RAF recruitment, has it gone a bit too far...

giphy.gif
 
throwaway4372 said:
just apply, get rejected, then take them to court, ez win.
Click to expand...
It’s not against the law, there is an exemption for under-represented groups so you can advertise for certain demographics only, IIRC. There was a similar situation with a BBC internship in the last year or two.
 
Capita do the recruitment for the armed forces not the RAF directly so I'm calling BS.
 
I'm sure they won't lower the standards or make it easier for recruits from those areas they desperately need to meet their quota. I'd be worried about the state of our armed forces if there was a competent credible opposition, fortunately there's Russia.
 
Assuming true then this is blatant bigoted racism against all sides; racism against white people as they are prevented from accessing a job and racism against non-white people because it suggests that they need extra help to get the job. It also means people of all skin colours will look at non-white personnel and wonder if they were only given the job because of their skin and not because of their ability. It takes hard work, fitness, intelligence and dedication to get into such roles but people will not see that in future.
 
Stu999 said:
It’s not against the law, there is an exemption for under-represented groups so you can advertise for certain demographics only, IIRC. There was a similar situation with a BBC internship in the last year or two.
Click to expand...
I'm no expert so I could be wrong. But I think this can only be used as a "tie breaker" for equally qualified candidates. In other words it has to be on a case by case basis and not blanket discrimination.

What the law says - Using protected characteristics to make decisions - Acas

How employers might use protected characteristics to make work decisions, including positive action and objective justification.
www.acas.org.uk www.acas.org.uk

In very rare cases, it might be legal to use a protected characteristic to decide who gets a job.


The employer must be able to prove they're taking this action (known as a 'tie-breaker') because either:


  • an applicant with the protected characteristic is disadvantaged because of it
  • people with the protected characteristic are under-represented in that job

A tie-breaker can only be used by an employer when both of the following apply:


  • they're deciding who gets an individual job
  • they're deciding between applicants who are otherwise equally able to do that job

When hiring in future​


If an employer does use a tie-breaker, it may not be legal to automatically make the same decision again when hiring in the future. The employer must make sure each hiring decision they take is based on the circumstances of each case.
Click to expand...
 
Tom_ed1987 said:
That's mental if it's actually true. I have my doubts lol
Click to expand...
It says in the article itself

"There is no pause in Royal Air Force recruitment and no new policy with regards to meeting in-year recruitment requirements," the spokesperson said.
 
I have been looking for jobs recently and for the first time ever I've been selecting "choose not to say" when asked online about my ethnicity, gender, etc.
 
Many here are mocking Russia's military prowess, but one thing's for sure, they won't be hamstringing their recruitment by looking for ethnic minorities, homosexuals and girls to keep the diversity tally up!

Good to see the head of recruitment has some scruples at least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom