No, really guys, we're for equality. . Britain embraces 'positive action' to abolish workplace discrimination Employers will be able to reject male job applican No really guys we're for equality Britain embraces 'positive action' to abolish workplace discrimination Employers will be able reject male job applican
Upload
Login or register

No, really guys, we're for equality

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
Britain embraces 'positive action' to abolish workplace
discrimination
Employers will be able to reject male job applicants in favour of women who are no
better: qualified under: new laws to promote equality at work.
Q Print this article
fa Share 192
rink on
tn Twitter 41
UK News
Kern' s lo Politics a
Business Latest Kern' s
Equality minister Lynne Fret: FF: TTC: SFC: T Jobs lo
...
+265
Views: 16118 Submitted: 03/09/2014
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (104)
[ 104 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#4 - samthediv
Reply +35 123456789123345869
(03/09/2014) [-]
Except this is total ******** as it goes against the equality act of 2010, which states that you cannot discriminate based on:
- Age
- Disability
- Gender Reassignment
- Marriage and civil partnership
- pregnancy and maternity
- Race
- Religion and belief
- Sex
- Sexual Orientation.
#54 to #4 - anon id: c80632c7
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/10/2014) [-]
The act you mention is an American law if i remember right. This law takes place in Britain.
User avatar #100 to #54 - samthediv
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/10/2014) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_2010

At least google this **** you mong.
#73 to #4 - anon id: f6482ef3
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/10/2014) [-]
"A bank has a vacancy for one of its senior jobs.All the other senior jobs at
that level are done by men.The bank conducts a recruitment exercise and
at the end of a stringent and objective process inds that two applicants – a
man and a woman – could do the job equally well.The bank could decide to
take positive action and give the job to the woman. But the bank couldn’t
give the job to the woman if the man would be able to do the job better than
her – that would be unlawful direct discrimination against the man."
from www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85014/positive-action-recruitment.pdf
User avatar #9 to #4 - economic [OP]
Reply +58 123456789123345869
(03/09/2014) [-]
Welcome to the world of feminism.
#18 - laxwarriord
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(03/09/2014) [-]
Yeah, the law says they can, but anyone in the right state of mind to be in a position of hiring help, wont hire a woman with no qualifications vs someone with the qualifications
User avatar #19 to #18 - economic [OP]
Reply +27 123456789123345869
(03/09/2014) [-]
You've never seen a feminist manager of a large corporation where their lack of skill can go unnoticed, have you?
#20 to #19 - laxwarriord
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/09/2014) [-]
Thankfully no, and im pretty sure i would have seeing as funnyjunk is addicted to anything about feminism
User avatar #21 to #20 - economic [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/09/2014) [-]
It's addicted to cunts, racism, lifting and tits for the kids.
We all hate feminism because it's full of people trying to **** us over under the false view that women have is so bad in this world and men are keeping them down.

Feminists remind me of American blacks, they fail at life and blame the white man for everything.
User avatar #25 to #21 - Shiny
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/09/2014) [-]
>openly hate other people based on generalizations
>complain that other people hate you based on generalizations

You reap what you sow.
User avatar #26 to #25 - economic [OP]
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(03/09/2014) [-]
The jews started this. I agree, they'll reap what they sow. They've always dug their mass graves.
User avatar #28 to #26 - cottage
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/09/2014) [-]
Do you like Sikhism?
User avatar #30 to #28 - economic [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/09/2014) [-]
Very peaceful groups, I wouldn't become a minority to them but i don't dislike them.
User avatar #32 to #30 - cottage
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/09/2014) [-]
You seem like a reasonable racist.
User avatar #34 to #32 - economic [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/09/2014) [-]
It's a religion not a race, but thanks.
User avatar #35 to #34 - cottage
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/09/2014) [-]
Woops sorry.
User avatar #27 to #26 - Shiny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/09/2014) [-]
The Jews are busy with their synagogues and accountant jobs. They don't care about you.
User avatar #29 to #27 - economic [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/09/2014) [-]
Sure kid, good goy.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA7Ymki71fM

I love the smell of antisemitism in the morning, smells like genocide.
User avatar #31 to #29 - Shiny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/09/2014) [-]
User avatar #33 to #31 - economic [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/09/2014) [-]
A jew looks right in your face and tells you their ******* things up and all you can do is name a site, what next, the format of the media?
Good goy.
User avatar #36 to #33 - Shiny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/09/2014) [-]
Yes, because it proves nothing. It doesn't even have a real point to it.
User avatar #37 to #36 - economic [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/09/2014) [-]
Other than a jew admitting what they're doing. Right into the camera....
Talk about being a moron.
Do they have to rent a 10 mile wide sign to get the message across.
Or do they all have to stand around you shouting it?

Doesn't matter anyway, you're most likely just a jew or a **** skin enjoying our white countries wealth. Racism and antisemitism is growing and we have another "cleaning of Europe" soon enough.
User avatar #38 to #37 - Shiny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/09/2014) [-]
What "they" are doing? A lot of people are racialists, not just whites. They're just pissants looking for an ego boost.
User avatar #40 to #38 - economic [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/09/2014) [-]
JIDFs are blocked from my channel.
#39 to #38 - economic [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/09/2014) [-]
> They're just pissants looking for an ego boost.
*taps on head*
Gold star goy.
You're a special kind of retard when a jew looks right into the camera and says what jews are doing.

Do they need to put a giant sing in space for someone with your IQ score?
Wow

You have to be a jew to be that blind.
#50 to #38 - spambassador
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(03/10/2014) [-]
if you ever needed a example of reasons to never go to /pol/, here's the comments to do it.

make some half baked thoughts and references to 'jews takin ober da world' respond to any counterpoint with 'good goy' and then sprinkle a healthy dose of retard's confidence on the whole thing and you have pretty much have it down.

the aluminium hat he's using to keep the jews out of his brain might be cutting of circulation.
User avatar #55 - luidias
Reply +20 123456789123345869
(03/10/2014) [-]
"Let's promote equality by giving special privileges to a group of people based on their gender!"
#66 - eenor
Reply +14 123456789123345869
(03/10/2014) [-]
User avatar #53 - hockerz
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(03/10/2014) [-]
This isn't a law though! This quote (at the end of the article) sums it up:
Yvette Cooper, the shadow women and equality minister, dismissed the strategy as “no more than warm words”.

People need to read **** before assuming.
#3 - ganjalf
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(03/09/2014) [-]
User avatar #78 - metalmind
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(03/10/2014) [-]
We have a better solution here in Germany:
You are allowed to leave out Gender, Name, Age, Family status, Photo and nationality in a job application.

That way people get selected according to their qualifications.
No new laws neccessary, no affirmative action.
This was based on a study in 2010, and is now used by e.g. women with experience, men who are a bit older or who have foreign sounding names, who are not photogenic, or just anybody trying to avoid discrimination of any sort.
User avatar #80 to #78 - thisisspartah
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/10/2014) [-]
so then you can discriminate at the job interview
User avatar #83 to #80 - metalmind
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/10/2014) [-]
Well, it's still more equal than the British solution.
And it's harder to discriminate against somebody in person.
User avatar #84 to #83 - thisisspartah
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/10/2014) [-]
you can still call them a ******
User avatar #86 to #84 - metalmind
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/10/2014) [-]
Actually you can't.
Discrimination on grounds of religion, race, nationality, or any other criteria that does not have an objective influence on the situation is illegal, especially when it involves an employer-employee situatuion, or job application .
And that goes both ways.
And insulting someone is illegal as well.
User avatar #87 to #86 - thisisspartah
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/10/2014) [-]
****** please, who gives a **** if its illegal
User avatar #89 to #87 - metalmind
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/10/2014) [-]
Yeah, but there are fines. And they are not small at all.
#82 to #78 - anon id: 2c826c9c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/10/2014) [-]
Won't people with favorable info put it one, therefore singling out anyone who doesn't put on the info? Like, it'll be obvious who the 25s are and who the 65s are 'cuz the 65s won't put it down.
User avatar #85 to #82 - metalmind
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/10/2014) [-]
Not necessarily, and some application processes are anonymous for everybody (at least thats what companies have been trying out).
Plus it makes no difference in qualification for most jobs.
User avatar #63 - gare
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/10/2014) [-]
tell me this is onion please lord tell me this is onion
#76 to #63 - ibowtobacon
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(03/10/2014) [-]
User avatar #41 - pocketstooheavy
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(03/09/2014) [-]
Equality != Equality
#70 to #41 - amata
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#42 to #41 - Blasphemer
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(03/10/2014) [-]
While True:
Equality != Equality

Let's loop that bitch for a while.
User avatar #43 to #42 - pocketstooheavy
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(03/10/2014) [-]
You can't run a comparison like that without any sort of comparison prefix. (i.e. if, else if...)
#44 to #43 - Blasphemer
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(03/10/2014) [-]
While True:
Equality = -Equality

Dammit, this is why I remove 34000 bugs every time I try to run my **** for first time.
#64 - hudge
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(03/10/2014) [-]
So, by saying that they're "No better qualified", does that mean that the person would have equivalent qualifications?
User avatar #79 to #64 - iamchong
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/10/2014) [-]
Yes so basically. It means men can get turned down for a position for a woman who is equally qualified for that same position
that is legit equality
#65 to #64 - wardenspectre
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(03/10/2014) [-]
It's saying either of equal or lesser qualification. Either way, laws like this suck, because it means there is then such a thing as overqualification. Employers will favor a woman with just enough for the job over a man with more than enough because of laws like this and the tax exempts they get from hiring them.   
   
MFW feminists
It's saying either of equal or lesser qualification. Either way, laws like this suck, because it means there is then such a thing as overqualification. Employers will favor a woman with just enough for the job over a man with more than enough because of laws like this and the tax exempts they get from hiring them.

MFW feminists
User avatar #67 to #65 - helenwheels
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/10/2014) [-]
No it is of equivalent qualification.
It's still wrong.
User avatar #72 to #67 - epicalania
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/10/2014) [-]
While I agree that it should mean equivalent qualification, this is a feminist law so it probably doesn't
If they're equal then the Employer chooses based on other things, such as an interview, they could already choose whichever they liked anyway so it's stupid and sexist to make this law if it doesn't mean equivalent and if it does mean equivalent then it's twice as stupid and still a bit sexist.
User avatar #91 to #72 - helenwheels
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/10/2014) [-]
"No better qualified" doesn't mean less qualified.
If it where less it would say women who are less qualified.

The United States affirmative action requires that a work place have a certain number of women and that gets women who are less qualified head way against men.
User avatar #102 to #91 - epicalania
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/10/2014) [-]
I understand how it's phrased and how the law is unnecessary if it is meant as it is phrased but these are feminists so I don't doubt they would try to twist the words to sound like this while meaning less qualified.

In Australia the workplace is required to judge applicants on factors relating to the job first and then the employer can choose as s/he wishes provided there is no discrimination, so if a man and a women are qualified then they would be asked to a meeting and the employer can choose whomever s/he wishes.