Because i have an issue with positive discrimination. I think its just reverse racism. And my point isn't wrong. I don't know how many times i'll have to say the same thing. In the industry i work in - the services industry, for a Facilities management company that provides, cleaning, grounds maintenance, security, maintenance etc.... for mainly public sector clients - housing associations, local government, schools etc.... We are asked during the Tender process for a breakdown of our workforce by ethnic minority and how that relates to the management we have in place. This is not me saying we force our employees to disclose this information. This is not me saying it is a legal requirement of the government that we have this information from our employees. What i am saying is we are encouraged to have this information available for our potential government clients and it is expected that the management and overall workforce will have a similar % of ethnic minoritiesi n the positions. Just because something is not law does not mean it does not apply in practice. And i can say with a high degreee of certainty that within the facilities management industry a high level of importance is put on the ethnic make-up of your workforce and it is encouraged to keep track of the workforce. We also have a need to keep track of the number of women and number of disabled people we have working for us. It also goes a long way to helping achieve equal opportunities employer status and accreditations, without which you lose points during the Tender process. So you can keep comming back and saying im wrong because you know the law but the reality is a different kettle of fish.
And what you seem to be missing is that although I work in news and finance NOW I have had other jobs. I worked for local and central governments and they, they ones you claim "put pressure" on others to count their ethnics, didn't. There was a diversity survey and they asked, for "monitoring" reasons, but no one had to fill it out, some people filled it in with rubbish (one notable case was a Sri Lankan colleague who put his ethnicity down as North American Inuit and was subsequently invited to a diversity seminar as the organisations only Inuit). Others have mentioned it to you, it's your companies choice to do that monitoring. YOU chose to use it as an example of those numbers then being used to massage recruitment drives...again, any such activity would be all the fault of your company or those that run it, not some far reaching government mandated conspiracy to undermine white people. In this discussion it was a seemingly mad and irrelevant aside.
Good, so does the government...that's why it's ILLEGAL. If your company is breaking the law apparently at the behest of government clients then blow the whistle. If you're making the common mistake of conflating positive discrimination (only hiring people of a given ethnic, gender or ability make up) with positive action (going out of your way to make a position available to people it ordinarily would not be available to) I would say you'd best be served going away and looking up the difference. One is illegal and rightly so, the other is misunderstood and perfectly fine.
I'm not talking about government issued diversity serveys. I'm talking about the process by which companies tender for work from the government. Part of this process is a survey about the ethnicity of the workforce, part of it is about how similar the % is in management to workfroce. And the other part of it is that if you do not class as an equal opportunities employer (which requires this breakdown of information) and if you do not hold recognised equality accreditations then you lose points on the process and are less likely to win the work. So yes, pressure is put on Facilities management companies to have this information and to have a proportional amount of management to workforce ethnic groups. So regardless of what the law is and regardless of what you think you know - in the Facilities Management Industry the pressure is there and thus positive discrimination exists and is encouraged by the government.
Andd no i dont think its some kind of anti-white conspiracy ^^ I think it is all done with the best of intentions but doesnt always work that way in practice.
You don't seem to be getting me. You're saying you have a problem...I acknowledge the problem. You then say to get around this problem you organisation engages in practices that ARE against the law. They basically break the law for profit. The "pressure" is the pressure on them to get a job so they make money. They have put profits above morality and you want to blame the government and use it in a discussion about football. You claim you have a problem with it, awesome, I have a problem with people getting murdered. Fear not though, the things we have a problem with are illegal! Yay! There's nothing else that can be done if someone then decides to break that law. You seem to want to have a discussion as if there's more that can be done about positive discrimination apart from making it an illegal act. You company and namely YOU shouldn't be doing it. Stop it.
And it is not particularly in my company but rather the industry as a whole as we all work from the same documents and regulations.
I don't think anyone is actually replying to my original post.The issue i raised is a House of Commons commitee talking about racism in football.I still stand by my assertion that MP's should get their own house in order before worrying about football and also why is there no talk of racism in other sports
So the government says: "if u dont have x you wont win the contract" Yet the companies and industry are at fault for providing the customer with what it wants? And no there is no illegal practice as we do not force anyone to give us this information. The Industry is shaped by the regulaton of the government, more so than alot of industries as most of the large FM companies have a very large section of public sector work. Thus anything that is asked of by government all the companies do there best to attain or they will not be competitive and will fail. It is the same with environmental issues, quality issues etc.... They have set guidlines you need to meet to be considered. There are accreditations you must have to be able to win this type of work one of which is equality and requires both proof of equal opportunity recruitment procedures and a % of management that relates to the workforce. Suprisingly in the industry its not actually that difficult to meet these requirements as alot of lower level management have been promoted from within and the vast majority of the workers in the industry are of ethnic minorities. So generaly it's an industry which does have quite a diverse management structure, but if you dont by default fall into the guidelines then positive discrimination is the option your left with.
I think the issue in football is more pronounced due to the sheers numbers and prominence of the players. There are just not the same level of black stars in sports like rugby or cricket. The players are there, but not in the numbers and with the star power of football. The issue with MPs is different in that MPs are elected officials! WE the people pick them. If we're not voting in black MPs in our local constituencies there's not much anyone can do about it but us. But I don't think that's the issue.
As i said earlier.Should we asking why there are very few black rugby or cricket players.Is it a socio economic or racial issue ? There was a report a good few years ago about how few candidates from the ethnic minorities were picked for safe Tory seats
But there is. If you're managing to get around the problem created by the governments request then you're admitting you do engage in hiring ethnic minority candidates simply to comply to the letter of this request. That's the part where you're breaking the law. Doesn't matter if information isn't requested, you've said you need to have a certain % of management reflect the make up of the staff. Unless that happens naturally you're clearly breaking the law. Saying you had to do it because the government forced you to is a cop out. If none of the people in the industry did it you'd be competing on a level playing field. So one company broke the rules to get ahead...to keep up another broke the rules...then another to keep up with them, until the whole industry was doing it and then blaming someone else.
It's not a relevant question. It's like asking why don't more black people listen to Arctic Monkeys. It could be cultural, it could be a fashion or access thing, but it doesn't in any way impact the findings of the MPs on football. I like playing football but I'm not good at it...but I also like watching it too. I don't like watching rugby or cricket. Don't know many British born black people that do. Some of my friends dads like cricket, but thats as far as it goes. Again, it's not relevant in a discussion about possible racism as it's nothing to do with racism.
Of course it's a relevant question.A commitee is making a report into racism in football but makes no mention of whether there is racism in other sports. I remember watching the Windies on TV in the 70's & 80's and there were plenty of black people of all age groups at the test match venues
I can see what you are saying but the simple fact is companies will always do what they need to to remain competitive so if the government goes - you need to have this or we wont work with you - everyone gets it. What your basically saying is that all the companies are working illegaly, but if we do not meet those guidelines we fail as businesses. So it's a straight choice between going out of business or doing what the government asks - which means meeting the requirements of the equality accreditations. And the fact is that being a part of the equality schemes si seen as a good thing and raises your company profile, by pulling out you not only alienate yourself from the main source of income for the industry but make yourself look like you dont care to other private sector clients. I personally hate it - but its how it works. Nothing will change because it is what the government wants from its contractors, so regardless of what the law is no-one is going to be punished for doing as the government tells them. The company i work for is lucky in that we have a very low turnover of management staff as opposed to the industry average (one of our key usp's) and as such have a very similar management team now that has been in place for the last 10-15 years. And we have a very diverse management team. There is also the fact that alot of lower management are from ethnic minorities and are often on TUPE lists so we as a company have not found this to be a great issue. But the way the regulations and industry is set up is that if you aren't as lucky as the company i work for you have to in some discriminate. That is why i think it's so ridiculous! Anyway this was just supposed to be one example of positive discrimination, as my original point was that positive discrimination is just as much of a problem as your standard racism but often overlooked as its seen by some as a good thing.
Now you're just being obtuse. Why would a committee convene to ask about sport black people VOLUNTARILY avoid? You're talking about recent West Indian immigrants (my folks came here in the 70s) and then asking the question about their kids born here who are now adults in 2012...they're not the same people. Unless you feel that cricket is unfairly keeping out black 60 year olds, those fans you saw watching the West Indian players are not trying to crack into cricket now in enough number that the government should bother itself. Again, the numbers in football are clear to see. For all we know there are so few black cricket players of British descent that even a SINGLE black cricket coach would constitute a statistical overrepresentation!
Goonercym - saying back in the 70's and 80's you remember seeing people watching cricket doesn't mean that now - 30-40 years after that, that cultural attitudes are the same. Personally the areas i have grown up in and lived in black kids have been interested in football, basketball and athletics. Far less interest in cricket or Rugby. I played for a short time for the London Bronco's Rugby League team and for South England (i was a stocky kid!) and from school competitions up to the proper teams there just wasn't much interest from black kids - we had a huuuuuuge black guy who played for us, but that was about it at the time! I agree with HigburyGhost about friends dads who like cricket who are black. So possibly that suggests that in your day Cym there may have been more interest from black people but that it simply isn't the same level of interest now. I have to agree i dont think it's a racism issue.
I'm not sure how that would happen. I assume the service you provide is needed. If a local government for example need a road resurfaced and NONE of the companies that tender for the job are engaging in this tomfoolery they will have to select on actual merit (remember, this is the crux of all this and what people are saying we SHOULD be doing) rather than simply leave the road in a state of disrepair forever. You're saying it as if if you don't do these things the service you provide will take second place to simply holding out for something that could never happen.
Back in my day plenty of black people may have watched cricket but very few played it professionaly .
