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

B1059 – Quota Discrimination Bill 2016 Watch

Announcements
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    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.
    The thing is, the people in whose benefit quotas are introduced start out with less opportunity. Quotas level the playing field.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    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.
    And then the rebalance overshoots and you need to rebalance the rebalance, then that overshoots, then that overshoots, etc.

    Supporting discrimination because of the patronising belief that people need a leg up is a perpetual one.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And then the rebalance overshoots and you need to rebalance the rebalance, then that overshoots, then that overshoots, etc.

    Supporting discrimination because of the patronising belief that people need a leg up is a perpetual one.
    No one expects a perfect balance, that's impossible to maintain but in the 40:60 range for gender, 10% off for anything else you're fine to end discrimination by my book.

    And believe it or not some people do need a leg up.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The thing is, the people in whose benefit quotas are introduced start out with less opportunity. Quotas level the playing field.
    So now you are saying that businesses don't hire the best people even though your argument started saying they did.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    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.
    Can you not recognise though that sometimes quotas are necessary? For instance: let's say the BBC commission a historical drama set in medieval Britain. Should they not be able to make sure the vast majority of the extras are white, rather than having a ridiculously diverse cast that is clearly out of place with the time they're trying to portray?

    More to the point: if you were running a business, for what reason would you choose to use a quota?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    So now you are saying that businesses don't hire the best people even though your argument started saying they did.
    I'm not saying that at all. Opportunity has nothing to do with ability. In most situations where quotas are introduced, it causes the business to make just as good, if not better hires on average. The quota creates equal opportunity.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    - It's outlaw, not outlow
    - "A way of discrimination" is bad English. "A way of discriminating" would be better
    - The "when" in 1(1)b is unnecessary
    - The punctuation in the notes needs sorting out

    I agree with the substance of the bill, and will vote Aye if the English is improved. Otherwise I will abstain.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Can you not recognise though that sometimes quotas are necessary? For instance: let's say the BBC commission a historical drama set in medieval Britain. Should they not be able to make sure the vast majority of the extras are white, rather than having a ridiculously diverse cast that is clearly out of place with the time they're trying to portray?

    More to the point: if you were running a business, for what reason would you choose to use a quota?
    Would hiring white actors be a quota or would it be hiring the people who are best at doing the role they are needed for (medieval Britain)? I would argue that it would be hiring the people who best represent Britain back then.

    Personally I would only use them if they were forced by law and then I would do it to the absolute minimum standard needed by law.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Would hiring white actors be a quota or would it be hiring the people who are best at doing the role they are needed for (medieval Britain)? I would argue that it would be hiring the people who best represent Britain back then.

    Personally I would only use them if they were forced by law and then I would do it to the absolute minimum standard needed by law.
    Me too! But from the bill itself, "A quota is the reservation of job vacancies, or tasks for individuals from a certain background, or sex." If I was in charge of that BBC drama and I reserved most of the roles for white people, I'd be in a lot of trouble. That's the point - occasionally, charachteristics such as race, gender or sexuality do have an impact on whether or not someone is suitable for a job, and in my mind we should recognise that rather than insist upon ignoring them due to some notion of fairness.

    And exactly - most businesses would respond in the same way, and as such very few choose to use quotas. But those who do tend to have a good, specific reason for it. The last thing they need is legislation like this which enables them to be legally challenged on every such hiring decision they make.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Bit challenging to hire a translator in this case, since its entirely illegal to hire them based on what languages they speak

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Aye! This is an excellent bill that ensures that things are fair.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Aye.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. I like the idea, just not the execution (of the fines)
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    No one expects a perfect balance, that's impossible to maintain but in the 40:60 range for gender, 10% off for anything else you're fine to end discrimination by my book.

    And believe it or not some people do need a leg up.
    And those that do need a leg up should not be where the leg up gets them, simple. And do you want these ranges for absolutely everything, because you're then going to run into problems.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Nay, due to Section 1 (1)i. Multilingualism is a great thing for the world.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I would back this bill to some extent........
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Going to annoy Nigel and use quotas to only hire transgender people as gender quotas aren't outlawed by this bill, only sex quotas.

    Anyway nay, I can't really loads on why now, but they have had a positive impact in many areas where minorities have, due to internalised and institutional prejudice, have less chances of getting certain jobs, and if earning as much as co-workers, and in getting their employers to consider their needs as much as the needs of the majority of the workforce.

    It is also true in other aspects of life, for example we need more male primary school teachers, something like a quarter don't employ a single male teacher, which can cause a role model vacuum for boys.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Re-reading this, I'm going to abstain. Charities shouldn't be regulated in this manner.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    Going to annoy Nigel and use quotas to only hire transgender people as gender quotas aren't outlawed by this bill, only sex quotas.

    Anyway nay, I can't really loads on why now, but they have had a positive impact in many areas where minorities have, due to internalised and institutional prejudice, have less chances of getting certain jobs, and if earning as much as co-workers, and in getting their employers to consider their needs as much as the needs of the majority of the workforce.

    It is also true in other aspects of life, for example we need more male primary school teachers, something like a quarter don't employ a single male teacher, which can cause a role model vacuum for boys.
    Is the answer to the lack of male teachers to get poorer teachers?
    It would be better to encourage more men into teaching rather than make it easier for bad teachers to get better jobs because they are male.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    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.
    This tbh.

    I'm against the general idea of positive discrimination, but there are cases, as above, where it is ultimately necessary.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
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: September 27, 2016
  • 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
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
  • 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.