Cancel culture

[BFTD]

27 minutes ago, Gnash said:

Not exactly cancel culture, but this shows how unbelievably sensitive (in the literal sense) some people are:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-62552706

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.

 

[BFTD]

5 minutes 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. 

Come the anti-PC revolution, your name shall go on the list!

[williemillersmoustache]

24 minutes 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.

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. 

 

 

[Bairnardo]

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.

Exactly because of our rich, storied and in many cases ongoing history of singling people out. Such as in the cases you mention, illegalising certain sexual orientation or enslaving/segregating certai ethnic backgrounds.

I find it slightly odd that moves to increase fairness, one day towards a parity that means these characteristics no longer even need to be considered or acknowledged, suddenly becomes unfairness to the oppressed straight white male.

Your going to have to think outside your own horizons here for this one to make sense.

Diversity quotas and the like are there to address generations of discrimination, not generate more.

[Wee-Bey]

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.

[oneteaminglasgow]

Just now, 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’re doing God’s work. 

[Wee-Bey]

2 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

You’re doing Allah's work. 

FTFY

[coprolite]

27 minutes ago, Melanius Mullarkay said:

I saw Jenny Eclair (well she was a support act for Mark Thomas) at the Half Moon in Putney in about 1993.  She was about as funny as stepping in dogshit then (endless songs about vibrators) and I can assume she hasn't improved with age. 

I saw her at a station about 3 years ago.  She was with David Baddiel. If you can judge someone by the company they keep then she's actually got less funny. 

[Melanius Mullarkey]

1 minute ago, coprolite said:

I saw her at a station 

Hopefully a police one. 

[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.