Pets at home equality section for recruitment

[Gobbolinothekitchencat]

This made me unnecessarily cross. I am supporting a very stressed, anxious DS with autism (Aspergers and a spLD) get a job and self-worth. Majority of job sites have asked to self- declare for a disability or it is in the equality monitoring section. There is nowhere to add this information, it would have to go in his cover letter, which I don’t think is at all appropriate.

We were presented with this section, introduction says all the right things but there is nowhere for DS to add in his disabilities but he can self-describe his gender and sexuality. I realise this is the feminist section and I am upset about him being ignored, discounted for a lifelong condition/ disorder which he gets judged on as soon as he walks into a situation.

Anyway, trying to make a point to this post, I am going to contact Pets At Home to point out they have misinterpreted the EA and excluded a protected group (and not quite got right a couple more).

Our experience, hunting for apprenticeships and entry roles, in last few months is that diversity and inclusion is focusing on easy wins and not supporting those with disabilities, especially more invisible social and communication ones like autism. They talk about reasonable adjustments but then offer very little tangible adaptions. Sorry, am just very upset over what appears to be a juggernaut of a movement trying to be more diverse but flattening the disabled along the way as well plus the general ignorance of gender/ sex in the EA.

Good luck OP, I hope they take on board what you highlight about their misrepresentation of the EA, and I hope your son finds an employer who will support him.

I empathise hugely; as a disabled woman I wish my previous workplace had spent 1/10 of the energy and resources it had to spend on trans/gender issues on supporting employees with disabilities. I had to fight to get an allocated desk; some of my reasonable adjustments were a height adjustable desk, footrest, particular chair and certain other peripherals and the requirement to NOT have to re-set those things to my specification every time I was in the office. I also saw a severely dyslexic colleague “let go”, ostensibly because his contract came to an end but I found out afterwards it was because the senior management team didn’t want to devote the time and resource into supporting his needs. But cover yourself in glitter and a pastel flag and you were on the front page of the intranet every other week…at no cost to the company, of course.

I do think you're right and it is so sad. if only all this effort was focussed on those who could thrive if the necessary assistance was really put in place.

This is the equalities monitoring section and will not be considered as part of an application. It has zero bearing on the likelihood of your DS success in being recruited and clearly states it won’t be shared as part of the application process.

Are you genuinely this upset about the rigour of Pets At Home’s equalities monitoring?

Are you genuinely this upset about the rigour of Pets At Home’s equalities monitoring?

So a company ignoring a protected group is not important. Why shouldn't the OP be angry/concerned?

Yes. I'm fairly outraged and I'm not the OP. Just another mother of a barely employable autistic teen-ager.

You do realise that the only way any organisation can measure whether they're systematically discriminating against people with protected characteristics is to monitor using equalities monitoring and that by excluding the protected characteristic of being disabled/having a disability (choose your language) they have created a primacy for other characteristics?

They say they do this but don't actually collect the relevant data.

Or are you maybe one of those people who don't think disabled people are quite human or deserving of equality?

It's not particularly rigorous if they've forgotten all about the existence of disabilities, is it?

Ageneralsenseofproundconcern - you don’t know me, and you don’t know my life. You have no idea. So please don’t suggest I might be someone who thinks people with disabilities are somehow less than.

I don’t object at all to you or anyone else having an issue with their equalities monitoring as it relates to disabilities. What I take issue with is the OP conflating the monitoring of characteristics related to gender and sexual orientation with the lack of monitoring for people with disabilities. Whilst it’s clearly an unpopular opinion on MN, I don’t think Pets at Home monitoring characteristics around sexual orientation and gender is to blame for a lack of monitoring of disability. And I think trying to pin the blame on gains for gender and sexual diversity obscures the actual barriers.

Believe it or not I’m pretty fucked off about how impossible it is for people with social communication difficulties to get jobs. Forget reasonable adjustments in work, how hard it is to actually get a foot in the door? Impossible. Disabled people deserve real, fundamental changes to the way employers attract and recruit for roles.

Are you genuinely this upset about the rigour of Pets At Home’s equalities monitoring?

Yes, because it isn't rigorous and it should be. Detailed questions about other traits, but not about disability -- which is probably the biggest obstacle to a job-seeker.

Just to clarify, yes I am upset and no I have no issue with protected characteristics of sex, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity or gender reassignment and if they want to add in trans status then equally they can if they have a target but it isn’t in the EQ act and that doesn’t make me angry . But disability is quite key for many people. On previous applications with other companies disabilities are there and even a section to add in any adjustments needed. So DS can mention about verbal communication etc.

If I am quite honest, I really don’t care if they want to monitor all 100 plus sexual orientations or genders as long as they monitor disability along with the other protected characteristics.

Probably didn’t explain myself that well at the start but am upset, I have a hard working, polite, kind and bright young man at home who needs a chance and the casual/ careless omission of disability when he already is becoming invisible was a little much. Perhaps, this would be better in a SEN group but we face this sort of casual dismissal every day.

And those changes are entirely dependent on them collecting data.

Not collecting data about disability and collecting it about other protected characteristics creates a primacy. That isn't ok.

So, going back to your original question, yes I am really pissed off about their equalities monitoring specifically because it's not equal!

I don’t think Pets at Home monitoring characteristics around sexual orientation and gender is to blame for a lack of monitoring of disability.

I don't understand this. They've chosen to focus on other things, to the exclusion of disability (and indeed of problems such as social communication difficulties, which you are concerned about). That's a bit worse than not focusing on any characteristics, which would at least be equal neglect. They're treating gender etc as more important.

You say how impossible it is for people with social communication difficulties to get jobs. Yes, that would be worth focusing on too. A genuine obstacle, like physical disability, that needs to be recognised.

What I take issue with is the OP conflating the monitoring of characteristics related to gender and sexual orientation with the lack of monitoring for people with disabilities. Whilst it’s clearly an unpopular opinion on MN, I don’t think Pets at Home monitoring characteristics around sexual orientation and gender is to blame for a lack of monitoring of disability.

Oh come on, you can’t be that obtuse? There are only eight questions and five of them relate to gender identity and sexual orientation, with nothing at all to monitor disabilities. That to me screams of an organisation which has been Stonewalled to the hilt, and we know how badly Stonewall represent the EA and do create a flawed hierarchy of PCs. Gender identity isn’t even a protected characteristic (it’s gender reassignment which is) so they don’t need to have a single question about that, just one about sex and one about sexual orientation. This monitoring form tells me this company outsources its understanding about protected characteristics to someone deliberately misrepresenting them.

The other fundamental point is that they are not enabling future staff the ability to disclose information that might require a reasonable adjustment, especially when they will have to sign agreeing they have disclosed all relevant information.

it just lazy, naive or cheap design with no quality checks to ensure the tick boxes actually match the preceding statement.

His disability is relevant. How is his sexuality relevant?

Easy box-ticking to give the appearance of inclusivity. Unthinking? Or has the company deliberately chosen to avoid anything that might challenge that appearance?