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.

In what universe do you get two identical humans bar skin colour?

I'm all in favour of this, by the way, but I can't see it would happen often. Cloning isn't widespread.

@Memedru

I remember a few years ago, the south African rugby team was told they need 50/50 white and black, they couldnt always put the best player in the position because of the 50/50 rule, they really under performed for many years because of the rule!

That team were a vital inspiration and symbol of unity and revival for a nation torn apart by the injustices of racism and apartheid..... they were one thing people of all races could come to care about, united as South Africans.

They also built role models and a talent factory for black sports in a sport that had previously excluded them.....

So they may have lost a few games for a while. Some things are more important.

@Supersimkin2 you win the thread

I think the most positive thing would be to try and remove some of the bias in the recruitment process to remove all forms of discrimination. Racism and discrimination doesn’t only exist amongst white people, there’s huge discrimination about different castes, religions, between different minorities, against less attractive or overweight etc. The list goes on. The process needs to be as anonymous as possible. Some minorities are over-represented in some occupations. This positive selection may be justified in some cases but I think it would have to be targeted as it could lead to less true diversity. Tbh what we should be doing is targeting education and opportunities earlier on towards groups who have poorer prospects and face discrimination, that’s not true for all minorities

@Woodpecker22

I think it is problematic at the very least. Firstly I don't think all BAME groups should be lumped together as they are not at equal disadvantage. Secondly how does this leave other minorities e.g should a white, disabled female be considered second best to a male asian who is not disabled.

Is that not what the Guaranteed Interview Scheme is for though? I think that does a decent job of ensuring disabled people are having any bias against them removed.

@Chamonixshoopshoop

I work in employment law, and worded the way the Op has, it's on very shakey ground as positive discrimination.

There are other, better ways to increase diversity.

Saying you won't hire the white person, because they're white, is unlawful.

It doesn't say that though.

Note that disabled people can also benefit from the tie break... Or women. Or lgbt...
It is not just about a race.

There's a fairly strong possibility that there will be some form of unconscious bias applied to the scoring of the ethnic minority candidate. So I'd say this policy is legal, if only to give some slight allowance for this.

When two candidates tie equally for a position it usually comes down to arbitrary reasons like "cultural fit" or "gut feeling" which usually means "people like us" so I think this is a fair move. Diversity is a good thing for us all.

How does guaranteeing an interview prevent bias towards disabilities?

@WarwickHunt

I don't mind. How else should they decide?

They could do, what they used to do in Ye Olden Days TALK to the candidates. ASK relative questions and not rely on stupid tests or skin colour FFS

I would want to see another stage added to the interview process to ensure the best person for the job is employed.

And how would you ensure that unconscious (or conscious) bias didn't result in the persistence of a lack of diversity/take the that the policy specifically aimed to address?

What about if the ‘white’ person is a single parent living in a refuge escaping DV whilst the ‘black’ person was a middle class singleton living life to the full?
Or the ‘white’ person has a disability?

You seem to think this is a policy to compensate for individual difficult circumstances. It isn't. It's a policy to address systemic racism, and/or unconscious bias leading to a lack of diversity and representation

OP - are your firm trying to get their employment profile up to the Working Age Census percentages or us is just a random 'increase the percentages'?

@romdowa

It's called positive discrimination and its actually sad that policies like this even have to exist but they are necessary, it's the same with encouraging companies to hire people with disabilities

Discrimionation is discrimination, however it's dressed up.

@motherloaded

It's a disgrace. It is discrimination, plain and simple. Change it for "give a space to someone based on their skin colour and refusing a space based on their skin colour", does it sound right to you?

It's a disgrace to endure proportionate representation by putting in place measures to tackle racism and unconscious bias?

So what do you suggest? We should just keep the status quo?

• ensure

@MapGirlExtraordinaire

On the assumption its a workplace or industry where non white people are currently under represented then this is a fair, legal and IMO right policy to have in place.

Once we've got parity across a majority of industries, at all levels of seniority, then this sort of policy will no longer be needed. I look forward to that being the case.

The same applies for other imbalances, eg sex, disability and others

Is there a quota against which 'under representation' can be measured?

100% legal and also totally appropriate. Black people have faced hundreds of years of oppression and do not have a level playing field. And as for the person who said gender, well, yes, we do that as well. And if you’re a Black woman and are equal to another candidate then you will get the job at my company. Sounds unfair? You’d rethink your stance if you saw how few Black women get to this level of seniority with the necessary qualifications due to a range of societal reasons and institutional racism.

It should be the best person for the job. Every. Single. Time.

They could do, what they used to do in Ye Olden Days TALK to the candidates. ASK relative questions and not rely on stupid tests or skin colour FFS

Yep, cos there was definitely never any judgement based on skin colour in Ye Olden Days...

I’m not completely sure why you would expect proportional representation? Proportional to what? The population as a whole? The number of people in that career path? The make up of the local population?

[quote TheLastLotus]@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.[/quote]
@TheLastLotus
Matthew Said's book Rebel Ideas really clearly explains why diversity is important. But he is very clear, recruiting a diverse group of people and then turning them into company clones is pointless.
People's different experiences and perspectives need to be valued.

It is controversial, but since equality is not happening otherwise, I think positive action is a good thing. Although I also think it sets up the people who get the posts to be accused of only getting it because of their colour......

PS. Think it should happen for women too, where they are under represented.