The Government Equality Office (GEO) has withdrawn the timetable that detailed which parts of the recently passed Equality Act would come into force when. Some elements were due to come into force in October. The GEO had published a timetable online but that has been withdrawn. A GEO spokeswoman said that the withdrawal was due …
no guano sherlock
are they per chance going to re-allow businesses (B&Bs) to refuse to serve (let stay) certain people (gays)?
Quite right too!
I'm all for legislation stopping discrimination, but so called "positive discrimination" is JUST AS BAD... People should be accessed for a job only on the merits of their CV, references and their personality (and that only to know as to how well they will be suited to the work, the working environment and fellow coworkers.)
Positive discrimination ...
... is unfair discrimination, just with a spin put on it. It is unfair both to those who benefit, and those who lose out. Those that benefit have their credibility undermined because it is too easy for others to say "S/he got that job because s/he is [insert characteristic]", and sometimes it is true - people *are* chosen to meet a specific quota, rather than for their ability to do the job. The employer then loses credibility, because they are seen to be pandering to political correctness.
However, that doesn't mean that there aren't problems with the existing system - my wife, who is better qualified than many others in her field, ended up going back five years or more in her career progression when she moved here from her native EU country. The problem was the discrimination based on the fact that no-one here knows her PhD supervisor. Had the system required nothing more than looking at the qualifications and skills, she would at least have had interviews, but the stupid old-boys' network meant that she had to drop way down the ladder to even get considered.
The only thing that matters, as the poster above says, is what the CV says, and whether that person seems to have whatever it takes to fit in to the working environment. Sure, I understand that it leads to "tick-box" selection that allows a good candidate with a non-standard background to be rejected early in the process, but what else is to be done.?
"The first is a provision that when hiring, companies could discriminate in favour of people from under-represented groups such as women, ethnic minorities or disabled people, but only if candidates were equally well qualified."
Being white, having young sons and having been brought up beleiving that everyone should be treated equally regardless. That part of the act made me feel like I'd been punched in the stomach. Action would have been taken, I don't know what but I couldn't have stood idly by if my own government promoted racial and sexual discrimination against me and my children, I know I'm not alone in that respect.
This coalition is fast restoring my faith in Government, although I would prefer if statute such as the disgusting example above be removed completley.
on the blatant sexism in the car insurance industry which discriminates against male drivers?
Before anyone says it, statistics is not a good enough reason to discriminate. If that were the case, then statistically women take more time off of work for baby making etc than men do...
Agree with AC above, this government is restoring faith in common sense rapidly
- Vid Hubble 'scope snaps 200,000-ton chunky crumble conundrum
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Google offers up its own Googlers in cloud channel chumship trawl
- Windows 8.1 Update 1 spewed online a MONTH early – by Microsoft
- Interview Global Warming IS REAL, argues sceptic mathematician - it just isn't THERMAGEDDON