Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: Equality Laws … but some people are more equal than others

  1. #1
    The Friendly Ghost! Casper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,260

    Thumbs down Equality Laws … but some people are more equal than others

    Employers will be given legal powers to discriminate in favour of women and black job candidates under a controversial equality shake-up. Harriet Harman unveiled plans for firms to choose them ahead of equally-qualified white male applicants without risking being sued.

    Miss Harman, Labour's deputy leader, hopes to boost the proportion of female and ethnic minority staff, as well as pushing more of them into senior roles. But the Equality Bill, which brings together nine major laws, yesterday prompted grave concern that white men could miss out unfairly on jobs.

    Business chiefs and opposition MPs reacted furiously to the plans, which have been described as 'socialism in one clause'. They warned it would burden firms struggling to cope with the worst recession in 60 years with more red tape and leave them open to 'costly and damaging' exployment tribunals.

    Critics also hit out at proposals to force employers to reveal how much they paid men compared with women, saying it could hinder job creation.

    The Equality Bill also:

    · Gives public bodies a 'duty' to target services, including health and education, at those from working class backgrounds;

    · Bans age discrimination in the provision of goods and service;

    · Strengthens protection for carers, breast-feeding mothers and female members of clubs such as golf clubs;

    · Enables public bodies to award contracts according to a firm's diversity;

    · Orders public bodies to make sure they do not discriminate on grounds of 'sexual orientation, gender reassignment, age and religion or belief'.

    But the most contentious measure is the plan to allow employers to take 'positive action' to ensure more women and minority candidates are in the workforce.

    Miss Harman said: 'If you have got two equally qualified candidates, you might actually want to have the woman because she is a woman. Now at the moment, if you choose her because she is a woman, you could face a sex discrimination case. So this says to employers, if you want to, and want to be able to diversify your workforce, then actually you can choose, if you have got equally-qualified candidates, you can choose the one from the group that is under-represented.'

    It's official: Women ARE more equal than men as Harman shake-up gives preferential treatment | Mail Online

  2. #2

    Default

    That's just brilliant. More bints in the industry.

    How on earth do they come up with such utter rubbish? The best candidate should be picked for a job, all this equality bull is making everything more complicated.

    A dash of common sense would be favourable right now.

  3. #3
    The Friendly Ghost! Casper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,260

    Default

    The principle that advocates for this bill use to argue for its implementation, is the exactly the same one that can be applied across all potential basis for discrimination such as political allegiance, weight, attractiveness, intelligence, height, wealth, etc.

    Why should it be against the law to discriminate someone on the basis of race/gender/sexuality etc, but not on the basis of everything and anything else such as weight, attractiveness, intelligence, height, or wealth etc? If they haven't done anything wrong, why do they not deserve the same treatment?

    Does it not make sense to conclude that, actually, no group should be given special treatment by the law? If a particular class of person is allocated an artificial right to enter into a contract, the law is discriminating against those that are not given this special right.

    Discrimination laws do nothing to remedy the mentality in society that it aims to resolve but, instead, merely aggravate the problem. It penalises those where perhaps the decision to discriminate was based on valid reasons as perceived by the respondent but unfortunately still counts as unlawful discrimination even if only indirectly.

    Thus, people appear to frown more upon those the law aims to protect (in my personal case, us non white immigrants) as they are seen to be given special treatment. In my opinion such anti discrimination civil or criminal laws in this type of situation only create unnecessary litigation as they muster highly contentious circumstances in which it is difficult for the plaintiff to prove wrongdoing on part of the defendant.

    It leaves society in this absurd situation in which an employer can callously turn down a prospective job candidate on the grounds that he or she is hideously unattractive, yet in another situation the employer could be sued for discrimination regardless of whether the grounds for discrimination were actually justifiable or not.

    If I offer a contract, it should be my right to refuse the offer to anyone I like for whatever reason I like. Nobody should have the right to take up my private offer for a contract of services (i.e employment).

  4. #4
    The Friendly Ghost! Casper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,260

    Default

    All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

  5. #5

    Default

    The lack of 'positive discrimination' policies in Britain has hampered the economy. It represents the only practical method to eliminate the inefficient discriminatory practices that plague the labour market
    Deceased

  6. #6
    The Friendly Ghost! Casper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reiver View Post
    The lack of 'positive discrimination' policies in Britain has hampered the economy. It represents the only practical method to eliminate the inefficient discriminatory practices that plague the labour market
    I thoroughly disagree.

    I believe that employers know better what is most efficient for their business than the totalitarian government. But even irrational employers should have the right to do discriminate however they so desire. Non-bigoted employers will simply fair better in the market, as they will make for the most efficient use of resources. Not only that, but enforced policies of ‘positive discrimination’ will lead to even more prejudiced animosity, ergo they are counter intuitive.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Casper View Post
    I believe that employers know better...
    If that was the case we wouldn't have inefficient discrimination. To be fair, we can refer to Marxist theory whereby we make a distinction between profit maximisation and productivity maximisation. Thus, inefficient discrimination is used to reduce worker solidarity and therefore maximise exploitation.

    Non-bigoted employers will simply fair better in the market, as they will make for the most efficient use of resources.
    You're effectively referring to the main problem associated with orthodox discrimination theory. The market should drive out the problem. It of course doesn't, as shown by the continued evidence of inefficient discrimination (where wage differentials exist, despite controlling for job and individual characteristics)

    Not only that, but enforced policies of ‘positive discrimination’ will lead to even more prejudiced animosity, ergo they are counter intuitive.
    Other countries have implemented positive discrimination policies and, compared to us, substantially narrowed their gender/racial wage differentials
    Deceased

  8. #8
    The Friendly Ghost! Casper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,260

    Default

    I don't believe the ends justify the means. I think it’s wrong to coerce someone into hiring people that he doesn’t want to hire. If I own a tractor and need assistance from four people to help me farm my crops (with the compensation for their labour in the form of an agreed cash payment), why should I have to hire ‘an 18 year old Polish girl, a 38 year old Indian guy, a 58 year old Chinese lady, and one disabled person’ as opposed to ‘four of my English buddies’? Why should I be forced into parting with my money in a manner that I am not happy with?

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Casper View Post
    I don't believe the ends justify the means. I think it’s wrong to coerce someone into hiring people that he doesn’t want to hire.
    Coercion arguments won't work as discrimination necessarily includes the stealing of an individual's labour value.

    Why should I be forced into parting with my money in a manner that I am not happy with?
    Even the Milk Snatcher had to backtrack from her 'there's no such thing as society' cobblers. Behaviour that destroys economic opportunities shouldn't be tolerated. It ensures we're coerced to accept an inferior result.

    And we shouldn't forget that positive discrimination is only about achieving a result that would be consistent with a market that was operating according to the theory of 'mutually beneficial exchange'
    Deceased

  10. #10
    The Friendly Ghost! Casper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reiver View Post
    Coercion arguments won't work as discrimination necessarily includes the stealing of an individual's labour value.
    How did you come to the conclusion that I’m stealing someone’s labour value just when I prefer to hire someone else?

    Quote Originally Posted by Reiver View Post
    Even the Milk Snatcher had to backtrack from her 'there's no such thing as society' cobblers. Behaviour that destroys economic opportunities shouldn't be tolerated.
    Yet you advocate behaviour that involves gratuitously imposed state intervention in the economy – now that destroys economic opportunities.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •