Yes, they are. Not railway related, but I was once involved in a recruitment selection panel where candidates were scored out of 100 and ranked. The decision was then made from on high that non-white candidates would each receive an extra 10 points in an attempt to “increase diversity”. I walked out at that point, as did a number of other colleagues. People that scored higher and demonstrated a greater ability to do the job were removed from the process because of the colour of their skin.
Agreed. And, ironically, the BBC is unable to handle diversity of opinion. Most of the broadcast media is staffed by white middle class liberals who operate in an echo chamber.
Thanks heavens. That is so true (having worked
So called ‘positive action’ is actively encouraged in many industries - see all-women shortlists, for example.
Has anyone said this?
I assume @HullRailMan is thinking of politicians, in which case there is a piece of legislation to explicitly allow it. The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002.
Does it? Where positive discrimination is allowed, won't the workforce start to reflect the characteristics of that discrimination, and end up with like-minded people, ie. group-thnk, when what you are looking for is diverse opinion. Always assuming that staff are allowed to express diverse opinions without fear of being cancelled, overlooked for promotion etc. Where I used to work, my views were probably not reflective of most staff's, but to speak out to the contrary would have been career limiting.
Exactly this!I do think though, who cares? As long as people are not discriminatory when hiring, and make sure that people are getting hired based on their suitability for the job alone, with no prejudices, then it shouldn't matter. It only matters if hiring middle-aged white men has been deliberately tactical.
What I don't agree with is the mass hiring of people from minority groups JUST to make a company look diverse, which we're seeing a lot of in broadcasting lately actually. Now I can't speak for women or people of ethnic diversity, but if I were hired specifically because I have ADHD and my other half is a dude (and these are both diversity factors that BBC and other organisations ask you on applications), rather than because I'm a good journalist, I'd be fuming. It's borderline insulting to be cherry-picked for things like that. I'd rather be hired for my suitability for the role.
And similarly, I would want Southern to hire me if they thought I'd be a loyal and committed member of the team, and a good driver, not because I'm 21, bisexual and hyperactive. Come to think of it, I did safety announcements for Northern until they were replaced recently. I thought it was my ability to do a convincing Yorkshire accent, but perhaps that was why.
The diversity information should go nowhere near anyone making a decision whether to hire or not. But it’s important to record to determine if there is an issue with bias in the hiring. Unless there’s some other factor involved, you might expect over time that the proportion of various characteristics would reflect the proportions in the applicants. If it’s wildly different then that suggests an issue.
I mean, I would hope that if someone complained about the crucifix, they would be told that it's none of their business or concern.
Indeed. As someone who does hold Christian beliefs (and generally identifies as being of the conservative evangelical tradition within the Church of England), I've seen - and heard referenced - more than my fair share of stories about Christians being refused for various jobs for holding conservative views on gender, marriage, etc. Rather than fearing for my own treatment in the workplace, I've taken the assumption that there were underlying factors.
Well put, I agree.
