Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

343 replies

MissRabbitsDayOff · 04/05/2021 19:12

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.

OP posts:
viques · 04/05/2021 19:47

If you don’t have a defined policy then the likelihood is that the white person would be offered the job. No evidence on this, just observation.

In the US military some time ago they had a policy of positive discrimination which is why the US military has numerous BAME officers at high levels. Compare and contrast to the UK military. The mantra “If you see it you can be it” works.

SunIsComing · 04/05/2021 19:48

Would this be discrimination? Appalling policy.

Taswama · 04/05/2021 19:48

Sounds fine to me. I had two very good candidates for a whole a few years ago, one very similar to me in profile (white, female, middle class, just a bit younger ), the other also female, but an immigrant and black. I chose the person not like me as I felt the team needed a variety of perspectives.

Deathgrip · 04/05/2021 19:48

@Chamonixshoopshoop

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.

If you’d bothered to read the thread you’d know this this isn’t illegal - it’s perfectly legal and in fact outlined in law, and nor is it “positive discrimination”. This is not an example of seeking to hire purely on the basis of protected characteristics.
TestingTestingWonTooFree · 04/05/2021 19:48

Fine by me. I’d like it employed for other unrepresented groups. I know of it in a National recruitment organisation and it’s pretty much never used.

mistermagpie · 04/05/2021 19:49

@CavernousScream

I think it would be super rare for that to actually be applied. But all they’re doing is making up for the fact that unconscious bias probably resulted in the ethnic minority candidate scoring lower than they would have done if they were white. So they’re probably appointing the better candidate.
This is exactly how I see it. I work for a massive organisation and we have less than 1% ethnic minority employees and there is only one senior member of staff in my department (which is huge) who isn't white. It's ridiculous.
IamnotH · 04/05/2021 19:49

I have a degree in employment law. It's fine so long as you can evidence a lack of diversity in your organisation- lawful as positive action as it is a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim.

Please ignore anyone else who is offended by their own privilege.

I'm a white woman btwWink

SchrodingersImmigrant · 04/05/2021 19:50

@TestingTestingWonTooFree

Fine by me. I’d like it employed for other unrepresented groups. I know of it in a National recruitment organisation and it’s pretty much never used.
It is for all underrepresented groups in the comlany with protected characteristics. Women, black, white, gay...
Doris86 · 04/05/2021 19:50

@Aprilx

This is known as positive action in the workplace and it is legal.

Another way to look at it is that if two candidates are tied in every other way, then on the basis that diversity is good for an organisation, the candidate that increases diversity edges ahead.

Positive action? I’d call it racism.
Lille4 · 04/05/2021 19:50

As a POC I don't know if I would feel comfortable knowing that this is why I got the job. And risk being known as the 'diversity hire', a phrase which some people use when they mean you don't deserve something... but it's nice to know companies are making an effort to diversify.

bettybyebye · 04/05/2021 19:50

Perfectly legal policy and becoming the norm in lots of companies. I work for a large telco and we have a similar policy (also applies in the case of females too) as there is an active drive to have more females and people from a BAME background in senior roles. All hiring managers have to complete unconscious bias training before going through a recruitment process. I don’t understand why anyone would be against this.

SnackSizeRaisin · 04/05/2021 19:50

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.

But that's not the case here. The op states that both candidates must have scored equally, which means they have equal qualifications, experience, etc. The employer is hiring them for these things. The race is only used to distinguish two otherwise equally good candidates.

Chamonixshoopshoop · 04/05/2021 19:51

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.

TheCrowening · 04/05/2021 19:52

@2Rebecca

Women are 50% of the population. I do oppose positive discrimination for women
So if a company has a 95% male workforce surely it follows they SHOULD be encouraging more female appointments purely because women are 50% of the population, no?
SchrodingersImmigrant · 04/05/2021 19:52

@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.

I think the OP actually wanted an outrage because I believe they would have explained what are they talking about.

Bit S*n like

paralysedbyinertia · 04/05/2021 19:52

What if it turns out the person of colour was Eton-educated and the white person came from a sink estate and was the first in their family to go to university?

As far as I'm aware, class is not (yet) a protected characteristic, so I am not sure about the legality of policies that might aim to promote greater socio-economic diversity.

However, if people with other protected characteristics were under-represented to the same degree, then I think those factors should probably be taken into account.

All other things being equal (e.g. if other groups were already well represented in the organisation), I don't think the black person being an old Etonian would in itself be problematic, nor a reason to apply the policy differently.

Recruitment should obviously be as fair as possible, but ultimately, the aim of these policies is to increase the diversity of the organisation, not to give the job to the neediest candidate. It's a business decision, not a charity, and it has been demonstrated that diversity is good for business.

quizqueen · 04/05/2021 19:53

I think there is always going to be something which gives one candidate the edge over another. It may be a personality trait of how well the interviewers think they will fit into the company ethos. I don't believe experience/knowledge etc. can ever be judged equal and identical anyway so there will always be a better candidate. The best person should always get the job and it shouldn't matter what colour their skin was. Any people who think otherwise should just resign now and make sure their job goes to a non white person!

SchrodingersImmigrant · 04/05/2021 19:54

Also, it is NOT a mandatory policy. It's really just there for companies to use if necessary and if they feel it would be justified.

Section 158 is used way mkre often

blueangel19 · 04/05/2021 19:54

For me this policy is discrimination against white people. I think that assuming all white people has the same opportunities and privilege is rubbish.

Pebbledashery · 04/05/2021 19:56

It's outrageous.. But unfortunately most organisations promote diversity.. My experience of working with some huge public sector organisations is that their perfect candidate is a BAME candidate who is also disabled. It's almost like a tick box exercise.

Oblomov21 · 04/05/2021 19:56

Is this an actual policy? Published? Is there proof it's being done?

Is it actually illegal?

Chamonixshoopshoop · 04/05/2021 19:56

As an aside, companies need to be MUCH more creative than this to increase diversity.

Increasing diversity, without being divisive, is far far better for the underrepresented groups we're trying to help! I could go on all night about this, as it's been a passion of mine for a while... but there are literally hundreds of other things that can be implemented over 'well there were 2 of them and we just picked the under-represented group. Come on.

HeronLanyon · 04/05/2021 19:56

Reaching for my
Spreadsheet here . . .

Osrie · 04/05/2021 19:56

How do you think the non-white person is going to feel knowing this is the policy?

Done to make their figures look good and no one else

SakuraEdenSwan1 · 04/05/2021 19:57

It's been the case in the Emergency Services for years. My sister is a Firefighter and worked with a person of colour who had a non related degrees and only 5 years experience in the brigade, they were promoted over plenty of other candidates with much more experience. Box ticking exercise in this case could loose someone their life.

Swipe left for the next trending thread