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.

Did you know that 4% of high court judges are people of colour? And 29% female.

The chance of a non-white candidate getting the job of a deputy high court judge is 75% lower than for a white person.

So we could start there.

@SchrodingersImmigrant

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

Some companies do try to note these characteristics, but you still can't win - there was a thread recently with a poster outraged that she felt the need to state her upbringing in relative poverty and page after page of people saying how it was because the company would only want to hire rich people etc etc. The fact that (a) these forms are intended to track and address negative prejudices and (b) they are voluntary and unless specifically stated will not be linked to your application didn't apparently get in the way of anyone's outrage. Bet they're the same ones coming on here to say this OPs policy is prejudiced against white people. Can't win, really...

This is what the future looks like for white people. I think is outrageous and can’t believe is legal

I mean there are a lot of ridiculous comments on this thread but this one wins.

@Seainasive

I don’t actually think that this is unreasonable. Due to unconscious bias, the minority candidate would probably have had to perform better than the white candidate to get the same score.

I find this appalling. I'm not saying you're wrong. But it doesn't happen where I work and the fact that it does is just appalling.

Sorry but I think it's terrible. If it was a tie between the two they should decide between some other means like a written task or a second interview.

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.

You are missing the point. They are not trying to give the job to the most disadvantaged candidate in order to compensate for their difficult life. They are trying to, first and foremost, get the best candidate they can for the role, and in the event that two people are equal, they can take the opportunity to increase the balance of ethnicity within the company, if the company has decided that they wish to do so.

There is nothing to stop them deciding for example to have a policy that they will try to increase the economic diversity by giving the job to someone who has attended a state comprehensive, or is a woman, or disabled or whatever, they can decide however they want between 2 candidates who are otherwise equal. If they have to choose between a black man who went to a comp and a white disabled woman they would just need to decide what their priority is. If they only care about ethnicity, they are free to ignore anything else. If they don't care about any of these characteristics they can decide based on whatever they want, so long as the candidates are otherwise equal. I'm sure that decisions are often made on the basis of having attended the same school or university as the interviewer. Is that fairer?

I believe that positive action can encourage diversity in the workplace but it has to be applied lawfully to ensure the highest calibre candidates are recruited regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation.

In 2019 a first of its kind tribunal ruled that positive action should only be applied to distinguish between candidates who are equally qualified for a role after an exemplary candidate did not get a job with the Cheshire Police Force.

So if the candidates are tied as in the OP positive action can be used and is lawful.

Why is it outrageous?

Because it is discriminating on the basis of colour. They should have gone to a second interview with some more challenging tie break tasks or something.

I'm old enough to have grown up where I had to battle glass ceilings based on gender. I had the 'he's a man with a family to support, so with. nothing else to differentiate, the redundancy is you because you are a woman'. Same with promotion opportunities - saw it over and over again.
I got there in the end - top of the tree, but had to work for it too hard against the 'positive discrimination' of its day.

This is what the future looks like for white people. I think is outrageous and can’t believe is legal

'When you're used to privilege equality feels like oppression'

@OverTheRubicon i remember that thread. It was about the form. They don't use the form in hiring but they do use it for data to see who is applying for the jobs. You are right. Can't win.

That thread was very much the same with people being outraged and not reading shit🙈

I think that policies like this don't really work and have some negative effects, so it's not a great idea.

The thing is, two candidates are never really the same. And even when you do all this "scoring" business and try and make it so it's totally equal, it isn't. In fact in some ways I think attempts to make it totally objective often end up with the worst abuses - you get people doing things like writing position requirements with particular candidates in mind.

And any time you get these policies, it begins to affect how others look at those who may have been hired under that policy.

I think it's very worthwhile to make people doing selections aware of things like how their preconceptions, of all kinds, affects their feelings about candidates, and to look at ways of trying to give candidates a really good chance to show what they are about - lots of interviews don't do this well at all. It's to everyone's benefit to do better at this stuff and doesn't make people look or feel like they are token hires.

Will they be assuming my ethnicity? I don’t register my child’s mixed heritage on anything why should I? One I think will grow up to “pass” for white, 2 won’t. So do they assume their ethnic background?

What if they “look” white but have the disadvantage of being from a traveller or other community does that count?

What if my mixed heritage children from a wealthy background and in private schooling are put up against a man from a low socio economic background who has had all the disadvantages that class brings, is it right they get it based on their skin tone?

Might be legal, sad that’s it necessary but no I don’t agree with it, there should be a further deeper interview stage in that scenario.

@CruellaDaVille

I believe that positive action can encourage diversity in the workplace but it has to be applied lawfully to ensure the highest calibre candidates are recruited regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation.

In 2019 a first of its kind tribunal ruled that positive action should only be applied to distinguish between candidates who are equally qualified for a role after an exemplary candidate did not get a job with the Cheshire Police Force.

So if the candidates are tied as in the OP positive action can be used and is lawful.

They literally applied it as badly as in one of the "do not use like this" examples in the guide🤦🤦🤦

Because it is discriminating on the basis of colour. They should have gone to a second interview with some more challenging tie break tasks or something

Oh what like selecting high court judges for example?

What tie break tasks would you like - bush tucker trials, dance off?

This is what the future looks like for white people. I think is outrageous and can’t believe is legal

You think white people should continue to be advantaged over ethnic minorities? That's a very racist viewpoint.
These policies are only required because of systemic disadvantage. Once there are equal representations of minority groups there will be no need for these policies.

Yikes. This thread is quite the reminder of how many people simultaneously refute they have white privilege while being terrified it will be taken away from them.

MN is a cesspit sometimes.

I don’t actually think that this is unreasonable. Due to unconscious bias, the minority candidate would probably have had to perform better than the white candidate to get the same score

Maybe we need to assume there is unconscious bias regarding accents, height, schooling, address, gender and class.
Best we just employ the best there is - and have far more sophisticated assessments at interview to see that we do.

Positive discrimination is absolutely necessary to tackle the endemic racism in our society.

For any white person reading that thinks this policy is unfair, just think about all the times in your life you didn't have to deal with discrimination just on the basis of your skin colour. Two equal candidates in this case are not equal - the BAME candidate has jumped way more hurdles to be the equal. It's a very fair policy and the right thing to do. The white person who loses out will have more alternative opportunities.

I am a white hetero woman, just FYI.

What tie break tasks would you like - bush tucker trials, dance off?

😂😂😂 @TatianaBis

yanbu its absolutely ridiculous

I think people can get over emotional about a policy that's unlikely to make that much of a difference. The specific policy isn't about choosing a less qualified candidate but one at the same level. If there's a tie then often there is some bias the interviewers have which could win it for one candidate over the other.

I do feel that we're influenced by the USA a lot and so I dislike how class is discounted often, as well as other disadvantages a person could have such as a disability.

I applied for a job and at interview, they were at pains to emphasise that they didn't want middle aged, white, middle class women. I did feel this was unfair

I don’t have a problem with it in theory. But I don’t think it is right to solely focus on race - it’s too narrow. I think there are other things which should be taken into consideration.

For example, I had an interview last summer and it was down to the last two candidates. The other candidate was a young, middle class, university educated asian man. I am a working class white woman (of childbearing age) who had my first child as a teenager. I still live on the council estate I grew up on. If we had performed equally at interview, I don’t think that it would be fair to choose him solely because of his race given the barriers I also face/have faced.

There are so many weird variables that could happen with this arrangement too.

My family doctor growing up was a guy who had a private education and was very cultured from an well-off family. He was also a black man.

So, would they pick him over a working class white woman, or a refugee from the Middle East?

You could actually end up with a hell of a policy with a big matrix about ranking various characteristics!

Gross.

But I don’t think it is right to solely focus on race - it’s too narrow

You are in luck!
Because it doesn't focuse solely on race...