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.

It’s as if you’re introducing one final criterion with a value of 0.1 point, labelled “will this hire improve our workplace diversity?”. From that POV actually you could say that your treating diversity as the tiniest positive characteristic which it is possible to measure - less important than anything else.

That said, it’s probably what I’d do myself when recruiting - I don’t award interviewees marks out of one hundred, but if I’m genuinely torn between two equally promising graduate candidates I’d plump for the one who will improve our gender/ethnic balance or who I feel has had a tough time and needs a break.

I’d also pick a candidate who has achieved their qualifications in more difficult circumstances, but I wouldn’t class that as positive discrimination, I think that’s evidence of objective ability.

YANBU.
Think it’s really important to ensure women, disabled, non white or whatever the underrepresentation is, to be prioritised where two people are otherwise equal.

Could the same thing happen in work areas where white people were under represented? For example, parts of the NHS, care workers? Does that still sound fair?

@jellybellydancer

Why are only white people allowed an opinion on this thread?

You've got a point there. Mind you, everyone is anonymous on here, so no-one would know anyway.

@userchange856

If it's genuinely tied and you could see both doing the job well, I really don't see what the issue is. I think it's only really necessary in organisations/sectors where there is an under representation of people based on the general population. If your work force was already 40% black or ethnic minority, if that is more than average, then I don't think it needs to be applied.

But what else do they usually do to unpick a tie? I can't imagine a tie happens very often, I've never seen it.

In that case it actually couldn't be defended so the other person could sue. It needs to be proportioante action.

You might want to have a look at s159(4)(b). You are allowed to do this on an individual basis, but you can't have a policy of doing so.

Telling all candidates in advance that you have an illegal policy is a good way to get sued.

S159 was controversial when the Equality Act was introduced. The only reason it isn't still causing controversy is because it's so vaguely worded that no employer knows how to properly use it, so there's quite a big risk of getting sued by an unsuccessful candidate. No one wants that so they don't use it.

@jellybellydancer

Why are only white people allowed an opinion on this thread?

I had the same question.

I'm not white and I think this policy is garbage. I want to get a job on the strength of my own skill and experience, not on the colour of my skin or the shape of my eyes.

If I found out I'd been made an offer in these circumstances, I'd reject it.

I am not your token tick box for diversity.

I'm white and retired with white children so I have no personal interest in this and I think it sounds like a good policy.

Most black people growing up in this country (U.K.) will tell you they have to do/be much better than a white person to considered of equal worth. It's very likely that a person of colour might score lower than a white person because of unconscious bias on the part of the scorer. A policy like this might even things up a bit.

@sluj

Could the same thing happen in work areas where white people were under represented? For example, parts of the NHS, care workers? Does that still sound fair?

Why would you want to employ more white people?

It’s pretty much impossible though, to have two completely equal candidates. I have never interviewed and had this happen? Has anyone? Yes people have been close but there is always differences.

@sluj

Could the same thing happen in work areas where white people were under represented? For example, parts of the NHS, care workers? Does that still sound fair?

Imminently fair. Excellent suggestion.

These are the protected characteristics for those who don't know
age
disability
gender reassignment
marriage and civil partnership
pregnancy and maternity
race
religion or belief
sex
sexual orientation

Either of them can be underrepresented so be considered for the tie-break

I think they should have to do a second round interview. With a small number of questions and see who scores highest out of the candidates who tied.

If it genuinely is a tie then how else should it be decided? I think rarely is it a tie so I'm not sure what effect it'd have overall.

I don't think the policy is unreasonable per se. However, in my many years of interviewing I have only ever had candidates tie scores on two occasions. Both times we invited candidates back for second interviews.

@sluj

Could the same thing happen in work areas where white people were under represented? For example, parts of the NHS, care workers? Does that still sound fair?

It could🤷🏻 white skin is still protected characteristic

It's illegal.
In the UK, positive discrimination is illegal under the Equality Act 2010 as it does not give equal treatment to all. An employer is guilty of positive discrimination if they hire or seek an individual purely based on their protected characteristic, rather than experience or qualifications.

There are better ways to increase diversity, this is divisive, and is not it.

So replace with age , because it would be encouraged for younger people in the company . Or women if it was a man against a woman ?

How would you feel then ?

If it was a draw I would just want to see a further interview or test .

IMO

It is positive action. Positive discrimination is unlawful.

I think it is one of the only ways a company can genuinely increase diversity.

@PPCD

I don't think the policy is unreasonable per se. However, in my many years of interviewing I have only ever had candidates tie scores on two occasions. Both times we invited candidates back for second interviews.

That's why it's basically never used. Proving the equal merit would be a pita

@2Rebecca

Women are 50% of the population. I do oppose positive discrimination for women

Err... yes, women are around half the population. And are significantly under-represented in corporate roles and other industries compared to men.

Since it’s a given that women are not represented equally in these roles, and that the men hiring are statistically far more likely to hire other men than a woman thus perpetuating this issue, why would you be opposed to positive action (not discrimination) to redress this balance?

The likelihood of two candidates having tied scores is unlikely anyway. How do people propose an employer should choose when there’s nothing between two candidates? Because in reality it often comes down to unconscious bias on race, sex, disability etc. Anything to redress that is good by me - it’s also the law, so 🤷‍♀️

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?

It seems unlikely that a company would have a policy to increase the number of single parents in their employment, or the number of domestic violence victims, so those things would be irrelevant. The aim of the policy is to address specific imbalances, not to give jobs to the most disadvantaged.

It’s too simplistic and grossly unfair to other disadvantaged groups.

are they doing the same for other minority groups? women, for eg?