Cancel culture

[flyingscot]

The Crown advert is terrible but I can't see it being that offensive and people are probably reading into things way too much. 

That said, got them a lot of publicity. 

[red23]

1 hour ago, Honest_Man#1 said:

@WATTOO & @red23. Two gammon flavoured peas in a pod.

What you gibbering on about? I stated facts in relation to our recent employment and issues with it.

[Shandon Par]

30 minutes ago, BFTD said:

Here it is, if anyone gives a f**k. It's just weird; presumably Hannah puts it about a bit and Dave has to put up with her being a dirty shagger, which is an odd thing to stick in your commercial for wall coverings. Christ knows what's got Jenny Eclair's knickers in a twist.

The most important thing here is that these 'Life Stories' commercials can get to f**k, and that includes Tesco, Nationwide, and anyone else doing them. They're patronising and almost always feature insufferably twee music. Awful.

 

If you’re not painting with Tikkurila paint you’re doing it wrong IMO. 

[ParsJake]

1 hour ago, HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows said:

A curmudgeon of Oaki.

An indignation of gammons.

[Self-raising Lazarus]

1 hour ago, Leith Green said:

And rightly so, the law states that you can positively discriminate to adjust gender bias in roles, but only if (for example) both candidates are equally qualified and suitable.

To do otherwise would show gender bias against the male candidate - I am sure your friends in HR know this hence telling their daftie bosses to bolt.

Yeah that was what the conversation revolved around, supposedly senior persons who were unaware of the law they were supposed to uphold.

But there is also a valid point of tribalism- do people belonging to one self-labelled group consciously seek to employ more of 'their' group? In this instance both bosses were female, could be misguided and left as such or is it deliberately trying to right an imbalance they perceive in the workplace?

 

[Bairnardo]

If you’re not painting with Tikkurila paint you’re doing it wrong IMO. 

You could make an advert where you are using Tikkurila paint at work and I'm round at yours....

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

It's because we know that there is a measurable gender pay gap (between 10 and 20%) and an under representation of genders and minorities in more senior positions and an over representation in more junior entry positions. 

You can validly argue for or against positive discrimination as the or a solution but first you have to accept that there is a problem which needs addressed. 

Not pointing fingers at you especially but I often hear criticisms like the ones you are making that appear to come from a place which believes there isn't an issue. 

 

 

The issue with the gender gap is historical and will take a while to catch up, this is due to many of the top earners at board and senior management level being part of the "old boys network" as it were and I'd hope that this has all started to change (not quickly enough) in the past few years. There's also the fact that many women traditionally took career brakes or worked part time (still the case in my experience) which most definitely can halt advancement and I'm not sure that this is taken into account when calculating figures.

The other major issue which still remains is the privately educated and "connected" all looking after one another in both top level politics and business to the detriment of anyone outwith this circle, irrespective of gender or ethnic origin.

Statistics are statistics but I always find it much simpler to use my own experiences of these things which provide the reality behind any statistics and from that I can form an honest and genuine opinion on how my own company is operating and whether or not they have the balance right. As it stands right now I firmly believe that we're alienating much of our workforce who don't belong to a "special category" and in my opinion that's extremely unhealthy.

If the people at the top can't trust themselves to make the right decisions based on merit and merit alone, then it's glaringly obvious that they are the ones with the problem if they need to adjust and publicise their own recruitment policy to show they're being "fair", that's the major irony in all of this......

[BFTD]

22 minutes ago, WATTOO said:

Statistics are statistics but I always find it much simpler to use my own experiences of these things which provide the reality behind any statistics and from that I can form an honest and genuine opinion on how my own company is operating and whether or not they have the balance right. As it stands right now I firmly believe that we're alienating much of our workforce who don't belong to a "special category" and in my opinion that's extremely unhealthy.

You've still not really said how. If they're not making bad appointments, then what's the problem?

Why are you and your colleagues so bothered by working with people in "special categories" if they're doing fine at the job?

[scottsdad]

About a decode ago, in the civil service they changed application forms to be anonymised. We didn't get to see candidate names, or what school they went to, to try to eliminate any bias. 

In my field it just didn't work. Hiring scientists you need to see their track record of publications, so right away we knew who had applied (in a fairly specialised field, you know just about everyone anyway).

Totally different in academia. I went through a recruitment round last month. People sent everything - full CV's, copies of certificates, even photos (which were not asked for). 

 

[coprolite]

26 minutes ago, WATTOO said:

The issue with the gender gap is historical and will take a while to catch up, this is due to many of the top earners at board and senior management level being part of the "old boys network" as it were and I'd hope that this has all started to change (not quickly enough) in the past few years. There's also the fact that many women traditionally took career brakes or worked part time (still the case in my experience) which most definitely can halt advancement and I'm not sure that this is taken into account when calculating figures.

The other major issue which still remains is the privately educated and "connected" all looking after one another in both top level politics and business to the detriment of anyone outwith this circle, irrespective of gender or ethnic origin.

Statistics are statistics but I always find it much simpler to use my own experiences of these things which provide the reality behind any statistics and from that I can form an honest and genuine opinion on how my own company is operating and whether or not they have the balance right. As it stands right now I firmly believe that we're alienating much of our workforce who don't belong to a "special category" and in my opinion that's extremely unhealthy.

If the people at the top can't trust themselves to make the right decisions based on merit and merit alone, then it's glaringly obvious that they are the ones with the problem if they need to adjust and publicise their own recruitment policy to show they're being "fair", that's the major irony in all of this......

The trouble with using your own experience instead of statistics is that your own experience might not be typical. 

Not saying this applies to you,  but in my experience the people who grumble most about this are people who expected to be promoted on time served and being good at their level.  They get overtaken by youngsters who are, as a cohort in the workplace,  more diverse. 

I remember one guy in particular who'd expected the traditional pre-retirement grade boost (helps the final salary) and was livid with a silly girl for getting his job.  He had no people skills and annoyed everyone he dealt with while she ended up being responsible for a site with 3,000 people,  but he couldn't see her attributes or his drawbacks. 

He had an honest and genuine opinion too. 

Like i say,  not saying this applies to you but it should explain some of the scepticism around your claims. 

[Boo Khaki]

1 hour ago, coprolite said:

I've interviewed many people for jobs in the public and private sector and have never been even remotely pressured to hire for diversity quotas. 

I did hire a Nigerian lady and not hire a middle aged white man (LBGTQ status unknown) but that's a reflection on their cvs not on any other characteristics. 

Me neither, but what I have seen happen in an NHS department is senior management hiring anyone who turned up for interview simply because of a total lack of interest in the post. This unsurprisingly led to the exact situation @red23 describes, with line management being driven to breakdown trying to manage halfwits who couldn't grasp the basics of the job no matter how patiently they were coached, but that's clearly nothing to do with diversity and all about how shitty entry level pay is nowadays for public sector posts.

[welshbairn]

28 minutes ago, coprolite said:

The trouble with using your own experience instead of statistics is that your own experience might not be typical. 

Not saying this applies to you,  but in my experience the people who grumble most about this are people who expected to be promoted on time served and being good at their level.  They get overtaken by youngsters who are, as a cohort in the workplace,  more diverse. 

I remember one guy in particular who'd expected the traditional pre-retirement grade boost (helps the final salary) and was livid with a silly girl for getting his job.  He had no people skills and annoyed everyone he dealt with while she ended up being responsible for a site with 3,000 people,  but he couldn't see her attributes or his drawbacks. 

He had an honest and genuine opinion too. 

Like i say,  not saying this applies to you but it should explain some of the scepticism around your claims. 

Alba's full of time served SNP stalwarts furious about being left behind like that.

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, BFTD said:

You've still not really said how. If they're not making bad appointments, then what's the problem?

Why are you and your colleagues so bothered by working with people in "special categories" if they're doing fine at the job?

We don't know if they're doing fine or not but surely the point is that they shouldn't be fast tracked ahead of someone who "may" be equally as good purely on their choice of sexual orientation or where they were born / religion ??

I honestly can't understand how you think this is ok.

To put it another way, if the E-Mail had stated that any white straight worker should be fast tracked as "talent" purely because they were white and straight, then I'm 100% certain that there would have been an uproar and rightly so.

I'll say it again, "talent" should be "talent" irrespective of their country of birth, sexual orientation, ethnic roots or their religion.

[Clown Job]

46 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

About a decode ago, in the civil service they changed application forms to be anonymised. We didn't get to see candidate names, or what school they went to, to try to eliminate any bias. 

In my field it just didn't work. Hiring scientists you need to see their track record of publications, so right away we knew who had applied (in a fairly specialised field, you know just about everyone anyway).

Totally different in academia. I went through a recruitment round last month. People sent everything - full CV's, copies of certificates, even photos (which were not asked for). 

 

Getting ride of the question about what school was a good thing imo

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, coprolite said:

The trouble with using your own experience instead of statistics is that your own experience might not be typical. 

Not saying this applies to you,  but in my experience the people who grumble most about this are people who expected to be promoted on time served and being good at their level.  They get overtaken by youngsters who are, as a cohort in the workplace,  more diverse. 

I remember one guy in particular who'd expected the traditional pre-retirement grade boost (helps the final salary) and was livid with a silly girl for getting his job.  He had no people skills and annoyed everyone he dealt with while she ended up being responsible for a site with 3,000 people,  but he couldn't see her attributes or his drawbacks. 

He had an honest and genuine opinion too. 

Like i say,  not saying this applies to you but it should explain some of the scepticism around your claims. 

I'm quite happy with where I'm at personally speaking and I've got no issues there at all, I'm more looking at this from an equality perspective and from a previous role as Union Rep and I just don't believe that it's fair.

I personally know lots of people in their 20's who are excellent at their job, similar to also knowing lots in their 40's and 50's who are also excellent, I also know lots of both categories who are hopeless, same for men, same for women and as such I would never generalise.

The issue I have as I've tried to explain is how the company IS generalising by fast tracking people from certain ethnic groups and sexual orientations for no reason at all that I can understand, aside from perhaps looking good in some industry statistic.

All I'm trying to say is that there should be no special wee groups within the company and that EVERYONE should be treated the same and given the same opportunities for advancement, that's all.

[Leith Green]

2 hours ago, WATTOO said:

We recently received an e-mail from HR stating that they were running a Management fast track scheme and that all us managers had to identify people in our teams with "talent", however anyone identifying as LGBT+ or from an ethnic background were to be enrolled in the scheme automatically if they wished to progress.

I would also add that you are the one that's used the word "incompetent", not I.

How do you know people are "identifying as LGBTQ++" or from "an ethnic background" or just stating a preference in order to be automatically advanced? 

As I mentioned earlier, whoever you work for are absolute wallopers as gaming this particular system wouldnt be exactly difficult.

Signed, Mr Gay Gypsy

2 hours ago, WATTOO said:

I find this pretty simple, why are we singling out people at all based on sexual orientation or ethnic background.

Surely it should just be anyone with talent, irrespective of anything else ??

That's the straightforward point I'm trying to make.

Did you give thumbs up to the #All Lives Matter posts on Facebook...........................

[Sergeant Wilson]

13 minutes ago, WATTOO said:

We don't know if they're doing fine or not but surely the point is that they shouldn't be fast tracked ahead of someone who "may" be equally as good purely on their choice of sexual orientation or where they were born / religion ??

I honestly can't understand how you think this is ok.

To put it another way, if the E-Mail had stated that any white straight worker should be fast tracked as "talent" purely because they were white and straight, then I'm 100% certain that there would have been an uproar and rightly so.

I'll say it again, "talent" should be "talent" irrespective of their country of birth, sexual orientation, ethnic roots or their religion.

Choice of sexual orientation? Explain that to me.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

How do you know people are "identifying as LGBTQ++" or from "an ethnic background" or just stating a preference in order to be automatically advanced? 

As I mentioned earlier, whoever you work for are absolute wallopers as gaming this particular system wouldnt be exactly difficult.

Signed, Mr Gay Gypsy

Did you give thumbs up to the #All Lives Matter posts on Facebook...........................

It's initiated at local level by the individual Line Managers / Team Leaders in tandem with HR.

Yes, they are.

I don't do facebook.

[Sergeant Wilson]

2 hours ago, Stringer Bell said:

I work in HR and all I do all day is promote Muslims and gays to high paying jobs while leaving notes that say 'massive racist btw' in the employee files of the straight white men.

You held me back for years until I painted my wheelchair pink.

[coprolite]

21 minutes ago, WATTOO said:

I'm quite happy with where I'm at personally speaking and I've got no issues there at all, I'm more looking at this from an equality perspective and from a previous role as Union Rep and I just don't believe that it's fair.

I personally know lots of people in their 20's who are excellent at their job, similar to also knowing lots in their 40's and 50's who are also excellent, I also know lots of both categories who are hopeless, same for men, same for women and as such I would never generalise.

The issue I have as I've tried to explain is how the company IS generalising by fast tracking people from certain ethnic groups and sexual orientations for no reason at all that I can understand, aside from perhaps looking good in some industry statistic.

All I'm trying to say is that there should be no special wee groups within the company and that EVERYONE should be treated the same and given the same opportunities for advancement, that's all.

I think there's some merit in your complaint, but i don't completely agree with it. 

I think that where there might be reasons common to a group of people for that group of people underachieving in the workplace then there's a good moral argument for giving that group support.  That's also the legal position for groups identified by protected characteristics. 

If a firm identified that white people were under-represented in senior positions they could absolutely and legally take affirmative action to remedy that.  

Merely being on a leadership type scheme doesn't usually guarantee advancement.

Where i think you do have a point,  possibly by accident,  is that this traditionally excludes white males from extra support.  Lots don't need it.  Kids from underprivileged backgrounds do need the extra push (not all,  but in general,  on average etc). 

Economic status and class aren't equalities act protected characteristics so it is difficult to provide extra support on that basis. I think that it should be possible within the law but it just doesn't occur to many employers.