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

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    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.


    The move is primarily aimed at addressing female under-representation in the workforce. It came as new figures showed that the number of women on the boards of Britain’s biggest companies has barely increased in the past three years.




    It will also mean that a manager will be able lawfully to hire a black man over a white man, a homosexual man over a heterosexual man, if they have the same skill set.




    Lynne Featherstone, the Equalities minister, denied the plans were about “political correctness, or red tape, or quotas” and would help make the workplace fairer.



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...irst-time.html


    I find this incredibly ironic that an equalities minister is introducing measures which will increase inequality. Will this make the workplace fairer? No because it is increasing inequality. Labour did exactly the same thing and it is wrong.


    You cannot tackle inequality by creating more inequalities.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    What the ****? It was unlawful to hire a woman over a man previously? Have I just stepped into the 1900's?

    e: A neg, nice. Apparently some people think it's fine for women to be prejudiced against. Get into the real world, idiots.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I've not clicked on your link, but based on your post could you explain where the inequality comes from?
    It seems to me that people who have the same qualifications and skills can be hired regardless of sex, gender, colour of skin, nationality, sexuality etc.
    Is there positive discrimination somewhere?
    Which inequality are you making reference to?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Huh? If there are two people with equivalent qualifications, surely employers have always been able to choose whether they have the woman or the man? Or are you saying that they're forced to choose the woman now?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    x_x Trying to stop sexual and racial discrimination by allowing people to discriminate in favour of a particular sex or race? That seems somewhat counter productive.
    • Offline

      14
      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.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      always these hypothetical situations, I want to see the day that you get two completely equally qualified people
      Offline

      16
      ReputationRep:
      I always assumed that if you did get two equally qualifed people the bosses just went for the hottest anyway.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Teaddict)
      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.


      The move is primarily aimed at addressing female under-representation in the workforce. It came as new figures showed that the number of women on the boards of Britain’s biggest companies has barely increased in the past three years.




      It will also mean that a manager will be able lawfully to hire a black man over a white man, a homosexual man over a heterosexual man, if they have the same skill set.




      Lynne Featherstone, the Equalities minister, denied the plans were about “political correctness, or red tape, or quotas” and would help make the workplace fairer.



      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...irst-time.html


      I find this incredibly ironic that an equalities minister is introducing measures which will increase inequality. Will this make the workplace fairer? No because it is increasing inequality. Labour did exactly the same thing and it is wrong.


      You cannot tackle inequality by creating more inequalities.
      That's ridiculous. Posetive descrimination is awful. Plus, maybe women are 'underrespresented' because they don't wan't to work in that particular environment?
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      so basically, us "normal" white guys are screwed!
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      Hmm something is not right here. Either the government has gone mad, or most likely the telegraph isn't giving us the full/correct story.
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      Positive discrimination in the name of......erm....equality. Yeh, nice one.:rolleyes:
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      The women on my social networking lists are always complaining about work. They can't wait for the weekend and the next holidays but still demand a pay rise. Whereas the men I know love the work they do even when they're not paid that much for it.

      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.

      One more reason to believe this government doesn't care about young people.
      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.
      No. What this actually comes down to is that if two applicants have the exact same skill sets you should pick the one with the vagina.
      Offline

      12
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Howard)
      No. What this actually comes down to is that if two applicants have the exact same skill sets you should pick the one with the vagina.
      But does it actually say that? As far as I can see, it just says that men can be lawfully rejected, not that the employer should or has to choose the female.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      Men with the same qualifications as women can be lawfully rejected from jobs in favor of female rivals for the first time, ministers have said.

      OP said: Bosses can lawfully hire a woman over a man with same qualifications for first time.
      So the OP made it sound less of an outrage than it actually is. Pointless nit-pick. Anyone who can read knows what the OP actually mean't.
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by rlw31)
      But does it actually say that? As far as I can see, it just says that men can be lawfully rejected, not that the employer should or has to choose the female.
      Well it says the man can be lawfully rejected because he is a man. It does not permit the woman to be lawfully rejected because she is a woman. The implication couldn't be clearer. Its plain old discrimination based on chance factors that occur in the womb. No different than discriminating against a person because he is black in my opinion.
      Offline

      12
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Howard)
      Well it says the man can be lawfully rejected because he is a man. It does not permit the woman to be lawfully rejected because she is a woman. The implication couldn't be clearer. Its plain old discrimination based on chance factors that occur in the womb. No different than discriminating against a person because he is black in my opinion.
      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.
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by .Ali.)
      That's ridiculous. Posetive descrimination is awful. Plus, maybe women are 'underrespresented' because they don't wan't to work in that particular environment?
      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.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      The best person for the job should be picked, race/sex/etc. should never come into the question.
     
     
     
    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
  1. 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.

  2. Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  3. 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.

  4. 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.