Employer told not to post advert for 'reliable' workers

[Math Is Hard]

Employer told not to post advert for 'reliable' workers because it discriminates against 'unreliable' applicants

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ers--discriminates-unreliable-applicants.html

"When she ran the ad past a job centre, she was told she couldn't ask for 'reliable' and 'hard-working' applicants because it could be offensive to unreliable people.

'In my 15 years in recruitment I haven't heard anything so ridiculous,' Mrs Mamo said yesterday.

 

[Jack21222]

Looks like the job centre doesn't know what they're talking about.

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.'

 

[Norman]

Employer told not to post advert for 'reliable' workers because it discriminates against 'unreliable' applicants

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ers--discriminates-unreliable-applicants.html

LOL! Isn't that the idea of a job search... to pick the reliable workers out from the unreliable...

I really want to see that lawsuit:

"As an unreliable worker, I was offended by their advertisement for reliable workers. It just doesn't seem fair that someone who cannot be relied upon can't have a job"... LOL!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I had written a letter to my representative in support of a similar ruling here too, but I forgot to send it.

 

[Pengwuino]

Maybe the person she talked to at the Department for Work and Pensions felt offended for a reason

 

[Matterwave]

Next, they'll ban discrimination against the incompetent, the lazy, and people who can't perform the job...

 

[MotoH]

And it's in the UK! Who would have thought! This isn't surprising one bit considering a family was kicked out of their own house by gypsies, and can't do anything about it because it would be unfair to kick the gypsies out.

 

[f95toli]

And it's in the UK! Who would have thought! This isn't surprising one bit considering a family was kicked out of their own house by gypsies, and can't do anything about it because it would be unfair to kick the gypsies out.

You do realize that a) This was an article in Daily Mail and b) There IS no law against posting adverts for reliable workers...

 

[waht]

She told me they'd had lots of problems with people taking them to court for adverts stating something like "would suit school leaver".'

'I had to battle to have "must speak English", which they also said was discriminatory.
Pugh cartoon

'In the end, I had to write "must speak English due to health and safety reasons" because they're dealing with hazardous materials.'

Nausea overwhelms me.

 

[Pengwuino]

My god, who are we trying to satisfy with nonsense like these? Unjust mob rule has its merits in my mind...

 

[MotoH]

You do realize that a) This was an article in Daily Mail and b) There IS no law against posting adverts for reliable workers...

So are you saying there is a law against putting a bat against a gypsy?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You do realize that a) This was an article in Daily Mail and b) There IS no law against posting adverts for reliable workers...

a) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/norfolk/8483171.stm The BBC picked it up too.
b) The government Department of Work and Pensions was blocking the advert. Does the fact that there is not a law against it some how make it better?

 

[Chronos]

Unreliable people have rights too. You can't dismiss job candidates just because they are unproductive and negatively affect your business.

 

[cristo]

a) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/norfolk/8483171.stm The BBC picked it up too.
b) The government Department of Work and Pensions was blocking the advert. Does the fact that there is not a law against it some how make it better?

The link you post clearly quotes a DWP spokesperson saying "Reliability is important to employers, as it is for Jobcentre Plus - and we welcome ads seeking reliable applicants", and states that the DWP did not comment on whether advice to use the word reliable had been offered. So, how did you come up with your point b)?

So are you saying there is a law against putting a bat against a gypsy?

Huh, what has this random comment got to do with this thread?

 

[BobG]

I agree with their policy. It discriminates agains relible people. From a Craig's list ad for a babysitter:

Relible Babysitter (Salem NH)

My name is Ashley; I am currently attending college for early childhood education. I have 5 years of babysitting experience; I have babysat for all of the children in my family, as well as other families. I have babysat for children ranging in the ages from infancy to 11 years old, and I love to be around kids. My future goal in life is to run my own daycare. I have also taken classes in high school for this subject and I am CPR and First Aid certified. I am availble to babysit almost every day and I have an extremely flexble schedule. I am availble to babysit in the Salem area, but as of right now I do not have my own transportation. I love working with children and I take my job seriously and I am very relible and I can promise the best quality care for your children. The best way to contact me is by phone at 603-xxx-xxxx if you are interested. I look forward to working with you.

Sincerely
Ashley M.

I think hiring only reliable people is extremely unfair to relible, relibell, rellibell people and to relabeled people to boot.

In fact, I think I'd hire a relabeled person before a reliable person any day.

You see the same discrimination against relible products. Personally, I think the Relible Vinyl Urinal Screens are top notch products.

 

[zoobyshoe]

'Even the woman at the jobcentre agreed it was ridiculous but explained it was policy because they could get sued for being dicriminatory against unreliable people.

'She told me they'd had lots of problems with people taking them to court for adverts stating something like "would suit school leaver".'

I suppose unreliable people should be allowed to sue people who discriminate against them for their unreliability, but only so long as they're required to be represented by an unreliable lawyer.

 

[CRGreathouse]

In the US, employers are allowed to discriminate against (prospective) employees for any reason not on a specific enumerated list (race, gender, age if over 40, etc.). For example, they can discriminate against unreliable workers or even people with names starting with "C".*

How do discrimination laws work in the UK?

* Actually, this example is iffy depending on court interpretations of statistical discrimination. Perhaps one race has, on average, more people with names starting with C than others; this may and may not bar such discrimination.

 

[rewebster]

I suppose unreliable people should be allowed to sue people who discriminate against them for their unreliability, but only so long as they're required to be represented by an unreliable lawyer.

and those people are/should be judged by a jury of their peers

 

[BobG]

and those people are/should be judged by a jury of their peers

Well, if they were reliable then they would have found a way to get out of jury duty so they could show up for work.

By the way, while I don't know how prevalent this particular example is, it is common practice for companies to avoid telling a prospective employer why an employee left the company. No company wants to be sued for revealing adverse information like "Dave quit showering and started stealing change from the snack bar."

The most ironic thing about this is that the same HR people that are counseled against revealing any info about a past employee beyond verifying whether or not he actually was an employee, are also tasked to call up every single past employer of anyone applying for a job at their company. As if their HR people don't have the same policies as HR people at your company!

(And people wonder why most people get jobs through networking rather than by submitting resumes through the HR department. Hiring someone through the HR department is like rolling dice. Your results are totally random.)

 

[Moonbear]

Maybe it was for a government job. We all know that government jobs can't discriminate against unreliable people, or they'd never fill those positions.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The link you post clearly quotes a DWP spokesperson saying "Reliability is important to employers, as it is for Jobcentre Plus - and we welcome ads seeking reliable applicants", and states that the DWP did not comment on whether advice to use the word reliable had been offered. So, how did you come up with your point b)?

I've seen many instances of internal policies denied by upper management. The woman in the article states that she submitted her advert and it was edited to not include the word "reliable". Why would she make a stink if such a thing did not happen? And if she is telling the truth why would an employee of the DWP just make up such a policy? It appears to me that the DWP was perhaps attempting some policy to prevent persons looking for work from being daunted by intimidating wording in adverts, it was perhaps taken a bit far by some editors, and at least one employee gave a poorly worded explanation for the editing (perhaps a poor explanation given to him/her by someone else). One way or another it seems that the DWP has edited at least one employers advert in a sort of censorship even if they wish to state that there is no such specific policy pertaining to the use of the word reliable.