Positive action
The Equality Act enables, but does not require, people to encourage greater diversity in all the areas covered by discrimination law. For example, it allows employers to encourage people with protected characteristics (e.g. age, race etc) that are under-represented in the workforce to apply for jobs. Positive action doesn’t allow a less qualified person to be chosen for a job or promotion over someone who is better qualified. That would be positive discrimination and remains unlawful.
The Act mainly brings together what was in previous law. In addition it:
- allows employers to choose a candidate with a protected characteristic that is under-represented in the workforce over another candidate of equal merit when recruiting or promoting;
- allows political parties to use positive action to increase the diversity of election candidates.
The Act also enables Parliament to make further legislation to require political parties to report on the diversity of their election candidates.
Tell us what you think should happen to these measures and why, being specific where possible
- Should we scrap them altogether?
- Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
- Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
- Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
- Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
- Should they be left as they are?
Positive action is still discrimination. Discrimination of every kind is wrong, and as such I feel that this part of the law should be repealed. It is the government’s role to ensure everyone plays by the same rules, and that discrimination does not occur. If we take that to the basic level where this would be applied: you do have two candidates of equal abilities and qualifications for a job. One does not have a “protected characteristic” that is under-represented in the workforce, the other does (race, gender, orientation etc). Under positive action, which is enforced throughout the public sector, the latter would receive the job. That means that the first person has been discriminated against because of their skin colour/gender/sexual orientation. That is simply wrong, and the government certainly should not be encouraging it.
Why was this law even introduced, especially as there is no public appetite for such a law? How is under-representation measured? At the last census 85% of the population was White British, so therefore 85% of each workforce must be White British? Who knows, the bureaucrats probably didn’t think about that. In addition, this law works against the spirit of a meritocracy, which is surely a principle our society works towards.
Not only should this government repeal any law encouraging positive action, it should ban positive action as it is discrimination, plain and simple. The government should simply be working towards providing equal opportunities for all sections of society by address the underlying issues such as education, the role of parents, aspirations etc rather than discriminating against people.Comment Tags: Positive action
“Positive” action is backwards thinking. Voluntary or not, it provides legal justification for those that wish to choose one person over another based on their protected characteristics.
THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION! It is wrong.Comment Tags: Positive action
Katherine,
Positive action provides legal justification to choose one individual over another based on their protected characteristics. To choose one individual over another based on their protected characteristics is discrimination against the individual that didn’t get chosen.
That’s why it’s discrimination.
If you give an Asian guy a job rather than a white guy and the reason for that is because he’s Asian, then that is discrimination.
It’s basic common sense when you boil it down to the INDIVIDUALS that will be affected by this part of the legislation.
I think the statement you make above is non-sensual and has no substance to it. So, I turn the tables on you and ask, you to explain how positive action does not create an incidence of discrimination when used to choose one INDIVIDUAL over another.Comment Tags: Positive action
Also, it needs to be said that these “disadvantaged groups” that everyone keeps going on about are not entities, they are not the individual legal entities (i.e. the individual people) that need protecting.
Any argument that uses the existance of “disadvataged groups” as justification falls on it’s face when you look insted at the INDIVIDUALS, that will be affected.
When you employ someone, you employ an individual, you don’t employ a “disadvantaged group”.
The more I think about it, the more I think that the advocates of Positive Action don’t have an undertanding of the basics of Equality.Comment Tags: Positive action