Employer told not to post advert for 'reliable' workers

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Is Hard
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The thread discusses a controversy surrounding an employer being advised against posting a job advertisement that requested 'reliable' workers, with claims that such wording could discriminate against 'unreliable' applicants. The conversation explores implications of discrimination laws, workplace policies, and societal attitudes towards reliability in employment.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express disbelief at the job centre's advice, suggesting it undermines the purpose of job advertisements to select reliable candidates.
  • Others argue that the Equality and Human Rights Commission supports the employer's right to seek reliable workers, indicating no breach of discrimination law.
  • A participant mentions that the job centre has faced legal challenges regarding similar advertisements, highlighting a complex legal landscape.
  • Some comments reflect a satirical take on the situation, questioning the fairness of protecting 'unreliable' individuals in the hiring process.
  • There are references to broader societal issues, including perceived absurdities in discrimination policies and their implications for various groups.
  • One participant raises a question about how discrimination laws operate in the UK compared to the US, indicating a lack of clarity on the topic.
  • Another participant humorously suggests that unreliable individuals should be represented by unreliable lawyers in legal matters related to discrimination.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the appropriateness of the job advertisement and the implications of discrimination laws.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the discussion is based on an article from the Daily Mail, which may influence perceptions of the situation. There are also references to specific legal precedents and policies that remain unresolved within the conversation.

Math Is Hard
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
4,663
Reaction score
36
Employer told not to post advert for 'reliable' workers because it discriminates against 'unreliable' applicants

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ers--discriminates-unreliable-applicants.html

"When she ran the ad past a job centre, she was told she couldn't ask for 'reliable' and 'hard-working' applicants because it could be offensive to unreliable people.

'In my 15 years in recruitment I haven't heard anything so ridiculous,' Mrs Mamo said yesterday.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks like the job centre doesn't know what they're talking about.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission added: 'This is in no way in breach of any discrimination law.

'Mrs Mamo should consider very unreliable any advice that she may have received implying that this aspect of her advert was discriminatory.'
 
Math Is Hard said:
Employer told not to post advert for 'reliable' workers because it discriminates against 'unreliable' applicants

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ers--discriminates-unreliable-applicants.html

LOL! Isn't that the idea of a job search... to pick the reliable workers out from the unreliable...

I really want to see that lawsuit:

"As an unreliable worker, I was offended by their advertisement for reliable workers. It just doesn't seem fair that someone who cannot be relied upon can't have a job"... LOL!
 
I had written a letter to my representative in support of a similar ruling here too, but I forgot to send it.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the person she talked to at the Department for Work and Pensions felt offended for a reason :smile:
 
Next, they'll ban discrimination against the incompetent, the lazy, and people who can't perform the job...
 
And it's in the UK! Who would have thought! This isn't surprising one bit considering a family was kicked out of their own house by gypsies, and can't do anything about it because it would be unfair to kick the gypsies out.
 
MotoH said:
And it's in the UK! Who would have thought! This isn't surprising one bit considering a family was kicked out of their own house by gypsies, and can't do anything about it because it would be unfair to kick the gypsies out.

You do realize that a) This was an article in Daily Mail and b) There IS no law against posting adverts for reliable workers...
 
She told me they'd had lots of problems with people taking them to court for adverts stating something like "would suit school leaver".'

'I had to battle to have "must speak English", which they also said was discriminatory.
Pugh cartoon

'In the end, I had to write "must speak English due to health and safety reasons" because they're dealing with hazardous materials.'

Nausea overwhelms me.
 
  • #10
My god, who are we trying to satisfy with nonsense like these? Unjust mob rule has its merits in my mind...
 
  • #11
f95toli said:
You do realize that a) This was an article in Daily Mail and b) There IS no law against posting adverts for reliable workers...

So are you saying there is a law against putting a bat against a gypsy?:rolleyes:
 
  • #12
f95toli said:
You do realize that a) This was an article in Daily Mail and b) There IS no law against posting adverts for reliable workers...
a) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/norfolk/8483171.stm The BBC picked it up too.
b) The government Department of Work and Pensions was blocking the advert. Does the fact that there is not a law against it some how make it better?
 
  • #13
Unreliable people have rights too. You can't dismiss job candidates just because they are unproductive and negatively affect your business.
 
  • #14
TheStatutoryApe said:
a) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/norfolk/8483171.stm The BBC picked it up too.
b) The government Department of Work and Pensions was blocking the advert. Does the fact that there is not a law against it some how make it better?

The link you post clearly quotes a DWP spokesperson saying "Reliability is important to employers, as it is for Jobcentre Plus - and we welcome ads seeking reliable applicants", and states that the DWP did not comment on whether advice to use the word reliable had been offered. So, how did you come up with your point b)?

MotoH said:
So are you saying there is a law against putting a bat against a gypsy?:rolleyes:

Huh, what has this random comment got to do with this thread?
 
  • #15
I agree with their policy. It discriminates agains relible people. From a Craig's list ad for a babysitter:

Relible Babysitter (Salem NH)

My name is Ashley; I am currently attending college for early childhood education. I have 5 years of babysitting experience; I have babysat for all of the children in my family, as well as other families. I have babysat for children ranging in the ages from infancy to 11 years old, and I love to be around kids. My future goal in life is to run my own daycare. I have also taken classes in high school for this subject and I am CPR and First Aid certified. I am availble to babysit almost every day and I have an extremely flexble schedule. I am availble to babysit in the Salem area, but as of right now I do not have my own transportation. I love working with children and I take my job seriously and I am very relible and I can promise the best quality care for your children. The best way to contact me is by phone at 603-xxx-xxxx if you are interested. I look forward to working with you.

Sincerely
Ashley M.

I think hiring only reliable people is extremely unfair to relible, relibell, rellibell people and to relabeled people to boot.

In fact, I think I'd hire a relabeled person before a reliable person any day.

You see the same discrimination against relible products. Personally, I think the Relible Vinyl Urinal Screens are top notch products.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
'Even the woman at the jobcentre agreed it was ridiculous but explained it was policy because they could get sued for being dicriminatory against unreliable people.

'She told me they'd had lots of problems with people taking them to court for adverts stating something like "would suit school leaver".'

I suppose unreliable people should be allowed to sue people who discriminate against them for their unreliability, but only so long as they're required to be represented by an unreliable lawyer.
 
  • #17
In the US, employers are allowed to discriminate against (prospective) employees for any reason not on a specific enumerated list (race, gender, age if over 40, etc.). For example, they can discriminate against unreliable workers or even people with names starting with "C".*

How do discrimination laws work in the UK?

* Actually, this example is iffy depending on court interpretations of statistical discrimination. Perhaps one race has, on average, more people with names starting with C than others; this may and may not bar such discrimination.
 
  • #18
zoobyshoe said:
I suppose unreliable people should be allowed to sue people who discriminate against them for their unreliability, but only so long as they're required to be represented by an unreliable lawyer.

and those people are/should be judged by a jury of their peers
 
  • #19
rewebster said:
and those people are/should be judged by a jury of their peers

Well, if they were reliable then they would have found a way to get out of jury duty so they could show up for work.

By the way, while I don't know how prevalent this particular example is, it is common practice for companies to avoid telling a prospective employer why an employee left the company. No company wants to be sued for revealing adverse information like "Dave quit showering and started stealing change from the snack bar."

The most ironic thing about this is that the same HR people that are counseled against revealing any info about a past employee beyond verifying whether or not he actually was an employee, are also tasked to call up every single past employer of anyone applying for a job at their company. As if their HR people don't have the same policies as HR people at your company!

(And people wonder why most people get jobs through networking rather than by submitting resumes through the HR department. Hiring someone through the HR department is like rolling dice. Your results are totally random.)
 
Last edited:
  • #20
Maybe it was for a government job. We all know that government jobs can't discriminate against unreliable people, or they'd never fill those positions. :wink:
 
  • #21
cristo said:
The link you post clearly quotes a DWP spokesperson saying "Reliability is important to employers, as it is for Jobcentre Plus - and we welcome ads seeking reliable applicants", and states that the DWP did not comment on whether advice to use the word reliable had been offered. So, how did you come up with your point b)?

I've seen many instances of internal policies denied by upper management. The woman in the article states that she submitted her advert and it was edited to not include the word "reliable". Why would she make a stink if such a thing did not happen? And if she is telling the truth why would an employee of the DWP just make up such a policy? It appears to me that the DWP was perhaps attempting some policy to prevent persons looking for work from being daunted by intimidating wording in adverts, it was perhaps taken a bit far by some editors, and at least one employee gave a poorly worded explanation for the editing (perhaps a poor explanation given to him/her by someone else). One way or another it seems that the DWP has edited at least one employers advert in a sort of censorship even if they wish to state that there is no such specific policy pertaining to the use of the word reliable.
 

Similar threads

Fork in the road, each path leads to possibly more disappointment.
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
8K