|
|
Post by OldRastrickian on Sept 10, 2014 16:29:50 GMT 1
I think there's a possibility that some people are confused about the meaning of the phrase 'equality of opportunity'. You see, the point is that we live in a world of deeply ingrained and often institutionalised oppressions. So from an early age women, people of colour, and people with non-traditional gender and sexual orientations, have a lot of barriers put in front them, not least because white men tend to have a firm grip on the levers of power. Now, those barriers build up to the point where a job interview becomes very loaded for minorities. That's what affirmative action is: it's a means to bring about equality of opportunity, to level the playing field, to remove some of those barriers. The idea that we should just ignore the fact that certain people are at an advantage and others are at a disadvantage when it comes to employment is just a way to preserve the status-quo. And it's not about giving 'undeserving' folks jobs. It's about giving qualified people a chance to prove themselves. You can't call 'reverse discrimination' every time there's an initiative to correct a historical injustice. Well, you can if you want, but it sounds kind of silly. There are a disproportionate number of black players in the Premiership (some of the highest-paying jobs on the planet....more than their white managers earn). It appears that black players enjoy a level of certain physical attributes most white players can't match (eg pace).......so not a level playing field. Do you think this injustice should be resolved......not by severing their hamstrings, but by the reducing their number....giving preference to white players? This isn't strictly tongue-in-cheek. Many of these black players are foreign.....and are one of the primary reasons why so many English players (white, black, brown) are spending too much time on the subs bench, to the obvious detriment of the national team. Clearly, the clubs employ this disproportionate number of black players because they believe it to be in the club's (business') best interests. But do we need to implement the affirmative action of sending a lot of them back home? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2014 16:46:44 GMT 1
I think there's a possibility that some people are confused about the meaning of the phrase 'equality of opportunity'. You see, the point is that we live in a world of deeply ingrained and often institutionalised oppressions. So from an early age women, people of colour, and people with non-traditional gender and sexual orientations, have a lot of barriers put in front them, not least because white men tend to have a firm grip on the levers of power. Now, those barriers build up to the point where a job interview becomes very loaded for minorities. That's what affirmative action is: it's a means to bring about equality of opportunity, to level the playing field, to remove some of those barriers. The idea that we should just ignore the fact that certain people are at an advantage and others are at a disadvantage when it comes to employment is just a way to preserve the status-quo. And it's not about giving 'undeserving' folks jobs. It's about giving qualified people a chance to prove themselves. You can't call 'reverse discrimination' every time there's an initiative to correct a historical injustice. Well, you can if you want, but it sounds kind of silly. There are a disproportionate number of black players in the Premiership (some of the highest-paying jobs on the planet....more than their white managers earn). It appears that black players enjoy a level of certain physical attributes most white players can't match (eg pace).......so not a level playing field. Do you think this injustice should be resolved......not by severing their hamstrings, but by the reducing their number....giving preference to white players? This isn't strictly tongue-in-cheek. Many of these black players are foreign.....and are one of the primary reasons why so many English players (white, black, brown) are spending too much time on the subs bench, to the obvious detriment of the national team. Clearly, the clubs employ this disproportionate number of black players because they believe it to be in the club's (business') best interests. But do we need to implement the affirmative action of sending a lot of them back home? That's a strange analogy. For starters, the fact that there is a high number of black players in the premier league might be down to inequalities in wider society. Perhaps it is because physical attributes don't lie that we find ourselves in the current situation. And besides, it's well documented that black players are undervalued in the transfer market and underpaid when compared to their white teammates (see the work of Stefan Szymanski). I should have made it clearer, though, that I was referring to the principle of affirmative action in general, hence my caveat about the Rooney Rule. Indeed, by its very nature, professional sport is often the exception that proves the rule. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2014 16:48:03 GMT 1
1860 I don't have an issue with encouraging minorities to apply, I just think it is wrong to proactively look to hire a minority to fill a quota or whatever because these things do not happen in isolation. To me positive discrimination is not ok because someone else is impacted negatively. Has nothing to do with a race card to me because it applies to race, sex, age, sexual preference etc. They should not even be considered.
Equal opportunity to me means encouraging all people from all backgrounds to apply and reviewing every application using the same non biased criteria and making a hiring decision based on those criteria.
It should be illegal to take race, sex, sexual preference, disabilities, nationality, age, etc, into consideration when hiring someone whether its for a negative or positive reason.
We can live in a post racial society but for that to happen everyone has to leave the past behind, move on and compete on equal terms. Legislating who you have to interview is not going to help that. The only thing that will is letting the bigoted dinosaurs that remain die off.
When it comes to managers and coaches the Football community has an old boy network problem, much more than a racial problem. Thats the issue that needs to be addressed in my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2014 16:50:54 GMT 1
1860 I don't have an issue with encouraging minorities to apply, I just think it is wrong to proactively look to hire a minority to fill a quota or whatever because these things do not happen in isolation. To me positive discrimination is not ok because someone else is impacted negatively. Has nothing to do with a race card to me because it applies to race, sex, age, sexual preference etc. They should not even be considered. Equal opportunity to me means encouraging all people from all backgrounds to apply and reviewing every application using the same non biased criteria and making a hiring decision based on those criteria. It should be illegal to take race, sex, sexual preference, disabilities, nationality, age, etc, into consideration when hiring someone whether its for a negative or positive reason. We can live in a post racial society but for that to happen everyone has to leave the past behind, move on and compete on equal terms. Legislating who you have to interview is not going to help that. The only thing that will is letting the bigoted dinosaurs that remain die off. When it comes to managers and coaches the Football community has an old boy network problem, much more than a racial problem. Thats the issue that needs to be addressed in my opinion. I think we're probably just too far apart on this issue, and I've got a feeling we might end up going round in circles. That said, we're probably in agreement on the Rooney Rule, if not for completely different reasons! |
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Sept 10, 2014 17:47:29 GMT 1
as a person who runs a business, my own, I adamantly defend my right to employ exactly who I like and for whatever reason I like.
If I stupidly employ one person over another for stupid reasons I will end up in the shit..
I adamantly oppose the public sector having to employ a certain amount of individuals based on their colour, race, sex or sexual orientation because it clearly hasn't worked in the years that they have been doing it. The requirement to complete application forms forms giving anything other than your name, your experience and your personal qualities for that position should be outlawed. Age, race, religion or sexual orientation should not be an issue to get an interview or otherwise. The pernicious use of the act to allow certain individuals only to apply for certain positions was always wrong and continues to be wrong, for everyone involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldRastrickian on Sept 10, 2014 18:19:24 GMT 1
There are a disproportionate number of black players in the Premiership (some of the highest-paying jobs on the planet....more than their white managers earn). It appears that black players enjoy a level of certain physical attributes most white players can't match (eg pace).......so not a level playing field. Do you think this injustice should be resolved......not by severing their hamstrings, but by the reducing their number....giving preference to white players? This isn't strictly tongue-in-cheek. Many of these black players are foreign.....and are one of the primary reasons why so many English players (white, black, brown) are spending too much time on the subs bench, to the obvious detriment of the national team. Clearly, the clubs employ this disproportionate number of black players because they believe it to be in the club's (business') best interests. But do we need to implement the affirmative action of sending a lot of them back home? That's a strange analogy. For starters, the fact that there is a high number of black players in the premier league might be down to inequalities in wider society. Perhaps it is because physical attributes don't lie that we find ourselves in the current situation. And besides, it's well documented that black players are undervalued in the transfer market and underpaid when compared to their white teammates (see the work of Stefan Szymanski). I should have made it clearer, though, that I was referring to the principle of affirmative action in general, hence my caveat about the Rooney Rule. Indeed, by its very nature, professional sport is often the exception that proves the rule. For the avoidance of any misunderstanding, I don't support affirmative action in the UK, in any field. I was merely pointing out that, as currently applied in this country, it seems to be a one-way street. I certainly think there are grounds for concern over the number of foreign players in the Premiership.......but that's irrespective of their skin colour, sexual orientation, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by OldRastrickian on Sept 10, 2014 18:19:39 GMT 1
There are a disproportionate number of black players in the Premiership (some of the highest-paying jobs on the planet....more than their white managers earn). It appears that black players enjoy a level of certain physical attributes most white players can't match (eg pace).......so not a level playing field. Do you think this injustice should be resolved......not by severing their hamstrings, but by the reducing their number....giving preference to white players? This isn't strictly tongue-in-cheek. Many of these black players are foreign.....and are one of the primary reasons why so many English players (white, black, brown) are spending too much time on the subs bench, to the obvious detriment of the national team. Clearly, the clubs employ this disproportionate number of black players because they believe it to be in the club's (business') best interests. But do we need to implement the affirmative action of sending a lot of them back home? That's a strange analogy. For starters, the fact that there is a high number of black players in the premier league might be down to inequalities in wider society. Perhaps it is because physical attributes don't lie that we find ourselves in the current situation. And besides, it's well documented that black players are undervalued in the transfer market and underpaid when compared to their white teammates (see the work of Stefan Szymanski). I should have made it clearer, though, that I was referring to the principle of affirmative action in general, hence my caveat about the Rooney Rule. Indeed, by its very nature, professional sport is often the exception that proves the rule. For the avoidance of any misunderstanding, I don't support affirmative action in the UK, in any field. I was merely pointing out that, as currently applied in this country, it seems to be a one-way street. I certainly think there are grounds for concern over the number of foreign players in the Premiership.......but that's irrespective of their skin colour, sexual orientation, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by benhtafc on Sept 10, 2014 18:56:59 GMT 1
as a person who runs a business, my own, I adamantly defend my right to employ exactly who I like and for whatever reason I like. If I stupidly employ one person over another for stupid reasons I will end up in the shit.. I adamantly oppose the public sector having to employ a certain amount of individuals based on their colour, race, sex or sexual orientation because it clearly hasn't worked in the years that they have been doing it. The requirement to complete application forms forms giving anything other than your name, your experience and your personal qualities for that position should be outlawed. Age, race, religion or sexual orientation should not be an issue to get an interview or otherwise. The pernicious use of the act to allow certain individuals only to apply for certain positions was always wrong and continues to be wrong, for everyone involved. I agree, every role should be filled SOLELY based on their qualifications for that role. Part of that selection process is the pre-interview stage where candidates are whittled down based on how well they represent themselves on paper (though admittedly candidates for football management jobs are usually in the public light). Employers should be free to choose who they will interview for a role based upon their own idea of who will be the best person for it. If it then comes to light that someone is not hiring people because of their colour, creed, gender, sexuality or nationality then drag the biggoted b8st8rds through the cleaners, backwards with their nuts nailed to a tree. You can't impose restrictions on people who have not shown themselves to be discriminatory in any way if it will have a negative effect on their selection process by preventing some viable candidates from being interviewed. |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Sept 10, 2014 19:02:27 GMT 1
From wikipedia: The Rooney Rule requires National Football League teams to interview minority candidates for head coaching and senior football operation jobs. It is sometimes cited as an example of affirmative action, though there is no quota or preference given to minorities in the hiring of candidates. It was established in 2003. So in effect if a club decides to have a shortlist of 5 candidates to interview and when they've picked their top 5 if it includes someone from a minority then fine, and if it doesn't then they add a sixth candidate - the best minority candidate who applied. IMO there is no 'positive discrimination' in this case. At the end of the day the club will hire the best candidate and as long as they have interviewed someone from a minority background then all is good. Would the white candidate who was maybe 6th on the list, so just missed out on an interview agree with that? If the club was being tasked to interview a 6th candidate, he should get it on merit ( he's the 6th best candidate after all) The Rooney rule effectively says he can't have that interview because hes white and his place must be taken by a black person. How is that not positive discrimination, or more to the point, just racial discrimination? |
|
|
|
Post by benhtafc on Sept 10, 2014 19:13:30 GMT 1
From wikipedia: The Rooney Rule requires National Football League teams to interview minority candidates for head coaching and senior football operation jobs. It is sometimes cited as an example of affirmative action, though there is no quota or preference given to minorities in the hiring of candidates. It was established in 2003. So in effect if a club decides to have a shortlist of 5 candidates to interview and when they've picked their top 5 if it includes someone from a minority then fine, and if it doesn't then they add a sixth candidate - the best minority candidate who applied. IMO there is no 'positive discrimination' in this case. At the end of the day the club will hire the best candidate and as long as they have interviewed someone from a minority background then all is good. Would the white candidate who was maybe 6th on the list, so just missed out on an interview agree with that? If the club was being tasked to interview a 6th candidate, he should get it on merit ( he's the 6th best candidate after all) The Rooney rule effectively says he can't have that interview because hes white and his place must be taken by a black person. How is that not positive discrimination, or more to the point, just racial discrimination? Precisely, you have to look at each stage of the process as an oppertunity for a candidate to impress the prospective employer. If you are depriving the 6th best candidate of the chance to impress the employer, base only on the colour of that 6th candidates skin, then that is the EXACT opposite of equal oppertunities, which is defined by Wikipedia as: "Equal opportunity is a stipulation that all people should be treated similarly, unhampered by artificial barriers or prejudices or preferences" If having different coloured skin to the 7th best candidate is not an artifical barrier the what is? |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Sept 10, 2014 19:17:01 GMT 1
Think both sides of this debate want a level playing field and no discrimination based on race.
It just seems to me that one side want to achieve that be not having a level playing field and by discrimination based on race!
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 24,127 
|
Post by Tinpot on Sept 10, 2014 22:06:37 GMT 1
From wikipedia: The Rooney Rule requires National Football League teams to interview minority candidates for head coaching and senior football operation jobs. It is sometimes cited as an example of affirmative action, though there is no quota or preference given to minorities in the hiring of candidates. It was established in 2003. So in effect if a club decides to have a shortlist of 5 candidates to interview and when they've picked their top 5 if it includes someone from a minority then fine, and if it doesn't then they add a sixth candidate - the best minority candidate who applied. IMO there is no 'positive discrimination' in this case. At the end of the day the club will hire the best candidate and as long as they have interviewed someone from a minority background then all is good. Would the white candidate who was maybe 6th on the list, so just missed out on an interview agree with that? If the club was being tasked to interview a 6th candidate, he should get it on merit ( he's the 6th best candidate after all) The Rooney rule effectively says he can't have that interview because hes white and his place must be taken by a black person. How is that not positive discrimination, or more to the point, just racial discrimination? The 6th best white candidate isn't getting an interview anyway, so he's unaffected by the ruling. |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Sept 10, 2014 22:43:23 GMT 1
Of course he is!
He has to accept that due to his skin colour being wrong, a less favourable candidate with the right colour skin will jump ahead of him in the queue when an extra interview is forced on the club!!
Saying he isn't effected by it is the same as saying a black coach who isn't given an interview because hes black, isn't effected by it because he wouldn't get the job anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by sapphireblue on Sept 10, 2014 23:06:42 GMT 1
It only takes one sexist or racist or homophobe or any other discriminatory person in the chain of command/operation of any business or organisation to slew the interviewing process to a point where positive action needs to be taken to redress the balance. Because . . . Everyone (from what I have read in this thread) agrees that the best person for any job should be the one who gets the job. For that to happen, the best candidates for the job needs to be put forward to the interview process. In an ideal world, and I am sure yours is Davva, this would happen as a matter of course - but it does not. "African" sounding named candidates with EXACTLY the same qualifications as "Britsh" named candidates are significantly less likely to be offered job interviews. www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html (American study, but the point holds I think) It may not be the person with the power to employ that filters out these candidates, but filtered out they are. The point of the Rooney rule is that despite the "positive discrimination" in giving the 6th interview place, actual discrimination does not happen, nobody who would have got an interview does not get one. Nobody loses out. It is just possible that the overlooked minority 6th candidate may be the best person for the job. (or not - it may be Paul Ince) In a world where many people are promoted exactly one level above their competence, that just may be a good thing. |
|
terrier5
Tom Cowan Terrier
[M0:5]
Posts: 705
|
Post by terrier5 on Sept 11, 2014 9:12:55 GMT 1
Think both sides of this debate want a level playing field and no discrimination based on race. It just seems to me that one side want to achieve that be not having a level playing field and by discrimination based on race! If that's your summing up of the case Captain, then I'll give you the first part but it just seems to me that some people seem to want to deny that racism in any form or degree exists - or want to believe that the best way to tackle such discrimination is to do nothing about it! In an area (racial prejudice) which is uncomfortably close to a thought crime and where actual discrimination can be nigh on impossible to improve, we are where we are - and it's not nearly as bad as some folk make out. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2014 13:40:34 GMT 1
Think both sides of this debate want a level playing field and no discrimination based on race. It just seems to me that one side want to achieve that be not having a level playing field and by discrimination based on race! If that's your summing up of the case Captain, then I'll give you the first part but it just seems to me that some people seem to want to deny that racism in any form or degree exists - or want to believe that the best way to tackle such discrimination is to do nothing about it! In an area (racial prejudice) which is uncomfortably close to a thought crime and where actual discrimination can be nigh on impossible to improve, we are where we are - and it's not nearly as bad as some folk make out. I haven't seen anyone deny the existence of racism. Racial bias exists and it is certainly not a one way street as I have experienced myself. However you don't fix it by discriminating in the other direction. Giving someone an advantage will just cause more animosity. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Sept 11, 2014 13:55:45 GMT 1
From wikipedia: The Rooney Rule requires National Football League teams to interview minority candidates for head coaching and senior football operation jobs. It is sometimes cited as an example of affirmative action, though there is no quota or preference given to minorities in the hiring of candidates. It was established in 2003. So in effect if a club decides to have a shortlist of 5 candidates to interview and when they've picked their top 5 if it includes someone from a minority then fine, and if it doesn't then they add a sixth candidate - the best minority candidate who applied. IMO there is no 'positive discrimination' in this case. At the end of the day the club will hire the best candidate and as long as they have interviewed someone from a minority background then all is good. Would the white candidate who was maybe 6th on the list, so just missed out on an interview agree with that? If the club was being tasked to interview a 6th candidate, he should get it on merit ( he's the 6th best candidate after all) The Rooney rule effectively says he can't have that interview because hes white and his place must be taken by a black person. How is that not positive discrimination, or more to the point, just racial discrimination? If you reread my post it states and I repeat for the good captain (wwhat did the Charlton fan call you? persisent,bloody minded who insists on the last word... It seems he sussed you out) The club decides on 5 (FIVE) shortlisted candidates therefore the sixth best has missed the cut be he white, black, pink with yellow dots. if there is not a minority in the first 5 then the club selects the best minority candidate and ADDS him to the previous shortlist. 6th white guy not getting an interview initially and guess what he still doesn't after the club abides by the Rooney rule. The rule has worked perfectly well in the NFL and there is talk of added the rule to the more assistant coaches because of it's success (besides the initial general manager and head coach positions). Why would you find this scenario unacceptable Capn? |
|
|
|
Post by bluedogs, Esq. on Sept 11, 2014 14:19:45 GMT 1
Would the white candidate who was maybe 6th on the list, so just missed out on an interview agree with that? If the club was being tasked to interview a 6th candidate, he should get it on merit ( he's the 6th best candidate after all) The Rooney rule effectively says he can't have that interview because hes white and his place must be taken by a black person. How is that not positive discrimination, or more to the point, just racial discrimination? If you reread my post it states and I repeat for the good captain (wwhat did the Charlton fan call you? persisent,bloody minded who insists on the last word... It seems he sussed you out) The club decides on 5 (FIVE) shortlisted candidates therefore the sixth best has missed the cut be he white, black, pink with yellow dots. if there is not a minority in the first 5 then the club selects the best minority candidate and ADDS him to the previous shortlist. 6th white guy not getting an interview initially and guess what he still doesn't after the club abides by the Rooney rule. The rule has worked perfectly well in the NFL and there is talk of added the rule to the more assistant coaches because of it's success (besides the initial general manager and head coach positions). Why would you find this scenario unacceptable Capn? It sounds terrific, can the token 6th black candidate please come in, don't sit down this will not take long |
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Sept 11, 2014 15:11:06 GMT 1
one job and 10 applicants.. someone in that ten is going to be 'descriminated' against for some reason..
someone, somewhere in the process is going to 'descriminate' using their own formed opinion , which may well include all the ism's listed on this post.. it may also include very personal ideas about dress sense, tattoos , body language , smell, very first impressions etc etc etc..
I probably 'descriminate' all the time sub consciously when interviewing, which has probably led to some great mistakes in recruitment and some brilliant finds but that's the way of the world.
The day we remove all 'discrimination' that goes on wont ever come. The private sector has gone a long way to removing the obvious and worst kinds because as stated before you would be stupid to cut off your nose to spite your face. The continuation of 'positive descrimination' (misnomer if ever there was one) in the public sector harms all concerned. Filling department quotas is a ridiculous policy for the simple reason that you don't know how many of any particular type of person is going to apply and you cant forsee how many of any particular type of person is going to meet the standards or out perform any other type of candidate..They simply get round this by only letting certain people apply and those 10 might be poor candidates but one is going to get the gig, its ridiculously bad planning..
|
|
terrier5
Tom Cowan Terrier
[M0:5]
Posts: 705
|
Post by terrier5 on Sept 11, 2014 15:30:14 GMT 1
The continuation of 'positive descrimination' (misnomer if ever there was one) in the public sector harms all concerned. Filling department quotas is a ridiculous policy for the simple reason that you don't know how many of any particular type of person is going to apply and you cant forsee how many of any particular type of person is going to meet the standards or out perform any other type of candidate..They simply get round this by only letting certain people apply and those 10 might be poor candidates but one is going to get the gig, its ridiculously bad planning.. Does this actually happen? Is there any evidence? I'll join you in condemning such a practice if I see any remotely convincing proof. As far as I'm aware any such practice would be wholly illegal. I'll accept informed criticism of public sector management practice - it's not perfect and I can give you examples myself (best done in a quiet corner of the Slubbers rather than on social media!) - but what you state is just rubbish, galpharm. |
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Sept 11, 2014 16:34:41 GMT 1
lots of jobs in the public sector are open only to certain sections of the public. says so on the advert and on the job application forms.. this was used in the beginning on very few vacancies and has been growing ever since.
its clear that certain jobs are very much better suited to the type of applicant they actually want but a good number of the vacancies now have this addendum and you just cant see why anyone who is qualified could not do it??
rules on fitness have changed to suit this practice but the job itself hasn't changed??? how does that work then? does the person selected for the job not actually do accepted parts of the job because they just physically or mentally cant???
as stated before, the public sector has lowered standards to suit a set of laws but as none of the jobs involved have changed dramatically the service is poorer for it.. its a fact that cannot be argued with.. you have less people(with the cuts) less able to perform all their 'required' duties.. sorry its just happening, like it or not..
|
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Sept 11, 2014 17:56:26 GMT 1
Would the white candidate who was maybe 6th on the list, so just missed out on an interview agree with that? If the club was being tasked to interview a 6th candidate, he should get it on merit ( he's the 6th best candidate after all) The Rooney rule effectively says he can't have that interview because hes white and his place must be taken by a black person. How is that not positive discrimination, or more to the point, just racial discrimination? If you reread my post it states and I repeat for the good captain (wwhat did the Charlton fan call you? persisent,bloody minded who insists on the last word... It seems he sussed you out) The club decides on 5 (FIVE) shortlisted candidates therefore the sixth best has missed the cut be he white, black, pink with yellow dots. if there is not a minority in the first 5 then the club selects the best minority candidate and ADDS him to the previous shortlist. 6th white guy not getting an interview initially and guess what he still doesn't after the club abides by the Rooney rule. The rule has worked perfectly well in the NFL and there is talk of added the rule to the more assistant coaches because of it's success (besides the initial general manager and head coach positions). Why would you find this scenario unacceptable Capn? The charlton fan realised I wasn't goiung to back down when i know and can prove I was right. can't prove the same on this as its just down to personal opinion. but for the answer to your question, just re-read my post. The answer is still the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Sept 11, 2014 18:09:20 GMT 1
If you reread my post it states and I repeat for the good captain (wwhat did the Charlton fan call you? persisent,bloody minded who insists on the last word... It seems he sussed you out) The club decides on 5 (FIVE) shortlisted candidates therefore the sixth best has missed the cut be he white, black, pink with yellow dots. if there is not a minority in the first 5 then the club selects the best minority candidate and ADDS him to the previous shortlist. 6th white guy not getting an interview initially and guess what he still doesn't after the club abides by the Rooney rule. The rule has worked perfectly well in the NFL and there is talk of added the rule to the more assistant coaches because of it's success (besides the initial general manager and head coach positions). Why would you find this scenario unacceptable Capn? The charlton fan realised I wasn't goiung to back down when i know and can prove I was right. can't prove the same on this as its just down to personal opinion. but for the answer to your question, just re-read my post. The answer is still the same. Which seemed to be complaining if the 6th best candidate was white, and in both scenarios he wouldn't get an interview so I cannot see how he has been discriminated against going from not having an interview to ermmm not having an interview. Terrible discrimination to cause such a non event don't ya think? The NFL decided that the racial profile of their organisation was unsatisfactory and therefore instigated the Rooney rule to improve it, the rule has been a great success and welcomed by personnel in the organisation of all origins. I really don't understand why anyone would have a problem with it. All teams are free to appoint the best candidate for the job. |
|
|
|
Post by hypotenuse on Sept 11, 2014 21:01:11 GMT 1
as a person who runs a business, my own, I adamantly defend my right to employ exactly who I like and for whatever reason I like. If I stupidly employ one person over another for stupid reasons I will end up in the shit.. I adamantly oppose the public sector having to employ a certain amount of individuals based on their colour, race, sex or sexual orientation because it clearly hasn't worked in the years that they have been doing it. The requirement to complete application forms forms giving anything other than your name, your experience and your personal qualities for that position should be outlawed. Age, race, religion or sexual orientation should not be an issue to get an interview or otherwise. The pernicious use of the act to allow certain individuals only to apply for certain positions was always wrong and continues to be wrong, for everyone involved. You seem to have a bizarre impression of the public sector. I work in that sector and when we shortlist we are given a totally anonymised application which simply has a list of the applicants qualifications, any previous jobs and a supporting letter. We could not use the Rooney Rule because we don't know the race, gender, age or anything else about the candidates until the shortlist has been compiled. |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Sept 11, 2014 21:21:14 GMT 1
The charlton fan realised I wasn't goiung to back down when i know and can prove I was right. can't prove the same on this as its just down to personal opinion. but for the answer to your question, just re-read my post. The answer is still the same. Which seemed to be complaining if the 6th best candidate was white, and in both scenarios he wouldn't get an interview so I cannot see how he has been discriminated against going from not having an interview to ermmm not having an interview. Terrible discrimination to cause such a non event don't ya think? The NFL decided that the racial profile of their organisation was unsatisfactory and therefore instigated the Rooney rule to improve it, the rule has been a great success and welcomed by personnel in the organisation of all origins. I really don't understand why anyone would have a problem with it. All teams are free to appoint the best candidate for the job. I don't know how I can phrase what i mean any clearer the club are forced to give an interview to a 6th candidate even though they only want to interview 5. the 6th best candidate DOESN'T get interviewed because he isn't the 'right' colour. A black candidate ( might be the 54th best candidate for all we know! ) DOES get an interview because he is the 'right' colour. THE 6TH BEST CANDIDATE HAS GONE FROM NOT GETTING AN INTERVIEW BECAUSE HE JUST MISSED THE CUT, TO NOT GETTING AN INTERVIEW BECAUSE HE'S A WHITE MAN!!! How the hell is that NOT discriminating against the white bloke on the grounds of his colour when another bloke is getting fast-tracked and leap frogging over him in the pecking order, not because he is a better candidate or anything like that, but just because his skin colour is 'correct' . THAT is racial discrimination anyway you want to look at it. I don't understand how you're not seeing that. Everyone on thread agrees that racial discrimination is wrong and must stop, yet some people think it's fine to racially discriminate against white people, or to be more accurate, seem to think it isn't racial discrimination if it's a white person being racially discriminated against. |
|
|
|
Post by hypotenuse on Sept 11, 2014 21:32:52 GMT 1
It can, of course, work the other way. I know of a college which was struggling to get any applicants from white males in two of their feeder schools in a very deprived borough. They put in place a range of activities through school years 7-11 (11-16 year olds) in the 2 schools involving taster days, visits and trips, guest speakers etc to raise aspirations and guaranteed every applicant from the schools in question an interview at their college. They still had to get the same grades (5xC) to get in as other students but they now have about 5 times the number of white males from disadvantaged backgrounds as they used to get.
it may be discrimination and some folk may consider it wrong.
in my opinion it is equalising opportunity without dropping standards - positive discrimination? Affirmative action? Or whatever you care to call it
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Sept 11, 2014 22:02:18 GMT 1
Which seemed to be complaining if the 6th best candidate was white, and in both scenarios he wouldn't get an interview so I cannot see how he has been discriminated against going from not having an interview to ermmm not having an interview. Terrible discrimination to cause such a non event don't ya think? The NFL decided that the racial profile of their organisation was unsatisfactory and therefore instigated the Rooney rule to improve it, the rule has been a great success and welcomed by personnel in the organisation of all origins. I really don't understand why anyone would have a problem with it. All teams are free to appoint the best candidate for the job. I don't know how I can phrase what i mean any clearer the club are forced to give an interview to a 6th candidate even though they only want to interview 5. the 6th best candidate DOESN'T get interviewed because he isn't the 'right' colour. A black candidate ( might be the 54th best candidate for all we know! ) DOES get an interview because he is the 'right' colour. THE 6TH BEST CANDIDATE HAS GONE FROM NOT GETTING AN INTERVIEW BECAUSE HE JUST MISSED THE CUT, TO NOT GETTING AN INTERVIEW BECAUSE HE'S A WHITE MAN!!! How the hell is that NOT discriminating against the white bloke on the grounds of his colour when another bloke is getting fast-tracked and leap frogging over him in the pecking order, not because he is a better candidate or anything like that, but just because his skin colour is 'correct' . THAT is racial discrimination anyway you want to look at it. I don't understand how you're not seeing that. Everyone on thread agrees that racial discrimination is wrong and must stop, yet some people think it's fine to racially discriminate against white people, or to be more accurate, seem to think it isn't racial discrimination if it's a white person being racially discriminated against. I or should I say the NFL see it as not discriminating against the 6th white guy who missed the cut of the shortlist of 5 but giving a minority (should one not be in the original shortlist of 5) an opportunity to interview for a position as they seek to redress the imbalance they saw within their own organisation where 70% of it was black with only a handful in senior positions. In reality it maybe as Bluedogs suggests no more than a token gesture. The 6th white guy would not get the job with or without the Rooney rule, in all liklihood the 56th placed minority candidate will not get the job either because the team will always (AND ARE FREE TO) appoint the best candidate. The NFL Rooney rule has been a success for them, more minority coaches have been hired, more minority GM's have been hired, whether that would have occurred without the Rooney rule is open to debate. |
|
Macduff
Andy Booth Terrier
I've got a Gibson without a case but I cant get that even tanned look on my face.
Posts: 3,925
|
Post by Macduff on Sept 11, 2014 23:06:41 GMT 1
The sixth candidate doesn't get an interview because he's 6th not because he's white. As an encouragement for minority candidates to apply the best placed is interviewed. Don't see why some are getting so upset about this as there is no obligation to appoint. I'm with CP on this. Some of the counter arguments strike me as having undertones of the "I'm not racist but..........." brigade.
UTT
|
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Sept 12, 2014 0:10:39 GMT 1
The sixth candidate doesn't get an interview because he's 6th not because he's white. As an encouragement for minority candidates to apply the best placed is interviewed. Don't see why some are getting so upset about this as there is no obligation to appoint. I'm with CP on this. Some of the counter arguments strike me as having undertones of the "I'm not racist but..........." brigade. UTT What? How does NOT wanting any discrimination based on race translate as being racist?? Honestly, thats a bewildering thing to say. |
|
|
|
Post by benhtafc on Sept 12, 2014 3:20:11 GMT 1
As far as I am aware, and I may be missing something, the only mention of 5 candidates and then a sixth if they need to fill the quota is only being discussed because it was suggested as a hypothetical situation by someone on this forum...
Business does not work like that, a business (in this case a club) will budget resources for interviewing a number of candidates for a role. If that number is 5 then only 5 will be interviewed. If none of those are black, it is the FIFTH candidate that will be dropped for a black candidate in order to fill the quota. So enforcing a rule that there has to be a black interviewee will cause (on the case of a black person not being in the top 5 candidates) a person who would otherwise have been interviewed to be REPLACED by that black person.
The argument that nobody would miss out as they would be interviewed as an extra candidate is false because a recruiting budget will be set and the clubs will not spend money to meet the quota, they will instead pick the top 4 plus the top black person, which means the 5th candidate who (assuming the black person was not a top 5 candidate) would have normally had an interview, now misses out due to the colour of his or her skin.
Equality is about treating people the same, not systematically discriminating in favour of some.
|
|
