Is this employment policy at my work reasonable? **Title edited by MNHQ**

[MissRabbitsDayOff]

Name change. Long-term poster. This might sound goady but I'm just trying to see what people think about the following policy at my workplace.

At interviews, all candidates are given a score based on how well they do. In the rare event of a tie between a white person and a person from an ethnic minority background, the job will be offered to the person from the ethnic minority background to increase diversity.

YABU - The policy is unreasonable.
YANBU - The policy is not unreasonable.

I imagine ties are generally quite rare so this almost seems like a policy to show they're doing something to increase diversity whilst having little impact in reality?

I wouldn't like to be the one arguing these policies are proportionate though. In the sector I work in it's probably 90% men, with at least a third being from an ethnic minority. Being female definitely seems like a higher barrier to entry than skin colour.

@StoneofDestiny your data is ten years out of date.....Additionally, many organisations will try to reflect the diversity in their local communities, so national figures might not be relevant to their aims.

I am surprised this is so controversial. I know of many employers for whom this is standard policy. There is lots of research which demonstrates that increasing diversity improves the performance of an organisation. So, all other things being equal, this is a legal and perfectly rational way to make the final decision.

I am white if it matters.

@Mynextname you are missing the point because you are saying it's about unfairness between different types of disadvantage. That is not the reason for this policy. The reason for it is because the company wants to increase ethnic diversity. Perhaps they think this will give them a better public image , or will enable them to meet clients needs better. There will be reasoning behind that decision. They don't necessarily care about whether candidates have faced disadvantages. In fact it's probably fair to assume they couldn't care less, unless the particular disadvantage has a benefit for that company.

Some people also failing to realise that diversity - in race, sex, disability, sexuality - is a positive for any company. Having a broader range of perspectives and backgrounds is beneficial in business, and having a diverse workforce is more likely to mean continuing to have a diverse workforce, which means drawing the best and most suitable candidates no matter their background. This means more profitability, better ideas, etc, and does not happen when the majority of those with hiring decisions are white men.

Stoneofraisin’s figures are not only ten years out of date, they reflect the whole population rather than the working age population. If you are a graduate recruiter for example then the pool from which you are picking will look significantly different.

I'm white Polish/German and small amount of British)

I've been discriminated and refused jobs/opportunities /everything else you can think of because of my name. People look at me and think "oh look a nice little white girl" but then after they see or hear my name it changes to "oh, another fucking immigrant"

If doesn't matter what the facts are surrounding where I've lived or my nationality because in these circumstances your chances are only as good as the person sitting in front of you sees.

And I say that as a white person, who gets the white privilege of "hiding" the fact that I'm not "one of them" until they know more about me. I can't even imagine the discrimination POC face day in and day out because they don't have the colour of skin these arseholes want to see.

Affirmative action absolutely NEEDS to be in place, because people are prejudice, racist and utterly ignorant. It's a sad fact, but this law at least stops some of it from taking too much of a hold.

Ah I see @TheLastLotus works in a similar area to me

I think plenty of firms do this if they need to increase diversity, and given you have to decide between two evenly scoring candidates somehow, it’s sensible. It could be any kind of diversity, depending what you are short of. Diverse workforce’s make for better companies, as well as a better society.

@StoneofDestiny your data is ten years out of date.....Additionally, many organisations will try to reflect the diversity in their local communities, so national figures might not be relevant to their aims

Census data always is!

Exactly. I know the company are all about self image ect. That is where the problem is. It is societies place to make sure discrimination against anyone, as far as possible, doesn't take place. This policy implemented by a company allows that regardless of what their aim is. I don't think it should be allowed but equally I think something should be done. That needs to be decided by somebody with far more experience in employment law ect than me.

Working Age Census Data

*In the 2011 Census, the total population of England and Wales was 56.1 million, and nearly two-thirds of people (36.3 million) were of ‘working age’ (aged 16 to 64 years)

*85.6% of working age people were from White ethnic groups, 8.1% Asian, 3.4% Black, 1.8% had Mixed ethnicity, and 1.1% were from the Other ethnic group
*among the specific ethnic groups, nearly 4 out of 5 working age people (79.2%) identified as White British
*after White British, the groups making up the largest percentage of the working age population were Other White (5.4%), Indian (2.8%), Pakistani (1.9%) and Black African (1.8%)
*82.1% of people from the Chinese ethnic group were of working age, the highest percentage out of all ethnic groups
*49.0% of people from the Mixed White and Black African ethnic group were of working age, the lowest percentage out of all ethnic groups

I interview and appoint people.

This is a difficult space to negotiate. In the past, with two equally qualified candidates and a tie (rare, but it does happen) I would have gone to a second interview and seen them both again ... Perhaps choosing 2/3 of the original questions and going a bit deeper to try and decide between them.

Now, I might apply this mode of decision-making if it were the policy of my employer (being discussed actually) and was required to do so.

But there are some issues aren't there? What about a minority that isn't obvious or declared in any way? Someone with Jewish heritage or from the traveller community? This wouldn't benefit them and in fact, would actively work against them if they were up against an obviously BAME candidate. That doesn't feel right to me.

@BlueSussex I've read quite a few of that research and I don't think that diversity in itself means anything.
Of course you have things like people from a community being able to use the experience, or thinking of things that others might not think of (like in 'Invisible Women' where male designed female toilets are too small and cramped).

However for most professions sex, gender, skin colour and class have absolutely fuck all to do with the job. Organisations which bother with diversity are usually good places to work in general for a multitude of other reasons - strong HR policies, a decent corporate culture, people being judged on merit and not personal biases etc etc.
Diversity is thus indicative of all these other things responsible for the productivity, not the actual reason behind it. People are being hired because they are talented, not because they 'fit he mould', in a variety of ways. Race, class, whatever that may be.

The one aspect of diversity I find useful however is age - there has to be a balanced of experienced seniors and young people in a team. And personalities, such as quieter people and the more flamboyant ones.

@Bramblebutter

Is that what affirmative action means? As a white person, I'd be gutted to not get the job, but I have enough white guilt to let it go. However, I do wonder how the POC would feel if they knew that's what broke the tie, I would assume they'd be pretty offended?

As far as this person of colour is concerned, you are dead right. I am pretty awesome, I don't need white guilt to get ahead or fell validated. I also don't need colleagues thinking I am not up for the job, and only got it so the organisation can clock up woke points. Fuck that shit. I know, and have always known, that I have to be far better than the rest to get ahead. I really don't have a problem with that.

@ all SmileEachDay I could not care less about what you think. We have experienced reverse racism in our family. Will speak out every time.

Technically they should re interview both and ask new questions or also give them both a trail day

The organisation I work for actually had this as their employment process, but it was for under represented groups. So included women, homosexuals, trans, disabled etc.

I'm not sure if they still have the policy because they got into trouble over it after a white, heterosexual male complained he had been discriminated against when he didn't get the job. Technically, he was right and right to complain, but about 75% of our workforce are heterosexual white males.

You do not to discriminate one race to sort this problem. The job should go to the most qualified. Period.

@YellowScallion hello sister!
Yes in our field it's very different.
The truth is some fields (like fashion and journalism) have always been the purview of the privileged. Most of the white people themselves have been filtered to be the ones who can have unpaid internship after unpaid internship sponsored by mummy and daddy. A large percentage of ethnic minorities themselves are in lower socioeconomic groups.

In this field any policy like in the OP is absolutely lip service. Because anyone who can even get to that stage of being considered for interview is so, so privileged

*by this field meaning fashion and journalism!

I am surprised at how many people say they know many companies where tie-break under s159 is common policy. All studies show it is barely used.

As far as this person of colour is concerned, you are dead right. I am pretty awesome, I don't need white guilt to get ahead or fell validated. I also don't need colleagues thinking I am not up for the job, and only got it so the organisation can clock up woke points. Fuck that shit. I know, and have always known, that I have to be far better than the rest to get ahead. I really don't have a problem with that.

Exactly how I would feel too.

I cannot vote because how do I know that is true?

I interview and appoint people

This is a difficult space to negotiate. In the past, with two equally qualified candidates and a tie (rare, but it does happen) I would have gone to a second interview and seen them both again ... Perhaps choosing 2/3 of the original questions and going a bit deeper to try and decide between them

Now, I might apply this mode of decision-making if it were the policy of my employer (being discussed actually) and was required to do so

But there are some issues aren't there? What about a minority that isn't obvious or declared in any way? Someone with Jewish heritage or from the traveller community? This wouldn't benefit them and in fact, would actively work against them if they were up against an obviously BAME candidate. That doesn't feel right to me

Exactly what I'd do if I came against this dilemma in recruitment.

I'd also keep a close eye on the population demographics re census data and local data to cross check if my business was recruiting fairly.

Like a pp said, there are some wholly white working class economically deprived areas with crap schools . Their battle to get onto the playing field, let alone get a kick of the ball can be mammoth.

@HenryHooverIII

The organisation I work for actually had this as their employment process, but it was for under represented groups. So included women, homosexuals, trans, disabled etc.

I'm not sure if they still have the policy because they got into trouble over it after a white, heterosexual male complained he had been discriminated against when he didn't get the job. Technically, he was right and right to complain, but about 75% of our workforce are heterosexual white males.

Do you work for Cheshire police? 🙈