|
|
Post by Headless Chicken on Jun 7, 2015 0:54:39 GMT 1
I don't think you're being racist, just pig headed. Shame this thread didn't end after the post of yours I 'liked'. Pig headed? Is there a reason for that comment? If not agreeing with racial discrimination being introduced is being pig headed, then oink oink. I personally don't feel the rule is generally necessary in England, so my incline would be not to introduce it. However, you have clearly closed your mind and use examples where some white chap is being penalised, i.e. ironically almost playing the hard done to white guy. This white chap in most cases will still get an interview, they'll just interview a black guy as well, and even if they don't, my guess is if three other white chaps had a better CV there's a good chance they wouldn't have got the job anyway. That isn't an assumption by the way. In my previous role I did a lot of interviewing and as expected there is a correlation between the quality of applications and the candidate.....surprisingly  |
|
|
|
Post by thrice on Jun 8, 2015 12:44:50 GMT 1
Pig headed? Is there a reason for that comment? If not agreeing with racial discrimination being introduced is being pig headed, then oink oink. I personally don't feel the rule is generally necessary in England, so my incline would be not to introduce it. However, you have clearly closed your mind and use examples where some white chap is being penalised, i.e. ironically almost playing the hard done to white guy. This white chap in most cases will still get an interview, they'll just interview a black guy as well, and even if they don't, my guess is if three other white chaps had a better CV there's a good chance they wouldn't have got the job anyway. That isn't an assumption by the way. In my previous role I did a lot of interviewing and as expected there is a correlation between the quality of applications and the candidate.....surprisingly That is quite a leap of faith! The fact of the matter is that in most instances if say only three people are interviewed then every other candidate regardless of their colour, creed, religion etc will not get the opportunity to interview. The beauty of the Rooney Rule is that it compels organisations to interview more folk & thus provide greater opportunity. The problem with it is that this opportunity is limited to certain folk only which is clearly discriminatory.This approach has undoubted merit as the "additional" people interviewed have often made an impression & got appointed more often than not at the second time of asking. I think that the principles of the Rooney Rule and their results are worthy of merit but ideally there should be no compulsion to employ them & it should not be discriminatory. It has clearly established some best practice applicable to any sector/organisation for interviewing & making many successful appointments. The interesting thing will be when & how they will ever abandon or reverse the rule if required in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Jun 8, 2015 12:54:20 GMT 1
Pig headed? Is there a reason for that comment? If not agreeing with racial discrimination being introduced is being pig headed, then oink oink. I personally don't feel the rule is generally necessary in England, so my incline would be not to introduce it. However, you have clearly closed your mind and use examples where some white chap is being penalised, i.e. ironically almost playing the hard done to white guy. This white chap in most cases will still get an interview, they'll just interview a black guy as well, and even if they don't, my guess is if three other white chaps had a better CV there's a good chance they wouldn't have got the job anyway. That isn't an assumption by the way. In my previous role I did a lot of interviewing and as expected there is a correlation between the quality of applications and the candidate.....surprisingly 'Clearly closed your mind'- Youve chosen your username very well. Could it be Ive formed an opinion having considered both sides??? Do you accept someone else other than you is capable of that?? And having done that Ive come to the opinion that discriminating for ( and therefore also against) someone because of their skin colour is wrong?? What a crazy view to hold!! |
|
|
|
Post by sapphireblue on Jun 8, 2015 13:01:49 GMT 1
Giving someone a box to stand on and thus enable them to see over a wall is not discriminating against someone who is already tall enough to see over.
|
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Jun 8, 2015 13:37:20 GMT 1
oh, we are against tall people now are we?  ?? im appalled... |
|
|
|
Post by gledholt terrier on Jun 8, 2015 13:59:51 GMT 1
oh, we are against tall people now are we? ?? im appalled... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2015 14:43:06 GMT 1
Really not sure how I feel about this rule, I'm genuinely torn. I was rejected by the fire service because I was male and white. I want the best candidates to get an interview, regardless of colour. In my heart of heart though, I see no other option even though I don't really agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Jun 8, 2015 14:56:49 GMT 1
Giving someone a box to stand on and thus enable them to see over a wall is not discriminating against someone who is already tall enough to see over. Bit of a flimsy analogy, but Ill carry it on- The guy already looking over the wall is able to do that because he's already earned his box ( hes done his courses on how to stand on the box and maybe impressed with the way he's looked over the wall in the past ). But then theres a group of people who don't have a box to stand on. They've only just learned how to stand on one, or maybe when they have in the past they kept falling off and were shit at it. What you support is picking out the ones with the correct colour of skin to give a box to and leaving the others without, because their skin colour isn't correct. = racial discrimination. Why not just let things happen naturally? 15 years ago there'd been hardly any clubs who'd had a black manager. Now 1/3 of them have. In another 15 years that will be over 2/3rds. We already have a hugely disproportionate amount of black players compared to the overall population. Id imagine in 15 years time there'll be 15-20 black managers at any given time and that will also be a hugely disproportionate amount. It doesn't need racism introducing to make it happen. |
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Jun 8, 2015 15:05:55 GMT 1
nobody in private business should be told who to interview or who to employ.. end of..
if you want to go down the toilet with an all white or all ethnic minority workforce because you pick the wrong ones for the wrong reasons then its your own stupid fault..
alternatively if you are using public money to select the wrong candidates for the wrong reasons you should have your nuts cut off..lowering the physical standards for entry is just conning the public, the candidate chosen and endangering, for no good reason, the users of that service..
seeing 5 foot tall police officers does not inspire confidence...as we get taller as a nation our emergency service personnel get shorter and fatter???
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2015 15:06:19 GMT 1
one persons inequality is another's equality and vice versa.
It really doesn't make any sense. If say for example a big club are in search of a manager, they have 10 applicants including the likes of Louis Van Gaal, Jose Mourinho, Tony Pulis... etc but have one black applicant. Now if the FL have not met their quota, do the football club become legally obliged to employ the black applicant, even tho he may have never managed before?
If your good enough for the job surely you would get the job regardless of the colour of your skin?
|
|
|
|
Post by gledholt terrier on Jun 8, 2015 15:07:11 GMT 1
Really not sure how I feel about this rule, I'm genuinely torn. I was rejected by the fire service because I was male and white. I want the best candidates to get an interview, regardless of colour. In my heart of heart though, I see no other option even though I don't really agree. I think they have made a rod for their own backs by constantly referring to the Rooney Rule. That was introduced in a country where sport had been systematically segregated and, even when segregation was outlawed, the practices most certainly were not (as relatively recently as the early 60s the Washington Redskins were pretty much forced to desegregate). 70% of NFL players are black, yet - until Rooney - only a handful of coaches (and indeed quarterbacks) were black and the disconnect was blatantly obvious. The FL problem, it seems to me, is that a sport with a high proportion of black players didn't produce a realistically proportionate number of coaches/managers but for much less sinister reasons. They are caught in a vicious circle of having too few black managers rendering the taking of coaching badges a potentially perceived waste of time for other black players. Mandating that at least one, qualified black candidate is included in the interview process for youth coaching positions isn't about affirmative action/quotas, more a big sign to those black players who want to further their careers in sport that there aren't any barriers to them doing so. This seems proportionate and fair to me, if necessarily a bit clumsy. It needs a time limit though, maybe of 5/10 years, to allow what is probably an accidental imbalance to be remedied. I can't help noticing that the number of black managers since CP took over at our place has increased from 1 to 6 in no time at all without intervention. |
|
|
|
Post by gledholt terrier on Jun 8, 2015 15:10:14 GMT 1
nobody in private business should be told who to interview or who to employ.. end of.. if you want to go down the toilet with an all white or all ethnic minority workforce because you pick the wrong ones for the wrong reasons then its your own stupid fault.. alternatively if you are using public money to select the wrong candidates for the wrong reasons you should have your nuts cut off..lowering the physical standards for entry is just conning the public, the candidate chosen and endangering, for no good reason, the users of that service.. seeing 5 foot tall police officers does not inspire confidence...as we get taller as a nation our emergency service personnel get shorter and fatter??? They are in private business but also part of an organisation in which they have a free vote. As an organisation they have voted to do this. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Jun 8, 2015 15:14:34 GMT 1
I love analogies....
How do you make this marathon fair....
2 runners of equal speed
The first 13 miles one runner has a ball and chain around his ankle and the second does not.
You decide this is an unfair practice half way through the race.
What action would make the overall marathon fair?
a) releasing the ball and chain from the first runner so he now has nothing holding him back for the remainder of the distance or
b) releasing the ball and chain from the first runner and giving him a lift to the side of the second runner
Which action will lead to equality at the finish line?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2015 15:19:57 GMT 1
Really not sure how I feel about this rule, I'm genuinely torn. I was rejected by the fire service because I was male and white. I want the best candidates to get an interview, regardless of colour. In my heart of heart though, I see no other option even though I don't really agree. I think they have made a rod for their own backs by constantly referring to the Rooney Rule. That was introduced in a country where sport had been systematically segregated and, even when segregation was outlawed, the practices most certainly were not (as relatively recently as the early 60s the Washington Redskins were pretty much forced to desegregate). 70% of NFL players are black, yet - until Rooney - only a handful of coaches (and indeed quarterbacks) were black and the disconnect was blatantly obvious. The FL problem, it seems to me, is that a sport with a high proportion of black players didn't produce a realistically proportionate number of coaches/managers but for much less sinister reasons. They are caught in a vicious circle of having too few black managers rendering the taking of coaching badges a potentially perceived waste of time for other black players. Mandating that at least one, qualified black candidate is included in the interview process for youth coaching positions isn't about affirmative action/quotas, more a big sign to those black players who want to further their careers in sport that there aren't any barriers to them doing so. This seems proportionate and fair to me, if necessarily a bit clumsy. It needs a time limit though, maybe of 5/10 years, to allow what is probably an accidental imbalance to be remedied. I can't help noticing that the number of black managers since CP took over at our place has increased from 1 to 6 in no time at all without intervention. I agree with all that mate, we have an issue in this country regarding the lack of play managers/coaches when we have so many black players. I'm just uneasy about interviewing somebody just because they are black. |
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Jun 8, 2015 15:25:40 GMT 1
still cant quite work out how a private business ie; a football club , can be told who to interview???
we are all bound by the equality acts but the point above about shooting yourself in the foot still applies..
if you knowingly hire the wrong person you are only damaging yourself..
|
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Jun 8, 2015 15:32:36 GMT 1
voting for something because you will be pilloried and bad mouthed to some tune isn't the best way of getting something through..
we have enacted so many bad laws, both badly worded and badly enforced over the past 30 years, it does not bear thinking about..
the constant requirement to tick boxes for race/gender/sexual orientation and religion is one of the worst..
one question;
would a trans gender, now female doctor be acceptable to Asian female patients??
or don't you tell them???
try making a law that fits that one..
|
|
|
|
Post by gledholt terrier on Jun 8, 2015 15:44:53 GMT 1
I think they have made a rod for their own backs by constantly referring to the Rooney Rule. That was introduced in a country where sport had been systematically segregated and, even when segregation was outlawed, the practices most certainly were not (as relatively recently as the early 60s the Washington Redskins were pretty much forced to desegregate). 70% of NFL players are black, yet - until Rooney - only a handful of coaches (and indeed quarterbacks) were black and the disconnect was blatantly obvious. The FL problem, it seems to me, is that a sport with a high proportion of black players didn't produce a realistically proportionate number of coaches/managers but for much less sinister reasons. They are caught in a vicious circle of having too few black managers rendering the taking of coaching badges a potentially perceived waste of time for other black players. Mandating that at least one, qualified black candidate is included in the interview process for youth coaching positions isn't about affirmative action/quotas, more a big sign to those black players who want to further their careers in sport that there aren't any barriers to them doing so. This seems proportionate and fair to me, if necessarily a bit clumsy. It needs a time limit though, maybe of 5/10 years, to allow what is probably an accidental imbalance to be remedied. I can't help noticing that the number of black managers since CP took over at our place has increased from 1 to 6 in no time at all without intervention. I agree with all that mate, we have an issue in this country regarding the lack of play managers/coaches when we have so many black players. I'm just uneasy about interviewing somebody just because they are black. Black and qualified. Though it's still uncomfortable, I agree |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2015 15:47:14 GMT 1
I agree with all that mate, we have an issue in this country regarding the lack of play managers/coaches when we have so many black players. I'm just uneasy about interviewing somebody just because they are black. Black and qualified. Though it's still uncomfortable, I agree I don't think there is a right answer. |
|
|
|
Post by gledholt terrier on Jun 8, 2015 15:47:40 GMT 1
still cant quite work out how a private business ie; a football club , can be told who to interview??? we are all bound by the equality acts but the point above about shooting yourself in the foot still applies.. if you knowingly hire the wrong person you are only damaging yourself.. The FL proposes and debates many things as an organization then the majority accepts and follows the rules. What's so hard? |
|
|
|
Post by Headless Chicken on Jun 8, 2015 17:20:31 GMT 1
I personally don't feel the rule is generally necessary in England, so my incline would be not to introduce it. However, you have clearly closed your mind and use examples where some white chap is being penalised, i.e. ironically almost playing the hard done to white guy. This white chap in most cases will still get an interview, they'll just interview a black guy as well, and even if they don't, my guess is if three other white chaps had a better CV there's a good chance they wouldn't have got the job anyway. That isn't an assumption by the way. In my previous role I did a lot of interviewing and as expected there is a correlation between the quality of applications and the candidate.....surprisingly 'Clearly closed your mind'- Youve chosen your username very well. Could it be Ive formed an opinion having considered both sides??? Do you accept someone else other than you is capable of that?? And having done that Ive come to the opinion that discriminating for ( and therefore also against) someone because of their skin colour is wrong?? What a crazy view to hold!! I've never seen you change your opinion in the slightest on any topic, which suggests to me you nay well try to take a balanced view at the beginning, but after that there's no budging. No white guy has necessarily been discriminated against if they simply have one additional candidate. In the case where a club drops them at the expense of a minority application, they can hardly have put forward a decent CV or the club us run by morons. |
|
|
|
Post by Headless Chicken on Jun 8, 2015 17:26:53 GMT 1
I personally don't feel the rule is generally necessary in England, so my incline would be not to introduce it. However, you have clearly closed your mind and use examples where some white chap is being penalised, i.e. ironically almost playing the hard done to white guy. This white chap in most cases will still get an interview, they'll just interview a black guy as well, and even if they don't, my guess is if three other white chaps had a better CV there's a good chance they wouldn't have got the job anyway. That isn't an assumption by the way. In my previous role I did a lot of interviewing and as expected there is a correlation between the quality of applications and the candidate.....surprisingly That is quite a leap of faith! The fact of the matter is that in most instances if say only three people are interviewed then every other candidate regardless of their colour, creed, religion etc will not get the opportunity to interview. The beauty of the Rooney Rule is that it compels organisations to interview more folk & thus provide greater opportunity. The problem with it is that this opportunity is limited to certain folk only which is clearly discriminatory.This approach has undoubted merit as the "additional" people interviewed have often made an impression & got appointed more often than not at the second time of asking. I think that the principles of the Rooney Rule and their results are worthy of merit but ideally there should be no compulsion to employ them & it should not be discriminatory. It has clearly established some best practice applicable to any sector/organisation for interviewing & making many successful appointments. The interesting thing will be when & how they will ever abandon or reverse the rule if required in the future. As implied in my response to Slapps, if the club honestly has a set number of people they interview and they don't base this on the quality of the applications, I'd have no confidence in their recruitment process anyway. In the past i've rejected every one when they were all crap, only done two when they were cleatly the best and on other occasions done four or five because they were all pretty equal. |
|
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 Jun 8, 2015 17:50:40 GMT 1
Still don't get why anyone should get worked up about this. The clubs still employ whoever they want ! No-one is forcing them to employ anyone, but I'm afraid that's not how a lot of folks choose to interpret this.
I can't be arsed to keep repeating this as I might have done last time, so I will just say that I'm still right ! ☺
UTT
|
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Jun 8, 2015 19:07:12 GMT 1
'Clearly closed your mind'- Youve chosen your username very well. Could it be Ive formed an opinion having considered both sides??? Do you accept someone else other than you is capable of that?? And having done that Ive come to the opinion that discriminating for ( and therefore also against) someone because of their skin colour is wrong?? What a crazy view to hold!! I've never seen you change your opinion in the slightest on any topic, which suggests to me you nay well try to take a balanced view at the beginning, but after that there's no budging. No white guy has necessarily been discriminated against if they simply have one additional candidate. In the case where a club drops them at the expense of a minority application, they can hardly have put forward a decent CV or the club us run by morons. I change my mind on a some things. Not many, but a few if I feel its justified. If you don't notice then that isn't my concern. Id imagine you don't change your mind on many things. But why let a little hypocrisy get in the way of being condescending eh? The club decide to interview the best 5 candidates that apply. They're all white. They;re then FORCED to interview a black candidate, so they interview their original 5 plus a black guy who was the 18th best candidate to apply. So they interview 6 candidates- 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 18th best candidate gets an interview, but the 6th best ( a white guy) doesn't get one- because hes the wrong colour. He's been racially discriminated against. |
|
|
|
Post by 5kippy on Jun 8, 2015 20:18:39 GMT 1
Giving someone a box to stand on and thus enable them to see over a wall is not discriminating against someone who is already tall enough to see over. Bit of a flimsy analogy, but Ill carry it on- The guy already looking over the wall is able to do that because he's already earned his box ( hes done his courses on how to stand on the box and maybe impressed with the way he's looked over the wall in the past ). But then theres a group of people who don't have a box to stand on. They've only just learned how to stand on one, or maybe when they have in the past they kept falling off and were shit at it. What you support is picking out the ones with the correct colour of skin to give a box to and leaving the others without, because their skin colour isn't correct. = racial discrimination. Why not just let things happen naturally? 15 years ago there'd been hardly any clubs who'd had a black manager. Now 1/3 of them have. In another 15 years that will be over 2/3rds. We already have a hugely disproportionate amount of black players compared to the overall population. Id imagine in 15 years time there'll be 15-20 black managers at any given time and that will also be a hugely disproportionate amount. It doesn't need racism introducing to make it happen. What colour is the box? |
|
terrier5
Tom Cowan Terrier
[M0:5]
Posts: 705
|
Post by terrier5 on Jun 9, 2015 12:46:44 GMT 1
Really not sure how I feel about this rule, I'm genuinely torn. I was rejected by the fire service because I was male and white. I want the best candidates to get an interview, regardless of colour. In my heart of heart though, I see no other option even though I don't really agree.  Give over |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 12:49:33 GMT 1
Really not sure how I feel about this rule, I'm genuinely torn. I was rejected by the fire service because I was male and white. I want the best candidates to get an interview, regardless of colour. In my heart of heart though, I see no other option even though I don't really agree. Give over I'm devastated that you don't believe me. |
|
terrier5
Tom Cowan Terrier
[M0:5]
Posts: 705
|
Post by terrier5 on Jun 9, 2015 12:58:17 GMT 1
Give over I'm devastated that you don't believe me. It's not that I don't believe you, I know that it's cobblers mate. West Yorks always did their initial sift at random I believe. I understand recruits courses were still majority white and male, in fact I'd be amazed if white males were less than say, 75% of the intake you applied for. Ask them, they're obliged to tell you under the Freedom of Information Act. If you're not careful someone will accuse you of (ahem) playing the race card |
|
|
|
Post by Lard Buttie on Jun 9, 2015 12:58:49 GMT 1
I love analogies.... How do you make this marathon fair.... 2 runners of equal speed The first 13 miles one runner has a ball and chain around his ankle and the second does not. You decide this is an unfair practice half way through the race. What action would make the overall marathon fair? a) releasing the ball and chain from the first runner so he now has nothing holding him back for the remainder of the distance or b) releasing the ball and chain from the first runner and giving him a lift to the side of the second runner Which action will lead to equality at the finish line? re-run the race with both wearing a ball & chain or both not wearing a ball & chain |
|
terrier5
Tom Cowan Terrier
[M0:5]
Posts: 705
|
Post by terrier5 on Jun 9, 2015 13:04:05 GMT 1
I love analogies.... How do you make this marathon fair.... 2 runners of equal speed The first 13 miles one runner has a ball and chain around his ankle and the second does not. You decide this is an unfair practice half way through the race. What action would make the overall marathon fair? a) releasing the ball and chain from the first runner so he now has nothing holding him back for the remainder of the distance or b) releasing the ball and chain from the first runner and giving him a lift to the side of the second runner Which action will lead to equality at the finish line? re-run the race with both wearing a ball & chain or both not wearing a ball & chain Finish the race halfway through and give a point to each runner |
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Jun 9, 2015 13:04:59 GMT 1
the fire service openly recruited ethnic minorities and females...there were already a number of west indian male firefighters so it wasn't an issue of colour..
but it was certainly a policy that backfired for some time and cost a great deal of money in failed candidates..
they then changed the test scores required for recruits in training, not once but twice and managed to get just enough through..
same applies to the police...
If everyone entering a burning building can carry the same dead body weight a certain distance in full kit then you are not as a potential victim hoping that you get the one that can???
hoping that
a. the police officer that comes to your house burglary in progress can chase the suspect;
b. catch the suspect or at least keep him in view so that someone else can.
c. manage to keep hold of him if caught..
Im sure there are many very physically fit female firefighters and ethnic minority police officers but I did prefer a system that produced, even if it was just in basic training, a full class of people who had passed the tougher tests..
|
|
?? im appalled...
