Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Bosses can lawfully hire a woman over a man with same qualifications for first time Watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    "Men with the same qualifications as women can be lawfully rejected from jobs in favour of female rivals for the first time, ministers have said. "

    I don't understand, surely if two people have the same qualifications, you've always been able to pick whoever the hell you want? This is in no way the "first time" that employers are allowed to pick a woman over a man that has the same qualifications o.0 Nowhere in the article does it say that employers will be forced to pick the woman, so either this is shoddy reporting or a really pointless and bizarre piece of legislation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I don't see how that is positive discrimination. It would be if it was saying women had an advantage. But no where does it say that women can't be lawfully rejected for the same position as a man. It seems either can happen.

    Now if there are tax cuts because a company hires more women, or something like that, that I would disagree with. But as I said, I don't see how this is positive discrimination. But I'm ill so hopefully someone can explain what I'm missing.
    It is saying that a man can be rejected on the grounds of "being a man", yet you can't to a woman. Also, say the man performs better at interview, the woman doesn't, but they have the same qualifications, the woman may be more likely to be picked, and that is wrong.

    There shouldn't even be these rules, it should just be who's best for the specific job, whether it's all white women, all black men, or a mix of everyone. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beska)
    What the ****? It was unlawful to hire a woman over a man previously? Have I just stepped into the 1900's?
    Why can I not neg this post?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    It is saying that a man can be rejected on the grounds of "being a man", yet you can't to a woman. Also, say the man performs better at interview, the woman doesn't, but they have the same qualifications, the woman may be more likely to be picked, and that is wrong.

    There shouldn't even be these rules, it should just be who's best for the specific job, whether it's all white women, all black men, or a mix of everyone. :rolleyes:
    Where does it say that?
    It says men *can* be rejected from a job for a woman.
    It doesn't say that they *have* to be rejected from a job for a woman.

    So it seems either sex can be rejected irrelevant of sex.
    And the woman may be more likely to be picked, but whether that's because the woman is a woman, or for other factors, is yet to be seen.

    Your last sentence is very abstract, please can you expand it into real world examples?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riotgrrl)
    "Men with the same qualifications as women can be lawfully rejected from jobs in favour of female rivals for the first time, ministers have said. "

    I don't understand, surely if two people have the same qualifications, you've always been able to pick whoever the hell you want? This is in no way the "first time" that employers are allowed to pick a woman over a man that has the same qualifications o.0 Nowhere in the article does it say that employers will be forced to pick the woman, so either this is shoddy reporting or a really pointless and bizarre piece of legislation.
    This is why I'm so confused.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riotgrrl)
    "Men with the same qualifications as women can be lawfully rejected from jobs in favour of female rivals for the first time, ministers have said. "

    I don't understand, surely if two people have the same qualifications, you've always been able to pick whoever the hell you want? This is in no way the "first time" that employers are allowed to pick a woman over a man that has the same qualifications o.0 Nowhere in the article does it say that employers will be forced to pick the woman, so either this is shoddy reporting or a really pointless and bizarre piece of legislation.
    I think that the law is there as a guide or a hint. Because they cannot specifically force a company to hire a particular race, gender or sexual orientation they have done it this way.

    Given the huge amount of legislation brought in over the last 20 years, this will most likely be forgotten in a fortnight.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rlw31)
    But that's the point, can be. Not should be, or has to be. As far as I knew I always thought it was the case. This 'law' is saying an employer can choose either a man or a woman of equal qualifications for a job. Other than the fact that I thought it was already the case, I really don't see what's so wrong with it.
    No. This law is saying that you can decide NOT to pick the man because he is a man. In other words, you can legally discriminate against him because of the collection of soft dangly objects between his legs. This is discriminatory since this law does not allow you to decide NOT to pick the woman because she is a woman. The cromosoidal decisions that were made in the womb become legal grounds for discrimination.

    What's more, face with two equal candidates this law will undoubtably put pressure on the employer to pick the woman every time since it is clearly written with an increase in the female workforce in mind. The pressure will be on to conform.

    Discrimination, discrimination, discrimination.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Howard has summed it up perfectly and also taking into account that the government wants to name and shame companies that don't employ at a lot of women or minorities.

    This whole thing is just discrimination.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Disgusting. This is ridiculously patronising towards women.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    How about this for an idea... You disregard anything which is not relevant to the job, such as race, religion, gender, sexuality, political views, etc.

    How about we all stop caring about whether women are 'under represented'. I'm sure males are 'under represented' in child minding and beauty departments. Does it matter? No. All jobs should be open to any gender if it is not relevant to the job, but then men and women should be able to choose what they want to do, and neither should be given a leg up over the other.

    How about acknowledging this:
    1. Women and men are equal. Women are not the weaker sex - they do not need positive discrimination legislation to hold their hand.
    2. Positive discrimination = discrimination = inequality = bad.
    3. Men and women have different average skills and likes. Not everyone conforms to the stereotype, but it is true that there are more male engineers, for example. It happens, deal with it. The fact that males like engineering is not proof of sexism against women. It is proof that women aren't as interested in that career choice.
    4. Women and men are equal. Women are not the irrational sex - they can and should have power over their own lives to choose their own career choices, without being pushed into careers for the sake of 'equal representation.'

    Damn, stories like this annoy me. I'm glad to see above all these people who have the same thoughts on this as I do.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The Government also said it was setting itself an “aspiration” that half of all new appointments to public boards will be women by 2015.
    Brillant..so women now have more of a chance to be appointed into public boards just because they are women...
    but what happens if the women dont do a good job? surely then people will say..she was never good in the first place! its' cos' shes got a v that shes got in!

    And what happens if a woman wasnt as good as the guy (same qualifications but in terms of everything else, the guy was better..) so the woman can now sue the company because the guy got the job?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morecambebay)
    If they have exactly the same skill set, doesnt it come down to 'pick whichever one you want' anyway? All this does it put it in writing.
    Yeah this is pretty much what I was going to say..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If they're so on equality, I have a better idea: Hide their gender and ethnicity so they only choose based on ability.

    They can deny it all they want. It's just about political correctness
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Am I the only one who's really confused here? lol.

    EDIT: OK, just understood. Basically it means they're allowed to use sex or similar as a REASON for hiring someone, presuming the other candidate is equal in every other way (eg. get more male teachers).

    The phrasing of the title and the beginning of the article is not very good lol.

    But realistically, this is completely pointless, because no two candidates are ever gonna be exactly the same when you consider qualification level, where qualifications were gained (for uni), experience type, experience hours, grades, interview, references etc. etc.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The thing is though, if you're in a situation where two people have exactly the same qualifications and attributes, what do you have to go by? Also, how often do these situations actually arise and how often are they actually implemented?

    I'm not saying positive discrimination is a good thing, but I do wonder whether it ever actually gets used.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f00ddude)
    so basically, us "normal" white guys are screwed!
    I hear you.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kpwxx)
    Am I the only one who's really confused here? lol.
    Basically, this will help you get a job easier.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by twl)
    This is an evil law that discriminates against hard-working men, and more specifically heterosexual white men. It's obscene that women and gays are piggybacking on laws designed to help minorities get work.
    In all fairness, I don't think any gay people or women specifically asked for this legislation. Saying they're "piggybacking on laws" is a bit melodramatic, given that they don't actually have a choice in the matter.

    One more reason to believe this government doesn't care about young people.
    What?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lazy smurf)
    Basically, this will help you get a job easier.
    Lol, I understood it after posting, and edited.

    But also, not necessarily. The article implies that it works both ways. So if I happened to be in some situation where everything about me apart from sex was exactly the same as a guy, and we both wanted to be primary teachers (which I do) he'd probably get the job, since they want more male role models in primary schools. And basically this rule now means they'd be allowed to say that was why he'd got it.

    I still don't think anything will actually change.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What's the big deal with man vs woman? Is there a war or something? The biggest fact of all is men and women are best of friends. I believe in a job market only the best pupil for the work should be chosen, either its a woman or a man. Companies exist on the market in order to reach a target revenue, so a company should always seek the one who is best for the labour service. It should be based on the candidate's qualifications, knowledge, talent, loyalty etc and not based on gender, race or religion. If there are candidates with same qualification then there should be some kind of extra test which would prove who is more expert for the job. Offcourse in a market economy, companies should be given the opportunity to hire a worker at a cheaper rate.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 3, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.