see lots of nanny ads for places like Kensington asking for a 'Tagalog speaker'
I thought that was the thing for children that attaches to an adult bicycle.
Schmetterling
I saw something nasty in the woodshed!
It the Personal Information form, Diversity monitoring section; still bothers me though.
zippyRN
Orange, Fuzzy, and allowed to possess Cat As
why ?
It never goes anywhere near the appointing manager
It's been asked for after you've been offered the role
how else do you expect comapnaies to defend themselves against SJW accusations of discrimination spurred on by the butt-hurt of those who had managed to get what they wanted by dizaei tactics until now ?
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
Just the one?
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
Yeh. That's zippyRN for you.
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
Please don't use phrases like 'butt-hurt'.
Puddy_Tat
🐈⬛
there is an argument for having equalities monitoring forms from first stage of the application.
they should of course be separated from the application and not go near the people involved in shortlisting / interviewing.
if (for example) an organisation in an area where X percent of the local community are [minority] and Y percent of applicants are, it may suggest something wants looking in to.
likewise, if X percent of applicants are [minority] but Y percent of people who get offered jobs are, or if a certain manager offers jobs to Z percent, again it may suggest something wants looking in to.
Not necessarily that something is wrong, but if there is a clear pattern based on enough data to be meaningful, then it may suggest an issue.
Arguments against - apart from the "it's all a load of PC bollocks" or waffle about "quotas" (which are generally illegal in the UK) include the risk that too much can be read in to a small sample, also job applicants can be suspicious of the motives (suspecting that discrimination, whether positive or negative, may happen.)
Also, people may have concerns about how confidential data will be kept within an organisation (e.g. LGBT people, people with 'hidden' disabilities, who may not wish to be 'out' about it.)
they should of course be separated from the application and not go near the people involved in shortlisting / interviewing.
if (for example) an organisation in an area where X percent of the local community are [minority] and Y percent of applicants are, it may suggest something wants looking in to.
likewise, if X percent of applicants are [minority] but Y percent of people who get offered jobs are, or if a certain manager offers jobs to Z percent, again it may suggest something wants looking in to.
Not necessarily that something is wrong, but if there is a clear pattern based on enough data to be meaningful, then it may suggest an issue.
Arguments against - apart from the "it's all a load of PC bollocks" or waffle about "quotas" (which are generally illegal in the UK) include the risk that too much can be read in to a small sample, also job applicants can be suspicious of the motives (suspecting that discrimination, whether positive or negative, may happen.)
Also, people may have concerns about how confidential data will be kept within an organisation (e.g. LGBT people, people with 'hidden' disabilities, who may not wish to be 'out' about it.)
stuff_it
Too skool for cool
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
So not employing someone because they were in a wheelchair would be discriminatory for a position as a steeple jack?
Treacle Toes
Time
They would not be employed if they couldn't carry out key tasks of the role. I doubt they would win a discrimination case if they were interviewed and found not to have the 'capacity' to fulfill the role requirements.
crossthebreeze
Well-Known Member
Of course not - even people who have worked in a role for years can be put through a role capacity assessment which might make them lose their job. The point is that disabled people should not be discriminated from any job they have the capacity to do to the required standard (rather than a manager randomly deciding what they might or might not be able to do before even meeting them). Capacity included using any aids, equipment, and support that the disabled person uses, and any adaptations or adjustments that are reasonable for employers to provide (or can be provided by the Access to Work scheme etc).
Puddy_Tat
🐈⬛
"reasonable adjustments" is they key phrase when it comes to disability discrimination.
if the adjustments would not be reasonable (ultimately what's reasonable can come down to a tribunal making a decision on a case by case basis) then it's not discrimination.
each candidate should be considered as an individual - requiring a certain level of physical fitness e.g. "must be able to lift packages weighing up to X Kg" would probably not be discriminatory, saying "no disabled people" probably would be. (and bear in mind that only a small proportion of people who legally have a 'disability' are wheelchair users)
likewise if there are specific legal requirements to do a job, they take precedence - e.g. if someone has a medical condition that means that DVLA won't issue them a driving licence, then it would not be employment discrimination if an employer wouldn't offer them a driving job.
it might be discrimination if an existing (driving) employee developed such a condition and employer didn't even consider trying to find alternative employment for them.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
"reasonable adjustments" is they key phrase when it comes to disability discrimination.
if the adjustments would not be reasonable (ultimately what's reasonable can come down to a tribunal making a decision on a case by case basis) then it's not discrimination.
And many employers can be seen to operate on a principle of avoiding litigation by avoiding employing disabled people full-stop.
Similar threads
