Age and gender and race are no longer acceptable requirements
when advertising for a job.
( , Thu 28 Aug 2008, 13:31, archived)
when advertising for a job.
( , Thu 28 Aug 2008, 13:31, archived)
when advertising, no
but they are virtually legal requirments when applying or employing.
( , Thu 28 Aug 2008, 13:32, archived)
but they are virtually legal requirments when applying or employing.
( , Thu 28 Aug 2008, 13:32, archived)
I employed a female
to do a job that historically attracts men, but I know that times are changing. But we had to let her go, not because she was female, but because she was shit.
In my team, no two people are from the same country. Its not a choice to show that I'm being racially fair, its actually because it makes the work for the team easier, as we have to deal with people from many countries, including the countries of origin of the staff i employ.
( , Thu 28 Aug 2008, 13:37, archived)
to do a job that historically attracts men, but I know that times are changing. But we had to let her go, not because she was female, but because she was shit.
In my team, no two people are from the same country. Its not a choice to show that I'm being racially fair, its actually because it makes the work for the team easier, as we have to deal with people from many countries, including the countries of origin of the staff i employ.
( , Thu 28 Aug 2008, 13:37, archived)
I can't quite work out what you're saying here?
the only point I'm making is that these days it's pretty much compulsory for HR departments to compile stats on sex, ethnicity etc of employees and compare them with the general public so that they can hand-wring over why there aren't enough sikh lesbians in car maintainence.
( , Thu 28 Aug 2008, 13:42, archived)
the only point I'm making is that these days it's pretty much compulsory for HR departments to compile stats on sex, ethnicity etc of employees and compare them with the general public so that they can hand-wring over why there aren't enough sikh lesbians in car maintainence.
( , Thu 28 Aug 2008, 13:42, archived)
I'm saying that I emplyed a female
but had to let her go because she was shit at the job, not because she was female.
I'm also saying that I have employed people from many racial backgrounds, but that wasn't to be racially fair, it was because having people of different racial backgrounds made the work easier for everyone.
( , Thu 28 Aug 2008, 13:47, archived)
but had to let her go because she was shit at the job, not because she was female.
I'm also saying that I have employed people from many racial backgrounds, but that wasn't to be racially fair, it was because having people of different racial backgrounds made the work easier for everyone.
( , Thu 28 Aug 2008, 13:47, archived)
well, yes, obviously, but that wasn't what my post was about
but I wasn't accusing you of being discrimantory, sorry, it just sounded like you were validating yourself a bit.
( , Thu 28 Aug 2008, 13:54, archived)
but I wasn't accusing you of being discrimantory, sorry, it just sounded like you were validating yourself a bit.
( , Thu 28 Aug 2008, 13:54, archived)