Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

B1059 – Quota Discrimination Bill 2016

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I admire the intentions of this, but it's not something I support and I would urge my friends on the liberal left to re-consider. Whilst I obviously do not believe in any form of bigotry, there are cases where selecting people on these sorts of basis is, in my opinion, perfectly valid. For instance:

    Any kind of media production, be it a TV show, a film or a play, wanting to select actors of a suitable demographic to play a certain character - rather than being told they can't reject the application of the 74 year old lesbian from Lebanon to play Oliver Twist.

    A charity such as Stonewall representing minority groups wanting to hire positive role models to inspire children or others, who can talk of their own personal experiences with discrimination.

    A small retail business that wishes to hire people who speak a language that is very prevalent in their local community to better communicate with customers.

    A provider of sexual services wishing to hire women to meet the demands of their clientale.

    A Church that would really rather its Preists were Christians rather than Muslims.



    All of these, to me, seem eminantly reasonable. Sometimes we overvalue meritocracy, especially when the free market will in any case dictate that businesses generally hire the best person for the role regardless. There are a small number of jobs where these factors do matter though, and it's more important that businesses and other organisations are able to fulfill them properly than it is that they are equally accessible to everyone - particularly where there are nearly always similar jobs availble to those unable to apply for these particular roles. This bill is overregulating things best left be and in reality serves very little positive purpose at all.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, definitely.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    I admire the intentions of this, but it's not something I support and I would urge my friends on the liberal left to re-consider. Whilst I obviously do not believe in any form of bigotry, there are cases where selecting people on these sorts of basis is, in my opinion, perfectly valid. For instance:

    Any kind of media production, be it a TV show, a film or a play, wanting to select actors of a suitable demographic to play a certain character - rather than being told they can't reject the application of the 74 year old lesbian from Lebanon to play Oliver Twist.

    A charity such as Stonewall representing minority groups wanting to hire positive role models to inspire children or others, who can talk of their own personal experiences with discrimination.

    A small retail business that wishes to hire people who speak a language that is very prevalent in their local community to better communicate with customers.

    A provider of sexual services wishing to hire women to meet the demands of their clientale.

    A Church that would really rather its Preists were Christians rather than Muslims. * All of these, to me, seem eminantly reasonable. Sometimes we overvalue meritocracy, especially when the free market will in any case dictate that businesses generally hire the best person for the role regardless. There are a small number of jobs where these factors do matter though, and it's more important that businesses and other organisations are able to fulfill them properly than it is that they are equally accessible to everyone - particularly where there are nearly always similar jobs availble to those unable to apply for these particular roles. This bill is overregulating things best left be and in reality serves very little positive purpose at all.
    I agree. Good examples and i am sure we could add a few others. Making sure a GP practice has both male and female doctors is one that comes to mind immediately.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Discrimination which is positive is good as a short term measure so no.
    Except the very nature of discrimination is that it is both positive and negative, all discrimination is positive, you also seem to be assuming that this only applies to what would normally be called "positive" discrimination by its advocates.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    So you are ok with discrimination?
    How can you justify giving someone a job on genitals not merit?
    I'm okay with it when it's correcting discrimination from the other side as a re-balance or if it's like engineering and just trying to encourage more girls/guys to get involved and get more different veiwpoints.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    I'm okay with it when it's correcting discrimination from the other side as a re-balance or if it's like engineering and just trying to encourage more girls/guys to get involved and get more different veiwpoints.
    Which means you endorse perpetual discrimination.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    I'm okay with it when it's correcting discrimination from the other side as a re-balance or if it's like engineering and just trying to encourage more girls/guys to get involved and get more different veiwpoints.
    So you are ok rejecting better candidates because of uncontrollable characteristics.

    That is what you are saying.

    How is that fair?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Which means you endorse perpetual discrimination.
    No, I endorse trying to remove stigma and stereotypes.
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    So you are ok rejecting better candidates because of uncontrollable characteristics.

    That is what you are saying.

    How is that fair?
    'Fair' doesn't exactly exist. It's a loaded word with an undefined meaning.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    No, I endorse trying to remove stigma and stereotypes.

    'Fair' doesn't exactly exist. It's a loaded word with an undefined meaning.
    Ok how is it acceptable to give someone something based on some uncontrollable characteristic?
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. If a private business believes that quotas are beneficial for their financial results (btw, jury's out on this one, there's no rational reason why this should be the case but empirically I've heard about a study which shows better performance after introducing management quotas), I don't see why that should not be respected. I do respect the general rule that the private sector should be allowed to do as it wishes, and I thought the Tories (and especially libertarians) wouldn't wish to impose burdens on businesses in this way. Jammy Duel Life_peer mobbsy91 RomanBowling33 joecphillips
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Nay. If a private business believes that quotas are beneficial for their financial results (btw, jury's out on this one, there's no rational reason why this should be the case but empirically I've heard about a study which shows better performance after introducing management quotas), I don't see why that should not be respected. I do respect the general rule that the private sector should be allowed to do as it wishes, and I thought the Tories (and especially libertarians) wouldn't wish to impose burdens on businesses in this way. Jammy Duel Life_peer mobbsy91 RomanBowling33 joecphillips
    your agree me there!? third!? 3rd!? THDIRD?! ****
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    No, I endorse trying to remove stigma and stereotypes.

    'Fair' doesn't exactly exist. It's a loaded word with an undefined meaning.
    So how exactly does discrimination achieve this?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Ok how is it acceptable to give someone something based on some uncontrollable characteristic?
    Because they previously wouldn't have been given that job because of the very same charecteristic so we then rebalance it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Nay. If a private business believes that quotas are beneficial for their financial results (btw, jury's out on this one, there's no rational reason why this should be the case but empirically I've heard about a study which shows better performance after introducing management quotas), I don't see why that should not be respected. I do respect the general rule that the private sector should be allowed to do as it wishes, and I thought the Tories (and especially libertarians) wouldn't wish to impose burdens on businesses in this way. Jammy Duel Life_peer mobbsy91 RomanBowling33 joecphillips
    So you would support a bill that would allow employers to discriminate when hiring? Ideally I believe that government shouldn't interfere (which it currently does) but when it does interfere it should do so and protect everyone it can.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Because they previously wouldn't have been given that job because of the very same charecteristic so we then rebalance it.
    Hiring the best person for the job does not mean someone misses out due to uncontrollable characteristic it would mean that if they are not the best person for the job then they won't get the job.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Hiring the best person for the job does not mean someone misses out due to uncontrollable characteristic it would mean that if they are not the best person for the job then they won't get the job.
    You really need to start reading what is actually on the page and not what you think is there.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    So you would support a bill that would allow employers to discriminate when hiring? Ideally I believe that government shouldn't interfere (which it currently does) but when it does interfere it should do so and protect everyone it can.
    My primary rationale is that the list of protected characteristics in the Equality Act is fairly apt, we don't need to add 'straight white men' to it.

    However, this whole debate seems premised on the incorrect assumption that quotas discriminate against unprotected persons. That's simply not true. Quotas aren't designed to get less able people with protected characteristics into jobs that more able people could be doing, they're to ensure that those who are still socially oppressed to a certain degree feel able to apply and challenge for these jobs.

    I would, FWIW, be totally against the state imposing quotas on the private sector.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    My primary rationale is that the list of protected characteristics in the Equality Act is fairly apt, we don't need to add 'straight white men' to it.

    However, this whole debate seems premised on the incorrect assumption that quotas discriminate against unprotected persons. That's simply not true. Quotas aren't designed to get less able people with protected characteristics into jobs that more able people could be doing, they're to ensure that those who are still socially oppressed to a certain degree feel able to apply and challenge for these jobs.

    I would, FWIW, be totally against the state imposing quotas on the private sector.
    Quotas don't mean that people with 'protected characteristics' can challenge for jobs it means they have advantages over other Candidates based on those characteristics.

    If 30% of jobs have to go to certain groups and they can also take any of the jobs from the other 70% that means 100% of jobs are available to them whereas a different group only has a 70% chance at getting one of those jobs.

    So should the government look after feelings or create equal opportunity? People can apply for any job anyway.

    The idea that one group gets protection when others don't is discriminatory anyway.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Quotas don't mean that people with 'protected characteristics' can challenge for jobs it means they have advantages over other Candidates based on those characteristics.

    If 30% of jobs have to go to certain groups and they can also take any of the jobs from the other 70% that means 100% of jobs are available to them whereas a different group only has a 70% chance at getting one of those jobs.

    So should the government look after feelings or create equal opportunity? People can apply for any job anyway.

    The idea that one group gets protection when others don't is discriminatory anyway.
    Where they are implemented, quotas CREATE equal opportunity from an unequal status quo. Let's remember that a business is perfectly entitled to choose not to use quotas, and they won't if they don't believe it helps their bottom line (whereas the extent to which institutional racism/sexism/ableism etc still pervades society means that this can't be said for that which is done by the Equality Act).

    Quotas are implemented only as a way of increasing the chance that the best person is chosen for the job, and largely speaking, that's all they do.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Where they are implemented, quotas CREATE equal opportunity from an unequal status quo. Let's remember that a business is perfectly entitled to choose not to use quotas, and they won't if they don't believe it helps their bottom line (whereas the extent to which institutional racism/sexism/ableism etc still pervades society means that this can't be said for that which is done by the Equality Act).

    Quotas are implemented only as a way of increasing the chance that the best person is chosen for the job, and largely speaking, that's all they do.
    sure giving someone more of an opportunity is equal, if 30% of those jobs are for people with these characteristics that means someone with none of them has 30% less opportunity that doesn't sound equal, quotas are institutional discrimination.
 
 
 
Updated: September 27, 2016
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.

Poll
Which party will you be voting for in the General Election 2017?

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.