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 agree with the more positive idea of increasing diversity (in many different ways) as being beneficial for the company - adding differing perspectives and strengths which complement what is already on the team. I’d like to think that people looked holistically (eg education, experience, including life experience, outlook) rather than just the colour of skin. I’m non-white.

Of course, race isn't always straightforward to define either.

@Merriwicks

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

You have bit different law to GB in these things

I'd wonder about an unintentional impact on scoring.

I've been on a few interview panels where we have to score candidates, and it's not always clear cut whether to give 4/5 or 5/5, for example. In that situation, I can imagine an interviewer deciding (consciously or not) to give a candidate from an ethnic minority background 4 instead of 5, under the assumption they'll have a better chance than a white candidate with the same score anyway.

There's also the problem other people have mentioned of how you define ethnic minority, e.g. Jewish people and Travellers may be both ethnic minorities and white (or look white to the interviewer).

@MissRabbitsDayOff That's a fucking outrage actually .

Insulting and racist to white people, AND people of colour. (POC.)

Bet none of the fuckers implementing this kind of wanky ass shite would ever put a POC in a top position in their company though eh? Trying to look all right-on, and PC, by employing more POC, but like hell will they have them in charge!!!

Who the fuck thinks this is OK? Nearly HALF of 600 votes so far, say the policy is not unreasonable.

What if they favoured whites of POC? Would that be OK? No, there would be a stinking outrage.

By the way OP, name and shame. Name the company, and also, how do you know they're doing this?

I am with @greenalltheway,
If this system was in place it would have to cover ever aspect of what could be classed as a discrimination opportunity < wrong word but you know what I mean.

If a company has 50 men and 51 women the job would go to the man, the same with able/ disable ,
gay / heterosexual / trans /

and what happens if one is Caribbean V African or German V Dutch , or mixed heritage .
I believe that everyone should be treated equally ( yes I know it doesn't happen ) regardless pf there background .
In this case I would either hold a second interview , take them on for a short trial ( paid of course ) run a short exam or ask a 3rd party .
I do not believe you should employ someone just to balance the statue quo/

@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.

Wow.

Cool story bro.

Which fire service does your sister work for?

I am totally supportive of this. As a white person, I have benefited from countless privileges and am very glad that on one tiny level this undoes a tiny bit of the injustice.

I also think it's highly likely if the person who is an ethnic minority scored equally then they are actually higher potential. Can't guarantee that on an individual level, but on an aggregate level you can, as they are 1) likely to have attained the same level despite prejudice or sociological disadvantage correlated to their race and/or 2) if it isn't a blind interview, are being judged less positively within the selection process resulting in them being in a tie, rather than outright winning.

I would be supportive of much more than this!

Sounds fine.

We still have too many mediocre white men in jobs they're not up to. Cf the government.

I’ve not RTFT (but will do) but my gut feel is that if a white person and black person have exactly the same score then due to possible unconscious bias the black person is probably better for the job. Depends on the other measures though. If the panel is divers and the workforce throughout reflects the local community then possibly not.

Yeah.

Good job on the outrage OP. 5*
You counted on barely anyone reading the thread, didn't you😂

Perfectly reasonable and legal if it is being used as a way to address existing inequalities. Same for gender.

I don't like the policy, but I have a feeling that without the benefit of anonymity, most will be reluctant to object, on the basis that some will say anyone who does object is racist.

I've been involved in probably 100s of interviews over 30 years and only once in all that time have 2 candidates scored exactly the same.
So if the company are relying on this as a sole tactic to increase the diversity of their workforce, id say its a non starter.
I like the policy of giving peoe from underrepresented groups guaranteed interviews.

Can't see how this is a problem. How is this different from, 'you don't fit the culture of the team'. We have found 2 ideal candidates but based on the culture current and future we believe this person of ethnic minority is a better fit.

I think diversity has moved on.

There are many types of diversity:

How does your organisation look in terms of sex, social class, neurodiversity, disability?

What about white ethnic minorities? Is the Lithuanian candidate not going to get a look in? I've worked in areas where that would be the biggest local ethnic minority rather than Black or Asian.

Either create a protected post or don't.

@paralysedbyinertia

I'm white (and currently jobhunting, if it makes any difference). If there is a specific imbalance that they are trying to address, and all other things are genuinely equal, I would be happy to accept this. People of colour have faced so much disadvantage, I'm happy to see organisations trying to level the playing field. What else are they going to do - toss a coin?

This- a well explained eloquent summation of the situation.

God, the typos in that.

I mean...what do you do if it’s a

• white person from an impoverished background vs a black or brown person from a wealthy background?

• a white woman vs a black or brown man

• a disabled white person vs a non-disabled black or brown person

Why would you just look at race if you’re that concerned about inclusion? What about social background, sexism, disabilities? Or do you just prefer to make assumptions on skin colour?

Ffs

My DP is senior management level in a wealth management company. This sort of practice 100% goes on. Two equal candidates, he has to give the job to the black person over the white person. Even better if it’s a black woman up against a white man.

@ChairmansReserve LFB

I don't get why they publicise it ? If that's the the policy then great but does it encourage or discourage people to apply ? Not really. And it's probably going to be a handful of people that get a job based on merit in any case.

I can't wait until Classifications based on skin pigmentation, sexual orientation and organs, and which sky fairy you believe in is a long forgotten story and people are just people.

The Equality Act says discrimination can be justified if the person who's discriminating against you can show it's a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim

This is how it works. If two people are equally as good, you have to go with the one who has had the most disadvantage. Because historically the white person will always get chosen. Always.