[News] diversity equality and inclusion

[Thunder Bolt]

An excellent point.

But again, there is a lot of generalisation about “work”.

Work could be making reasonable accommodations for a disabled person to be able to do their job - such as having an accessible desk and computer set up in an office environment - wouldn’t be any good if a building firm had a so-called DEI requirement for a set percentage of their workers to be disabled.

Some jobs people just can’t do, which I’m sure we all agree on. Yet “blanket” policies don’t take these factors into account.

It would be quite impossible for me to hire someone who isn’t physically fit enough to climb up and down ladders, load in off trucks, and all the other parts of the job which would prevent a DEI hire in that category (physical disability preventing those work requirements).

Really, common sense is so, so important and I welcome broader hiring opportunities for everybody where doors will have be closed firmly shut in the past. But having that as a target is where I can’t get on board.

Disability is more than someone in a wheelchair. A deaf person could be physically fit enough to work on a building site.
Widen the possibilities.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

These days...

 

[Berty23]

Did you read my first hand example? I can only speak from my own experience.

I wasn’t “forced” to hire anyone, because I would’ve walked and claimed breach of contract and unsafe working conditions (hiring wasn’t even meant to be my job), but I was very strongly encouraged to make a certain type of hire. I explained all this.

When I failed to do so, I was chewed out (insomuch as anyone can do at work in the public sector as a freelancer).

I didn’t have the candidates.

I appreciate this is an important issue for you, but I’ve experienced the bad aspects this stuff personally. I’m personally pleased that you haven’t.

It is not an important issue for me necessarily. It is just something I know a lot about and have experienced in various different ways at work and life. I have sat shaking my head in meetings where it is just an echo chamber with people all just agreeing. My go to lines to be “I might be missing something obvious here” or “this might be a silly question but…”

As a parent one of my kids experienced disappointment for not being picked for a sport talent academy when she was clearly better than many of those picked who went to the correct school.

We all just need to be aware of bias and giving people a fair chance is not the same as giving people the job/place when someone else is obviously better.

 

[jcdenton08]

Disability is more than someone in a wheelchair. A deaf person could be physically fit enough to work on a building site.
Widen the possibilities.

Absolutely, and disabled people are a protected group by law. You’re preaching to the converted here.

But again, I can only relay back to my own personal experiences in my job.

Not everyone can do every job. Sorry, but it’s true.

 

[AK74]

I didn't come here for a lecture in communism.

 

[Berty23]

Absolutely, and disabled people are a protected group by law. You’re preaching to the converted here.

But again, I can only relay back to my own personal experiences in my job.

Not everyone can do every job. Sorry, but it’s true.

But being protected doesn’t guarantee you a job nor an interview by law. Some employers choose to guarantee an interview and that’s up to them. But I would be interested to see examples of people being given a job they definitely can’t do because of the law.

If employers don’t understand the law and do something silly then I would suggest this is their problem rather than the law.

 

[jcdenton08]

It is not an important issue for me necessarily. It is just something I know a lot about and have experienced in various different ways at work and life. I have sat shaking my head in meetings where it is just an echo chamber with people all just agreeing. My go to lines to be “I might be missing something obvious here” or “this might be a silly question but…”

As a parent one of my kids experienced disappointment for not being picked for a sport talent academy when she was clearly better than many of those picked who went to the correct school.

We all just need to be aware of bias and giving people a fair chance is not the same as giving people the job/place when someone else is obviously better.

I agree, I don’t really see what your point was when you replied to me on this.

Everyone should get a fair crack of a whip, everyone qualified and appropriate for a job should be seen, and from that pool ideally a good mixture of people with different backgrounds and insights will make a more balanced team. That’s just using - ugh - an “eyes and ears open” approach to management.

Once again, my issue is when arbitrary targets are set for DEI hires when the job/recruitment pool simply doesn’t allow it. Which is what I experienced first hand.

Which is a bad thing. Yes? Do you want people in your team who are completely inappropriate for the job and unable to fulfil the requirements of the job, and will actively make your job harder, in order to raise a percentage point on a target number which was pulled out of thin air?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Absolutely, and disabled people are a protected group by law. You’re preaching to the converted here.

But again, I can only relay back to my own personal experiences in my job.

Not everyone can do every job. Sorry, but it’s true.

It is true, and I have a vested interest here. My husband is hard of hearing and has been from a young age (genetic). He has had to fight for headphones, and before that a specific phone.
During a work meeting, one of the managers was clicking a pen constantly, so he had to ask him to stop, as the hearing aids were amplifying it. The manager grudgingly said sorry, but then proceeded to tap his foot against the leg of the table, looking smug and saying ‘Am I annoying you?’
No protection from HR.


Fortunately, my other half got a much better job years ago, but discrimination can take many forms.

 

[Berty23]

I agree, I don’t really see what your point was when you replied to me on this.

Everyone should get a fair crack of a whip, everyone qualified and appropriate for a job should be seen, and from that pool ideally a good mixture of people with different backgrounds and insights will make a more balanced team. That’s just using - ugh - an “eyes and ears open” approach to management.

Once again, my issue is when arbitrary targets are set for DEI hires when the job/recruitment pool simply doesn’t allow it. Which is what I experienced first hand.

Which is a bad thing. Yes? Do you want people in your team who are completely inappropriate for the job and unable to fulfil the requirements of the job, and will actively make your job harder, in order to raise a percentage point on a target number which was pulled out of thin air?

Who set those policies? I assume the employer? Did they explain why?

 

[hart's shirt]

Unless I have missed it (someone on my ignore list) the discussion so far has been very civil....

I'm delighted that my prediction of doom and gloom / warning shot (delete as appropriate) has had the desired effect so far.

 

[Peteinblack]

Yes, any preferential treatment based on skin colour is racism.

Best person for the job, irrespective of race/sex/religion.

Sounds so simple, doesn't it - except that it allows someone (or a panel) to define the 'best person for the job' according to their skin colour or sex/gender, or perhaps in their own image; "we want to appoint someone just like us."

Suppose a recruitment panel was all-male, and only ever appointed men to their company's vacancies - does that mean that none of the women applicants were ever good enough, or that the all-male panel were defining the 'best' candidate in a biased manner?

After all, before EDI became more extensive in the workplace, why were most companies dominated by men the higher up the organisation you went?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

But others have said they discriminate against people from certain universities. The person who got into Portsmouth might have come from a background with nothing. They might have had caring responsibilities all through school with a disabled parent. For them getting to university might have been a phenomenal achievement and show a sensational work ethic. Meanwhile someone with a silver spoon who went to independent school and coached to get into Oxbridge and given ridiculous support in their comfy accommodation could have it all handed to them on a plate.

Who has the highest bar and work ethic?

There is research which shows that kids who get the same grades at state school as independent schools do better at university than their independent school peers. so in reality by hiring someone with worse grades you might end up with a far better worker.

Sadly people don’t take the time to ask and make assumptions. A good skit about this in Ted Lasso with the darts scene vs Rupert.

I agree. This is why we have multiple criteria that we score. But there is a challenge.

Let's imagine we have a student who has struggled at school, from a family where nobody has ever gone to uni. The family may have a low income. The kid may have been doing part time jobs throughout their school years. They may have scraped into an unfashionable university through clearing (dunno if clearing still operates - it did when I was a lad). Their uni years are patchy. They struggled in their first two years. They may have an undiagnosed condition such as autism. They did not take advantage of an Industrial Placement year for reasons of affordability. They may have had a challenging home life. Then they find some way of focusing in their final year and they smash their exams and get a decent degree.*

How much of that narrative can I expect to see in a PhD application? The student may not be willing or able to capture that narrative, even in their personal statement. My experience of personal statements is they are mostly problematic. Students play up and play down different issues. Many are written using AI these days. A personal statement is unlikely to be a clincher when selecting a candidate for PhD interview. In the box tick section it is impossible to capture all that personal nuance. Same in other career recriotment? Probably.

So what else would help the applicant? Good references? This is where the personal narrative can be outlined, and by an ostensibly independent person. I find references to be quite revealing and will take them into account. Albeit in a 10 item score sheet the reference may generate only 5 out of 20 of the available 'score'.

So with the best will in the world, if academic prowess and potential are the pivotal selection criteria then the background of the student is going to be incredibly difficult to factor into the shortlisting process.

*I am aware of one such case. The graduate did eventually find a PhD position. One staff member from their undergrad uni took them under his wing, impressed by the student's final year achievements, and told the student about opportunities he had heard about in his network of mates, and the student wrote letters to the academics, got interview invitations, received offers, and made a selection. Forty two years later that student is now coming to the end of a pleasing career in academia. Yep. That student was me.

 

[jcdenton08]

Who set those policies? I assume the employer? Did they explain why?

I don’t mean to be rude but I’ve already explained this and I get the impression you didn’t read my original post about this.

I was hired freelance for a contract by the council, I was delegated to hire two staff reporting to me. I was asked to hire ideally someone who isn’t a non-white man. The person delegating me this task, said they have internal targets to be met regarding hires. I was told women and POCs were “strongly encouraged”.

When I didn’t get suitable candidates (again, see original post) I was given a bit of a telling off, and more explicitly told about “target employees” which I assume is their slang for “target quotas”.

I essentially shrugged and said I didn’t have the candidates. Fulfilled my contract with no issues.

So yes, I assume the council set those targets, because my boss was a council employee.

You can believe me or not, doesn’t matter to me, but it’s put me off the whole DEI through employee census thing.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Sounds so simple, doesn't it - except that it allows someone (or a panel) to define the 'best person for the job' according to their skin colour or sex/gender.

Suppose a recruitment panel was all-male, and only ever appointed men to vacancies - does that mean that none of the women applicants were ever good enough, or that the all-male panel were defining the 'best' candidate in a biased manner?

After all, before EDI became more extensive, why were most companies dominated by men the higher up the organisation you went?

Precisely.
One of my brothers was involved with a county fire brigade 25 years ago.
It was a closed shop of white males, and quite a toxic environment.
It did change eventually.
The anti DEI agenda driven by Trump and Farage is a disgrace.
It denies all the battles that have been won, how, and why.
It paints DEI as being responsible for all the shortcomings in the workplace.
It is as if the bigger the lie the more plausible it becomes for certain sorts.

 

[Berty23]

I don’t mean to be rude but I’ve already explained this and I get the impression you didn’t read my original post about this.

I was hired freelance for a contract by the council, I was delegated to hire two staff reporting to me. I was asked to hire ideally someone who isn’t a non-white man. The person delegating me this task, said they have internal targets to be met regarding hires. I was told women and POCs were “strongly encouraged”.

When I didn’t get suitable candidates (again, see original post) I was given a bit of a telling off, and more explicitly told about “target employees” which I assume is their slang for “target quotas”.

I essentially shrugged and said I didn’t have the candidates. Fulfilled my contract with no issues.

So yes, I assume the council set those targets, because my boss was a council employee.

You can believe me or not, doesn’t matter to me, but it’s put me off the whole DEI through employee census thing.

But that is what I am getting at. Did you ask why? Any organisation should be able to answer that. Maybe they wanted people with certain experiences? I have no idea what the specific role was but I would imagine it would be helpful in many circumstances for councils who deliver services to have people involved who have experienced them.

For example, focus on care leavers to help understand care system. That sort of thing.

I don’t mean to upset you. I am merely trying to understand what exactly happened.

 

[Berty23]

Precisely.
One of my brothers was involved with a county fire brigade 25 years ago.
It was a closed shop of white males, and quite a toxic environment.
It did change eventually.
The anti DEI agenda driven by Trump and Farage is a disgrace.
It denies all the battles that have been won, how, and why.
It paints DEI as being responsible for all the shortcomings in the workplace.
It is as if the bigger the lie the more plausible it becomes for certain sorts.

Yep. And like many on here I am middle aged. Won’t be long until i could be placed in the “too old” bin. As has come up in other discussions about this so many people hear DEI and think it is giving jobs to brown people. It is everything. It is done to try and make things as fair as possible.

Maybe we should just sign up to “well life isn’t fair”

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I don’t mean to be rude but I’ve already explained this and I get the impression you didn’t read my original post about this.

I was hired freelance for a contract by the council, I was delegated to hire two staff reporting to me. I was asked to hire ideally someone who isn’t a non-white man. The person delegating me this task, said they have internal targets to be met regarding hires. I was told women and POCs were “strongly encouraged”.

When I didn’t get suitable candidates (again, see original post) I was given a bit of a telling off, and more explicitly told about “target employees” which I assume is their slang for “target quotas”.

I essentially shrugged and said I didn’t have the candidates. Fulfilled my contract with no issues.

So yes, I assume the council set those targets, because my boss was a council employee.

You can believe me or not, doesn’t matter to me, but it’s put me off the whole DEI through employee census thing.

This is wrong, I suspect commonplace, and is, or should be, illegal.

But I suspect it is the consequence of the company employing and/or failing to effectively train staff involved in creating the recruitment rubric.

Targets are useful for one purpose only. They define the outcome that can be expected if a process is fair.
If targets are not met then the management needs to look into the process.
Unfortunately people think they also have a duty to game the system so the targets are met.
That is not the same as seeking to make recruitment fair and open and mitigate against biases.

There is a football analogy.
Imagine that in England the number of goals per game is less than that in Germany.
Imagine Germany keep winning the world cup while England fails.
We obviously need to score more goals in England.
Solution? Better coaching and tactics.
Perverse solution? Change the offside rule (in England only) so there are more goals in the EPL.

 

[sparkie]

Christ.

Culture War Stand Chat.

Thread ignore.

 

[jcdenton08]

I don’t mean to upset you. I am merely trying to understand what exactly happened.

You aren’t upsetting me - I’m enjoying a sensible discussion on a sensitive topic on NSC for once!

As I said before, the job was to hire two crew - the job requirements were rigging lanterns at height, performing a load in and fit up of the set and props (carrying the set out of a lorry and then putting it together, under supervision from me and the production manager), fly work (working at height tying off and lifting heavy ropes above the stage for scenery and curtains) and general repairs and maintenance of any issues which arise.

The only indication I was given, was that my job fell within the “arts” budget, because it was co-produced by the local borough council and in one of their venues. Arts inclusivity targets are extremely high. This is because the majority of venues are publicly funded, and very often their existence is dependent on grants from the Arts Council England (ACE), who have a very firm internal DEI policy.

If hire rates of, what basically amounts to in real terms, White British males is too high, they risk losing ACE funding, as well as being a media target.

As a result, within the arts, inclusive hire rates are set extremely high, regardless of the genetic makeup of the local community, their education and relevant experience.

This particular job was in a predominantly white, working class area, leaving me to somehow spirit up a “target hire” out of thin air.

When it was found out I interviewed two, and didn’t give them the jobs, I was chewed out. But if I’d have been forced to hire them, I would’ve resigned and sued anyway, as they were completely inexperienced and unable to safely work in an H&S risk environment, let alone help me run a show for 900 paying customers a night.

 

[Berty23]

Christ.

Culture War Stand Chat.

Thread ignore.

It really isn’t. It has been very civil discussion about pros and cons.