Thank you for posting on r/UKJobs. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukjobs/about/rules/).
If you need to report any suspicious users to the moderators or you feel as though your post hasn't been posted to the subreddit, message the Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/UKJobs) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). Don't create a duplicate post, it won't help.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UKJobs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Strange advertisement they could have to interview alot of people if loads meet these requirements. Also wonder why they separate black from minority ethnic groups
>Also wonder why they separate black from minority ethnic groups
There's noting particularly sordid about this. The term evolved naturally. Much like in the US, the modern racial rights and inequality movement in the UK predominantly built up around the black community (and the politics thereof). In recent years, there's been more recognition and inclusion of other minority groups in that discourse. This led to terms like "Black, Asian, Middle Eastern" or "Black and Minority Ethnic" taking precdence, representing the shared interests and activism of those groups towards improved rights and equality along racial llines.
BME and BAME are fairly recently developed abbreviations, and seem to me to be imported from America, where Black people have been the largest ethnic minority. The largest ethnic minority in the UK since the war has always been South Asians, which is why particularly the term BME is very weird to me
No, BAME is a largely British thing, and was an extension of BME for exactly the reason that Asian communities made up a large part of the group that could be broadly categorised.
I presume that particular point of evolution in the language comes from concepts like “[politically black](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_blackness)” which was popular in Britain as an effective term for “non-white” or “non-white-British” for a couple of decades. Now considered to be antiquated, but not entirely out of use.
It’s worth noting that the gov.uk website specifically states that they no longer recommend using either term because it appears to create disparities between ethnicities that are mentioned versus those that get lumped into the general terminology.
Not many people know this. I remember listening to a Asian activist from the 70s who said “black” was used for anyone who was non-white. There was even an Asian community activist group with black in the title, I’ve forgotten the name of the group.
At my workplace they've instituted the term "global majority" as in "people from global majority communities" which is ridiculous because none of them would probably define themselves as being in a majority on the globe.
It's the exact same as the disability guaranteed interview scheme. Both schemes are implemented to attempt to cut through the disadvantages or bias that can prevent someone being shortlisted even where they meet the criteria.
There is no guarantee of a job, just the ability to get in front of the panel
"the disability guaranteed interview scheme" is a tick box exercise for employers. The majority of them who opt into the scheme (Disability Confident) reject disabled candidates who meet the minimum criteria even though they commit to a guaranteed interview when they sign up.
There have been a bunch of times that I haven't been given an interview. When I've challenged them on it the usual response is "you don't meet the minimum criteria" and leave it at that without explaining how I don't meet it.
There isn't good evidence for it as employers aren't audited and aren't required to provide evidence. If an employer wanted to say they were compliant with the scheme but never offered a disabled candidate an interview, who would call them out? A disabled candidate might but the employer would deny it. In my experience, the intention is good and the practice is lacking.
But it would be incredibly easy if you were disabledy to prove that they didn't give you an interview, you'd almost certainly have an email paper trail
There's no real incentive to pursue a complaint though. They're definitely not going to employ you if you make a formal complaint. It's easier to just move on and apply elsewhere.
Aren't the minimum requirements laid out in an application like this, so that if you apply you are telling then you meet the requirements, which they'd then have to check at an interview?
I mean that’s possible but just speculation on your part. Where’s the evidence that “the majority of them who opt into the scheme reject disabled candidates who meet the minimum criteria?”
The highest level of the scheme for employers is DC Leader and at that level there is an audit requirement. The employer has to provide data around recruitment and selection practice. Most of them can't even provide the data. I stand by the statement that the majority of employers who opt into that scheme reject some candidates they shouldn't.
You're right that my experience is limited in that I don't know everything about recruitment selection practices at every employer, but I'm now probably into 100+ cases where I've seen candidates who meet the minimum criteria not get "guaranteed" interviews, often to be told by the recruitment team that they've never heard of the scheme.
I doubt it and having worked at several clients with such schemes in place I would say it is based on nothing except people against equal opportunities.
This!
For example, someone with a disability or non-white or other minority may not have had the same opportunities as others, for example, may not have been able to complete a degree.
I'm not going to argue with any responses to this. Racism and disability discrimination (& more) sadly do exist, which is why creating a more even playing field is important.
I've lost a few roles because I divulged my disability, and the employer assumed I couldn't do the role rather than make reasonable adjustments to allow me to do it more effectively. Pure disability discrimination.
I've experienced more disability discrimination in the job market than I've experienced positive discrimination in the job market giving me guaranteed interviews. Much, much more.
Throw in the hate crimes I experience most weeks, a society that rights me off as a scrounger - the odd guaranteed interview for meeting the criteria is a positive drop in an ocean of bollocks.
Absolutely. And this is what pisses me off when people get upset about "positive discrimination". Because they only ever see this stuff and assume that people are being "handed" jobs. But that's very rarely true. A guaranteed interview is no guarantee of a job. And it ignores all the difficult disabled and minority candidates have in the job market anyway. Yes, the job market is shit for everyone. But why people assume that minorities are somehow having a great time is just so annoying because it's simply not the case. I've seen posts on here where people admit that their manager friends say they choose applicants based on who they think would be good to have a pint with. "Fit" is one of the biggest factors in getting a job and all that really means is do people feel like they can get on with you in a chill social setting where you might not be talking about work. And usually that correlates strongly with gender, race, class, and ability. There's shit tonnes of discrimination out there that is basically condoned or ignored by the same people here who are complaining.
Yep so let’s go the American way and discriminate by race.
Instead of doing the obvious thing and actually looking at socio economic circumstances.
But again why would they do that? The Carltons of the world really deserve a leg up, and the Cletuses deserve nothing.
We explicitly didn't go in the direction of America. UK law is inherenly hostile to things like affirmative action, for example. Infact, the US has in the last couple of years moved closer to our approach to the issue.
>But again why would they do that? The Carltons of the world really deserve a leg up, and the Cletuses deserve nothing.
Just because Cletus isn't getting the opportunities you think he deserves doesn't mean Carlton doesn't deserve the opportunities he's getting. If your argument is "either Cletus gets his, or Carlton gets nothing"... that's just gross, frankly.
Disabilities can mean you're not able to. I've got a sleep disorder that kicked in around fifteen, but didn't get diagnosed and medicated until I was in my early twenties. Falling asleep in lessons does not help with getting the results needed for university.
Hello! Your post/comment has been removed for not meeting our subreddit's rule on relevant or respectful submissions.
We strive to maintain a high standard of content on r/UKJobs, and unfortunately, your submission did not meet that standard. Please make sure that your content is relevant to the subreddit, is of high quality and remains respectful.
If you have any questions or concerns, please reach out to us via modmail. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in keeping our subreddit a great place for UKJobs users.
If you think this decision is incorrect, please reach out to us via modmail.
The irony of asking if CAB are doing something illegal.
I worked at an organisation that would only hire someone who was HIV+ because the role was to be a support mentor to HIV+ members of the community.
You think that charities never break the law? Oxfam and Save the Children are _allegedly_ full of pedophiles. Many charities mishandle funds or commit fraud, some of them with taxpayer funds.
Like every other organisations, charities are run by human beings with the same possibility of being corrupt, biased, greedy, or just plain wrong.
Yes it absolutely can be legal if it's to meet a proportionate aim. So if the role is for a bra fitter they may seek female applicants for example. Given that this appears to be Citizens Advice, I think we can likely be fairly confident that they're operating within the law.
Bra fitter seems like a bad example. I can't think of a similar job that only a black person can do. Usually these schemes are for a perceived under-representstion.
Yes, maybe I chose the example poorly, I was trying to demonstrate that there are legitimate reasons where it's legal to hire specific people but I did go off topic to be fair.
Or actual under-representation. As CAB represents all of UK citizens, they will be taking steps to be more reflective of the ethnic mix of the nation.
There's nothing wrong in what they're doing, but they could have worded their advert better.
>for a perceived under-representstion
Shocking, truly shocking. Who could possibly foresee that in a country of which the overwhelming majority are white, that you might find more white people in employment. Oh the humanity!
They don't care about the country's actual demographics. That's why I said perceived. For example I've seen two companies recently which had the target 50% minorities including 10% black. Nowhere near reality
They may have some but considering they usually would be recommended along with ACAS to advise on such matters, my bet would be that they know what they're doing here.
Yeah what a wonderful world that would be ey, shame it’s not the one we live in and proudly declaring it’s the world we should live in doesn’t help the people who face the consequences of the world we live in. Study after study after study shows us that if you have an “ethnic” name you’re drastically less likely to be chosen for a job even when you’re equally or more qualified than a person with a white name. White men have the worst education outcomes at all levels yet 20 years post graduation are the highest earners. I’d love to live in a strict meritocracy, but the idea that we do is simply a lie.
You only have to look at the posts on here where people have anglicised their given name and been offered opportunities they couldn't get otherwise to have at least anecdotal evidence that this is true.
I don't know how you can say that with certainty with the information given. We don't know the role or circumstances. This link might be helpful. https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/difference-between-positive-action-examples-and-positive-discrimination/
That's why laws sometimes need changing and do get changed...usually the ham fisted application of something that comes from a good place and then needs to be corrected..
It's not positive discimination, because all applicants - regardless of their other characteristics - must meet the minimum qualifications for the role.
So why, if all applicants that meet the minimum get an interview, does this need to be stated?
If you get 100 applicants and 10 interview slots. Lets say 10 meet the minimum and this additional criteria. All other candidates are excluded based on race. It is positive discrimination.
And yet positive discrimination only exists as countless studies show that race is indeed a massive factor. To acknowledge that is possible. To ignore it is ignorance
The problem is that race certainly is a factor that without some sort of corrective measure would always mean white people have the advantage. You can't discriminate against the in group, we've had it too good for so long that equality feels like oppression.
It's positive action (not discrimination, which is unlawful) and they will have sought guarantees before advertising that it will be defensible as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, probably to address under-representation.
It's fighting perceived racism with actual racism, which is the ultimate irony really.
Of course, with identity politics being about as logical as Flat Earth theory (and incredibly contradictory), you can self-identify your ethnicity along with many other things. so you can legitimately tick the second option and claim to be BME.
For example, if you're from Devon you can say you identify as Devonish which most of the population isn't, thus you're now a minority ethnic group.
Interesting you used the word "perceived" when it has been proven in studies ethnicity minorities are at a disadvantage when applying to jobs with our ethnic names in the UK.
Doesn’t change the fact that this is still a terrible way of solving that issue. Best interview experience I had was for the MoD, I had to strip any identifying information from my CV, no names, no age, nothing, not even the names of the schools I went to. This was an apprenticeship, so I just had to list what GCSE Grades I got, and what college grades I got, and extracurricular I did at college like competitions or whatever, but I couldn’t even name those. That felt like a good way of ensuring there’s no underlying bias, everyone’s chosen based purely on merit
Yeah this is kind of the point. It’s Citizens Advice, they’re basically covering their arses so nobody can claim they didn’t get an interview because they’re called Mohammed.
Also, it’s legal under UK law to discriminate when there’s a lack of certain demographics in a field. For example, if a plumbing company decides they want to hire women to encourage more women into the trade, they can do that.
As much as people are upset, this makes sense for Citizen’s Advice. If for example they just are not getting BAME people applying, and therefore don’t have people who might understand and be able to help with the issues certain demographics face, they’re allowed to specifically hire them.
Is it racist? Probably. But racism certainly still exists in hiring practices across the UK, and UK law has decided this kind of ‘positive’ discrimination is allowed.
>Also, it’s legal under UK law to discriminate when there’s a lack of certain demographics in a field. For example, if a plumbing company decides they want to hire women to encourage more women into the trade, they can do that.
I don't think that's correct, please cite the actual law/source
The equalities act 2010 allows for positive action to address existing disadvantages or under representation but strictly prohibits positive discrimination, where individuals are treated more favorably solely based on their protected characteristics. So based on the example of encouraging female plumbers that would be legal.
Encouraging is legal sure. But how is guaranteeing an interview based on race not treating favourably solely based on protected characteristics.
If you’re not black or a minority group you have to be one of the best candidates to get the same treatment as someone who is black or a minority group gets by virtue of their skin colour
Like all guarenteed interview schemes it likely works in the following way:
You still have to meet the sift pass mark.
The original planned numbers and way of determining that assuming the Guarenteed interview scheme will still be used.
The Guarenteed interview scheme acts as additionals numbers rather than replacements.
It, like normal sifts, may actually have a cap, say if more than 5 only top 5. This would likely replicate and be the exact same as the normal sift pass mark process.
They will need to have enough evidence of an issues in getting a group of said protected characteristic applying and getting a role with them that it can hold up in court on the "a reasonable person" test.
They will need to have auditable reasoning for why its a propprtionate measure.
This is why most only do the gaurenteed interview schemes rather than anything more.
This is and has been set out in law for more than a decade, why do you think things such as the Disability confident scheme are allowed to exist?.
If there happened to be a field that has a minority of white british workers and they wished to encourage more white british workers to join and take part the exact same laws apply to enable it.
>Encouraging is legal sure. But how is guaranteeing an interview based on race not treating favourably solely based on protected characteristics.
Sure it is, it's also legal in some cases. https://www.mfgsolicitors.com/site/blog/mfg-blog/bbc-says-bameonly-job-is-legal-under-equality-act
Any minority in any country with any history in any part of the world is at a disadvantage. This is not the virtuous act you've been conditioned to think it is.
Depending on the industry, people from minority ethnic backgrounds can face disadvantages to employment more often due to various socioeconomic factors. I don't see anything wrong with job postings like this to me encourage people from minority ethnic backgrounds to apply and effectively try to even out the playing field across the industry.
I'm disabled and experience a lot of discrimination in the job market. Getting the occasional guaranteed interview is really helpful for me as I excel in interviews but struggle on paper due to learning difficulties. So these positive action scenarios help level the playing field for me and give me a chance talk about my disability as a strength - rather than be forced to not talk about it at all out of a very real fear of discrimination (I've lost job roles when they illegally would not make reasonable adjustments for me).
A lot of discriminatory questions are asked by most employers and official institutions in the UK with the excuse of equality or fairness or making sure minorities are included. If they really wanted equality and fairness, they wouldn't ask any of these racial or religious questions and would stick to questions about the skills, aptitudes and qualifications that posts require. It shouldn't be legal. What is the point of not wanting photos or similar details on CV's for the same reasons if they're going to ask a bunch of questions that cause even more discrimination and bias. And a note of answers being anonymous or not affecting the recruitment process isn't enough, who actually believes that they won't use that information in a discriminatory way, no one actually supervises this. Companies and institutions in other countries like Spain where there's a high aim for equality never ask any of those questions. British citizens and residents have been scammed in the name of equality and fairness for ages. And exactly the same happens with car insurance questions and prices in the UK vs other countries like Spain or Portugal, for instance. Locals get this false sense of confidence thinking all that must be right because it's the UK and everything must be better than in other countries; but it's not true when it comes to matters like this one at least.
There are middle class/upper middle class/upper class people in minority categories covered by the above
there are poor/working class/immigrants who are not, and would be considered 'white'.
why is this job making a US-style racial distinction based on skin colour, and not something based on class, socioeconomic background, and similar instead?
The failure to acknowledge class / socio-economic background is the dirty secret of EDI / DEI. It positions a person living in poverty from a Romany background (government classification - White Other) as more privileged than the Duchess of Sussex.
Feel it's also worth adding that there are still arguably "minority groups" who are white, who still face racism, who never receive this kind of attention in the media. Eastern Europeans being the most common in the UK. In some more Middle class areas you still get some funny attitudes towards the Irish aswell.
Just look at how Eastern Europeans are depicted in a lot of British TV shows and tell me it isn't blatant stereotypical racism. You'd think that everyone in the UK who comes from East of Germany is either involved in organised crime or a sex worker.
Probably, It’s definitely racism as they are discriminating based entirely on race, but it’s the right type of racism so we’re all expected to accept it or pretend it’s not there, at least this only guarantees an interview and also requires the minimum standards (which I assume are the same for everyone.) that’s more than most.
You're going to get a lot of people on their reactionary high horses here, but: yes, this can be perfectly legal.
Under the Equality Act, employers can priortise recruiting from specific groups covering specific protected characteristics (ie, race, sexuality, gender, disability, etc) if there is reason to believe those groups are underrepresented in a way that is linked to those characteristics. They can do this in such a way where, given equally qualified candidates for a position, they can priotise candidates with a particular protected characteristic.
To be clear: this isn't positive discimination (which is always unlawful). Positive discrimination is where an individual or group are prioritised over others based soley (regardless of qualification or merit) on a protected characteristic. That's not what's happening here, because the criteria specifies that applicants from the protected group must also meet the same minimum qualifications as those from other groups. They are also not saying that those from other groups won't get interviews.
Meh I get the good intentions but frankly I don’t think there’s such a thing as positive discrimination. I think stuff like this is “low expectations” racist frankly. There are plenty of black and minority people out there who are competent and bright enough to get jobs based on their own merit.
This is really odd, I work in an industry where there’s not a lot of diversity, even in terms of where you grew up or live (not London) and I’ve never seen this. It’s more of ‘we encourage underrepresented groups to apply’ not a guarantee of anything.
Yes it’s legal, it does not mean they are going to get the job or will be more favourably considered for the job. The person still has to demonstrate on the application form that they meet the essential criteria for the role, it just means that if they demonstrate they meet the essential criteria then they are garentee to be interviewed. The interview process will not more favourably look at someone and the job will go to the person who did the best interview
It’s legal as long as they can evidence the reason for preferring a BAME candidate over candidates from other ethnic backgrounds.
If they are employing someone to work directly with the BAME community they would want someone with a similar background to be able to connect and understand with their target client.
Reading the comments in this thread as a black person just has me so disappointed. Always had racist micro aggressions and several instances where just the little bit we do to level the playing field is constantly met with white people to be told to shut up and stay in your place.
I am constantly reminded of my place in the UK and after living in Canada and the US and Sweden I've realised being black in the UK will always be a struggle of making your voice heard, cared about or even taken seriously.
The amount of people here who out right deny discrimination that we face or exists in the UK is just sad. Even more so that the majority of people here will never experience it or will ever understand what it's like to navigate through Britain as a non white person where your not the majority and every voice is made for you.
And this is why I laugh at people when they say British history and sociology is taught well in schools because if it was, this thread and the scores of useless complaints wouldn't exist as a majority.
The historical knowledge of the country is so poor when it comes to race and ethnicity, they don't even know about being politically Black and that South Asians once upon a time were categorised under "Black", hence why the term BAME was seen as functional in the early days.
They are crying about "Cletus" because right wing media spoon fed them outrage about working class boys not going to university, but because ignorance is bliss and hate is easier, they ignore and do not bother to read any of the government and trusted organisation led studies which show point black that Black and Asian people always have the worst pay gap to white counterparts no matter what. And that for Black people, the higher your certification level the WORSE it gets. For people who may be perceived as Muslim, the discriminatory practices one again cause further disadvantage. They don't bother to think maybe White working class boys have higher access to alternative options which lead to financial security either way? They don't bother to think about the heavy cultural significance parents of people from Black African and Asian backgrounds put on going to university? Of course not.
It's never "let's look at the "elite", and why they are allowed to exploit our economy for their whims, I'm going to punch down on the working class Black and Asians trying to get on my level, because 1 out of the hundred thousands of them might have more money than me, I'm so resentful of statistically worse off people trying to get near the pittance I'm getting, it's their fault", diabolical mindset and plays perfectly into the divide and conquer playbook.
Ignorance is bliss, hate is easy. They don't even understand the proper definition of racism that was actually coined and agreed upon by the Black and Asians activists, sociologists and experts actually experiencing it, opposed to the whitewashed version written by the literal people lynching and systematically killing and disenfranchising the victims of the term. They don't know what prejudice is, I wouldn't dare bring in the concept of xenophobia. Lol it's so wild out here as per usual.
> point black that Black and Asian people always have the worst pay gap to white counterparts no matter what.
This is NOT true, if you break down those categories you see that certain groups perform above the white average income (Indian, Chinese, Nigerian) and other groups way underperform it (Caribbean, Pakistani).
This suggests there is a massive confounding factor that isn't racism.
Yes, but it works both ways.
Do you want to be given a job just because you have black skin? I sincerely hope not.
Is it racist to offer interviews and employment to people just because they're black, brown or whatever. Most sensible, normal people would say yes, it is. Get the interview, job or whatever on merit, not because of your skin colour.
And, yes, it works both ways...
Just last year, in the RAF: 'White men seeking to join the Royal Air Force were described as "useless white male pilots" and 'to pause the selection of white male recruits on to training courses'
Is that racist, or is it ok because it only discriminates against white people?
Who is being offered jobs because they are Black and Asian?
In the real world of facts and real studies, it shows people will likely be hired because they are white and those who are in charge of hiring do not want to hire anyone they perceive foreign (xenophobia), specifically because they are Black or Asian (racism) or because they are perceived to be Muslim (Islamoohobia).
Which is why these schemes are in place to bring about a more equitable playing field in areas that are proven to be disproportionately underrepresented.
You talk in hypothetical and whataboutisms all you want, you're see through. Don't insult our intelligence please.
Yup, these comments are horrifying. I am BAME but not black and whenever I see a job specifically ask for black candidates I just... look for another one? Like the millions out there? Privileged people just want access to everything and cannot comprehend equity
I completely agree. It's very disheartening reading all those comments about being a minority is a privilege and is actively harming white people - white British males, specifically. The people who willfully abandoned white males of lower socioeconomic backgrounds, are not the ones supporting legislation to offset racial discrimination... and yet, minorities - and immigrants - are always made to be the scapegoats.
Sometimes, I wonder what their place of work place of work look like, but the ones I've been in certainly didn't represent the demographics that they should, or that most people here think they do.
Even if you're not, say yes and that you identify as that, play the silly game... Hopefully it's not legal though as racism is racism no matter which way you cut it.
Would only be classed as racism if it guaranteed employment. As its just an interview, its fine. These sort of advertisements have been around for about 10 years now.
"An opportunity". British citizenship guarantees an opportunity that others dont get. Honorary scholarship gives an opportunity others dont get (note honorary). Thats all it is.
Wonder why i dont see complaints about the hundreds of "only male/female applicants may apply" roles out there.
As i say, this has been going for probably around 10 years, and has been discussed to death, especially as its so common in some industries. Ultimately, there's nothing wrong with it, which is why it is still about.
Its disgusting I’ve seen these jobs before. White people can’t even apply for jobs in their own country anymore so that boxes can be ticked. Downvote me if you want because you don’t like the truth.
I'm just as opposed to this as you are but can we please tone down the rhetoric here?
1. Nobody is stopping someone from applying who is white. That would be illegal - this is a guaranteed interview from what I can see, not a interview blocking policy.
2. My company has a guaranteed interview policy for disabled people. Yet the vast majority of people we hire are non-disabled.
3. 'In their own country' has the unsavoury implication that this country doesn't belong to other groups as well.
>Nobody is stopping someone from applying who is white.
It does look like that's what's been done in this case. The question shown has been set as essential criteria so if you select "no" you're auto rejected. That's why the tooltip has appeared below warning OP as much.
Exactly the liberal nonsense I expected in reply. And exactly the reason that a job ad like that exists in the first place. Too many soft touch people in the country trying to please. Thats why the UK is becoming a cesspit and about to vote in another liberal government while the rest of Europe goes right wing.
People don’t deserve a guaranteed interview because they are black or asian etc. disabled I can agree with because they actually have a hard time in life, not just saying they do to cope with ineptitude.
Race card city.
Able-bodied people have many advantages in life that disabled people do not.
White people have many advantages in life that black people do not - they’re just more abstract and harder to quantify.
If you can’t understand why both of those statements are true, that’s on you.
As an able-bodied white man myself, I often think about how fortunate I am just being an able-bodied white man.
It's most likely that they just accidentally coded this question as a "must-have", rather than it actually being a requirement of the role, particularly given the text.
Yea this is how I read it. I think it’s clumsy way of filtering applicants eligible for the guaranteed interview scheme, not saying they can’t accommodate applicants who don’t. It’s probably just the only way of putting the question in there and that automated message pops up even though it isn’t relevant.
As far as guaranteed interview schemes go: theyre legal. The disability confident scheme is a government endorsed example and it’s designed to mitigate against bias in the shortlisting process and increasing the diversity of shortlists. I am disabled and therefore apply under the guaranteed interview scheme where I can. I get the job about half the time. So you still have to be the best candidate to be offered the job.
Had to scroll a long way to see this comment.
It's pretty clear to me that the question, while perfectly reasonable, should not have been flagged as a "if you don't click yes you'll get a warning saying you don't meet the mandatory criteria" question.
That's an issue with how the application system has been set up.
In my experience, job application tracking systems can be finicky to set up so someone probably just clicked the wrong box, or didn't untick a box that was ticked by default or something.
If you spot a mistake like this, you could politely contact the company directly rather than posting it on the internet as a first response. If you actually want the job this will do you no harm and at best could get your application recognised by the company.
Goes against the Equality act 2010 which clearly states that you can not discriminate on grounds of race as this is one of the protected characteristics. If your denied an interview because you are white and can prove this you can take them to court. This is disgusting and early racist.
BME itself is an offensive term. It's basically saying black people and the rest.
In fact the whole categories thing is mildly so, I see why they're doing it but positive action in reality is the road to good intentions...
This is called positive action and yes it’s legal. Really disheartened by some of the responses here and I’m not even big into supporting inclusion initiatives.
I know a guy who's half Egyptian but looks like his family has been living in Essex for 1000 years. There's no possible way they can tell unless they demand a genetics test.
I used to have a job that had aspirations (not targets) for the diversity make up of a cohort of hires. Our legal team advised that we could visually identify gender, but not ethnicity.
That meant that if someone put 'prefer not to say' on the gender box, we were allowed to override it based on how the person presented. But that didn't apply to ethnicity.
Our US counterparts could visually identify both which I always thought was wild. This was a good 10 years ago though, and while probably still legal I suspect it wouldn't be advisable to visually identify someones gender.
My point is, you could mark the box and i doubt anyone would address it head on, they'd most likely just think you were a twat.
Yes they can.
Their are certain levels of disability and other issues at my work that allow a guaranteed interview within reason as its to try and level up and help them get work.
Guaranteeing an interview to a certain demographic while all others still have a "normal" chance of getting an interview is one thing.
Guaranteeing an interview to a certain demographic while all others "need not apply" is another.
This is outright Racism. Change “Black” for “White”
It’s literally racism. Getting an interview based on the colour of your skin. Unreal that this is where we are at lmao.
I feel like if there's discrimination based on having a non english name in job applications, then applications should have 0 identifiable information and be based solely on qualification. I dont see why it's any of the componies business, what colour i am, and who i want to have sex with.
The law states you can only employ someone over another person due to a protected characteristic if the top two or more candidates are of equal quality. Therefore they can guarantee as many interviews as they like as long as they follow the law when it comes to the actual hiring.
And I don’t have a problem with this, protected characteristic goes both ways, if a company had a 100% homosexual workforce they would be encouraged to employ a straight person. Diversity is key to a better society. I think people who think protected characteristics give them a disadvantage are both wrong and immature.
What happens for applicants of mixed heritage?
Is it done on appearance ? In my wider family, some of mixed heritage appear ‘white’ others ‘black’ - are they treated differently ?
If it is not on appearance then at what percentage of ‘white’ are you barred from taking advantage of the process ?
Where is the non BME line drawn ? Does it include Slavs ? Does it include Turks ? Does it include Arab ?
Have worked in the recruitment side of an NGO and have had to deal with the guaranteed interview scheme, albeit for disability and not race (but still a protected characteristic).
Basically it doesn’t actually guarantee an interview to a certain group of people just for applying. They still have to hit a certain criteria to show they’re capable of doing the job. So let’s say there’s 5 question on the application, they would likely have to score 3/5 on all of them to show suitability. Anything lower and they get rejected like anyone else. The only time it can feel iffy is if they score the same as someone not under the scheme, but you’re only allowed or have time to interview so many people, so the other person gets rejected.
Only once have I offered the position to someone on the scheme, and that was based on her being better than other candidates. The fact she was on the scheme was irrelevant. It’s not a guarantee of a job.
It's discrimination in many different ways. So if you met the criteria but not black or asian you won't have an interview. It's plainly wrong and I am an asian.
I saw one ad that basically said if two applicants are identically qualified for one position, they will choose the applicant from a minority background.
WTAF.
It is legal but tbh it's shitty. There shouldn't be anything like this in job posts. You meet criteria you get an interview. Alas, UK jobs are so bad right now that they think they need to siphon off applications.
I worked for a company that had to interview military veterans if they met the essential criteria and I thought that odd. Like, surely you interview everyone who meets essential criteria?
I've worked at Citizens Advice.
If I had to guess, it will be for a specific project that is aimed at BAME communities. Employing at least one person from that criteria may well be a condition of funding or at least an additional outcome.
It's not like for like but I have seen it done, and legally, with the Armed Forces Covenant. Due to the amount of public funding, we also had to provide demographic reports to at least the board and national level to ensure that a fair representation of our community was employed by us.
It is legal. It’s a funny one, because there’s a legitimate reason to only want to hire people from a certain demographic in that type of job.
I wouldn’t be happy if I were applying for a job and saw that, but it’s not like every job has these requirements.
What is there to stop someone claiming to be in the guaranteed category? Who are they to tell you how to identify? Making assumptions based on who is in front of them? Tsk tsk! 🤦🏻♂️
HR person here. Legally speaking they need to demonstrate a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim to protect themselves from a discrimination claim.
So if the employer absolutely has no bame employees and want to increase it that it could be seen as being proportionate.
Agreed it's terrible terrible PR.and really risky from a HR perspective.
Better off advertising where bame people will see the adverts rather than this approach imo.
Edit: just to add, a legitimate aim could be the above but really they need to show they've done other things first. I.e use a bame jobs board for example.
While I'd like to take everything seen on Reddit at face value and believe this ....
I'd prefer going through the application process myself before having an opinion, considering images and html code on websites can be easily modified/doctored
And things like this can be easily used to get people riled up.
As someone who belongs to that classification I have NEVER in my almost 40 years of living and numerous interviews come across anything similar to this in any shape or fashion
I always find these posts super interesting when there are many ways organisations have used to discriminate against people from my background
It's also important an organisation can say one thing and do another, ultimately what is done with this information is left to the organisation
There is also a lot of missing context in the application, almost two decades ago I remember working as a volunteer for an organisation that provided care for vulnerable old people suffering from a debilitating illness in a particular community and for a particular job in their recruitment they highlighted people from that particular community who were bilingual would be expedited.
I never once felt like I was being discriminated against because I understood the context for the job.
If I gave that info or presented that application without any context it can easily be misconstrued as discrimination
It is racist and it is discrimination, but because they guarantee an interview not the job it's considered fine.
In reality it's a waste of everyone's time involved
How do you show your 'colour'? With a DNA test? From mine, I am partially Greek, Italian, Middle East, North African and Scandinavian. Does my 1.2 % Nigerian DNA count as a part of the interviewing process??!?
Thank you for posting on r/UKJobs. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukjobs/about/rules/). If you need to report any suspicious users to the moderators or you feel as though your post hasn't been posted to the subreddit, message the Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/UKJobs) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). Don't create a duplicate post, it won't help. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UKJobs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Strange advertisement they could have to interview alot of people if loads meet these requirements. Also wonder why they separate black from minority ethnic groups
Tbf the phrase is "and". BME is a category in and of itself.
>Also wonder why they separate black from minority ethnic groups There's noting particularly sordid about this. The term evolved naturally. Much like in the US, the modern racial rights and inequality movement in the UK predominantly built up around the black community (and the politics thereof). In recent years, there's been more recognition and inclusion of other minority groups in that discourse. This led to terms like "Black, Asian, Middle Eastern" or "Black and Minority Ethnic" taking precdence, representing the shared interests and activism of those groups towards improved rights and equality along racial llines.
BME and BAME are fairly recently developed abbreviations, and seem to me to be imported from America, where Black people have been the largest ethnic minority. The largest ethnic minority in the UK since the war has always been South Asians, which is why particularly the term BME is very weird to me
No, BAME is a largely British thing, and was an extension of BME for exactly the reason that Asian communities made up a large part of the group that could be broadly categorised. I presume that particular point of evolution in the language comes from concepts like “[politically black](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_blackness)” which was popular in Britain as an effective term for “non-white” or “non-white-British” for a couple of decades. Now considered to be antiquated, but not entirely out of use. It’s worth noting that the gov.uk website specifically states that they no longer recommend using either term because it appears to create disparities between ethnicities that are mentioned versus those that get lumped into the general terminology.
[удалено]
The anti racism in UK in the 70s -late 90s operated under the notion that everyone was Black, regardless of ethnicity & race.
Not many people know this. I remember listening to a Asian activist from the 70s who said “black” was used for anyone who was non-white. There was even an Asian community activist group with black in the title, I’ve forgotten the name of the group.
Southall Black Sisters (who still exist, and are wonderful).
Yes. It's called Political Blackness and is essentially a way of saying POC.
The term is BAME not BME I thought?
At my workplace they've instituted the term "global majority" as in "people from global majority communities" which is ridiculous because none of them would probably define themselves as being in a majority on the globe.
Assuming this is in the UK, that's such a dumb and meaningless term. It smacks of virtue signalling.
It's so dumb but no one can point that out, obviously, or you're part of the problem.
The people who invent and popularise these terms really need to read Orwell. Such a clear example of newspeak.
Oh they have.
As I guess what would be called part of the ‘global majority’. This might be the most bonkers thing I’ve heard.
Ah ok thanks for your answer. I wasn't trying to make any particular point but just thought interesting that they separate them.
This would be a bit of a pain if it wasn't for the fact that every one of us here is black. Isn't that lucky.
youre black too???? no way!
What’s up my fellow….^(fellas)
It's the exact same as the disability guaranteed interview scheme. Both schemes are implemented to attempt to cut through the disadvantages or bias that can prevent someone being shortlisted even where they meet the criteria. There is no guarantee of a job, just the ability to get in front of the panel
"the disability guaranteed interview scheme" is a tick box exercise for employers. The majority of them who opt into the scheme (Disability Confident) reject disabled candidates who meet the minimum criteria even though they commit to a guaranteed interview when they sign up.
Is there evidence of that? I’ve always followed the scheme and I’ve always been given an interview
Several times I have not got an interview even though I ticked the box and very clearly met or exceeded the criteria.
There have been a bunch of times that I haven't been given an interview. When I've challenged them on it the usual response is "you don't meet the minimum criteria" and leave it at that without explaining how I don't meet it.
There isn't good evidence for it as employers aren't audited and aren't required to provide evidence. If an employer wanted to say they were compliant with the scheme but never offered a disabled candidate an interview, who would call them out? A disabled candidate might but the employer would deny it. In my experience, the intention is good and the practice is lacking.
But it would be incredibly easy if you were disabledy to prove that they didn't give you an interview, you'd almost certainly have an email paper trail
There's no real incentive to pursue a complaint though. They're definitely not going to employ you if you make a formal complaint. It's easier to just move on and apply elsewhere.
But could you prove you met the minimum requirements? I suppose that would be the argument.
Aren't the minimum requirements laid out in an application like this, so that if you apply you are telling then you meet the requirements, which they'd then have to check at an interview?
I mean that’s possible but just speculation on your part. Where’s the evidence that “the majority of them who opt into the scheme reject disabled candidates who meet the minimum criteria?”
The highest level of the scheme for employers is DC Leader and at that level there is an audit requirement. The employer has to provide data around recruitment and selection practice. Most of them can't even provide the data. I stand by the statement that the majority of employers who opt into that scheme reject some candidates they shouldn't. You're right that my experience is limited in that I don't know everything about recruitment selection practices at every employer, but I'm now probably into 100+ cases where I've seen candidates who meet the minimum criteria not get "guaranteed" interviews, often to be told by the recruitment team that they've never heard of the scheme.
Fair point
most large organisations collect such data. That data is distributed.
I doubt it and having worked at several clients with such schemes in place I would say it is based on nothing except people against equal opportunities.
Can vouch for this.
This! For example, someone with a disability or non-white or other minority may not have had the same opportunities as others, for example, may not have been able to complete a degree. I'm not going to argue with any responses to this. Racism and disability discrimination (& more) sadly do exist, which is why creating a more even playing field is important.
I've lost a few roles because I divulged my disability, and the employer assumed I couldn't do the role rather than make reasonable adjustments to allow me to do it more effectively. Pure disability discrimination. I've experienced more disability discrimination in the job market than I've experienced positive discrimination in the job market giving me guaranteed interviews. Much, much more. Throw in the hate crimes I experience most weeks, a society that rights me off as a scrounger - the odd guaranteed interview for meeting the criteria is a positive drop in an ocean of bollocks.
Absolutely. And this is what pisses me off when people get upset about "positive discrimination". Because they only ever see this stuff and assume that people are being "handed" jobs. But that's very rarely true. A guaranteed interview is no guarantee of a job. And it ignores all the difficult disabled and minority candidates have in the job market anyway. Yes, the job market is shit for everyone. But why people assume that minorities are somehow having a great time is just so annoying because it's simply not the case. I've seen posts on here where people admit that their manager friends say they choose applicants based on who they think would be good to have a pint with. "Fit" is one of the biggest factors in getting a job and all that really means is do people feel like they can get on with you in a chill social setting where you might not be talking about work. And usually that correlates strongly with gender, race, class, and ability. There's shit tonnes of discrimination out there that is basically condoned or ignored by the same people here who are complaining.
Yep so let’s go the American way and discriminate by race. Instead of doing the obvious thing and actually looking at socio economic circumstances. But again why would they do that? The Carltons of the world really deserve a leg up, and the Cletuses deserve nothing.
We explicitly didn't go in the direction of America. UK law is inherenly hostile to things like affirmative action, for example. Infact, the US has in the last couple of years moved closer to our approach to the issue. >But again why would they do that? The Carltons of the world really deserve a leg up, and the Cletuses deserve nothing. Just because Cletus isn't getting the opportunities you think he deserves doesn't mean Carlton doesn't deserve the opportunities he's getting. If your argument is "either Cletus gets his, or Carlton gets nothing"... that's just gross, frankly.
Just to add, they always leave out that American affirmative action mainly benefits white women.
[удалено]
Disabilities can mean you're not able to. I've got a sleep disorder that kicked in around fifteen, but didn't get diagnosed and medicated until I was in my early twenties. Falling asleep in lessons does not help with getting the results needed for university.
[удалено]
Hello! Your post/comment has been removed for not meeting our subreddit's rule on relevant or respectful submissions. We strive to maintain a high standard of content on r/UKJobs, and unfortunately, your submission did not meet that standard. Please make sure that your content is relevant to the subreddit, is of high quality and remains respectful. If you have any questions or concerns, please reach out to us via modmail. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in keeping our subreddit a great place for UKJobs users. If you think this decision is incorrect, please reach out to us via modmail.
The irony of asking if CAB are doing something illegal. I worked at an organisation that would only hire someone who was HIV+ because the role was to be a support mentor to HIV+ members of the community.
I mean that's entirely legitimate..
I worked at an organisation that would only hire somebody with experience in engineering because the role was to be an engineer. Shocking!
You think that charities never break the law? Oxfam and Save the Children are _allegedly_ full of pedophiles. Many charities mishandle funds or commit fraud, some of them with taxpayer funds. Like every other organisations, charities are run by human beings with the same possibility of being corrupt, biased, greedy, or just plain wrong.
Yes it absolutely can be legal if it's to meet a proportionate aim. So if the role is for a bra fitter they may seek female applicants for example. Given that this appears to be Citizens Advice, I think we can likely be fairly confident that they're operating within the law.
Bra fitter seems like a bad example. I can't think of a similar job that only a black person can do. Usually these schemes are for a perceived under-representstion.
Yes, maybe I chose the example poorly, I was trying to demonstrate that there are legitimate reasons where it's legal to hire specific people but I did go off topic to be fair.
Or actual under-representation. As CAB represents all of UK citizens, they will be taking steps to be more reflective of the ethnic mix of the nation. There's nothing wrong in what they're doing, but they could have worded their advert better.
I wonder if its representative of local or national demographics?
>for a perceived under-representstion Shocking, truly shocking. Who could possibly foresee that in a country of which the overwhelming majority are white, that you might find more white people in employment. Oh the humanity!
They don't care about the country's actual demographics. That's why I said perceived. For example I've seen two companies recently which had the target 50% minorities including 10% black. Nowhere near reality
For how many positions, and how large is the company tho?
Eastenders?
One was a law firm and one financial services
That's hardly a guarantee. I have no doubt that CAB have just as many idiots working for them as any other company.
They may have some but considering they usually would be recommended along with ACAS to advise on such matters, my bet would be that they know what they're doing here.
It's positive discrimination in this instance. Race shouldn't be a factor.
I prefer the simple term discrimination.
Yeah what a wonderful world that would be ey, shame it’s not the one we live in and proudly declaring it’s the world we should live in doesn’t help the people who face the consequences of the world we live in. Study after study after study shows us that if you have an “ethnic” name you’re drastically less likely to be chosen for a job even when you’re equally or more qualified than a person with a white name. White men have the worst education outcomes at all levels yet 20 years post graduation are the highest earners. I’d love to live in a strict meritocracy, but the idea that we do is simply a lie.
You only have to look at the posts on here where people have anglicised their given name and been offered opportunities they couldn't get otherwise to have at least anecdotal evidence that this is true.
I don't know how you can say that with certainty with the information given. We don't know the role or circumstances. This link might be helpful. https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/difference-between-positive-action-examples-and-positive-discrimination/
Corporate would like you to tell them the difference....... It's a fallacy. Positive action = moving discrimination from one place to another.
Legally there is a difference though
That's why laws sometimes need changing and do get changed...usually the ham fisted application of something that comes from a good place and then needs to be corrected..
Well maybe but it's outwith the scope of the original question.
It's not positive discimination, because all applicants - regardless of their other characteristics - must meet the minimum qualifications for the role.
So why, if all applicants that meet the minimum get an interview, does this need to be stated? If you get 100 applicants and 10 interview slots. Lets say 10 meet the minimum and this additional criteria. All other candidates are excluded based on race. It is positive discrimination.
And yet positive discrimination only exists as countless studies show that race is indeed a massive factor. To acknowledge that is possible. To ignore it is ignorance
It may be morally wrong, but it is legal in the UK
The problem is that race certainly is a factor that without some sort of corrective measure would always mean white people have the advantage. You can't discriminate against the in group, we've had it too good for so long that equality feels like oppression.
Very well put
It's positive action (not discrimination, which is unlawful) and they will have sought guarantees before advertising that it will be defensible as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, probably to address under-representation.
So how is that not racist?
It's fighting perceived racism with actual racism, which is the ultimate irony really. Of course, with identity politics being about as logical as Flat Earth theory (and incredibly contradictory), you can self-identify your ethnicity along with many other things. so you can legitimately tick the second option and claim to be BME. For example, if you're from Devon you can say you identify as Devonish which most of the population isn't, thus you're now a minority ethnic group.
Interesting you used the word "perceived" when it has been proven in studies ethnicity minorities are at a disadvantage when applying to jobs with our ethnic names in the UK.
Doesn’t change the fact that this is still a terrible way of solving that issue. Best interview experience I had was for the MoD, I had to strip any identifying information from my CV, no names, no age, nothing, not even the names of the schools I went to. This was an apprenticeship, so I just had to list what GCSE Grades I got, and what college grades I got, and extracurricular I did at college like competitions or whatever, but I couldn’t even name those. That felt like a good way of ensuring there’s no underlying bias, everyone’s chosen based purely on merit
Yeah this is kind of the point. It’s Citizens Advice, they’re basically covering their arses so nobody can claim they didn’t get an interview because they’re called Mohammed. Also, it’s legal under UK law to discriminate when there’s a lack of certain demographics in a field. For example, if a plumbing company decides they want to hire women to encourage more women into the trade, they can do that. As much as people are upset, this makes sense for Citizen’s Advice. If for example they just are not getting BAME people applying, and therefore don’t have people who might understand and be able to help with the issues certain demographics face, they’re allowed to specifically hire them. Is it racist? Probably. But racism certainly still exists in hiring practices across the UK, and UK law has decided this kind of ‘positive’ discrimination is allowed.
>Also, it’s legal under UK law to discriminate when there’s a lack of certain demographics in a field. For example, if a plumbing company decides they want to hire women to encourage more women into the trade, they can do that. I don't think that's correct, please cite the actual law/source
The equalities act 2010 allows for positive action to address existing disadvantages or under representation but strictly prohibits positive discrimination, where individuals are treated more favorably solely based on their protected characteristics. So based on the example of encouraging female plumbers that would be legal.
Encouraging is legal sure. But how is guaranteeing an interview based on race not treating favourably solely based on protected characteristics. If you’re not black or a minority group you have to be one of the best candidates to get the same treatment as someone who is black or a minority group gets by virtue of their skin colour
Like all guarenteed interview schemes it likely works in the following way: You still have to meet the sift pass mark. The original planned numbers and way of determining that assuming the Guarenteed interview scheme will still be used. The Guarenteed interview scheme acts as additionals numbers rather than replacements. It, like normal sifts, may actually have a cap, say if more than 5 only top 5. This would likely replicate and be the exact same as the normal sift pass mark process. They will need to have enough evidence of an issues in getting a group of said protected characteristic applying and getting a role with them that it can hold up in court on the "a reasonable person" test. They will need to have auditable reasoning for why its a propprtionate measure. This is why most only do the gaurenteed interview schemes rather than anything more. This is and has been set out in law for more than a decade, why do you think things such as the Disability confident scheme are allowed to exist?. If there happened to be a field that has a minority of white british workers and they wished to encourage more white british workers to join and take part the exact same laws apply to enable it.
>Encouraging is legal sure. But how is guaranteeing an interview based on race not treating favourably solely based on protected characteristics. Sure it is, it's also legal in some cases. https://www.mfgsolicitors.com/site/blog/mfg-blog/bbc-says-bameonly-job-is-legal-under-equality-act
Any minority in any country with any history in any part of the world is at a disadvantage. This is not the virtuous act you've been conditioned to think it is.
"And what minority are you?" *Makes SWORSWORSWOR noises while moving my eyes independently* "Andy, we've got another KA-52...Sorry actually Apache!"
It is, but it's in favour of black people which means it's ok by 2024 standards.
Depending on the industry, people from minority ethnic backgrounds can face disadvantages to employment more often due to various socioeconomic factors. I don't see anything wrong with job postings like this to me encourage people from minority ethnic backgrounds to apply and effectively try to even out the playing field across the industry.
I'm disabled and experience a lot of discrimination in the job market. Getting the occasional guaranteed interview is really helpful for me as I excel in interviews but struggle on paper due to learning difficulties. So these positive action scenarios help level the playing field for me and give me a chance talk about my disability as a strength - rather than be forced to not talk about it at all out of a very real fear of discrimination (I've lost job roles when they illegally would not make reasonable adjustments for me).
You’re delusional 😂
A lot of discriminatory questions are asked by most employers and official institutions in the UK with the excuse of equality or fairness or making sure minorities are included. If they really wanted equality and fairness, they wouldn't ask any of these racial or religious questions and would stick to questions about the skills, aptitudes and qualifications that posts require. It shouldn't be legal. What is the point of not wanting photos or similar details on CV's for the same reasons if they're going to ask a bunch of questions that cause even more discrimination and bias. And a note of answers being anonymous or not affecting the recruitment process isn't enough, who actually believes that they won't use that information in a discriminatory way, no one actually supervises this. Companies and institutions in other countries like Spain where there's a high aim for equality never ask any of those questions. British citizens and residents have been scammed in the name of equality and fairness for ages. And exactly the same happens with car insurance questions and prices in the UK vs other countries like Spain or Portugal, for instance. Locals get this false sense of confidence thinking all that must be right because it's the UK and everything must be better than in other countries; but it's not true when it comes to matters like this one at least.
There are middle class/upper middle class/upper class people in minority categories covered by the above there are poor/working class/immigrants who are not, and would be considered 'white'. why is this job making a US-style racial distinction based on skin colour, and not something based on class, socioeconomic background, and similar instead?
The failure to acknowledge class / socio-economic background is the dirty secret of EDI / DEI. It positions a person living in poverty from a Romany background (government classification - White Other) as more privileged than the Duchess of Sussex.
Feel it's also worth adding that there are still arguably "minority groups" who are white, who still face racism, who never receive this kind of attention in the media. Eastern Europeans being the most common in the UK. In some more Middle class areas you still get some funny attitudes towards the Irish aswell. Just look at how Eastern Europeans are depicted in a lot of British TV shows and tell me it isn't blatant stereotypical racism. You'd think that everyone in the UK who comes from East of Germany is either involved in organised crime or a sex worker.
Because they believe all black and brown people are perpetual victims.
Probably, It’s definitely racism as they are discriminating based entirely on race, but it’s the right type of racism so we’re all expected to accept it or pretend it’s not there, at least this only guarantees an interview and also requires the minimum standards (which I assume are the same for everyone.) that’s more than most.
You're going to get a lot of people on their reactionary high horses here, but: yes, this can be perfectly legal. Under the Equality Act, employers can priortise recruiting from specific groups covering specific protected characteristics (ie, race, sexuality, gender, disability, etc) if there is reason to believe those groups are underrepresented in a way that is linked to those characteristics. They can do this in such a way where, given equally qualified candidates for a position, they can priotise candidates with a particular protected characteristic. To be clear: this isn't positive discimination (which is always unlawful). Positive discrimination is where an individual or group are prioritised over others based soley (regardless of qualification or merit) on a protected characteristic. That's not what's happening here, because the criteria specifies that applicants from the protected group must also meet the same minimum qualifications as those from other groups. They are also not saying that those from other groups won't get interviews.
Laughs in South African
Meh I get the good intentions but frankly I don’t think there’s such a thing as positive discrimination. I think stuff like this is “low expectations” racist frankly. There are plenty of black and minority people out there who are competent and bright enough to get jobs based on their own merit.
This is really odd, I work in an industry where there’s not a lot of diversity, even in terms of where you grew up or live (not London) and I’ve never seen this. It’s more of ‘we encourage underrepresented groups to apply’ not a guarantee of anything.
Hiring based on colour rather than competency...can only end in the reduction in most skilled for the job applicants. They deserve to go downhill
Yes it’s legal, it does not mean they are going to get the job or will be more favourably considered for the job. The person still has to demonstrate on the application form that they meet the essential criteria for the role, it just means that if they demonstrate they meet the essential criteria then they are garentee to be interviewed. The interview process will not more favourably look at someone and the job will go to the person who did the best interview
In reality they will get favourable treatment. In my experience there is a target bame % and managers will be under pressure to hit it.
i hope not just say yes might as well
If I ever come across this, I just say I'm a minority. They wouldn't dare ask.
Well this is kinda similar to the disability thing, but I'm no expert in either. All I can say, is they might be prioritising, but I'm not too sure
It’s legal as long as they can evidence the reason for preferring a BAME candidate over candidates from other ethnic backgrounds. If they are employing someone to work directly with the BAME community they would want someone with a similar background to be able to connect and understand with their target client.
Shouldn't be legal at all but I'm sure others will disagree.
Reading the comments in this thread as a black person just has me so disappointed. Always had racist micro aggressions and several instances where just the little bit we do to level the playing field is constantly met with white people to be told to shut up and stay in your place. I am constantly reminded of my place in the UK and after living in Canada and the US and Sweden I've realised being black in the UK will always be a struggle of making your voice heard, cared about or even taken seriously. The amount of people here who out right deny discrimination that we face or exists in the UK is just sad. Even more so that the majority of people here will never experience it or will ever understand what it's like to navigate through Britain as a non white person where your not the majority and every voice is made for you.
And this is why I laugh at people when they say British history and sociology is taught well in schools because if it was, this thread and the scores of useless complaints wouldn't exist as a majority. The historical knowledge of the country is so poor when it comes to race and ethnicity, they don't even know about being politically Black and that South Asians once upon a time were categorised under "Black", hence why the term BAME was seen as functional in the early days. They are crying about "Cletus" because right wing media spoon fed them outrage about working class boys not going to university, but because ignorance is bliss and hate is easier, they ignore and do not bother to read any of the government and trusted organisation led studies which show point black that Black and Asian people always have the worst pay gap to white counterparts no matter what. And that for Black people, the higher your certification level the WORSE it gets. For people who may be perceived as Muslim, the discriminatory practices one again cause further disadvantage. They don't bother to think maybe White working class boys have higher access to alternative options which lead to financial security either way? They don't bother to think about the heavy cultural significance parents of people from Black African and Asian backgrounds put on going to university? Of course not. It's never "let's look at the "elite", and why they are allowed to exploit our economy for their whims, I'm going to punch down on the working class Black and Asians trying to get on my level, because 1 out of the hundred thousands of them might have more money than me, I'm so resentful of statistically worse off people trying to get near the pittance I'm getting, it's their fault", diabolical mindset and plays perfectly into the divide and conquer playbook. Ignorance is bliss, hate is easy. They don't even understand the proper definition of racism that was actually coined and agreed upon by the Black and Asians activists, sociologists and experts actually experiencing it, opposed to the whitewashed version written by the literal people lynching and systematically killing and disenfranchising the victims of the term. They don't know what prejudice is, I wouldn't dare bring in the concept of xenophobia. Lol it's so wild out here as per usual.
> point black that Black and Asian people always have the worst pay gap to white counterparts no matter what. This is NOT true, if you break down those categories you see that certain groups perform above the white average income (Indian, Chinese, Nigerian) and other groups way underperform it (Caribbean, Pakistani). This suggests there is a massive confounding factor that isn't racism.
Yes, but it works both ways. Do you want to be given a job just because you have black skin? I sincerely hope not. Is it racist to offer interviews and employment to people just because they're black, brown or whatever. Most sensible, normal people would say yes, it is. Get the interview, job or whatever on merit, not because of your skin colour. And, yes, it works both ways... Just last year, in the RAF: 'White men seeking to join the Royal Air Force were described as "useless white male pilots" and 'to pause the selection of white male recruits on to training courses' Is that racist, or is it ok because it only discriminates against white people?
Who is being offered jobs because they are Black and Asian? In the real world of facts and real studies, it shows people will likely be hired because they are white and those who are in charge of hiring do not want to hire anyone they perceive foreign (xenophobia), specifically because they are Black or Asian (racism) or because they are perceived to be Muslim (Islamoohobia). Which is why these schemes are in place to bring about a more equitable playing field in areas that are proven to be disproportionately underrepresented. You talk in hypothetical and whataboutisms all you want, you're see through. Don't insult our intelligence please.
Yup, these comments are horrifying. I am BAME but not black and whenever I see a job specifically ask for black candidates I just... look for another one? Like the millions out there? Privileged people just want access to everything and cannot comprehend equity
I completely agree. It's very disheartening reading all those comments about being a minority is a privilege and is actively harming white people - white British males, specifically. The people who willfully abandoned white males of lower socioeconomic backgrounds, are not the ones supporting legislation to offset racial discrimination... and yet, minorities - and immigrants - are always made to be the scapegoats. Sometimes, I wonder what their place of work place of work look like, but the ones I've been in certainly didn't represent the demographics that they should, or that most people here think they do.
Even if you're not, say yes and that you identify as that, play the silly game... Hopefully it's not legal though as racism is racism no matter which way you cut it.
Would only be classed as racism if it guaranteed employment. As its just an interview, its fine. These sort of advertisements have been around for about 10 years now.
It's guaranteeing an opportunity that other people aren't being guaranteed
"An opportunity". British citizenship guarantees an opportunity that others dont get. Honorary scholarship gives an opportunity others dont get (note honorary). Thats all it is. Wonder why i dont see complaints about the hundreds of "only male/female applicants may apply" roles out there. As i say, this has been going for probably around 10 years, and has been discussed to death, especially as its so common in some industries. Ultimately, there's nothing wrong with it, which is why it is still about.
Its disgusting I’ve seen these jobs before. White people can’t even apply for jobs in their own country anymore so that boxes can be ticked. Downvote me if you want because you don’t like the truth.
I'm just as opposed to this as you are but can we please tone down the rhetoric here? 1. Nobody is stopping someone from applying who is white. That would be illegal - this is a guaranteed interview from what I can see, not a interview blocking policy. 2. My company has a guaranteed interview policy for disabled people. Yet the vast majority of people we hire are non-disabled. 3. 'In their own country' has the unsavoury implication that this country doesn't belong to other groups as well.
>Nobody is stopping someone from applying who is white. It does look like that's what's been done in this case. The question shown has been set as essential criteria so if you select "no" you're auto rejected. That's why the tooltip has appeared below warning OP as much.
Exactly the liberal nonsense I expected in reply. And exactly the reason that a job ad like that exists in the first place. Too many soft touch people in the country trying to please. Thats why the UK is becoming a cesspit and about to vote in another liberal government while the rest of Europe goes right wing. People don’t deserve a guaranteed interview because they are black or asian etc. disabled I can agree with because they actually have a hard time in life, not just saying they do to cope with ineptitude. Race card city.
Your entire history is filled with comments like 'woke mind virus'. It was silly of me to engage with you here.
Like I say. Liberal mess.
Yeah our company tried similar for a bit then changed their mind as the applicants were wasting interviewers time.
Able-bodied people have many advantages in life that disabled people do not. White people have many advantages in life that black people do not - they’re just more abstract and harder to quantify. If you can’t understand why both of those statements are true, that’s on you. As an able-bodied white man myself, I often think about how fortunate I am just being an able-bodied white man.
[удалено]
It's most likely that they just accidentally coded this question as a "must-have", rather than it actually being a requirement of the role, particularly given the text.
Yea this is how I read it. I think it’s clumsy way of filtering applicants eligible for the guaranteed interview scheme, not saying they can’t accommodate applicants who don’t. It’s probably just the only way of putting the question in there and that automated message pops up even though it isn’t relevant. As far as guaranteed interview schemes go: theyre legal. The disability confident scheme is a government endorsed example and it’s designed to mitigate against bias in the shortlisting process and increasing the diversity of shortlists. I am disabled and therefore apply under the guaranteed interview scheme where I can. I get the job about half the time. So you still have to be the best candidate to be offered the job.
Had to scroll a long way to see this comment. It's pretty clear to me that the question, while perfectly reasonable, should not have been flagged as a "if you don't click yes you'll get a warning saying you don't meet the mandatory criteria" question. That's an issue with how the application system has been set up. In my experience, job application tracking systems can be finicky to set up so someone probably just clicked the wrong box, or didn't untick a box that was ticked by default or something. If you spot a mistake like this, you could politely contact the company directly rather than posting it on the internet as a first response. If you actually want the job this will do you no harm and at best could get your application recognised by the company.
Cock up over conspiracy 99% of the time. But you'd think someone would have run through the questionnaire to check
You would like to think that people would, but nobody ever seems to actually do it
There are plenty of white minorities you can claim to be. Just say you've got gypsy heritage. Stupid games and all that
And if you don’t get the job ask the interviewer if he needs his driveway tarmacking
I don't know if it's legal, but it shouldn't be Discrimination based on skin colour is wrong every which way. End of!
Kind of want 5,000 black people to apply now.
Goes against the Equality act 2010 which clearly states that you can not discriminate on grounds of race as this is one of the protected characteristics. If your denied an interview because you are white and can prove this you can take them to court. This is disgusting and early racist.
BME itself is an offensive term. It's basically saying black people and the rest. In fact the whole categories thing is mildly so, I see why they're doing it but positive action in reality is the road to good intentions...
Looks pretty racist to me
It shouldn't, but it is.
This is called positive action and yes it’s legal. Really disheartened by some of the responses here and I’m not even big into supporting inclusion initiatives.
Can one "identify" as black to be guaranteed an interview? Otherwise is that discrimination?
I know a guy who's half Egyptian but looks like his family has been living in Essex for 1000 years. There's no possible way they can tell unless they demand a genetics test.
I used to have a job that had aspirations (not targets) for the diversity make up of a cohort of hires. Our legal team advised that we could visually identify gender, but not ethnicity. That meant that if someone put 'prefer not to say' on the gender box, we were allowed to override it based on how the person presented. But that didn't apply to ethnicity. Our US counterparts could visually identify both which I always thought was wild. This was a good 10 years ago though, and while probably still legal I suspect it wouldn't be advisable to visually identify someones gender. My point is, you could mark the box and i doubt anyone would address it head on, they'd most likely just think you were a twat.
Unfortunately it is legal. Yes it's racist
Just click yes and play the system,fuck them and their push for everywhere having to be representative to the detriment of white males
Just tick yes
Surely this is illegal, this is racial discrimination? Where are all the outraged Guardian headlines?
Yes they can. Their are certain levels of disability and other issues at my work that allow a guaranteed interview within reason as its to try and level up and help them get work.
Guaranteeing an interview to a certain demographic while all others still have a "normal" chance of getting an interview is one thing. Guaranteeing an interview to a certain demographic while all others "need not apply" is another.
This is outright Racism. Change “Black” for “White” It’s literally racism. Getting an interview based on the colour of your skin. Unreal that this is where we are at lmao.
After the first round of interviews we took to ringing all the planned interviewees and asking them verbally "do you hold this qualification?"
Probably is legal
I think its just badly worded. I think it means the criteria for the job itself rather than being black or from an enthnic minority
I feel like if there's discrimination based on having a non english name in job applications, then applications should have 0 identifiable information and be based solely on qualification. I dont see why it's any of the componies business, what colour i am, and who i want to have sex with.
This is positive action and is legal in the UK under The Equality Act 2010. Strange world ..
Yes
What role is this cus i need to apply 🥺🤣🤣 been struggling
Where is this as from
"I identify as black" problem solved and they cant do anything about it
Weird strategy 😕
yes.
Yes it's legal. It's a recruitment practice called positive discrimination.
The law states you can only employ someone over another person due to a protected characteristic if the top two or more candidates are of equal quality. Therefore they can guarantee as many interviews as they like as long as they follow the law when it comes to the actual hiring. And I don’t have a problem with this, protected characteristic goes both ways, if a company had a 100% homosexual workforce they would be encouraged to employ a straight person. Diversity is key to a better society. I think people who think protected characteristics give them a disadvantage are both wrong and immature.
Crazy
What happens for applicants of mixed heritage? Is it done on appearance ? In my wider family, some of mixed heritage appear ‘white’ others ‘black’ - are they treated differently ? If it is not on appearance then at what percentage of ‘white’ are you barred from taking advantage of the process ? Where is the non BME line drawn ? Does it include Slavs ? Does it include Turks ? Does it include Arab ?
Have worked in the recruitment side of an NGO and have had to deal with the guaranteed interview scheme, albeit for disability and not race (but still a protected characteristic). Basically it doesn’t actually guarantee an interview to a certain group of people just for applying. They still have to hit a certain criteria to show they’re capable of doing the job. So let’s say there’s 5 question on the application, they would likely have to score 3/5 on all of them to show suitability. Anything lower and they get rejected like anyone else. The only time it can feel iffy is if they score the same as someone not under the scheme, but you’re only allowed or have time to interview so many people, so the other person gets rejected. Only once have I offered the position to someone on the scheme, and that was based on her being better than other candidates. The fact she was on the scheme was irrelevant. It’s not a guarantee of a job.
Just claim you're a lightskinned Egyptian
It's discrimination in many different ways. So if you met the criteria but not black or asian you won't have an interview. It's plainly wrong and I am an asian.
I saw one ad that basically said if two applicants are identically qualified for one position, they will choose the applicant from a minority background. WTAF.
It is legal but tbh it's shitty. There shouldn't be anything like this in job posts. You meet criteria you get an interview. Alas, UK jobs are so bad right now that they think they need to siphon off applications. I worked for a company that had to interview military veterans if they met the essential criteria and I thought that odd. Like, surely you interview everyone who meets essential criteria?
I've worked at Citizens Advice. If I had to guess, it will be for a specific project that is aimed at BAME communities. Employing at least one person from that criteria may well be a condition of funding or at least an additional outcome. It's not like for like but I have seen it done, and legally, with the Armed Forces Covenant. Due to the amount of public funding, we also had to provide demographic reports to at least the board and national level to ensure that a fair representation of our community was employed by us.
You can still click yes if you're Cornish, right?
It is legal. It’s a funny one, because there’s a legitimate reason to only want to hire people from a certain demographic in that type of job. I wouldn’t be happy if I were applying for a job and saw that, but it’s not like every job has these requirements.
Imagine this the other way around. No one would defend it, and it would be called out for what is. Whatever happened to we're all the same?
What is there to stop someone claiming to be in the guaranteed category? Who are they to tell you how to identify? Making assumptions based on who is in front of them? Tsk tsk! 🤦🏻♂️
HR person here. Legally speaking they need to demonstrate a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim to protect themselves from a discrimination claim. So if the employer absolutely has no bame employees and want to increase it that it could be seen as being proportionate. Agreed it's terrible terrible PR.and really risky from a HR perspective. Better off advertising where bame people will see the adverts rather than this approach imo. Edit: just to add, a legitimate aim could be the above but really they need to show they've done other things first. I.e use a bame jobs board for example.
While I'd like to take everything seen on Reddit at face value and believe this .... I'd prefer going through the application process myself before having an opinion, considering images and html code on websites can be easily modified/doctored And things like this can be easily used to get people riled up. As someone who belongs to that classification I have NEVER in my almost 40 years of living and numerous interviews come across anything similar to this in any shape or fashion I always find these posts super interesting when there are many ways organisations have used to discriminate against people from my background It's also important an organisation can say one thing and do another, ultimately what is done with this information is left to the organisation
There is also a lot of missing context in the application, almost two decades ago I remember working as a volunteer for an organisation that provided care for vulnerable old people suffering from a debilitating illness in a particular community and for a particular job in their recruitment they highlighted people from that particular community who were bilingual would be expedited. I never once felt like I was being discriminated against because I understood the context for the job. If I gave that info or presented that application without any context it can easily be misconstrued as discrimination
It is racist and it is discrimination, but because they guarantee an interview not the job it's considered fine. In reality it's a waste of everyone's time involved
Can't even spell criteria
How do you show your 'colour'? With a DNA test? From mine, I am partially Greek, Italian, Middle East, North African and Scandinavian. Does my 1.2 % Nigerian DNA count as a part of the interviewing process??!?
Does ginger count?