Best man for the job.

[drunkenmaster]

It's not that simple. If clubs are discriminating against black managers then something needs to be done. Countering negative discrimination with positive discrimination in one method. It's not the ideal solution but it's proven to have worked.

However of course if a clubs owners/board do happen to be racist and are forced into hiring a black manager.... they will give that manager less support and less backing and that manager would end up doing less well than he could maybe have done elsewhere.

Its not in the interest of black people to be hired by employers who resent them and will conciously or unconciously sabotage their performance.

Likewise, right now the reason say Paul Ince isn't a manager is because he was a bit rubbish.

As for the question of, hiring more black managers will have other black people more willing to try and get into it, well again if a black manager is hired in a "bad" way, either not qualified or by people who won't give any real support, both ways seeing another black manager fail isn't likely to push more black players into management.

I also can't see a reason why a influx of black players can't go into coaching and eventually management, its not like black players haven't been on equally good pay, treated the same by 99% of the fans, treated the same by the vast majority of managers and coaches.


Meh, frankly racism, sexism will never go away until people stop pushing either way. Every time you treat ANYONE differently for a specific reason, you're doing it wrong. Everytime you interview a black guy just because you're told you have to, not necessarily because of racism at all, but people feel resentment. Its the same way someone interviewing for an assistant would resent having to interview some rich guys niece who isn't really qualified just because they are friends with your boss. Likewise you give actual racists elsewhere more ammunition for hate, the kind of "see he got that job just because he's black, and my dad would have a job if not for these stupid laws".

 

[The Running Man]

Is carlos queroz a minority because he is from Mozambique? He might find himself getting some interviews out of this.

 

[Tunney]

However of course if a clubs owners/board do happen to be racist and are forced into hiring a black manager.... they will give that manager less support and less backing and that manager would end up doing less well than he could maybe have done elsewhere.

Re-read the Rooney Rule. No-one is being forced to hire a black manager. All they have to do is interview one black manager per open manager position.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Is carlos queroz a minority because he is from Mozambique? He might find himself getting some interviews out of this.

Is Carlos Queiroz managing in England or has he ever held any position higher than assistant manager in England? If not then he's slightly irrelevant to the discussion since it's about potentially introducing the Rooney Rule to Britain.

 

[Gilly]

Personally I think even suggesting this is disgusting.

There isn't the institutional problem here that they have/had in the US. I say again, this is discrimination and therefore bad.

 

[233]

Re-read the Rooney Rule. No-one is being forced to hire a black manager. All they have to do is interview one black manager per open manager position.

Stupid rule and why should you be forced to give someone an interview based solely on the colour of their skin say I have time to interview 20 applicants I would select the 20 most likely candidates not 18 likelys and 2 that meet my bare minimum requirements because the colour of their skin is different

If your good enough you get the job or the interview in this case simple solution to this is remove any question pertaining to race or religion to application forms hey presto everyone is guaranteed to be treated equally

 

[Tunney]

If your good enough you get the job or the interview in this case simple solution to this is remove any question pertaining to race or religion to application forms hey presto everyone is guaranteed to be treated equally

Even if I applied to a managerial role, it wouldn't take more than a 5 second Google to find out any of that information.

Now imagine you work in an industry where everyone has a Wikipedia entry...

 

[The Running Man]

Is Carlos Queiroz managing in England or has he ever held any position higher than assistant manager in England? If not then he's slightly irrelevant to the discussion since it's about potentially introducing the Rooney Rule to Britain.

Sorry, i dont understand, he has held the managerial position at RM? You could be sunderland and shortlist him knowing he wont turn up to the interview. Or be Man Utd, shortlist him and then tell him he doesnt have a job.

Show me where in the OP it states that the interviewee must soley be based in the country of selection?

 

[semi-pro waster]

Personally I think even suggesting this is disgusting.

There isn't the institutional problem here that they have/had in the US. I say again, this is discrimination and therefore bad.

You can say people discriminate every day and that's an accepted and acceptable part of life, the argument might be better about whether slight positive discrimination is as bad or worse than potentially serious negative discrimination. It's still worth noting that the discrimination suggested is to the extent of guaranteeing an interview, not guaranteeing favourable views from the interviewers or guaranteeing a job - it's more or less just a foot in the door.

It may be that there is little to no discrimination in evidence regarding the selection of managers and for whatever reason minority candidates don't feel that management is something they want to go into but if, on the other hand, they would like to go into management and the routes aren't open to them then perhaps this measure is useful. In an ideal world it wouldn't be necessary but as I suggested before it's possible that sometimes the natural balance is so out of whack that it needs a nudge to get back closer to a real equilibrium.

Sorry, i dont understand, he has held the managerial position at RM? You could be sunderland and shortlist him knowing he wont turn up to the interview. Or be Man Utd, shortlist him and then tell him he doesnt have a job.

Show me where in the OP it states that the interviewee must soley be based in the country of selection?

Real Madrid is, somewhat obviously, not a UK team and the point is about introducing the Rooney Rule to the UK. What other countries do or do not do in regard to managers from minority backgrounds is therefore largely an irrelevance.

But you're right, there's nothing to say that the interviewee has to be based in the UK. However even if we count Carlos Queiroz as a minority candidate he's not in the UK and has never managed in the UK so at most you can say he's a potential manager to fit the criteria so again possibly you're right and that would make him more likely to be interviewed if this came in.

I see what you mean but it would hardly be in the spirit of the suggested rule, if my understanding is correct then the potential interviewer has to have received a genuine application - otherwise you could simply shortlist half a dozen people who are never likely to take the offer of an interview.

 

[Gilly]

In that case what if minorities are simply not applying for these positions? How are clubs to meet the quota?

 

[semi-pro waster]

In that case what if minorities are simply not applying for these positions? How are clubs to meet the quota?

There is no quota in the strict sense, the only stipulation is that if a minority candidate meets the criteria for the managers job then they would be guaranteed an interview. If no minority candidates meet the criteria then there's no guaranteed interview, if the interviewing panel decide to relax the criteria to allow a wider array of candidates then that's entirely their choice.

If minorities aren't applying for such jobs at all then this is unlikely to affect anything anyway - for whatever reason it may simply be unappealing for a minority candidate and if that's the case then the Rooney Rule will make no odds.

 

[No1newts]

There is no quota in the strict sense, the only stipulation is that if a minority candidate meets the criteria for the managers job then they would be guaranteed an interview. If no minority candidates meet the criteria then there's no guaranteed interview, if the interviewing panel decide to relax the criteria to allow a wider array of candidates then that's entirely their choice.

If minorities aren't applying for such jobs at all then this is unlikely to affect anything anyway - for whatever reason it may simply be unappealing for a minority candidate and if that's the case then the Rooney Rule will make no odds.

It annoys me because lets say 10 people are applying for a job with 5 interview spots, people who may be better qualified and deserving of an interview get bumped off the list and don't get the chance of an interview or the chance at getting a job because a poorer qualified candidate is *insert generic minority*

How can this be justified?

 

[Weebull]

Given the pretty arbitrary reasons people are turned down for interviews in real life, I'd say it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference.

 

[Gilly]

It annoys me because lets say 10 people are applying for a job with 5 interview spots, people who may be better qualified and deserving of an interview get bumped off the list and don't get the chance of an interview or the chance at getting a job because a poorer qualified candidate is *insert generic minority*

How can this be justified?

Exactly.

Top 5 are shortlisted, they may be all white men. 9th or 10th in the list may be a qualifying minority.

What if the 5th best would have got the job through interviewing really well?

 

[semi-pro waster]

It annoys me because lets say 10 people are applying for a job with 5 interview spots, people who may be better qualified and deserving of an interview get bumped off the list and don't get the chance of an interview or the chance at getting a job because a poorer qualified candidate is *insert generic minority*

How can this be justified?

If it's the qualifications that are the main defining factor then why would the hypothetical four better qualified candidates than the one "token" minority candidate not get the job? What's special about the fifth candidate who got bumped that would mean he's the best candidate despite having less in the way of qualifications than the others?

Improbables aside there's nothing to prevent a business interviewing six candidates if they all meet the criteria or however many they want to but the important point is they must have met the criteria - if they don't then there's no guaranteed interview and nothing has changed there from any other interview process.

I feel it's important to point out I'd prefer for no measures to be necessary to attempt to address inequalities because by definition we would have equality at that point but sadly we do not live in a perfect world with total equality of opportunity. Accepting this point then sometimes you take pragmatic decisions which while you may not be keen on them ideologically, do mean that (even if slightly artificially) you step a little bit closer to equality because you've removed an obstacle. It may well be that after a period of time it becomes unnecessary to even contemplate guaranteed interviews and that would be great - then this provision can be removed or maybe some other measure will be required, it's not perfect but what we're looking at is rough human approximations to try and make things a bit better.

 

[placeholder]

I feel it's important to point out I'd prefer for no measures to be necessary to attempt to address inequalities because by definition we would have equality at that point but sadly we do not live in a perfect world with total equality of opportunity. Accepting this point then sometimes you take pragmatic decisions which while you may not be keen on them ideologically, do mean that (even if slightly artificially) you step a little bit closer to equality because you've removed an obstacle. It may well be that after a period of time it becomes unnecessary to even contemplate guaranteed interviews and that would be great - then this provision can be removed or maybe some other measure will be required, it's not perfect but what we're looking at is rough human approximations to try and make things a bit better.

But to me it DOESNT do anything to make things better. Its tokenism at best and reverse descrimination at worst.

If an employer does not want to employ a Black man because he is Black then the employer has a racism problem. Simply insiting he gives a Black man an interview does nothing to change anything other than tick a box. The employer still wont employ the Black man, the Black man still wont get the job and the actual real issue of racism hasnt been addressed.

To use a football analogy do you remember when it was insited that Scottish clubs have a couple of U21s (or U23s cant remember) on every bench in an attempt to promote youth football? It was seen as "forcing" clubs to invest in decent youth but what actually happened was average kids got pulled out of youth and reserve games to sit on a bench with little hope of getting on and the really good kids ended up on the bench rather than the starting XI in order to fullfill the bench quota. Boxes were being ticked all over the place but no real issues were being addressed or fixed and in actual fact kids got less time playing football than they otherwise would have.