Spin Time

[Stevo 666]

Thanks for the link
it says
We are committed to promoting equality of opportunity, eliminating unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and promoting good relations for both employee and for the people of Lincolnshire

so - presumably - they are going to change this
or at least sacking (making redundant) anyone employed to help people achieve this aim

so - presumably they are no longer aiming to ensure equal opportunities for groups such as
woman
men
black people
asian people
white people
gay people
etc etc


in my experience the people who enforce these policies are focussed on making sure that the organisation employed the best person for the job
not making sure the black person gets the job
just making sure that that they find the best person and employ that person rather than someone else

not sure that the people of Lincolnshire want to change that??

and in any case - not doing it leave them open to discrimination cases
which cost money to fight and pay for

really doesn;t seem like a financially effective policy

but it does stick to the dog whistle shouty things that they can use in the future

My organisation gets by perfectly well without paying money for a diversity officer. And quite a few other organisations from talking to people I know. If you apply that principle across all organisations the savings will be substantial.

Given that people of Lincolnshire have just voted in Reform, it seems they don't think that it's necessary either.

 

[icowden]

My organisation gets by perfectly well without paying money for a diversity officer. And quite a few other organisations from talking to people I know. If you apply that principle across all organisations the savings will be substantial.

There does seem to be a somewhat false canard here that in order for an organisation to be ensuring diversity, equality and inclusion that it requires someone full time to do this. It is perfectly possible to have hiring policies, equality policies etc without it having to be someone's job. Although the larger the company gets, the more likely it is that you will need someone overseeing that role.

 

[Stevo 666]

There does seem to be a somewhat false canard here that in order for an organisation to be ensuring diversity, equality and inclusion that it requires someone full time to do this. It is perfectly possible to have hiring policies, equality policies etc without it having to be someone's job. Although the larger the company gets, the more likely it is that you will need someone overseeing that role.

We have the usual policies issued by HR. We are pretty large organisation and have seen no need to appoint someone to oversee it full time.

 

[Bromptonaut]

We have the usual policies issued by HR. We are pretty large organisation and have seen no need to appoint someone to oversee it full time.

But is it on somebody's Job Description?

 

[Stevo 666]

But is it on somebody's Job Description?

Nope, there is nobody even part allocated to it. We do just fine.

 

[Pross]

Nope, there is nobody even part allocated to it. We do just fine.

Someone will have responsibility for it even if it is 'just' part of the portfolio of someone on your Board. Someone needs to ensure you are complying with your legal responsibilities.

 

[CXRAndy]

Someone will have responsibility for it even if it is 'just' part of the portfolio of someone on your Board. Someone needs to ensure you are complying with your legal responsibilities.

Not if you run a meritocracy based employment system. If you're the best candidate for the job, doesn't matter about anything else

 

[icowden]

Not if you run a meritocracy based employment system. If you're the best candidate for the job, doesn't matter about anything else

But who decides the best candidate for the job? Historically that has tended to be white males. Thus both conscious and unconscious bias sneaks in. It's well documented that if you put on your application a western name such as Doug Smith, you are far more likely to get invited to interview than if your name is Amaar Mohammad or Oluwakorede Osfaratu.

That's part of the point of having inclusion and equalities policies.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Nope, there is nobody even part allocated to it. We do just fine.

If nobody is watching it and ensuring the law is complied with something will bite your employer's bum sooner or later.

 

[Stevo 666]

Someone will have responsibility for it even if it is 'just' part of the portfolio of someone on your Board. Someone needs to ensure you are complying with your legal responsibilities.

It's no different from any other policy which has legal obligations, such as anti fraud policies. Why should this one need more attention that those other policies?

 

[Pross]

It's no different from any other policy which has legal obligations, such as anti fraud policies. Why should this one need more attention that those other policies?

But presumably you have people allocated to deal with those elements? You said you had no-one even part allocated to DEI.

 

[Stevo 666]

But presumably you have people allocated to deal with those elements? You said you had no-one even part allocated to DEI.

Nobody allocated as mentioned. It's just part of the daily like everything else. I imagine some people must spend some time on it, but nobody (not even our HR department) is advocating having a separate position to deal with it.

As above, why would it be a priority over other policies with legal obligations attached?

 

[All uphill]

But who decides the best candidate for the job? Historically that has tended to be white males. Thus both conscious and unconscious bias sneaks in. It's well documented that if you put on your application a western name such as Doug Smith, you are far more likely to get invited to interview than if your name is Amaar Mohammad or Oluwakorede Osfaratu.

That's part of the point of having inclusion and equalities policies.

And that's the point of the anti-DEI movement. Keep the good jobs for us tall, white (or orange) guys.

Women can do women's work and people with brown skin and/or funny names can F*** Off.

It's transparently racist.

 

[Stevo 666]

If nobody is watching it and ensuring the law is complied with something will bite your employer's bum sooner or later.

I replied to Pross above which I think covers it.

 

[CXRAndy]

But who decides the best candidate for the job? Historically that has tended to be white males. Thus both conscious and unconscious bias sneaks in. It's well documented that if you put on your application a western name such as Doug Smith, you are far more likely to get invited to interview than if your name is Amaar Mohammad or Oluwakorede Osfaratu.

That's part of the point of having inclusion and equalities policies.

There are always pitfalls employing new staff. HR department manager, foreman all having an input on the candidate. But sometimes the candidate isn't Upto the job. That's why there is a probationary period to ensure new staff member is doing a good job or is just settling in well.