h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>"Otto is of course right to say that my example male has the same rights as everyone else. What he doesn't have is specific legislation covering the group to which he belongs."

Neither does a woman, or someone who is black.
Sex discrimination law isn't a law against discrimination against women, it's a law against discrimination based on gender.
It's going to get *used* more often in cases of discrimination against women, if such discrimination is more common than discrimination against men.

Potholer,

Of course they do. Sex discrimination 'usually' only applies to women,(particularly harrasment) and it especislly does when they get pregnant, since by definition men cannot get pregnant (thank heaven)any attempt to discipline a preegnant girl for lateness or persistent absence could be 'claimed' to be sex discrimination.And it happens.

Similarly if a coloured guy is always left behind in promotion issues, always passed over , as it were, or if he is disciplined for minor infractions he can claim that it is being done because of his colour.That happens too.

Crap stuff happens on both sides of the employment fence, but some groups have an in built defense, and it will soon be possible to claim that a manager only disciplined a bloke because he was gay. Another knock for my 'specimen bloke'

This chap has been particularly unlucky.


"Few tribunal applicants have the notoriety of Omorotu Francis Ayovuare, a Nigerian-born surveyor, who with 72 race discrimination claims under his belt has been said to be Britain's busiest employment litigant. However, the belief that there may be a tiny hard core of opportunist applicants is spreading."
http://search.ft.com/nonFtArticle?id=051024000638

"At a conservative estimate, Mr Ayovuare has cost those he has accused - and they include businesses, hospitals, local authorities and the police - £500,000 in legal costs.

He has secured just two victories, both on the lesser offence of "victimisation". Yet he so frequently launches cases that tribunals have heard that he now has a template form for all his allegations: he simply fills in the name of the company and the date of the "discrimination".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/06/08/ntrib08.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/06/08/ixhome.html

Were it not that my fingers were so clumbsy and Im useless at music Id now be playing a tune on the worlds smallest violin for this specimen white bloke people are on about.

"Shut-up-a-ya-face" by Joe Dolce springs to mind.

So there are people who abuse the race relations act in the work place, thanks for telling us that SWL. There are people who abuse all sorts of laws and aparatus of state. Maybe we should get rid of the NHS and social security allowances because there are people who make illegal use of them. How about we shut down the internet because of spammers.

I have a great deal of sympathy for white men. I know how hard it is being a man its just awful isnt it. I can see why we'd all prefer to be women with the lower pay thing. Look at John prescott working hard to make a better Britain and all he has *beneath* him are scurrilous women who cant keep their traps shut about him bonking them at work. Im angry that no one has ever offered me a promotion if Id put out sexually for them. As for pregnancy what a cushy number for simply pushing out a sprogg that will hopeully turn into someone who will be a cog keeping this place afloat when we are in our dottage they get months of work and a cast iron "morning sickness" excuse for being late for work

Hey, I said the guy had been unlucky. The poor chap was repeatedly victimised and that alone should be worth a compensation payment. Can you imagine what goes through his head every time he applies for a job? "Am Igoing to be discriminated against again? Is it cos I is black?"

Unless you weren't being entirely serious. In which case, wash your mouth out with soap young man. It is not for you or I to pre-judge this tortured soul. Each case has to be dealt with on it's own merits. So what if he had cited discrimination 70 times before? The law may be ponderous, but it must be seen to be even-handed and fair.

Except, it's not quite even-handed is it? Businesses have to pay the full whack of legal fees, win or lose. Unlike the claimant, who gets legal aid. So us lucky tax-payers end up paying both sides. When a law is so biaised in favour of one party, there's always going to be abuse.

Instead of a myriad of laws, let's have one. Equal Opportunities for all. To erase doubt about discrimination, let the employer complete a statement about every new employee stating why they were adjudged the best person for the job and stick it in their personnel file. If anybody subsequently wants to cry foul, they have to demonstrate to a tribunal why they were the better candidate. Whoever loses pays the costs of both parties.

Yeah that makes sense your going for your first job so you arent flush with cash. You walk in the boss takes one look and says, "on yer bike sambo" and you think to yourself yeah I can afford to lodge a complaint against a woman who will just say I didnt give Mr Blick the job because he had no experience.

Bit of a non starter really.

A costly but better idea is that the state which will benefit from a fairer employment market pays for what it gets. We might be paying for an apple with a few blemishes but its better than something free which could well be rotten to the core.

Oh and youve got me all wrong (imagine that) the specimine whaite bloke idea I was deriding was the one Novo was talking about. Sorry for not making that clearer.

Come on, we're doing well here. Let's keep it going for a while.

Take your example of a clear-cut case of discrimination - I'm sure one of the "no win, no fee" type companies will take that one on. In fact, the tens of thousands of lawyers desperately looking for work following simplifying the law will probably be all too keen.

And why should the state give a stuff about discrimination in the workplace? It's in the state's interests that companies be successful and pay the maximum taxes. That means employing the best candidate, irrespective of sex/colour/sexuality/shoe size.

Do you have a problem of one simple law - Equal Opportunity for all?
I would have thought one clear ethos make it more difficult to make frivolous claims and leaves less loopholes for lawyers to exploit.

OK, I'm willing to drop the Legal Aid bit as something that isn't central to the argument.

One law for everyone.
Not fifty laws that encompass whatever group can claim a distinctiveness.

>>"Except, it's not quite even-handed is it? Businesses have to pay the full whack of legal fees, win or lose. Unlike the claimant, who gets legal aid. So us lucky tax-payers end up paying both sides. When a law is so biaised in favour of one party, there's always going to be abuse."

In England and Wales, it doesn't seem people can get Legal Aid for tribunals themselves, though if poor enough, they may be able to for preliminary advice (filling in a form, etc), and for appeals. However, if it is considered they don't have a good case, assistance can be refused. In Scotland it might be possible to get asistance for representation at a hearing, but that *seems* to be somewhat discretionary .
I always thought getting legal assistance for such situations was one of the benefits of being in a union?

>>"Instead of a myriad of laws, let's have one. Equal Opportunities for all. To erase doubt about discrimination, let the employer complete a statement about every new employee stating why they were adjudged the best person for the job and stick it in their personnel file. If anybody subsequently wants to cry foul, they have to demonstrate to a tribunal why they were the better candidate. Whoever loses pays the costs of both parties."

Thing is, if someone isn't well off, they may be scared of being made destitute if they lose even if it seems their case may be reasonable. A well-off employer could get expensive legal assistanceeffectively as a threatening tactic.
You'd *still* need some system of disclosure to make employers give out information to even let someone know if they had a strong case or not, and that system would have to impose minimal costs on people making enquiries.

In any case, that only addresses the situation when someone applies for a job, not issues of discrimination in advancement, dismissal, redundancy or disciplinary action, etc. Certainly, a paper trail is always useful for a company, not least because a claim may arise long after the event, when memories are hazy.

I wonder if the history of both the complainant and company should potentially have to be declared, so that people with a history of unfounded complaints or employers with a history of discrimination might have that taken into account?

Yeah but your puttng the cart before the horse people dont roll up to protest because they want to be treated differetnly they ask for protection because they are treated differetnly and unfairly so in many cases.

Sure one law that says you cannot discount someone as a prospective employee other than on their ability to perform the core tasks of the job. Now there are simple adaptations that can be made to make an otherwise unemployable handicapped person employable. It would cost the company less to lets say put in ramps or buy a braille keyboard but that wouldnt be covered by a no discrimination law because if an employer doent pay out for them then people who cant get up lets say five stairs into the building or cant see just wouldnt be able to do the work without those adaptations. So we still need separate laws to make employers be more inclusive or we end up paying otherwise talented people to stay on the dole for want of some reasonable adaptations.

Its a minefield and you cant just wipe away all the legislation.

>>"And why should the state give a stuff about discrimination in the workplace? It's in the state's interests that companies be successful and pay the maximum taxes. That means employing the best candidate, irrespective of sex/colour/sexuality/shoe size."

You seem to have a ridiculously naive faith in the capacity of all management to pursue the company's profit over and above their own prejudices.

Additionally, for many jobs, employing one candidate or another is likely pretty revenue-neutral. The odds of the balance sheet being affected noticeably (or even at all) by a bus company discriminating against black drivers seem pretty small, and the revenue idea seems to have little application to the large area of state employment.

Also, one could argue that the 'best' candidate in a narrow sense may be the cheapest to employ, so no significantly disabled people, potentially pregnant women, etc.

In any case, as a separate issue, the job of the state isn't to maximise taxes. At best, taxes are only a means to an end, whereas equality is an end in itself.

Well as a male working in Gynaecology I'm glad that there's laws to protect me, as there's a significant chance of being discriminated against.

In the old days all gynaecolgists were men, now all of the trainees are female. As I'm thinking of a career in it one of the things that I'm considering is 'will anyone want to employ me anyway?'

There's a male midwife at our unit who has faced serious discrimination in the past and has been told by one senior midwife 'I don't care what the law says, I'm not letting a male midwife onto my ward' Despite the fact that she had loads of male doctors on her ward - she didn't want a male *midwife*.

He didn't sue for discrimination but just left and got another job. I think that's what most discriminated-against-people do.

Some really good points and rebuttals. OK, we would need to keep the Legal Aid to keep a level playing field, but the examples re disability and so on are just specific examples of discrimination which would fall foul of my all-encompassing "No Discrimination" law. It would force managers into best practice at every level of business - recruitment, promotion, wage rises, benefits etc. If it were clear to even the most thick-skulled middle management drone that if he bases his decision upon any criteria other than the best candidate, he can be hammered.

I'll need to pick this up again on Saturday. Thanks for giving me something to chew over

Yes, but what *is* the best candidate. 'Just' having the qualifications and capability to do the job is not everything. If that person would not fit into the team then they are not the best candidate for the job. Would this be discrimination?

I would say not as a previous manager of mine purposefully employed someone who was very different from the rest of us and it destablised the department and also caused problems on other sites in the organisation.

as a matter of curiosity z I'm quite curious to know the kinds of reasons a male might choose to go into a profession where he can get his hands and eyes onto a large quantity and variety of female genitalia. What reasons did you give at your interview? Because thought of doing a job involving dealing with a load of prostate problems makes me feel quite ill, but then that does tend to involve the older male.

Well, if he decided to go over to the US for 10 or so years he could come back and it would help him look up a few old friends...

Fanny - I'll reply on your personal space rather than divert the thread.

Actually there's a couple of things I want to say here.

Fanny - you may find old men's pensis's disgusting but every branch of medicine is disgusting in it's own way until you learn to turn that emotion off.

I can't speak for any other doctors, but I suspect it's a generic skill: when I'm in 'doctor mode' I don't get certain emotions around looking at patients.

For instance when I look at an old man's bits, or an old ladies bits, or a disgusting abcess, or a carrot stuck where the sun don't shine or a perforated bowel or a gunshot wound. As long as I've got a stethoscope around my neck I
don't *feel* disgusted.

Once you see enough of them it just becomes like any other part of the body to you. Obviously you have to acknowledge that it's not any other part of the body to her!

As for what I said in my interview:

I'm doing a 4 month job in O and G: because I ultimately want to work in Sexual health medicine primarly because I want to treat HIV. I've wanted to do this since my first every lecture on HIV at medical school.

However I'm either going to treat HIV in a hospital in Africa, or in a clinic in the Uk. In hospital in Africa I'd need to be able to do basic obsetrics, including C - Sections, and ectopic prengancies, to learnt to do that I need to work in O and G in the UK.

If I work at a Clinic in the UK I won't just be treating HIV, I'll be seeing any one who thinks they might have an STI - that includes women. Any many of the women will have a vaginal discharge. Many of the men will have a penile discharge. I'll take swabs from both. Both are fairly disgusting most of the time but as I've said above I don't feel disgusted.

So I'm doing this job to learn about basic obs and also basic gyna particuarly infections.

Whilst I've been doing it I've been tempted to stay. Firstly I've discovered I'm actually quite good at it. I can explain things to people in a way they understand, and my boss thinks I've got a knack for surgery. Other reasons are:

It's mainly young people - though you treat older ladies as well.

Why have one patient when you can have two?

Obstrectics saves womens lives succesfully - far more statisfying than watching people die of lung cancer in oncology.

I believe passionately that women should have the right to have control over their own bodies and that includes having terminations of pregnancy, and I believe that we need mroe doctors who are willing to do them who aren't judgemental about it.

But I am slighlty put off by having to post my CV to explain that I'm not a pervert.

Morning Potholer,

Some quick points.

We offer an Advice & Indemnity Scheme to employers, some of whom may fall foul of employment laws out of ignorance, stupidity, or plain cussedness. It is our job to advise the correct course of action with regard to all aspects of employment. If the client takes the advice, follows 'the ACAS Code', and does everything correctly - we pay fees and costs, and supply advocacy. So in truth we actually work to the benefit of both sides, frequently stopping daft managers from suspending or sacking someone on an 'unfair' or discriminatory basiss.

If a company goes ahead ( not necessarily a client) and dismisses unfairly , or prejudicially , or on discriminatory grounds then the ex employee can consult the CAB and get directed to a No Win No Fee solicitor. ( and there are many such). If the case is strong enough the solicitor will take it to the local ACAS office and an IT.1. form will land on the ex employers desk. This sets out the complaint against him, and he MUST reply.

The process moves on, and if a settlement cannot be reached then a Tribunal will hear the case.

If it is a discrimination case the award against the company can be uncapped if the claiment case is upheld. A very very costly matter for the company.

Regrettably, and I say this 'in the business as it were' too many people with a sound claim under discrimination , harassment or bullying, just leave and get another job. More of them, especially women who are dismissed when they become pregnant SHOULD go to a solicitor.Such a dismissal is illegal and carries enormous penalties if proven.

Novo

Aside.Hey many thanks B for your thorough reply. I feel a bit guilty now if you thought you had to prove you weren't a pervert. My question was a bit insensitive, sorry. You sound like a brill doctor.

It just suddenly ocurred to me when you said it's mainly women now and used to be mostly males. Anyway we can all move on now.