Employer Told Not To Post Ad For Reliable Workers

Submitted by: xiquiripat 6 years ago
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246201/Employer-told-advertise-reliable-workers--discriminates-unreliable-applicants.html

More PC insanity. Don"t read this unless you really want to hate people...
There are 66 comments:
Male 342
Campaign Against Political Correctness?

How do I join?
0
Reply
Male 331
This pisses me off to a great degree. I work with a retard who doesn`t work and get`s paid for it. I break my back and and get $0.50 more an hour. This is bullpoo.
0
Reply
Male 660
Is there anyone in Britain who IS reliable?
0
Reply
Female 305
you`d think the "must be fluent in English" would be controversial part....
0
Reply
Female 2,509
"Yeah, it was nice back then with all the casual prejudice and discrimination, wasn`t it? "

No, but it was refreshing to go about your daily life without someone screaming racist/discrimination.
0
Reply
Male 1,312
I`m only 24 and I think this is ridiculous, why would you care about discrimination against unreliable? those people should be fired
0
Reply
Male 2,850
"can I have a "Hey" from the over 40 crowd who remembers the days before PC!"

Yeah, it was nice back then with all the casual prejudice and discrimination, wasn`t it?
0
Reply
Female 2,509
can I have a "Hey" from the over 40 crowd who remembers the days before PC!
0
Reply
Female 3,828
she even said she had to push for the `must speak english`part for health and safety reasons. well it IS health and safety reasons!! i dont care what language you speak, as long as you speak english fluently enough to get by.

i would rather hear someone yell `fire`then have them draw me a picture of a flame. FFS
0
Reply
Male 2,850
"motownc, do you have that level of "political correctness/sue for anything" madness in UK? Because I thought it was just in US. If it spreads, it wold be quite alarming."

As a disclaimer, I don`t have any first-hand experience of the American system for comparison, but from the general impression I get, I don`t think we have it as badly here, and I suspect that a lot of the motivation driving the over the top caution shown in stories like this is a desire to cover onesself in case it does get like that here.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
This is NOT REAL.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission, which covers such things in the UK, has stated that the ad does not breach any anti-discrimination laws, that requiring reliable people does not breach any anti-discrimination laws, etc.

Maybe someone told the employer it did, because there are a lot of people gullible enough to believe it - just look in this thread for examples of that. But it isn`t true.

A rule of thumb - assume anything in the Daily Mail is fake or twisted propaganda. You might be wrong every now and again, but probably not. It exists to inflame ignorance and feed off it.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]This paper prints nothing but the cancerous bile that spews from humanity’s infected haemorrhoids. It is the most truly reprehensible, pernicious and inflammatory propaganda since Joseph Goebbels put pen to paper in the first half of the 20th century.[/quote]

That is the best description of the paper that I have read.

The only reliable things in it are the TV guide and the sports results. I have more respect for the Daily Sport as a newspaper, because at least that doesn`t pretend to be a newspaper.
0
Reply
Male 2,148
Ollie: Troll harder.
0
Reply
Male 2,148
Unbelievable.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Actually, that caption should read, "Don`t read this unless you really want to hate liberals.
0
Reply
Male 1,452
"I know it must be true because I read it in the daily mail..."
0
Reply
Male 265
I doubt its fake. There`s a lot of stupid crap going on in the business world with reguards to employment and stuff like that.

I`m a sort or quasi-supervisro where I work and when one of my staff quits, if they ask if I can be a reference, I *have* to decline or I`ll get in trouble from my company`s human resources department. Because if I said anything to that persona`s next prospective employer that could keep the person from getting the job, I`ve just opened up my company to the possibility of a law suit.

References are a joke. Nobody can say anything or they might get sued.
0
Reply
Male 2,440
This just in: Car dealerships are no longer allowed to say a car is "reliable" because it might hurt the feelings of unreliable cars.
0
Reply
Female 635
If `unreliable` people are working in my local hospital, I think I have a right to be upset. At very least have high standards in a bloody hospital.
0
Reply
Male 478
and this is why Europe has an unemployment problem.
0
Reply
Male 184
motownc, do you have that level of "political correctness/sue for anything" madness in UK? Because I thought it was just in US. If it spreads, it wold be quite alarming.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote]Preferably with a whip. And tobasco sauce.[/quote]

"your sentence is 20 lashes for the crime of being a moron"
0
Reply
Male 10,440
This sounds like a little too BS to be real.

If you can`t ask for a reliable person in a job ad then being reliable can`t be a quality that the job requires, and so there is no reason for anyone to be reliable since if they`re not and they`re fired, the employer cannot hire a reliable person.

It *might* not be fake, it could just be someone being an idiot.
0
Reply
Male 24
and people wonder whats wrong with the world today
0
Reply
Male 877
sounds fake to me...april fool maybe
0
Reply
Male 1,164
As the newspaper said a few days ago;

The price for free speech is that some people WILL take advantage of it. I`m happy to pay that price.

This isn`t free speech. I say we should all sue the ad organization; not allowing "reliable" to be used in an ad is an affront to reliable people, and must be punished. Preferably with a whip. And tobasco sauce.
0
Reply
Male 219
Anyway, this is fairly tame for the level of invention the Mail can reach. Try this one, the NHS gives Viagra to help child molesters: Mail on Pedos It really must be true `cos I read it in the daily mail....
0
Reply
Male 219
Before getting disgusted at the state of the world today please look back a few posts to the Daily Mail song. `It really must be true `cos I read it in the Daily Mail`.

This paper prints nothing but the cancerous bile that spews from humanity’s infected haemorrhoids. It is the most truly reprehensible, pernicious and inflammatory propaganda since Joseph Goebbels put pen to paper in the first half of the 20th century.

Having said that, I buy it ‘cos the sports section is quite good.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
How is that discriminating? thats dumb!
0
Reply
Female 3
Stuff like this is what`s ruining the world.

Holy crap.
0
Reply
Male 651
" It`s like the Fox News except the opposite in ideology because they are liberal. " Uhh the daily mail is a jingoistic right wing rag.
0
Reply
Male 353
"In the end, I had to write "must speak English due to health and safety reasons"

Does this mean I can sue for discrimination when a job advert says "Must be fluent in Spanish"? Man, I`d be rich. I`m gonna start looking.



0
Reply
Male 351
this is why political correctness is stupid. These non-discriminatory laws may be good in conception, however they are obviously being taken advantage of. The problem with our law these days is that it tries to make everyone equal. We are only BORN equal, but we prove ourselves through merit.
0
Reply
Male 1,357
actully the Pugh comic was good.

it`s no Matt though! :) (artist for The Times... and no NOT the NY Times)
0
Reply
Male 418
somtimes i want to kill myself, just because i dont want any part of this world. or the retards in it.
0
Reply
Male 1,357
Anyone else see the Dan and Dan video earlier?
Well yeah. Suck it up boys, it must be true, cus it`s in the daily mail!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]What it boils down to, in my opinion, is this; if you feel something is positive discrimination, try putting yourself in their position and ask yourself if you would prefer their situation rather than yours. If the answer is no, then you can`t personally consider it positive discrimination. [/quote]

Whether discrimination is positive or not simply depends on whether you agree with it or not. So all discrimination is positive to some people. Pro-white racists, for example, regard pro-white racism as positive.

I start from the assumption that anyone in favour of what they call positive discrimination is a bigot, a liar, a fool or all three. Occasionally I`m wrong.

You refer to relevantly different treatment for individuals as being the same as "positive discrimination", i.e. blanket discrimination against groups. Two completely different things.
0
Reply
Female 612
I am the sort of person who would be unreliable in a physical job such as that one thanks to a genetic disease. I can understand why they would not want to offend anyone (because some people, like me, would be unreliable for a job like this due to factors outside of their own control, not because of laziness), but there`s a point at which people who are disabled or "differently-abled" have to get over themselves and accept that they`re different. It just makes those of us willing to work with what we have look like lazy gits, too.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
I think it`s worth pointing out two things:

i) This appeared in the Daily Mail. It is therefore unlikely to have anything more than a vague connection with the truth.

ii) Even the Daily Fail story admitted that the relevant body said there`s nothing wrong with the advert:

[quote]The Equality and Human Rights Commission added: `This is in no way in breach of any discrimination law.

`Mrs Mamo should consider very unreliable any advice that she may have received implying that this aspect of her advert was discriminatory.` [/quote]
0
Reply
Female 2,352
Yeah that article was straight up retarded.
0
Reply
Male 4,807
Looks like Davymid can find a job now.
0
Reply
Male 931
Too late; I wasn`t a fan of people to begin with.
0
Reply
Female 65
haha thats funny i live just down the road from Borehamwood where this happened!! Its pathetic really!
0
Reply
Male 155
i love how this was from the daily mail on the same day another video was posted about how poo it is
0
Reply
Male 3,482
Honestly, bringing up the idea of a "disabled person" taking offense, you have to consider the nature of the job as well.

This is one that works in hospitals, right? So it`s not exactly a job where the workload can be built around the worker, it`s one where the worker has to be able to adapt in full, and always be reliable and consistent in their work.

I have nothing against disabled people, and I like the concept of having everybody that can work, but there are some jobs that they just CAN`T do, and if they have something that prevents them from being able to be there whenever needed, this job is one of them. Thus, it needs "reliable and hard-working people."
0
Reply
Male 4,680
shneeblefish - It`s madest. Don`t take it personally.
0
Reply
Male 5,314
sad
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@shneeblefish

I wouldn`t look at it as a defeat; more of a exerience that`s helped you discover your strengths and weaknesses.

And being your first job, I`d worry even less if I were you.

I`ve been a cleaner, a potwash, a line-worker in several factories, a nursery carer, a litterpicker, a binman, and a furniture mover, all before the age of 23, and I can tell you that I was nowhere near properly-suited for all of them.

Paradoxically, larger companies can be even more employee-based. My current employer is HUGE, and it puts a major focus on its employees. Anywhere where keeping hold of experienced employees will probably do the same.

It has meant I`ve ended up working in IT though. :P
0
Reply
Male 509
I was about to say "ha ha - america. dumb colonials" but most of the british culture is imported - very little of it is actually our own (which would be of celtic origin so probably welsh/scottish stuff mainly)

oh, and before you say america is all yours, how come you speak ENGLISH?
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Ha Ha England.
0
Reply
Male 509
its in middlesbrough lol

probably way out of your way - I very rarely meet someone online who is near me!
0
Reply
Male 509
That`s the thing though. I need time, and I don`t think there`s anything they can do to help me other than give it - which they can`t, cos the store had a bit of an off week or two lately and if they sack some people, the targets will be lower. I fully understand why and don`t feel I`m quite up to the job, probably cos it`s only my first one and I didn`t realise how busy I`d be (and apparently its worse over bank holidays, so I`m going to have an interesting week). My first review was with my boss rather than someone lower and when I said thoguht it was busy, he said "this isn`t busy. You think this is busy, wait until Christmas" Then, I kinda thought "F*ck."

Anyway, I`m hoping my next job is with a smaller, more employee-based company to minimise my confidence issue and any others I may have buried deep down somewhere
0
Reply
Male 2,850
What it boils down to, in my opinion, is this; if you feel something is positive discrimination, try putting yourself in their position and ask yourself if you would prefer their situation rather than yours. If the answer is no, then you can`t personally consider it positive discrimination.

If I were your coworker, and you were being given extra training to help you be more confident, I would not trade away my natural confidence in exchange for the training you`re getting to help you build it.

Nor would I resent the effort spent helping you.

I wonder in which Argos you work. I could come be a customer and sing your praises. :P
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@shneeblefish

It`s rare to get an apology on an online debate, so I`m rather touched by yours. It wasn`t necessary though, as you`re entitled to your opinion.

If I misread your opinion, then really the apology should be in the opposite direction.

Anyway: you`re experiencing exactly what I mean; you very likely feel you can do the job, but you just need a little more training in certain skills.

It`s not positive discrimination, because you`re not being elevated above anyone else; it`s just some extra help to get you to the same level.

Think of how it was in school; when one kid is struggling at understanding some mathematical concept, and the teacher spends some extra time to help him understand it, is that positive discrimination, even when the end result is that all the kids understand the concept equally well at the end?

You might as well say wheelchairs for paraplegics are positive discrimination.
0
Reply
Male 509
cont.
Being more realistic, yeah I think you probably are right, but this is where the line between positive and negative discrimination becomes a little blurred... if you`re giving them a chance where, if they weren`t ill, you wouldn`t is positive discrimination and is therefore unfair to all those who got rejected and who would probably be more (for want of a better word) able to do the job

morality and ethics is a touchy subject and a text-only forum is not the best medium of discussion
0
Reply
Male 509
"I think I`m up against a brick wall of cold-heartedness with you."

OK, I apologise. It`s probably my job (and being about to lose it) getting to me.

I work in Argos (for the time being at least, contract expires on the 11th) and all my staffing reviews say I`m not confident enough with the customers. Just about everyone I`ve spoken to about it have said that they aren`t being sympathetic enough to realise I need more time, whereas management tells me that if I can`t learn faster, I might as well leave (which I will).

I think I just have a knack for empathy, particularly if I have experience from one point of view or another (whether I agree with it or not). This time round it was from the point of view of these big, fast-paced employers (like Argos).
0
Reply
Male 2,850
"if they are incapable of doing the job to the standards of someone in perfect health, then I don`t see why you shouldn`t hire them. I wouldn`t be discriminating against disabled people, just as long as they could ACTUALLY do the job."

Far be it from me to ever wish ill on any other person...so I hope you develop some empathy and manage to imagine yourself in the shoes of someone who develops cancer and finds themselves struggling to find an employer who won`t give a little consideration for their circumstances.

Unreliability due to laziness is one thing. Unreliability due to illness is another entirely.

And this advert does not distinguish between the two. I suspect that is the problem.

If you don`t see a problem with treating sick people like they`re just lazy...then I think I`m up against a brick wall of cold-heartedness with you.
0
Reply
Male 509
And about the "must be fluent in written and spoken English" bit... That would probably mainly be for paperwork, and what`s the point in getting a job anywhere if nobody can understand you and you can`t read or fill in the paperwork?
0
Reply
Male 509
This is just PC gone mad - everyone`s too damn scared of being sued to say what they actually want or even need. That advert makes total sense to me, and regardless of disabilities, if they are incapable of doing the job to the standards of someone in perfect health, then I don`t see why you shouldn`t hire them. I wouldn`t be discriminating against disabled people, just as long as they could ACTUALLY do the job.

Instead of changing something because it MIGHT offend someone, people should actually wait until it DOES offend someone, THEN apologise and change it.

Oh, and if anyone came up to me and said it might offend someone, I`d probably say "then let them complain to me. Why do other people need somebody else to complain for them?"
A blunter version of this would be "Are YOU offended? No? Then shut up and leave me alone."
0
Reply
Male 2,850
I suspect that the people they felt might be discriminated against by this advert are those who, through no fault of their own, cannot be fully reliable; such as those with a disability or illness that might cause them to have more work absence than others.

And clearly, refusing to hire someone because they have a disability or medical condition is, quite rightly, highly illegal.

Certainly, if I had to frequently miss work due to a medical condition, I might feel a little guilty about being unreliable, even though I couldn`t help it. I might feel somewhat excluded by an employer who, on the face of it, wouldn`t be accomodating of my need.

Clearly, the advert was not intended to mean this, but I suspect the jobcentre was erring on the side of extreme caution, just in case the advert could be misinterpreted as above.

The lesson here; what you mean, and what you appear to mean, do not always match.
0
Reply
Male 2,159
*Sings* I know that it`s true because I read it in the Daily Mail...
0
Reply
Male 438
The daily mail is known for distorting facts and finding the most sensationalist stories. It`s like the Fox News except the opposite in ideology because they are liberal.

Despite the fact this is guaranteed to be a sensationalist story, the fact that this even happened is annoying. I think this is just a mistake of the job center policy department though and not a common problem. The people who are writing the guidelines are paranoid morons who can`t see common sense and I doubt that many other places have these guidelines because they know they would be thought of as ridiculous.

Still.. damn.
0
Reply
Male 894
hardcore employer is hardcore
0
Reply
Male 160
Does that mean I can`t fire someone for being lazy and unreliable?
0
Reply
Male 1,240
Holy crap, that`s ridiculous. I`m pretty sure that anyone who sued on the ground of "being discriminated because they`re lazy and unreliable" would get their case thrown out of court.
0
Reply
Male 2,422
Link: Employer Told Not To Post Ad For Reliable Workers [Rate Link] - More PC insanity. Don`t read this unless you really want to hate people...
0
Reply