Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Ooo, that would probably *incrase* your changes of being hired - they 
> have to hire a certain percentage of "minority groups" to prove that 
> they are in fact an "equal opportunities employer". (I'm not making this 
> up. Several questions are explicitly marked as being for this purpose.)

  That's one of the curious symptoms of the modern western hypercorrectism:
You have to discriminate in order to be an "equal opportunity" firm. Quite
ironically, "equal opportunity" is the politically correct term for "we
choose some of our employees based on ethnicity and other irrelevant
details" (which, at the same time, is the definition of racism).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   That's one of the curious symptoms of the modern western hypercorrectism:
> You have to discriminate in order to be an "equal opportunity" firm. Quite
> ironically, "equal opportunity" is the politically correct term for "we
> choose some of our employees based on ethnicity and other irrelevant
> details" (which, at the same time, is the definition of racism).

Indeed, to be truly equal opportunity an employer should *totally 
disregard* data such as race or gender.

The faulty thinking appears to be "if you have more employees of type X 
than of type Y then you must be discriminating against people of type 
Y". As opposed to, say,

- "There are fewer people of type Y applying to work for you."
- "There are fewer people of type Y who possess the necessary skills."
- "People of type Y tend not to be interested in your type of work."
- "There are fewer people of type Y living in this area."
...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Indeed, to be truly equal opportunity an employer should *totally 
> disregard* data such as race or gender.

  But that's bad from the PC point of view because then the hired people
would be talented, educated people who have practiced their profession
also as a hobby most of their lives, and people who present all those
qualities usually fall into a rather narrow demographic. Thus if you hire
only the most competent and talented people you are hiring only from a
narrow demographic and thus you are "discriminating".

  If I'm not mistaken, at many parts of the US the situation has gone
almost completely out of hand. So much that, for example, employers are
actually afraid of firing anyone who is not a heterosexual white male,
no matter how incompetent they are and how much damage they are doing
to the company. The rationale is that keeping a few destructive employees
costs the company less money than going through the discrimination
lawsuits.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:487fa85a@news.povray.org...
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > Ooo, that would probably *incrase* your changes of being hired - they
> > have to hire a certain percentage of "minority groups" to prove that
> > they are in fact an "equal opportunities employer". (I'm not making this
> > up. Several questions are explicitly marked as being for this purpose.)
>
>   That's one of the curious symptoms of the modern western
hypercorrectism:
> You have to discriminate in order to be an "equal opportunity" firm. Quite
> ironically, "equal opportunity" is the politically correct term for "we
> choose some of our employees based on ethnicity and other irrelevant
> details" (which, at the same time, is the definition of racism).
>

If you want really messed up, try South Africa.

It is illegal, forbidden by our constitution, to discriminate against anyone
on the basis of skin colour, gender, religion, sexual preference or
nationality.
It is a requirement of the labour law that all companies employing more than
50 people, have an affirmative action employment policy, whereby jobs are
given by preference to 'previously disadvantaged individuals'

Post a reply to this message

On 17-Jul-08 22:09, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> 
>> Are there no simple to answer questions like: 'are you the mascot of 
>> an internet society' or 'are you the subject of a webcomic'?
> 
> LMAO! Damn, if only *those* could be job requirements...
> 
> [Actually, they probably are. But what the hell is the job??]
> 

IT guy in a blood testing factory in MK?

Post a reply to this message

On 17-Jul-08 22:48, Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:487fa85a@news.povray.org...
>> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> Ooo, that would probably *incrase* your changes of being hired - they
>>> have to hire a certain percentage of "minority groups" to prove that
>>> they are in fact an "equal opportunities employer". (I'm not making this
>>> up. Several questions are explicitly marked as being for this purpose.)
>>   That's one of the curious symptoms of the modern western
> hypercorrectism:
>> You have to discriminate in order to be an "equal opportunity" firm. Quite
>> ironically, "equal opportunity" is the politically correct term for "we
>> choose some of our employees based on ethnicity and other irrelevant
>> details" (which, at the same time, is the definition of racism).
>>
> 
> If you want really messed up, try South Africa.
> 
> It is illegal, forbidden by our constitution, to discriminate against anyone
> on the basis of skin colour, gender, religion, sexual preference or
> nationality.
> It is a requirement of the labour law that all companies employing more than
> 50 people, have an affirmative action employment policy, whereby jobs are
> given by preference to 'previously disadvantaged individuals'
> 
If such a policy is in place, it becomes relatively less easy for a 
white guy to find a job. So when it is in place for some time...

Probably does not work that way.

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
> If you want really messed up, try South Africa.

> It is illegal, forbidden by our constitution, to discriminate against anyone
> on the basis of skin colour, gender, religion, sexual preference or
> nationality.
> It is a requirement of the labour law that all companies employing more than
> 50 people, have an affirmative action employment policy, whereby jobs are
> given by preference to 'previously disadvantaged individuals'

  It sounds a bit like the constitution of Finland: A lot of nice words
which mean absolutely nothing in practice.

  (Unlike in the US (if I'm not mistaken), the constitution in Finland is
not an actual law. You can't "break" the constitution. Criminal law has
no concept of "breaking the constitution", and no sentences are ever given
for doing something unconstitutional. Unlike in the US, constitution is not
really something you can plead to (eg. you don't "plead the fifth" or
anything like that here).
  In theory the constitution limits what can be passed as law, but in
practice many laws go against the constitution. OTOH, the constitution
doesn't prohibit that, as its wording is basically "this is allowed unless
prohibited by a law". Of course this is an absolute null statement.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   (Unlike in the US (if I'm not mistaken), the constitution in Finland is
> not an actual law.

Yes. In the US, the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land." After 
that is federal laws, then state constitutions, then state laws. 
(Actually, I'm pretty sure individual federal laws supposedly trump 
state constitutions, but I'm not sure.)

On the other hand, the only way the federal constitution is actually 
used is to invalidate particular other laws. Since most of the 
constitution is stuff along the lines of either "Congress is authorized 
to do X" or "Congress is not authorized to regulate Y", one gets a 
constitutional decision by doing Y, getting arrested for it, then 
arguing that Congress shouldn't be allowed to regulate Y in the first 
place. It's a fairly painful process.

> Unlike in the US, constitution is not
> really something you can plead to (eg. you don't "plead the fifth" or
> anything like that here).

I think that's more TV. What one really says is "I refuse to answer on 
the grounds it may incriminate me."  Now, if the judge makes you answer 
anyway, you then go thru the whole appeal bit again and show how the 
judge did something the constitution said he shouldn't, etc.

>   In theory the constitution limits what can be passed as law, 

There are arguments in the US also that the Constitution shouldn't limit 
what can be passed as a law, as the constitution doesn't actually 
include instructions for how to invalidate laws that were passed in 
spite of the constitution saying they're OK. Personally, I can't imagine 
  how else you'd expect it to work effectively, given that at this point 
our President and his cronies aren't even listening to Congress let 
alone old pieces of paper.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   In theory the constitution limits what can be passed as law, 

> There are arguments in the US also that the Constitution shouldn't limit 
> what can be passed as a law

  The Finnish government has a board of representatives (or something like
that) which job is to ensure that the constitution is upheld when voting
for new laws. Whenever a law touches something which may be seen as
constitutionally dubious, this board is consulted and they give their
official statement about the constitutionality of the law. I don't know
how many laws they have actually stopped from being passed, but I suppose
they might have done so.

  OTOH, many laws have been passed which feel constitutionally extremely
dubious (eg. regarding freedom of speech) which this board has nevertheless
given a thumbs up. Sometimes I seriously doubt the impartiality of the
board.

  But OTOH, as I already said in my previous post, the Finnish constitution
is full of null statements anyways, so while a law might not conform to
the spirit of the constitution it may still conform to its letter.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>   In theory the constitution limits what can be passed as law, 
> 
>> There are arguments in the US also that the Constitution shouldn't limit 
>> what can be passed as a law
> 
>   The Finnish government has a board of representatives (or something like
> that) which job is to ensure that the constitution is upheld when voting
> for new laws. Whenever a law touches something which may be seen as
> constitutionally dubious, this board is consulted and they give their
> official statement about the constitutionality of the law. I don't know
> how many laws they have actually stopped from being passed, but I suppose
> they might have done so.
> 

That is something that would be interesting to see in the US system but, 
since we can't even decide if the constitutional amendments restrict 
just the federal government or the states as well, would run into a lot 
of gray areas.

In effect, that is what the Supreme Court does, but they do not review 
the law until after it has been enforced.

>   OTOH, many laws have been passed which feel constitutionally extremely
> dubious (eg. regarding freedom of speech) which this board has nevertheless
> given a thumbs up. Sometimes I seriously doubt the impartiality of the
> board.
> 

Is there a process to over rule this groups opinion of the law, or is it 
absolute?

>   But OTOH, as I already said in my previous post, the Finnish constitution
> is full of null statements anyways, so while a law might not conform to
> the spirit of the constitution it may still conform to its letter.
>

Post a reply to this message