I wouldn’t want to hire any white men either.
In fact, I wouldn’t hire any men at all.
Or women. (Or any miscellaneous people)
So it’s just a well I’m not an employer.
But mark my words, if I were…
…I wouldn’t hire anyone.
Lazy, good-for-nothing freeloaders.
It’s crazy how we’ve normalised hatred and discrimination towards a gender and race under the guise of anti-sexism and anti-racism
Can us white males claim some kind of financial benefit for our disability?
Because I…would be cool with that
>Regarding the ‘fewer white men’ comment – which Mr Jones denied making – Employment Judge Tamara Lewis said: ‘Clearly something was said about this.
>’There was a general discussion about diversity in recruitment, given that the position was Head of HR.
>’We find that Mr Jones indicated the company hoped to achieve a diverse workforce that did not exclusively comprise, for example, white men.
>’Having listened to Mr Jones as a witness, we suspect he did not express this very well.’
>The panel found Mr Jones said something to the effect that the company ‘hoped to achieve a position where there were fewer white men as a proportion of the workforce’.
>Throwing out his claim of sex discrimination, she continued: ‘We do not find it concerning or odd that an employer should discuss with a candidate for a post as head of HR the issue of diversity in its workforce.
>’Nor do we find it in itself indicative of an intention to discriminate that an employer should aspire to increase diversity in its workforce where there is underrepresentation.
>’An aim to have an organisation less dominated by white men in areas where traditionally that is the dominant profile, does not mean that there is an intention to achieve that objective by discriminating in recruitment against white men and in favour of women or minority ethnic candidates.
>’We would expect candidates for a Head of HR post to understand these principles and distinctions.’
Edit:
Full decision here if anyone wants to read it. Decided in July 2022…
Won’t be the first or last, I’ve seen it with my own eyes in-house. I’ve been a victim of it when trying to join the MET as well.
Note he lost his case as the tribunal found there to be no discrimination at play and discussing diversity policies to reduce bias is a legitimate part of interviewing when you’re applying for an HR role
I was looking at a job posting recently which stated that they “Particularly welcome female, non-binary, LGBTIQA+, Black, Asian, other Minority Ethnic groups”
It seems they could have shortened that description and simply described the single group who are LESS welcome to apply…
> The conversation was conducted on the phone while the candidate was on holiday, and several of his friends listened to the call, a hearing in central London was told.
I’m sure that definitely didn’t count against him in the tribunal hearing…
Reading the case, this is all over the place and a good example for why proving discrimination in job applications is very hard.
I’m inclined to believe this is a situation where a man has applied for a job, made it through two interview rounds, not made it to the next round of interviews (along with two women) and then retrospectively taken the rejection based on his sex *and race* because the HR interviewer expressed diversity aims for the company.
Makes a good headline though I suppose. We can get a hundred comment thread just off that.
Super glad no one is reading the article and getting angry based on the headline.
How about we all just hire the right person for the job
I’m already seeing this a lot in the bank I work for (one of the big 4). Literature and posters up promoting how great everyone is, except white people who just go unmentioned. Entire advancement and development schemes solely for those in the LGBTQ network or the BAME network or the Neurodiverse network. Now there are more and more internal job openings which are only available to those who are in those schemes.
Seen this in house, any non bame needs a good reason for being hired and gets scrutinised heavily.
CEO questions why they’re not a woman or from a minority background and pushes back.
this is quite literally how the far right grows, neo liberals thinks this will help ethnic minorities but this will seriously backfire and create tensions with native brits
nice stuff all for progressive capitalism 😒
Seen a role at the BBC ages ago I wanted to go for being for BAME applicants only, surprised it’s still going on surely it’s wrong to do such things. Either way I suppose the world moves on.
The thing that people seem to not realize is that most places advertising like this already employ a majority of white men and would just like to appeal to a broader cross section of society. I’m a white man who works as a chef and would really like to work with not just white men which is what I’m doing currently. I don’t know why it’s so triggering to so many of you. Grow the fuck up.
Import migrants who take up housing and school places and then make it easier for them to get jobs than natives. Really seems like there is a concerted effort against native British people by government and the corporate world at this point.
Replace the words ‘white’ and ‘men’ with any other race or gender and they’d end up in court.
Can we stop posting Daily Heil headlines without context to rile up the alt-righters who infest this sub? Please?
Not sure how things are in the Uk these days but this is the norm in Canada.
Nobody forced them to run a business doing something that mostly men do in a country where most people are white.
If they want to hire fewer white men, fuck off and open a nursery school in Africa.
How is that identifying features are the priority now? Who gives a fuck about anything other than ability?
If there’s 12 trans who are best on a board, or 12 of one colour or 12 of one sex? The company should invest in greater diversity but people are people.
Feels like there’s a lot of headline ragebait going on here. I’m inclined to agree with the judge;
>Slamming down his claims, an employment judge said that although a firm may aspire to be ‘less dominated by white men’, it does not mean there’s an ‘intention to achieve that objective by discriminating in recruitment against white men and in favour of women or minority ethnic candidates’.
Employers can’t win to an extent in some sectors. It’s either a “boys’ club” or the dreaded wokerati have struck again.
Some may call this “reverse discrimination” but then that also implies that a white man cant be discriminated against, for the very wide plethora of reasons that someone could be discriminated against?
25 comments
I wouldn’t want to hire any white men either.
In fact, I wouldn’t hire any men at all.
Or women. (Or any miscellaneous people)
So it’s just a well I’m not an employer.
But mark my words, if I were…
…I wouldn’t hire anyone.
Lazy, good-for-nothing freeloaders.
It’s crazy how we’ve normalised hatred and discrimination towards a gender and race under the guise of anti-sexism and anti-racism
Can us white males claim some kind of financial benefit for our disability?
Because I…would be cool with that
>Regarding the ‘fewer white men’ comment – which Mr Jones denied making – Employment Judge Tamara Lewis said: ‘Clearly something was said about this.
>’There was a general discussion about diversity in recruitment, given that the position was Head of HR.
>’We find that Mr Jones indicated the company hoped to achieve a diverse workforce that did not exclusively comprise, for example, white men.
>’Having listened to Mr Jones as a witness, we suspect he did not express this very well.’
>The panel found Mr Jones said something to the effect that the company ‘hoped to achieve a position where there were fewer white men as a proportion of the workforce’.
>Throwing out his claim of sex discrimination, she continued: ‘We do not find it concerning or odd that an employer should discuss with a candidate for a post as head of HR the issue of diversity in its workforce.
>’Nor do we find it in itself indicative of an intention to discriminate that an employer should aspire to increase diversity in its workforce where there is underrepresentation.
>’An aim to have an organisation less dominated by white men in areas where traditionally that is the dominant profile, does not mean that there is an intention to achieve that objective by discriminating in recruitment against white men and in favour of women or minority ethnic candidates.
>’We would expect candidates for a Head of HR post to understand these principles and distinctions.’
Edit:
Full decision here if anyone wants to read it. Decided in July 2022…
https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-c-palmer-v-aims-markets-ltd-2200232-slash-2022
Won’t be the first or last, I’ve seen it with my own eyes in-house. I’ve been a victim of it when trying to join the MET as well.
Note he lost his case as the tribunal found there to be no discrimination at play and discussing diversity policies to reduce bias is a legitimate part of interviewing when you’re applying for an HR role
I was looking at a job posting recently which stated that they “Particularly welcome female, non-binary, LGBTIQA+, Black, Asian, other Minority Ethnic groups”
It seems they could have shortened that description and simply described the single group who are LESS welcome to apply…
> The conversation was conducted on the phone while the candidate was on holiday, and several of his friends listened to the call, a hearing in central London was told.
I’m sure that definitely didn’t count against him in the tribunal hearing…
Reading the case, this is all over the place and a good example for why proving discrimination in job applications is very hard.
I’m inclined to believe this is a situation where a man has applied for a job, made it through two interview rounds, not made it to the next round of interviews (along with two women) and then retrospectively taken the rejection based on his sex *and race* because the HR interviewer expressed diversity aims for the company.
Makes a good headline though I suppose. We can get a hundred comment thread just off that.
Not like it’s a one off…
[RAF diversity targets discriminated against white men.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66060490)
Super glad no one is reading the article and getting angry based on the headline.
How about we all just hire the right person for the job
I’m already seeing this a lot in the bank I work for (one of the big 4). Literature and posters up promoting how great everyone is, except white people who just go unmentioned. Entire advancement and development schemes solely for those in the LGBTQ network or the BAME network or the Neurodiverse network. Now there are more and more internal job openings which are only available to those who are in those schemes.
Seen this in house, any non bame needs a good reason for being hired and gets scrutinised heavily.
CEO questions why they’re not a woman or from a minority background and pushes back.
this is quite literally how the far right grows, neo liberals thinks this will help ethnic minorities but this will seriously backfire and create tensions with native brits
nice stuff all for progressive capitalism 😒
Seen a role at the BBC ages ago I wanted to go for being for BAME applicants only, surprised it’s still going on surely it’s wrong to do such things. Either way I suppose the world moves on.
The thing that people seem to not realize is that most places advertising like this already employ a majority of white men and would just like to appeal to a broader cross section of society. I’m a white man who works as a chef and would really like to work with not just white men which is what I’m doing currently. I don’t know why it’s so triggering to so many of you. Grow the fuck up.
Import migrants who take up housing and school places and then make it easier for them to get jobs than natives. Really seems like there is a concerted effort against native British people by government and the corporate world at this point.
Replace the words ‘white’ and ‘men’ with any other race or gender and they’d end up in court.
Can we stop posting Daily Heil headlines without context to rile up the alt-righters who infest this sub? Please?
Not sure how things are in the Uk these days but this is the norm in Canada.
Nobody forced them to run a business doing something that mostly men do in a country where most people are white.
If they want to hire fewer white men, fuck off and open a nursery school in Africa.
How is that identifying features are the priority now? Who gives a fuck about anything other than ability?
If there’s 12 trans who are best on a board, or 12 of one colour or 12 of one sex? The company should invest in greater diversity but people are people.
Feels like there’s a lot of headline ragebait going on here. I’m inclined to agree with the judge;
>Slamming down his claims, an employment judge said that although a firm may aspire to be ‘less dominated by white men’, it does not mean there’s an ‘intention to achieve that objective by discriminating in recruitment against white men and in favour of women or minority ethnic candidates’.
Employers can’t win to an extent in some sectors. It’s either a “boys’ club” or the dreaded wokerati have struck again.
Some may call this “reverse discrimination” but then that also implies that a white man cant be discriminated against, for the very wide plethora of reasons that someone could be discriminated against?