Is this a common situation?

[Wardonkey]

It is obvious that positive discrimination and affirmative action are ridiculous ideas.

These systems cause resentment and tension in workplaces and communities. They are counter productive and give bigots a soapbox to stand on.

Anytime an employer uses any other factor than a persons ability to do a job then it damages itself.

My initial 'bollocks' statement was off the cuff. Situations clearly do arise where people feel forced into trying to make up quotas, and will therefore not employ some people who they might normally take on. This situation is however quite rare.

A much more common situation is for people to use excuses when they are rejected for jobs or when they are doing the rejecting.

[tikay]

  Just spent the afternoon round at my brother in-laws (Dave is name is),chewing the fat as you do,when the conversation got round to the fact that our 16 year old boy as shown a keen interest in joining the fire brigade (or the fire and rescue service as it is now known).Anyway Dave is a fireman and has been for about 15 years,and was in his element telling us about how good a job it is. He eventually tells us that the service is currently recruiting but there was a few stipulations as to who could apply to join at the moment.Apparently (and Dave swears this is true) you have to be either;Female,An ethnic minority,Homosexual,Bi-sexual or disabled,to be able to apply.You cannot apply if you are a straight white male.

  Am I alone in thinking that in todays multi-cultural society this is wrong.That everybody should be given a chance to do the job/jobs on offer,or is this a common situation in todays society?

I simply don't believe this, I am sure there must be a misunderstanding or mis-communication here somewhere. It would be illegal, for starters. We can no more discriminate against ethnic minorities than we can against the indigenous population.

But yes, "quotas" have to be met, & that's where the misundertandings arise. Quota or not, nobody, ethnic or indigenous, can legally be discriminated against.

[byronkincaid]

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=3370

[byronkincaid]

http://www.personneltoday.com/Articles/2006/06/27/36035/cre-lets-police-off-hook-over-positive-discrimination.html

[boldie]

Proponents of affirmative action generally advocate it either as a means to address past discrimination or to enhance racial, ethnic, gender, or other diversity. They may argue that the end result — a more diversified student body, police force or other group — justifies the means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

Opponents claim that it has undesirable side-effects and that it fails to achieve its goals. They argue that it is discrimination, perpetrates new wrongs to counter old ones, and instills a sense of victimhood in the majority. It may increase racial tension and benefit the more privileged people within minority groups (such as middle to upper-class blacks) at the expense of the disenfranchised within majority groups (such as lower-class whites). In the British 2001 Summer of Violence Riots in Oldham, Bradford, Leeds and Burnley, one of the major complaints voiced in poor white areas was alleged discrimination in council funding which favoured minority areas.


It's an interesting one, happens all over the world.

Worked for Ginger...

  Man, you aren just begging for a ban.