You've got him there.
Coca Cola : "Be less white"
- Thread starter Tom_ed1987
- Start date
- Status
You've got him there.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
The point you are all missing is that the rules are there to simply stop 'people hiring people who look like them'. Someone posted something great in page 1 about how so many people base their life view on their very limited personal experiences. That is how hiring used to work, too.
People were being hired because the person being interviewed reminded them of themselves. When you have very little to align on, there is a tendency to not listen or value their opinion. Ricky Gervais nailed this in Season 1 Episode 1 of the Office where he positively discriminated against the fat man for the pretty girl.
It is just easier to measure that BAME people have been disadvantaged in the hiring process, because, ya know, data is more plentiful on whether you are BAME versus whether you are fat.
Being 'black' transcends skin colour. It can also describes people who have very limited understanding of their heritage as they can only go back a generation or two before they hit "traded in a live market and shipped over by a celebrated white man with a statue in the middle of a city centre built on the same slave labour".
Even given the possibility of that happening I still don't agree or accept that makes it reasonable to implement a quota which discriminates against people on the basis of their skin colour.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
It isn't an "and/or". There isn't all of a sudden a big queue of white people at the job centre because of positive discrimination. No organisation is going to hire the wrong person for a role as that is illogical. Just like how women earn less, you don't see companies hiring entirely women because they're cheaper, do you?
It is actively trying to correct a disbalance that was there because of previous discrimination. You weren't voicing up about the previous discrimination, or is now just on your radar because you are the one being "discriminated against"?
Oh, that's alright then
No need for any interference then.
The so-called wage gap is a lot more complicated than women being cheaper.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I would certainly speak out against a policy that discriminated against non-whites.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 24 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 25,886
- Location
- Godalming
That's not the blue sky kind of thinking that is conducive to a productive working environment. Moving forward please loop me in on all your concerns regarding company literacy policies, and if you'd like to have a chat we can touch base next week.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
Don't have time to dissect a post in such an administratively beautiful way so apologies in advance.Oh, that's alright then
No need for any interference then.
The so-called wage gap is a lot more complicated than women being cheaper.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I would certainly speak out against a policy that discriminated against non-whites.
Point is, there wasn't a policy to discriminate against BAME but unconscious bias clearly led for that to be the case. Otherwise you are suggesting these BAME individuals are just simply less performant when in role than their white counter parts?
It isn't an "and/or". There isn't all of a sudden a big queue of white people at the job centre because of positive discrimination. No organisation is going to hire the wrong person for a role as that is illogical. Just like how women earn less, you don't see companies hiring entirely women because they're cheaper, do you?
It is actively trying to correct a disbalance that was there because of previous discrimination. You weren't voicing up about the previous discrimination, or is now just on your radar because you are the one being "discriminated against"?
They're going to hire sub-optimal people in the role, working class white males who are already one of the lowest performing groups are now being actively treated as if they have some form of privilege based on their skin colour and gender, ignoring the fact that their socioeconomic background makes them one of the hardest hit groups in the country. People like you literally got your brains from the toilet store.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
Sub-optimal people? Is that just poor sentence structure on your part or are you saying BAME are sub-optimal?
If working class white males are lowest performing then presumably this was the case before these policies came in place. Or are you able to corroborate the data sets that say as BAME people were positively discriminated against, white people became lower performance?
As someone else rightly posted in this thread, these white males in the lowest socioeconomic background are not there because of their skin colour. They are there despite their skin colour.
Clearly you have no idea otherwise you wouldn't have started your sentence with "They're" - implying you are not involved in any hiring processes or policies, and then finish your drivel with a very childish insult. Good job! Presumably you are one of these disenfranchised white people mad at the world because people from BAME are now equally considered for the role you'd love to get.
Yeah, people gonna people. There is a tendency for people to gravitate towards their own which can be observed in all races, and which has (to an extent) and will continue to die out naturally, and rightly so. I'll never support mandated racism though.
And that was rightly thrown out as BS. If we want to classify people based on the statistics of their race (and you clearly do) then it's only fair to include underprivileged white people in that. You can't implement a racist policy based on the stats, but then ignore a certain subset of those stats because they apply to the wrong coloured people
I honestly wonder whether you guys are serious sometimes.It was quite clear what he meant. Hiring people based on their skin colour and not based on their suitability for the role...
That's just wilfully mis-reading the intention of his post imo... it's quite clear that the point is not whether or not BAME candidates are sub-optimal, but the hiring policy of "positive discrimination" as you put it (I would argue no such thing exists, all discrimination is inherently negative) will by its very nature potentially lead to giving the job to someone less qualified or "optimal" for the role than someone else purely on the basis of their ethnicity fitting the quota requirements.
Exactly the same works the other way round, if you discriminate against BAME groups then you are potentially getting someone sub-optimal by giving the job to the white guy even though he's less suitable. Hence just one reason why there is no such thing as "positive" discrimination.
Exactly the same works the other way round, if you discriminate against BAME groups then you are potentially getting someone sub-optimal by giving the job to the white guy even though he's less suitable. Hence just one reason why there is no such thing as "positive" discrimination.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
Your first point is exactly what unconscious bias training is required. It will not die out naturally. Clearly observable from the posters in this threadYeah, people gonna people. There is a tendency for people to gravitate towards their own which can be observed in all races, and which has (to an extent) and will continue to die out naturally. I'll never support mandated racism though.
And that was rightly thrown out as BS. If we want to classify people based on the statistics of their race (and you clearly do) then it's only fair to include underprivileged white people in that. You can't implement a racist policy based on the stats, but then ignore a certain subset of those stats because they apply to the wrong coloured people
Your second point - it isn't BS. It is true. They are not discriminated because they white. Typically it is because they are poorly educated, have poor guidance from their parents, have mental health issues, jobs that do not benefit them beyond money through servitude. Many other things. Not one of the reasons is "because they are white"
I don't disagree they need help and support. I don't disagree that this Coca Cola crap is poorly executed. You are making a different point though altogether.
Last edited by a moderator:
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
A post that ends with an insult about my brain coming from the toilet yet he can't clearly write a sentence was my observation
Let us hope he isn't a programmer.You guys mustn't be involved in hiring. No one is going to put forward a BAME candidate who isn't ideal for the role. Simples. Why would I put someone in my team who can't do the job? Now if there was two absolutely comparable candidates, people could be tempted to favour the BAME or female to tick the box - but that is very rare circumstances and in my line of work, nigh on impossible. I typically have to look near/off-shore in any case.
Edit: Good to see the group thinkers jump to their 'owns' support though! Well done chaps.
Then you aren't discriminating, you are giving the job to the most qualified and suitable person... so I don't get why you are even arguing about it because by your own admission you are doing what he is saying.
The only appropriate course is what you claim you do - hire the best person for the job (which is of course not necessarily the most academically qualified) regardless of whether they are pink, white or blue.
The only appropriate course is what you claim you do - hire the best person for the job (which is of course not necessarily the most academically qualified) regardless of whether they are pink, white or blue.
Source? I could replace 'white' with 'black' in your statement and have just as much to back it up with.
Exactly.
In the UK Chinese and Indians earn the most money, this is often just simply ignored by those who claim it is the evil white xenophobes oppressing the minorities. I think until 'white British' is at the bottom of all the statistics people will continue with this crusade about racism. Culture plays a far larger part..
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
The point is that hiring people whether they are pink, white or blue has not happened. It hasn't happened because people have unconscious bias in the hiring process where "how similar are they to me" carries far too much weight. A bit like why all of your friends look like you, carry similar interests to you, and have similar outlooks to you. Whilst this may work in the friends work, it shouldn't at all play into the work world.
People in this very thread have tried to argue how well educated BAME people are, yet they are under represented in the job and political landscape. Conclusion? Something else is at play. General consensus is that unconscious bias is the major player. Not racism, but unconscious bias to seek those who look like you and over value those facets in hiring decisions.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
Chinese have money, wealth and vast heritage. Similarly Indians have vast heritage are very tightly aligned to British culture in that we colonised them to be our skilled outsource labour. Guess what we colonised Africa to be? We have had a hand in shaping culture and unfortuntaly we are left to tidy up the implication of those decisions.
A post that ends with an insult about my brain coming from the toilet yet he can't clearly write a sentence was my observation
You guys mustn't be involved in hiring. No one is going to put forward a BAME candidate who isn't ideal for the role. Simples. Why would I put someone in my team who can't do the job? Now if there was two absolutely comparable candidates, people could be tempted to favour the BAME or female to tick the box - but that is very rare circumstances and in my line of work, nigh on impossible. I typically have to look near/off-shore in any case.
Edit: Good to see the group thinkers jump to their 'owns' support though! Well done chaps.
I've been involved in hiring and have been personally told the team had too many men so next time we had to interview women, the team consisted of 4 men because 1 woman recently left and the replacement we hired happened to be a man, we picked him because he had relevant Analytical experience and the woman we interviewed for the role seemed to be moving jobs every month or two. So when we went to expand the team to 6 people we weren't allowed to interview 2 men who applied for the role and the manager only selected women to interview, we hired one girl who was the best candidate, and then hired another woman who probably didn't deserve it over the other 2 men who applied but who we weren't allowed to interview. Mean while there are teams in the business that are almost exclusively female from top the bottom and it's not considered an issue or anything that we pay any attention to.
- Status