Should people get a job on ability or because they tick a PC box?
 

I am a big believer that any person regardless of height weight faith colour gender sexual orientation should be given a job because they are the best person for that job. ie They have the necessary skills and abilities to do the said job to a high standard. More businesses and particularly the public sector are giving jobs to under achieving people because they tick one of the aforementioned politically correct boxes and so the said organisation can say look one of our key staff is sky blue pink with yellow dots on and during the week he is called Fred but he prefers Loretta at weekends. A few years ago I had to have my rather battered (rugby nose) remodelled. I was told the guy who did it was the best in the North and yes he was. Now I have a film star nose. He is good at what he does and all the other stuff is irrelevant because he has the requisite skills. I would of thought twice if he was only in post because he ticked a politically correct label.
I once over heard a woman who was going for a promotion talking to her friend. She blatantly said that if she didn't get the promotion she would make a claim for discrimination because she was a single parent!!!! no shame. Recent case the Metropolitan Police Officer from a visible ethnic background who was their poster girl for the 2012 Olympic Games. It turns out the said officer has made persistant claims of racism and discrimination when she has basically failed to get her own way a point that was made by the Judge at her latest tribunal when he threw out her case. Hurrah for common sense. Sadly while companies cower in fear at the power of the PC Brigade the rest of us have to put up with people being given jobs they do not have the skill sets for but do tick some PC box. Thoughts ???

Re: Should people get a job on ability or because they tick a PC box?
 

Should always be best person for the job,Simple as. these days theres too many stupid gets that say otherwise imho.

Re: Should people get a job on ability or because they tick a PC box?
 

Definitely on ability....nothing else.
No ticking of ethnic (or for that matter any other minority whether it be gender, sexual orientation)boxes just to fill quota's.

Re: Should people get a job on ability or because they tick a PC box?
 

I think that would be most peoples view. Sadly like fake accident/illness claims there are always people who will play the system and sadly the system bends over backwards to support them. Sometimes I feel the system would wise up as it puts people who are genuinely being discriminated against in one form or another in the same bag as the low lifes who are just out for what they can get.

Re: Should people get a job on ability or because they tick a PC box?
 

Of course there are people who play the system....and it because the system is flawed.
It is in the attempt to make everyone equal...it will never work.
There has never ever been equality, there never will be equality....and trying to manufacture equality is not the way to do it, because it is counter productive.
There are always going to be those who are cleverer, or who earn more money or who have better privileges.

It creates a simmering resentment in those who are not considered.
A bit like the giving of 25 yr olds £10,000 at the expense of taxing the elderly more to pay for it.

I think it is immoral to select a person for a position because they tick a box that will satisfy a government target unless of course their skills, experience or qualifications make them the best person for the job.

Re: Should people get a job on ability or because they tick a PC box?
 

I have a friend that believes that if we applied for the same job and had the exact same experience and qualification that he would get the job based on the fact that he went to a Christian school (st christophers) and I went to moorhead

Re: Should people get a job on ability or because they tick a PC box?
 

It should always be about ability to do the job...If you have a good personality it's a bonus

Re: Should people get a job on ability or because they tick a PC box?
 

Sometimes the best person for the job isn't the most qualified.
For example, someone that didn't do well at school may well be the best shelf filler a supermarket could ever need, happy that they are employed, content to do the job for life with no wishes to move on. Once trained a reliable employee.
However life and the dole will push a far more qualified person to take that job as a stop gap until they can get a decent interview for a job they are capable of doing. Is this fair? They will no doubt shine at the shelf filler interview and if taken on deprive the 'real shelf filler' from their job of a life time, sometimes just taking any job even if temporary is the wrong thing to do and should not be encouraged.

Re: Should people get a job on ability or because they tick a PC box?
 

Less I can see your logic, but I am not sure if I agree with it.
It is sometimes easier to,get a job when you are in a job....and employers are wary of people who have gaps in their employment history.
Yes, sometime you CAN be over qualified for a job, but that does not mean that you should not be doing it.
It is better to be in a job you are 'overqualified' for than to be selected purely because you tick some minority box, but do not really have the skills that the job requires.

Re: Should people get a job on ability or because they tick a PC box?
 

[QUOTE=Margaret Pilkington;1213548
Yes, sometime you CAN be over qualified for a job, but that does not mean that you should not be doing it.

thats ok in theory but an employee might think you are only applying for the job till something better turns up which could be sooner than later and the application process starts all over again. found the same thing years ago when employing bus drivers and conductors.

Re: Should people get a job on ability or because they tick a PC box?
 

If an employer needs a worker.....and a willing, well qualified worker presents themselves, then why wouldn't they employ them?
Does it really matter that someone has better qualifications than the job asks for?
I guess it depends on how urgent the need for a worker really is.
I know a man who was a manager of a factory....he was made redundant when the factory went down the gurgler.
This man was very well qualified for a managerial post....but he took a job as a street cleaner.
He does the best job of any street cleaner we have had in our local area.
He is good at the job, very conscientious and had the council applied your rules, then we would be without someone to keep our streets clean.

Re: Should people get a job on ability or because they tick a PC box?
 

thats one you know margaret and i imagine there are others too. was sick of people who started one week and left the next because something more in their line popped up and it was not the odd ones either.

Re: Should people get a job on ability or because they tick a PC box?
 

Employers will always want someone who is going to stay, but the truth is they do not do much(and I know this is a huge generalisation here) to retain valuable staff.
Those who do a good job and go the extra mile.
A good employer will ensure that the recruitment process is suitable to detect those who really are not going to be an asset to the company.
I was involved in recruitment and selection during my working life and so I know how valuable a good process is.
There are always going to be those who find that either their circumstances have changed, or the job is not what they thought it would be...but I still think that if there is a job, and you want to be in work, then you should take it...Gaps on a CV make employers think you are workshy.

Re: Should people get a job on ability or because they tick a PC box?
 

If a person WANTS to work and they are willing to take any job , then I admire them for that whether they are over qualified or not. Working and not relying on the state for support gives some people a lot of satisfaction and self worth. In my parents and grand parents era, it was whether or not you were working that was important to them and gave them pride.
Mark

Re: Should people get a job on ability or because they tick a PC box?
 

Working doesn't just put food on the table and pay th bills.
It is an important social action...It means that you polish your interpersonal skills, gain experience of life and gives your self esteem a boost.
No matter how lowly or menial the job...It is worth doing to stay in the job market.

Re: Should people get a job on ability or because they tick a PC box?
 

So push yourself forward no matter how short term you may consider this job and deprive the perfect worker from being employed, isn't this just as bad as falsely pushing forward someone because of colour or creed? Or should an over qualified person be employed because after all they need to be showing their C.V. with no gaps and stuff anyone else. Some jobs are perfect for people with lower abilities, they don't need the extra pressure from having temps keeping them on the dole.

Re: Should people get a job on ability or because they tick a PC box?
 

Maybe, just maybe, an employer should be able to say suitable people need not apply, after all a job that requires qualifications has some quango to push unsuitable people forward to show we are being fair to 'minorities' which means qualified people push themselves forward to take the jobs that aught to go to people that would fit in perfectly.

Re: Should people get a job on ability or because they tick a PC box?
 

Yes, because sometimes what might at first glance looks like a short term job, can turn out to be something that you actually enjoy.(a bit like our street cleaner - he has excellent managerial abilities, took the job as a stop gap hoping something else better would come along.
He now does the job because he likes it. He did not realise how much he would enjoy being outside, meeting with the local residents, and being proud of what he does.)
My feelings are that any job that you can do, then you should do it rather than be out of work.
Another thing is, sometimes when you have been employed in a stressful job, one which requires less thought can be mentally healing.

I can understand your point of view, but I think when it comes down to a job of work, or claiming benefits for NOT working....the job wins every time.

Re: Should people get a job on ability or because they tick a PC box?
 

And that would work....would it?
Employers have a choice....they can employ a candidate or not employ them.(depending on the criteria for the post). Sometimes a candidate may fulfil all the criteria, but not get the job...that is just how it goes.
At interview the questions asked by the interviewer usually fit a format(unless it is a small business employer...these usually go on what they need the employee to be able to do...and whether they will fit in) the format is usually weighted to weed out those who are not suitable.

When you employ someone you always hope that they will fulfil the role well, and that they will stay.
There are many reasons why you may lose an employee....and you have to accept that not all your choices will be good ones.

Re: Should people get a job on ability or because they tick a PC box?
 

It would work just as well as fast tracking someone unsuitable into a position they can't handle because of race/sexual bias 'just to even the playing field' (which it doesn't) or someone over-qualified taking the food/work out of the hands of somebody that deserves the job because not only would they be suitable but would stay and be an asset to the company employing them.
Perlease, if you've worked hard and have proved your qualities you should not be pushed aside by fast tracking AND some one that has been pushed aside should not **** on someone less qualified by taking their job just to keep a C.V. full, real quality will find a way without hardship being forced downward.

Re: Should people get a job on ability or because they tick a PC box?
 

I agree that you should not be pushed aside to fast track someone who fits the tick box criteria of race, gender disability etc.
But in the absence of one of these less qualified presenting themselves for interview(probably because they can get more on benefits....or they would not get out of bed for the low wage) then an employer may choose to take a person who could be seen as over qualified.
It is the employers choice and I do not think that someone should be castigated for taking a lowly job in the absence of something better.
It really depends on how much the employer needs a worker....if the worker is there, ready, willing and able....then why not?
I am not sure that taking on someone who could perhaps do something more challenging, is forcing hardship downwards.
If you do not have a job, then the hardship is yours(regardless of your skills. Skills that are unused/unsuitable do not pay the rent or put food on the table).

Gone are the days of a job for life...unless you are an undertaker that is.