If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Employers and hiring
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
OK, I posted a thread about this before but people didn't understand what I wanted to state.
Shouldn't employers be allowed to discriminate against potential employees? Positive discrimination legislation stops employers from TRULY employing whom they choose. In essence, employers should have the right to be discriminatory in their hiring.
Is this prejudiced? Yes. Who is to say that a person cannot be prejudiced? Ultimately if a company is overly discriminatory in its hiring processes, it will get punished in the market place.
Shouldn't employers be allowed to discriminate against potential employees? Positive discrimination legislation stops employers from TRULY employing whom they choose. In essence, employers should have the right to be discriminatory in their hiring.
Is this prejudiced? Yes. Who is to say that a person cannot be prejudiced? Ultimately if a company is overly discriminatory in its hiring processes, it will get punished in the market place.
0
Comments
right here
and no, i think it's wrong.
I'm stating that an employer should have the right to openly discriminate in terms of hiring.
yeah but positive or negative, what you've just said totally contradicts what you said in my thread!
I oppose positive discrimination because it prevents an employer from truly hiring whom they wish. Also, it's unjust to people who are truly qualified for the role.
if that means turning down a black woman, who has not got the required qualifications, over a white man, who has, then that's not racial discrimination. that's ability discrimination, otherwise known as the job interview.
No, I mean that an employer should be able to discriminate in terms of sex, race, etc.
That's not my point.
Why?
Why can't employers have full discretion over whom they employ?
how can you say:
and then say:
i fail to see the logic
I've already stated the reasons why I oppose positive discrimination. It shouldn't be used to make employers more politically correct nor should it be used to unfairly recruit people.
but to say that employers should be free to negatively discriminate kind of messes that argument up doesn't it? i mean, how is that recruiting someone purely on the basis of merit?
The logic is monocretin is only interested in dissagreeing with what you or anybody else says.
It doesn't 'mess up' the argument.
so explain it to me
Gender DOES come into it in certain professions.
Shall I explain it in words of one syllable or less for you?
Monocrat is arguing that discrimination, "positive" or otherwise, is wrong, but that being wrong should not make it illegal. In a perfect world an employer would choose the best candidate, and if an employer valued his business he would not choose an incompetent white man over a competent black woman, but Monocrat is arguing that the law should not FORCE the employer to choose the competent black woman over the incompetent white man.
Please point out the inconsistencies of his viewpoint.
But it is illegal for it to do so. Point being?
Meaning in some professions it is preferable to have a certain gender. Like a family planning clinic working with young girls in my opinion that job would be more suited to a female, purely because the young girls would be at a lot more ease than if it was a male.
Or another way to look at it is when I was pregnant when I had to go for hospital appointments I was once going to be seen by a male nurse. He was quite young, very tasty to be honest but I just did not feel at ease with him giving me a full maternity examination, so I asked for a female nurse. Yeah you might think it sounds silly but for me i just did not feel comfortable with him giving me a full examination, maybe it was because he was a student nurse I honestly dont know. Ive had no problems with the Gynaecologist (sp) doing anything to me, he was male but I suppose in my head he had seen it all millions of times and did not bother me, he also knew what he was doing.
So thats what i meant
Dont mean to be nasty, but then its just totally irrelevant.
My 1st reply to this thread was to monocrat who mentioned the gender of someone, thats when i replied saying what i did.
In my view some jobs are suited for female as in some professions more for the male population, I then went on to give my reasons for the comment I made, which you asked me for.
Why is it irrelevant anyway?
but he also said that people should be hired purely on the basis of merit - so which side is he on?
Er no it isn't There are some professions/jobs where gender discrimation is legal.
I like disagreeing.