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 think the problem is issues surrounding intersectionality. So, say there is some one who is not white but has come from a very privileged background ect and then there is someone who is white who has came from a very disadvantaged background but too has against all odds gained the qualifications experience needed...

What is to say class has not been a bigger impacting factor on the persons life than race? Or other issues this was just an example.

I think this is one if many areas where the problem is. It is not to dismiss racial injustice but to accept that there are diversity issues in many areas of life.

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?

That's what lots do. They have outreach programmes, specially worder ads, webinars, mentoring for women if the underrepresentation is there.
And IF, and only if, there is ever a woman and man (no matter what race) tied at the end of interview process, her being a woman can be used as a tie-break

I think it would be uncontroversial in the sector I work in (healthcare, patient-facing) because we serve a diverse community. If we have a workforce that better represents the ethnicity of the community we serve, then that is a good thing. Although, I think we would be more likely to have a positive policy about having a second language than about ethnic background.

What should be illegal is to not read whole threads and comment with all the outrage and ask questions which were answer at leat 8 times.

The mumsnetRTfuckingT Act 2021

It sounds like a joke but - a white man, a Chinese man and a Nigerian man walk into an interview...

How do they choose if they are all scoring the same? Is there a hierarchy?

How likely is it that there's going to be an EXACT tie?

I think that if the white person feels it's an exact tie, then probably he/she had some bias in favour of the white candidate so it probably wasn't an exact tie anyway.

I think this is ok. I think there should me measures in place to make it easier for ''mum returners'', older people, non white people to get work.

Recruiters are all looking at the same pool of young millenials considering them ''the right fit'' and the rest of us are thrown on the scrap heap.

Level the field.

I'm white but I'm 50 and after a few years looking after kids it was so hard to get back in to the work place because all the recruiters and employers had a VERY NARROW VIEW of what the right fit was.

Drove me crazy. Why do you have to be the right fit? Can't there be room for diversity?

Osrie - why would they simply think great I was tied equally with a white guy and they are I creasing diversity so the coin toss went my
Way.
The op posited each being equally attractive to the employer.

I think we have this in my workplace and find it acceptable.

I don’t actually think a ‘tie’ ever really occurs though so have never seen or heard it in action.

@Feedex

You know what, your workplace clearly has such an issue with diversity that it’s needed. So yes, if two people get to that point then the POC should get the shot. However, and this might make you feel better, the chances of the POC getting that far are slim compared to white candidates. Hence the policy.

Which is why people with protected characteristics should be targeted in the person spec for certain jobs if the workplace does not include such people. The only way to increase diversity in the workplace is to recruit directly from the minority groups.

@SakuraEdenSwan1

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.

See that shouldn't happen unless they were as good as. Whether it's having non related degree but lots of experience or related degree but less experience, they should be somehow 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?

Maybe instead of a stupid kneejerk reaction, use your brain for just a moment to consider why ethnic minorities may be over represented in some sectors. Generally it is because either the jobs are low paid and menial, hence there's not much competition, so ethnic minorities are more likely to get an equal chance. Or because there is a shortage of qualified white British candidates so foreign workers are actively recruited from abroad, hence the number of Indian doctors and Filipino nurses.
Either way the imbalance is purely due to a shortage of white British candidates, rather than unconscious racism. So there would be no point at all in giving the advantage to white people as there are no more coming forward.

@nicelyneurotic

I don't really have a problem but think this could be problematic for the employer. What if the white person is also disabled? Or an older worker? I think the policy has to think about all disadvantaged groups, not just one.

Agree. Also socio-economic background is a huge one that doesn't get nearly as much attention (although closely linked to race in a lot of ways)

I'm fine with this. The sad fact is people recruit themselves so action is needed to even things out.

I will have an interview soon. Civil service. There will be five competencies and there are a potential 50 marks in each category with 20 being the pass mark in each. I find it so hard to believe that there would ever be a complete ''tie'' so it sounds like somebody trying too hard to think themselves in to knots instead of constructing a fairer more thorough interview process.

They should do this at my work every single person apart from me is white. We have our pictures on the website i stand out like a sore thumb and I'm only mixed myself (3/4 white)

I've worked somewhere with a policy like this; it was actually the case that anyone with any minority characteristic (ethnic minority, woman, disabled, LGBT, etc). It was occasionally very good at increasing the diversity in an incredibly pale, male and stale office, but there were probably only ever two or three ties broken in this way in the entire 5 year period I worked there,

It happens in NI all the time regarding religion. If a protestant and Catholic are fit for the job, in the police, the Catholic will get it. To try and balance. Often adverts will ask for interest especially those from * backgrounds. It is not just the police but that is the obvious one

@StoneofDestiny

Outrageous

And how else are they supposed to decide between equal candidates? Just appoint the white person? Realistically this must not happen often. It's rare in my experience as a hirer that you get two exactly equal.

@blueangel19

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

But it isn't simply about the opportunities or privilege that white people may or may not have experienced. This is not about companies saying let's be nice to people of colour and give them a chance because they've had a hard time. It's a business decision, based on the evidence that ethnically diverse teams perform more effectively.

Now, there is probably an argument that teams with greater socio-economic diversity also perform better. There might well be evidence to back this up. At this stage, though, I don't believe that there is any legal mechanism to promote this type of diversity because class/socio-economic background are not currently protected characteristics. I think there is an argument that they should be, but I also think it might be problematic because these things are so difficult to define.

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

I'd agree if women were anywhere near 50% representation in the higher job rungs.

Even as a teenager I knew something was fucked up when every new male employee in our female employee dominated cafe quickly became a key-holder and supervisor, no matter how incompetent. Meanwhile the over-qualified women stayed at their base level jobs.

Take a look at the benches next time the politicians are back together and the PM is waffling on. See how many brightly coloured skirt suits you can pick out. I bet you £20 they won't even make up 20% of the room, let alone 50.

Then do the same with the board of any major corporation. It would be so lovely if being 50% of the population meant we had 50% of the opportunities but it really doesn't work that way.

BTW, I am white, probably categorised as middle class, educated and have absolutely no objection to positive discrimination as a recruitment tool when done openly.

Would never be applied - an objective basis (ie one that could be verified) would be found for choosing one candidate over another. Overall representation/diversity is something that must be considered/is important but in reality there would be another documented reason for choosing between the two. Obviously, there is almost never precise equivalence between two candidates (except perhaps in very regimented jobs such as the civil service but even there it is unlikely).

I don’t approve of positive discrimination, whether it is based on sex, ethnicity, sexuality or anything else. I don’t want to get a job because of my genitalia, I want to get it because I’m the best candidate.

Also socio-economic background is a huge one that doesn't get nearly as much attention (although closely linked to race in a lot of ways)

It's because it isn't protected charactetistic. There are studies to show that white poor kids may have worse study outcomes than others though. But class or poverty is way too difficult to actually define for law I guess