Discrimination at employment is prohibited by law in the UK; however, does anyone bring her/his case to court yet?
Discrimination in the workplace is very common. More common than it is supposed to be. People could be discriminated against for different reasons such as race, religion, sex, disability, age, physical features, nationality, colour and race. In the UK there are many laws and rules to prevent workplace discrimination such as Race Relations Act 1976, Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Equal pay Act 1970, The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, equality Act 2006, Human Rights Act 1998, Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Employment Rights Act 1996, Mental Capacity Act 2005 etc... Creation of so many laws has a two dimensional interpretation: the first one is that there are so many discriminations and the second is that the parliament and the government care about people and try to work hard to prevent discrimination , as far as they could go.
The problem does not lay in the discrimination itself and the laws and acts to regulate it, but it is in the nature of the issue as a hidden crime or offence which is prevented by law and should be stopped. Discrimination at the work place or more concretely discrimination at employment is one of those crimes which locate at the heart of the dark side of crime. It is difficult to locate the offence and whether an employer breaks the law or not. Due to this difficulty, unfortunately most of the acts and laws remain as printed papers rather than ACTS to prevent offences and law breaking by punishing offenders and law breakers.
When you apply for a job and fill in an application form there is much information that you have to give your expected employer, such as age, sex, disability, and now sexual orientation as being gay, lesbian or straight, ethnic origin, nationality and religion. This entire information request is not illegal, or for most of it is to consider your special needs or to give everybody equal opportunities. However, when it comes to short listing and interview you cannot prove whether you have not been shortlisted because you are not suitable for the post or you have been simply and concisely not the one the employer prefers for reasons not accepted by law. You may guess this or predict it as a lawyer in Manchester said: I have been discriminated against because of my short built, as firms like lawyers to be well built and marketable. That lawyer said that she has been invited for the interview and answered all the questions but she was not selected.
Nobody, except the interviewers, could judge whether that woman was discriminated against because she was short or she was not suitable for the post and there were better candidates. However, that woman is not alone, many people are not invited for interviews and some others are disappointed after the interview for different reasons; including different kinds of discrimination. The common theme is that none of them can bring an employer to court under any legislation for discrimination at employment. You cannot ask an employer why you are not shortlisted or not selected after the interview. The only possibility is that the employer tells the candidate straight away that she/he is not suitable for the post because of her/his age, race, religion, sex, sexuality, disability, and physical features or so on. This is a very far or rare possibility close to impossible. Another possibility is that somebody within the organization reports the offence or one of the interviewers leak the information as sympathy for the candidate, for the sake of applying the law or as a personal attitude.
In general, discrimination in the employment market is an offence as it is prevented by so many laws and acts of parliament, but contrary to many other offences the victim cannot bring the offender to court and even if she/he did, cannot prove any offence. In this case the offence goes underground and there is a very rare possibility for its detection. If you suspect that you have been discriminated against because of any reason mentioned in the Acts mentioned above, please tell us how you can prove it and whether you are ready to bring your case to court or not?
|
Written by jjimbopryde (17 comments posted) 25th April 2008 |
Hmmm, so now we have stealth discrimination.
Gordon & co. should set up a panel of regional interviewers, locally funded of course, to select appropriate candidates for employment interviews.
Do away with application forms and CV's we'll have a national qualification database, just think what we'll save on carbon emissions.
Then shall it be known thoughout the land that we have a fair and impartial selection process and let all ist-employers beware.
You raise an interesting point, well written.
Did spot a couple of errors
4th paragraph
I am, as all of you, cannot judge
However, I have to give it a possibility, being seen the woman and discover that she was clever but short!
|
Written by Fledermaus (3159 comments posted) 26th April 2008 |
Seems you have thought about this better than those politicians in their ivory towers. I remember though that someone I know once applied for a job in the UK and had to fill out all these forms. we were actually surprised by the questions: Why on earth would someone's ethnicity matter?
Equal opportunities? Maybe if they really want to provide these, the governments themselves should give the correct example by beginning to stop using certain words.'Positive discrimination' does not exist, for all forms of discrimination go at the expense of someone and are based on labeling people.
Yet on a more personal level:
I remember applying for a holdiday job at a historical theme-park once and I told the manager that I knew a lot about Germanic myth and legend and would love to tell his visitors certain stories. His reaction was that I didn't "look like a German" 
And a girl that was also applying was hired simply for the sake of being Greek (so she would fit well into the ancient Roman part of his theme-park). Talking about racism... |
Written by mia_ms_kim (891 comments posted) 3rd May 2008 |
I once worked for a company that was careful about employing ethnic people. After I joined the company I was told (accidentally) that they chose me instead of an Indian guy, because they already had an Indian working for them. I now realise I was the only Asian female working there at the time. I also worked for a company who favoured ethnic people - frankly that was a more interesting experience for me. I've always enjoyed diversity.
However I am ambivalent about this piece. All things being equal, why wouldn't an employer want to choose someone who they think best fits into their work environment, or someone who would give them a competitive edge, even if it means employing a pretty receptionist? It's his/her loss or gain.
What would I do if I were an employer? Even in the courtroom, jury is sympathetic to attractive defendants - and probably to attractive lawyers, too. Hmmm... All things being equal, if I was hiring a secretary for my husband, I would choose a plain-looking woman.
Mia  |
Only registered users can rate and write comments.
Please login or register.
Previous item
