If the advert had said of white english origins there would be flag burning in the streets by now
An advert for an IT professional "preferably of Indian origin" is being investigated after complaints were made to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. The ad, placed on jobsite.co.uk, said: "Minimum six years of experience in IT ... The person should be a UK citizen with security clearance from the UK Government. …
If the advert had said of white english origins there would be flag burning in the streets by now
What sort of a Daily Mail 'commentard', border-line racist comment is this?
If the advert was for someone of white english origins then anyone with a brown face or with a white non-english face would be excluded. The only difference in this case is that anyone with a brown face that's not of indian origin or a white face of any nationality is excluded. In both cases nearly all of the same type of people are excluded.
Yet, surprisingly there still isn't any flag burning in the streets!
It seems to be mandated in some areas.
Sorry there is no such thing as 'positive' discrimination.
Discrimination is discrimination.
Reminded me of a mate that swore blind that only white people could be racist.
"Reminded me of a mate that swore blind that only white people could be racist."
Let's just if he were an asian IT person with a British passport working in Kuwait when the owner came around on his annual visit he'd be revising his view on this subject.
A study recently discovered that Canadian employers favoured white candidates to non-whites. This study used resumes with caucasian and non-caucasian names but with similar work experience.
I also once had an odd job interview where the interviewer said that his university, Imperial College, was better than mine, Manchester University. Didn't get that job.
is renowned for refusing to hire non-Quebecois wherever they can avoid it. At the very least, fluency in French (not French French, you understand, but Quebec French) is mandatory if you manage to slip past the first post.
Out of two similar resumes with one named Vinod Patel and other named let's say Vaclav Havel it will be Vinod's phone rining off the hook.
Been there, done that experiment myself. More than once. Using real jobs advertised by _REAL_ UK agencies.
They hire same people as themselves. If you go to IT department of any large company you will see lots of people of Indian origin. I would be rather surprised if they haven't tried to help their kin. At least whites will not waste their time to try to get a job they'll never get.
That doesn't apply to Central / East Europeans though, as they are a jealous bunch. I know it first hand, sadly...
But who really wants to work in Quebec? Really.
I still vote we swap the populations with Newfoundland and then blast the island free to float as they will.
Everyone knows Manchester pisses on Imperial. Bunch of chess playing geeks.
"I still vote we swap the populations with Newfoundland and then blast the island free to float as they will."
As long as you get all the Screech* from Newfoundland first, that's just fine...
* The real stuff - not the namby-pamby stuff you find in liquor stores
Isn't specifying a preference for an Indian a xenophobic act, rather than racist?
You may or may not be surprised to know that in Dubai and Beijing it is still common-place for Chinese companies with an international element to specifically ask for a native of some countries rather than just speaker.
Eg: Not: German and English speaker preferred
but: "German native national only!"
Nothing wrong with asking for a specific language, or that the level must be native. What they have said is essentially "must have brown skin". Maybe they MEANT must be native speaker of x language...but I wonder if they did.
Since Indian is not a language. Hindi and English are the "offical" languages, and then hundreds of others accross the reagons.
Legal and internationally accepted definitons of racism include ethnicism (which is what this is) because nobody wants to try to pronounce ethnicism on a regular basis. Far kinder to the vocal chords to just lump it in with racism.
It's got nothing to do with race, religion, nationality or language skills.
I worked for an Indian outsourcing firm in the UK. All of their Indian staff received a full dispensation from UK Income Tax and National Insurance while working in the UK. That is why UK companies want Indian contract staff. They're half the cost of Brits.
I was sacked after six months in the job. They were very apologetic but they explained that they simply couldn't justify paying over 100% of my take home pay to Gordon in the form of NI & PAYE when they'd identified an employee in their Chennai office who could do my job tax free. I left on a Friday afternoon and the Indian bloke was sitting at my desk, tax free, on the Monday morning. I'm told that the client I was working for now has a strict 'Indians only' employment policy.
Quote: "What they have said is essentially "must have brown skin"."
You can be white and of Indian origin you know, look at Spike Milligan ffs. All "of Indian origin" means is that you were born in India and India is a multi-cultural society with people of all races born there.
I haven't seen the ad so there's no way for me to tell whether it complies with Eq Opp regulations, but it is possible under defined circumstances to require particular backgrounds for a role if it is a reasonable request and a requirement for being able to perform that role. From the description the Reg provides here it doesn't sound like this was the case for this ad, but who knows if the Reg has reported all the details properly.
Maybe they preferred someone that spoke one of the asian subcontinents many languages so as to make communication with their outsource/overseas comms easier?
Obviously not the correctly way of advertising it but that's my best guess.
Like English? It's not like there's much of another lingua franca in indian IT.
The communication problems stem from mentality differences more than language differences (compare with a japanese person avoiding at all cost to say "no" and instead politely making all kind of sideways suggestions --- you feel they wasted your time when after endless struggle there's still no progress, they feel you're harassing them for something they made clear they can't deliver to you).
So if they'd written "local indian experience preferred" they'd be OK legally and practically --- they would get what they want, now including the possibility of a white english guy who worked there for long enough to be able to manage them.
Well known by whom? You clearly haven't been anywhere near and Indian newspaper in the last 100 or so years. The same national daily broadsheet can have a dozen different spellings for the same place name and half a dozen constructions for the same sentence, all wrong. In one issue (The Hindu generally being an honourable exception). Even accounting for the very different styles of English usage between India and the UK, most written English the average person will encounter on the subcontinent reads like a literary train wreck in slow motion.
I generally love the way Indians use the language to express themselves, both written and spoken, but I see no point in claiming easily disprovable perfection for its delivery.
As they are all managing the the Gov.uk IT project.
were they also offering to pay wages in Rupees as well?
Its no wonder so many of us IT people are out of work with hundreds of thousands of Aliens working in the UK!
Obviously anyone who isn't of good native neanderthal stock should f--- off back where they came from.
We'd be left with nothing but footballers and MPs!
I would guestimate that the job description writers intentions were most likely to specify a language skillset, or perhaps even intimate cultural knowlage, but due to the many dialects employed in India decided to truncate their requirements into a rather unfortunate wording.
I wish local bodies would become this irate over real threats to human rights
Your most likely correct, and they're after someone who can fluently speak with their Indian office. But it doesn't say much for the company that they can't phrase it correctly. Maybe they should also advertise for someone of "British origin" to work in personel.
Jimmy Edwards would have them speaking properly
...at a foul rag like the Daily Hate complaining about racism.
You shouldn't need me to tell you the only reason The Daily Fail are up in arms is because it's white people who're being discriminated against! They must be having kittens over there
Daily Mail - 2,111,204 Average Net Circulation 01 Feb 2010 - 28 Feb 2010
The Guardian - 284,514 Average Net Circulation 01 Feb 2010 - 28 Feb 2010
The Daily Mail looks like quite a successful publication to me. Clearly they're more in tune with public opinion than some notably less successful publications that only keep going due to government and BBC job ads.
You should read the Daily Mail some time, you'll find plenty of accurate, balanced, informative reporting, no sign of hatred anywhere. It sounds like certain spiteful, hate-filled Reg-readers could use a dose of real news for a change to straighten their warped perceptions.
First point, distribution numbers does not necessarily equate to "better". Proof? IT angle - compare installations of Adobe Flash to any of the (arguably safer) clone versions. Hell, compare deployment of the cack that is IE6 versus Opera.
Second point, have you watched much British television recently? It seems to me that a lot of it is not so much reporting facts as telling people what to think. We get the Fail over here, a few days late, and it's frequently emotive suggestive front page headlines. Are people learning from the Fail, or being instructed by it?
Final point - I used to be an avid Daily Mail reader back in the '80s. Early '90s it all went so very wrong. I tend to equate it now with the likes of the Sun or the Mirror, only with words suitable for literate people (or sheep, really). I do pop by the Fail website from time to time. Littlejohn writes like such a twit, it's enjoyable reading (if you have a high tolerance level).
Great joke, there, about the Daily Mail being a decent newspaper.
Oh, sorry - you were being serious?
My mother reads the Daily Mail. I pick it up once every two or three weeks at her house to look at it, to try to find the "accurate, balanced, informative reporting, no sign of hatred anywhere" to which you refer.
What I always, ALWAYS, find is inaccurate, biassed, deliberately misleading articles and hate-spewing commentary.
It is revolting.
NOW YOU'VE DONE IT! STARTED ME OFF ABOUT THE DAILY FAIL!!!!
What the hell is it with Daily Fail and it's obsessions with Swan-eating Eastern Europeans ( who are only here for the Swan-eating, looting and pillaging apparently ) and the endless stories about WWII, ffs?
I cannot understand any person with an IQ above pond-life levels, having the nerve to pay for it and then actually sit and read it?!
Any excuse for the DM to stick-up for "white middle-Englanders" worried about Johnny Foreigner taking over the world. The empire is long gone, get over yourselves! We now spend our time bickering over property bounderies in upper-Snobbington and claiming we can still play cricket and football, both of which we no longer have a clue about!
Sheesh! * breathe * Breathe in love, blow out hate, repeat....
The quote from the company, "We will not tolerate any form of discrimination, racial or otherwise, whether it is of a positive or a negative nature."
Isn't all racism negative ?
It's talking about positive discrimination.
But not all discrimination is :D
So if I was to positively discriminate to ensure that only people who didn't have a nim of Roby got jobs because we have an over abundance of Robys at the moment then that is also positive for you ?
If you are discriminated against, for any reason, then it would certainly be negative for you wouldn't it.
Any discrimination is negative for someone.
Rasczak, positive discrimination is a recognised term. For example if a government confers advantages to a minority group in order to redress a balance, then that is positive discrimination. Basically instead of discriminating AGAINST someone, you do something FOR them because they would normally be discriminated against.
It's pretty common for women to be the benefactors, for example when David Cameron said he would make at least a third of his cabinet women. Or this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/mar/06/women.discriminationatwork
I don't necessarily agree with it, and the spokeswoman for Torry Harris was saying they won't tolerate it. I don't understand why you've got a bit upset/angry with me. Yes it's negative for someone, that's pretty much the main problem with it.
I meant beneficiaries instead of benefactors.
which race you are on
its all subjective.
but frankly, i don't give a flying shit. someone once had a go at me and made racist remarks (in a negative fashion) at work.
i didn't say anything to him, i didn't care enough about either him or the issue to argue the point.
does him mentioning my race make the fact that he was insulting me any worse than it already was? the answer is no.
calling me scottish is a compliment . adding bastard on the end just turns it into a point of view.
he was entitled to his, and by that point I had already decided he was sorely lacking both an education and another braincell to keep his existing one company.
i can fight my own fights. i don't need some politcally correct remtard being offended on my behalf, infact i find the idea truly offensive and repulsive.
if someone insulted me and i actually gave a shit, i'd deck the bastard. whether or not he mentioned what country i'm from would make little difference after i'd broken his jaw.
besides, if this company don't allow positive discrimination, how do they justify paying their execs more than the codemonkeys? that's what i'd call positive discrimination, from the point of view of the execs. i wonder what race *they* are?
anon for obvious and inflammatory reasons.
just go have a pint everyone, and fuckin chillax.
I know exactly what positive discrimination is. It is a way to redress a perceived imbalance in the makeup of a workforce that ignores the one thing that is required in recruitment, namely, who is the best candidate for the job.
If the best way of productivity for a company means that the best candidates that applied were entirely women then why should a man get a job ahead of a better qualified woman, just because the male/female ratio is wrong ? That is not only negative for the woman who doesn't get the job, it is also negative for the company.
I know that it exists, is legal, and in some cases the government is attempting to make it illegal not to postively discriminate. Whatever it is still wrong, decisions should be based on suitability for the job and nothing else.
I used to work for the tiny company, when they were known as THBS, in their Southampton office. They are Indian in origin, (formally a door-to-door fish salesman I believe, and then someone bought the company name) with most of the work being done in Bangalore. Never struck me as racist when I was there, and when I went to their bangalore offices, they couldn't be friendlier. Probably just a poorly thought out job advert, although you would have thought this kind of thing would be picked up before publication in this day and age.
I for one welcome our hard working Indian overlords, and hope they will give me a job when they begin their war with China over dominion of Earth.
" Probably just a poorly thought out job advert, although you would have thought this kind of thing would be picked up before publication in this day and age. "
This is precisely the day and age when this sort of thing *wouldn't* be picked up. The immediacy of technology and the false assurances of spell checkers mean there's far more written material out there that hasn't been through the hands of a professional proof-reader.
In a previous day and age, there would have been some sort of "costumer service" between the advertiser and the press and they might have queried the wording.
Not today. Not this day and age.
should we assume that the spelling of "costumer service" is intentional, given that it probably wouldn't get "through the hands of a professional proof-reader" ?
after all, "the false assurances of spell checkers..."
There is a number of Indian outsourcing companies that continuously put racist and illegal ads on Jobsite, LinkedIn, etc. I have reported a few, but the general approach of the Home Office is "We do not give a flying f***".
I guess it takes the Daily Fail to intervene for someone to notice the one of the many ads.
That is of course the "visible" side of the coin here. There is also the invisible. Racial selection is ripe in the UK IT industry.
A while back I got so pissed off by not getting any responses for job apps that I invented a "lodger" that lived at my address, graduated from the worst Indian university I could find info on, went through a few companies that went bust and so on. Basically I cooked an Indian CV that had "failure" written all over it and applied for the jobs that never provided me with any feedback under that name. There were at least 3 big UK agencies that rang the "indian" phone (actually my second NTL line) like crazy for weeks after that.
We have the very same thing here in the U.S. where Asians and Indians get preference in technical jobs. Years ago I assumed that all the Patel's, Anand's, & Li's coming across my desk was due to the fact that mostly Indians and Asians were applying for IT jobs.
I eventually figured out that the recruiting agencies are terribly guilty of racial profiling and will send up the resumes they *think* seem more fitting based on race, not necessarily experience, training, or capabilities.
The HR side of the IT business went to hell in a hand basket a long time ago. After nearly two decades in the god forsaken industry I'll be glad to get out next year.
could this be someone in HR having a dig about outsourcing in the company?
I thought it was also now considered age discrimination to ask for "x years experience in y"?
No I think that's algeb- ra- cism