My jaw is gaping with amazement once more at the hare-brained political correctness that is infecting (or should I say infesting?) the United Kingdom. A story in the Daily Mail states that a recruitment agency was told not to advertise for “reliable” and “hard-working” people since that discriminated against…well, people that aren’t reliable and hard working. The silver lining to this dark cloud is that the the bureaucracy in charge of such matters backed down to avoid public ridicule, but the mere fact that this happened says a lot about what’s happening across the pond – and what’s beginning to happen in America:
When it comes to hiring staff, there are plenty of legal pitfalls employers need to watch out for these days. So recruitment agency boss Nicole Mamo was especially careful to ensure her advert for hospital workers did not offend on grounds of race, age or sexual orientation. However, she hadn’t reckoned on discriminating against a wholly different section of the community – the completely useless. 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. ‘If the matter wasn’t so serious I would be laughing out loud. ‘Unfortunately it’s extremely alarming. I need people who are hardworking and reliable – and I am pleased to discriminate in that way. If they’re not then I really can’t use them. The reputation of my business is on the line. ‘Even the woman at the jobcentre agreed it was ridiculous but explained it was policy because they could get sued for being discriminatory against unreliable people. …She filed the advert for a £5.80-an-hour domestic cleaner at a hospital in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, through the Jobcentre Plus online service last Thursday. However, when she rang the nearest branch in Thetford, Norfolk, to make sure details would be available to jobseekers who turned up in person, she was transferred to a woman who said the wording was unacceptable.
[…] benignly quoting a bad word. Or they bust homeowners for harming robbers. Or harass employers who commit discrimination by advertising for “reliable” […]
[…] was especially impressed (in a you-must-be-joking fashion) that a British job placement office got in trouble for discrimination because they sought “reliable” and “hard-working” […]
[…] was especially impressed (in a you-must-be-joking fashion) that a British job placement office got in trouble for discrimination because they sought “reliable” and “hard-working” […]
[…] was especially impressed (in a you-must-be-joking fashion) that a British job placement office got in trouble for discrimination because they sought “reliable” and “hard-working” […]
[…] was especially impressed (in a you-must-be-joking fashion) that a British job placement office got in trouble for discrimination because they sought “reliable” and “hard-working” applicants. Sounds […]
[…] was especially impressed (in a you-must-be-joking fashion) that a British job placement office got in trouble for discrimination because they sought “reliable” and “hard-working” […]
[…] job-placement center that got in trouble for discriminating against incompetent people by seeking “reliable” and “hard-working” candidates. A women who was being threatened by […]
[…] government stupidity comes from the United Kingdom, which is infamous for astounding – and embarrassing – episodes of political […]
[…] this bit of satire is amusing, the joke may be on us. Let’s keep in mind that a recruitment agency in the United Kingdom actually got in trouble because it placed an ad “for ‘reliable’ and ‘hard-working’ applicants.” […]
[…] fairness (properly defined), I normally take turns in this series, first featuring an example of government stupidity in the U.K., followed by an example of foolish bureaucracy in the U.S., and so on and so […]
[…] if fairness (properly defined), I normally take turns in this series, first featuring an example of government stupidity in the U.K., followed by an example of foolish bureaucracy in the U.S., and so on and so […]
Over cautious??? More like seriously stuck on stupid due to liberal group think that provides stupidity a pass based on good intentions.
It sounds like a mistake made by a single member of staff.
From the article:
“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.’
Yesterday the Department for Work and Pensions said it could not comment on the conversation Mrs Mamo had with the member of staff at Thetford.
However, a spokesman insisted her original advert had run on the Jobcentre Plus website and on computer terminals in branches.
She added: ‘Reliability is important to employers and we welcome ads seeking reliable applicants.’
So clearly neither the Equality and Human Rights Commission or the DWP had any problem with the wording of the advert. It was one person who was over-cautions.
[…] the U.K.: — A job-placement center got in trouble for discriminating against incompetent people by seeking “reliable” and “hard-working” candidates. — A Woman who was being threatened by thugs got in trouble with the police for […]
Could the problem be that such people don’t know how to think for themselves. They may think they do but they haven’t been taught how.
So they’re willing to believe anything they come across! They just ignore the context and follow the rules to the letter…
When discrimination – which is contextual – gets a bad name then all discrimination is banned!
[…] have been lots of dumb examples of political correctness in the UK. o A job-placement center that got in trouble for discriminating against incompetent people by seeking “reliable” and “hard-working” […]
This has GOT to be a joke or some kind of misunderstanding! There’s no way. NO WAY!
And people wonder why we have not made any contact with alien civilizations. Even with a room-temp IQ it will take you about ten seconds to conclude that this planet should be turned into a galactic zoo.
Kinds reminds me of Atlas Shrugged. I’ll be glad when it’s no longer taboo for employers to hire based on skill rather than need.