No, really guys, we're for equality. . Britain embraces 'positive action' to abolish workplace discrimination Employers will be able to reject male job applican
x
Click to expand

No, really guys, we're for equality

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
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+265
Views: 16080
Favorited: 20
Submitted: 03/09/2014
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to economic submit to reddit

Comments(104):

[ 104 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#4 - samthediv ONLINE (03/09/2014) [+] (4 replies)
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.
User avatar #9 to #4 - economic (03/09/2014) [-]
Welcome to the world of feminism.
#18 - laxwarriord (03/09/2014) [+] (20 replies)
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 (03/09/2014) [-]
You've never seen a feminist manager of a large corporation where their lack of skill can go unnoticed, have you?
User avatar #55 - luidias (03/10/2014) [-]
"Let's promote equality by giving special privileges to a group of people based on their gender!"
#66 - eenor (03/10/2014) [-]
User avatar #53 - hockerz (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.
User avatar #78 - metalmind (03/10/2014) [+] (8 replies)
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 #63 - gare (03/10/2014) [+] (1 reply)
tell me this is onion please lord tell me this is onion
User avatar #41 - pocketstooheavy (03/09/2014) [+] (4 replies)
Equality != Equality
#64 - hudge (03/10/2014) [+] (6 replies)
So, by saying that they're "No better qualified", does that mean that the person would have equivalent qualifications?
#65 to #64 - wardenspectre (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 #24 - Shiny ONLINE (03/09/2014) [+] (2 replies)
No sane company will value a political agenda over profit. Regardless of what is used to justify discrimination, said discrimination always leads to a company's collapse anyway.
User avatar #92 - hargleblarg (03/10/2014) [-]
You know, it's this stuff that makes my entry to the world of work ******* terrifying.
I'm actually disabled, have been for about five or six years now (who's counting eh?) and I need a wheelchair if I'm moving long distances, and I can't do anything too physically or mentally taxing or else I could end up in hospital. For years I've been building myself up to a point where I'll be able to handle a simple job and earn my own money, and I know that I'll be able to get pretty much any job I apply for.

Why? Because every company has to meet some kind of quota regarding employing the disabled. It looks good for them if they hire a guy in a wheelchair because then they can say they offer employment for the disabled and cater to their needs. I wont be hired because of my abilities, my grades or my work ethic, I'll be hired because of my difficulties because it makes them look good.

That isn't equality. Just because I'm disabled doesn't mean I should have special treatment, especially when I've seen so many of my friends struggling to find work, hounding companies just to even look at them. It's the same on this post, only for women. If you start employing women BECAUSE they're women and they make you look good, you're actually degrading them even more because your not hiring them due to their abilities, you're hiring them because they make you look good.

TL;DR this actually harms women's rights more than it helps them.
#22 - neverbefore (03/09/2014) [-]
the feminist war on men continues.
#2 - mrchris (03/09/2014) [+] (2 replies)
I want a link, I swear to god if it's the ******* dailymail I'll be pissed.
User avatar #77 - Sataria (03/10/2014) [+] (7 replies)
This is all I want: I want equal pay. END OF STORY
User avatar #81 to #77 - thisisspartah (03/10/2014) [-]
go to mcdonalds, everyone gets minimum wage no matter what
User avatar #69 - bjorntheberserk (03/10/2014) [-]
So Affirmative Action for women? Got it!
#59 - funnyjunkyeahyeah (03/10/2014) [-]
>no better qualified

IDK, to me that says equally qualified, rather than less. So this law doesn't actually mean anything? IDK.
User avatar #49 - insertsfunnyname (03/10/2014) [+] (1 reply)
This is only part of the article, it might be a reasonable idea, that's been worded in a way which makes it sound sexist.
User avatar #23 - syntheticdoll (03/09/2014) [+] (1 reply)
"will be able" but who do **** wants to?
User avatar #51 to #23 - economic (03/10/2014) [-]
Feminists, sexist women, man hating cunts etc.
#7 - astarothaufromage (03/09/2014) [+] (9 replies)
Just to be clear, i disagree with this law, but I do think most people will overreact and most aren't even completely aware of what the law exactly is. Let's say you have have to employ someone, and the best two candidates are a male and a female with nearly identical resumes or least resumes that make it a difficult decision. You'd hire the male. Why? Because it'll cost you money when the female gets pregnant. It's not america. If she gets pregnant, you can't just fire her. She basically get a paid vacation several weeks. It's not easy bearing a kid, she'll need it. Most employers keep this in the back of their mind so in nearly all of those cases they do hire the male. This law won't force people to hire unqualified females or set up a matriarchy.

Still, it's a case of discrimination against discrimination. If fighting fire with fire really would help the fire department would need some serious overhaulin' too.
User avatar #8 to #7 - economic (03/09/2014) [-]
It's the same ******** blacks use to get free **** and still cry that they're not the racist party.
[ 104 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)