Meanwhile… The granddaughter of a General granted a hereditary peerage for committing war crimes; a woman whose last CEO role was marked with the loss of £60m and 100,000 customers, who was then made a Dame by her school friend David Cameron is about to be given the job of managing the largest employer in Europe. And her qualification for the role is… she’s a mate of the Health Secretary. But… let’s get angry that a black kid from a council estate is about to get a £17k a year job that I’m not allowed to apply for. They’re you go folks, keep in line, keep an eye on the black kids while we’re nicking all your money.
My solution would be better training and awareness for the people doing the recruitment, thats where the issue is obviously, best person for the job irrespective..
But the best people are being ignored , it’s a fact that a Black person with better qualifications are sidelined in preference to a white . You seem to be arguing that this isn’t happening when it is proved it is . So how do you propose the best qualified person gets the job ?
I know it happens i said as much in my original reply, but there has to be a better way to resolve this problem rather than just giving someone a job because of the colour of their skin, the only answer i have is the one i,ve given,as i keep saying the best person for the job. While it seems to be trending atm, what would your opinion be if the board said that they were giving Sol campbell the job because he,s black and there aren,t enough black managers in the game?, genuine question i,m really not trying to badger you...
I wouldn’t have a problem with that tbh , If his resume and criteria matches ours can’t see why not . You seem to think that the jobs are to be offered to black people willy nilly when that’s not the case . The problem is they are being ignored when they have same qualifications and some higher.
That’s not what’s happening though is it. A job has been advertised with a load of criteria, one of which being race. If you’re black and unsuitable, you’re not getting the job. And this is the problem here, the only way of making an objection to this story is to ignore the full facts. That people are prepared to do that is worrying.
I agree with you 100%, it isn,t whether its happening or not that we disagree on its the finding a solution to stop it that we don,t see eye to eye on..
They appointed Ismael, didn't they?. Let's not blur the lines and suggest a black candidate is less skilled or able than a white person.
Your way has been implemented and it doesn’t work . Black people were still being overlooked very often subconsciously and not always maliciously . The way it happens now is that the jobs have to be proportional to the applicants ethnicity once criteria is met .
I,m not suggesting that at all, i was just using it as an example, i would be against Sol campbell getting the job but the only reason would be is because he,s a terrible manager, i was just pointing out that he wouldn,t be the best man for the job which is exactly the point i am trying to make..
One of the things that’s currently happening all over is that businesses are having to invite junior BAME staff onto interview boards, simply because there aren’t enough BAME senior staff to interview candidates. It’s utterly mad. My employer has some brilliant fair policies for recruitment, and a very diverse workforce. There’s unconscious bias training for everyone involved in any recruitment. But the very senior management is exclusively white and has a higher proportion of men than the workforce as a whole.
Personally Idon’t believe in ‘selective advertising’ , it should always be the best.person for the job. People argue it’s just one job, but is it? One company gets away with it and others follow. Anyway tbh I would have thought somebody from an ethnic minority would have had an advantage whatever if it’s a BBC post
No one is saying give the job to a black person that’s not qualified etc! That’s been stressed in every post to you , You seem to be including that in every post even though it’s been clarified that that is not the case at all . What had been said in every post is that black people being ignored either on purpose or subconsciously . That is a National statistic nothing made up that in proportion to applicants of equal criteria white applicants are proportionally more likely to be successful and black people less likely fit the reasons I’ve stated earlier . It’s not to shoe in or otherwise it’s to even up and to make it fairer .
It is the best person for the job no ones arguing or saying otherwise . What is happening is if there are more than one person with all the criteria the back person is being ignored . That’s not some woke persons interpretation that’s facts from a government led study among others .
I've not been involved directly, but heard a lot of sentiment from execs and HR functions that companies who pushed unconscious bias training is that it hasn't changed anything in terms of bias and behaviour, even within people they'd expected it to. Any significant change is going to have to be much less nuanced and much more direct.
I get that Marlon, I’m just not comfortable with it, I agree there should be a cross section of nationalities in firms because it’s ‘healthier for people’s learning and outlooks What would concern me is black CEO’s advertising for black workers, white CEO’s advertising for white workers Asian CEO’s doing similar .
The problem you have been addressing in this and earlier posts, is one where those who are wealthy or ‘elite’ are getting jobs at the BBC at the expense of those who are poorer. Whilst certainly a problem, I don’t understand how the solution is segregation based on race? If anything, should it not be segregation based on wealth / class? I think it raises a few interesting questions. For context, my understanding is that it is not unlawful to discriminate based race (or other protected characteristics) where the role is specifically associated with that race (for example, a role relating to specifically helping Black Caribbeans). However, it is unlawful to “positively discriminate” or introduce quotas. The law only allows employers to take “positive actions” such as encouraging certain groups to apply for a role or providing them with training. Ultimately the law says the candidate should be selected purely based on merit. There is some leeway, in that if management believe one characteristic is underrepresented and there are two candidates of “equal” merit, the role can lawfully be given to the candidate with the desired characteristic (eg someone from an ethnic minority). That leeway has been taken advantage of in the past in the name of equality, as it is very difficult to prove that two candidates are not equal if they are both of a sufficient standard (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-47335859). I set that out just as background, and I don’t know enough to comment on how this case is considered lawful (although I’m sure the BBC lawyers will be pretty confident it is). Regardless of the legalities, the point I wanted to make is that a perceived solution to under representation in the workplace is the disproportionate recruitment of minority groups. That is, recruiting more of a specific minority to attain equal representation across the workforce. Positive actions and schemes such as this are widely adopted (not least at my place of work). They are legal due to specific carve outs from equality laws mentioned above (which I think are entirely reasonable). The trouble is that the vast majority of these roles are graduate roles or more junior. The key reason being that there is a much larger pool to recruit minorities from at this age than older (due to social progress and because these roles don’t generally require prior experience). Let’s apply this to racial under representation. Whilst on the face of it, recruiting into graduate roles is reasonable approach to take (there is little alternative), the problem is that White British continue to be over represented at senior management and will become under represented at junior levels. But at least there will be “equal” representation across the workforce population as a whole. However, as you rightly point out, wealth is a key driver (if not the key driver) of employment opportunities. The reason ethnic minorities have been under represented in white collar workplaces historically is not because of white working class kids. It is because of white wealthy kids. By introducing schemes such as this, my concern is that white working class kids may find it more difficult than ever to get into white collar jobs. Not only do they need to outcompete advantaged wealthy white kids, but also advantaged ethnic minorities. Whilst I’m against positive discrimination which awards employment to underrepresented groups through quotas (which is illegal anyway), I’m all for positive action which assists underrepresented groups attain employment based on merit. However, it needs to be done in a way that properly identifies the reasons for historical under representation across all groups. That includes wealth and not just legally protected characteristics (such as race, sex etc.) To introduce schemes which only address one cause of historical under representation you unintentionally make it even more difficult for other underrepresented groups, which is discriminatory in itself. Thus, I hope the BBC (and others who introduce similar schemes) also have schemes aimed specifically at recruiting working class kids. I know my employer does not.
I used to work with someone who filtered out the CVs we received from recruitment agencies firstly by the name if the candidate, then by the qualifications/experience on there. And that's at a company with 1000s of UK employees.
