Latest posts:
Rate this!
Daniel Sweeney
Member - 7 posts
Its a funny old world when an organisation can get away with creating a 'dignity in the workplace' policy that draws a difference between Bullying and harassment . The difference apparently being that harassment is linked to a statutorily protected discrimination ground, whereas bullying is not. Unfortunately the outworking of this is that complaining of harassment gets an organisation all hot and bothered as it thinks, IT1 (or in Northern Ireland FET1 on occasions), whereas bullying is seen as naughty children in the playground. Its time that this semantic fiction was dropped and the 96 ERA incorporated a proper harassment definition that would encompass bullying. On a cheerier note hitting an employer with a personal injury claim through a no win no fee shark may start to get their attention! Duty of care for employees and all .
I cant help but wonder why anyone would think of local authorities as being models of good practice. Perhaps I'm prejudiced but having worked in local Govt in NI in relation to Policing, the whole lot would benefit from a good forensic audit by the SFO or its successor.
Rate this!
Daniel Sweeney
Member - 7 posts
We all discriminate routinely in our day to day lives. The problem is that we assume that the law has some natural correlation with principles of justice and rationality. The law doesn't prohibit discrimination on the grounds of aesthetic preference, QED its ok to discriminate on those grounds.
Oh dear oh dear. There is probably a reason why the Equality Commission and the CEHR in GB has a duty to review the legilslation and make reccomendations for change if this is the level of decision making that goes on in employment. Why not assess on the basis of capability without reference to what amounts to irrational prejudice?
Rate this!
Daniel Sweeney
Member - 7 posts
I agree entirely with your comment Ann. However given that all of the legislation relevant to your comment is in fact symmetrical (Even DDA if you chjallenge the inclusion of the one legged person as disabled!) the young hetorosexual ethnic Malay Chinese Christian with higher qualifications/experience may feel rightly aggrieved if your comparator gets the job they have both applied for, on the basis of their protected status.
We cannot remove discrimination by legalising another form of discrimination. The legislation that people seem to be frantically searching for is equality legislation rather than anti discrimination law, which reuires the promotion of equality of opportunity NOT outcomes. It requires a deal more thought, less lawyers and a great deal of education.
Interestingly Canada prohibited discrimination wihout justification on extremely broad grounds which sort of negated the effect that vociferous lobby groups can have in producing a hierarchy of discrimination.
Rate this!
Daniel Sweeney
Member - 7 posts
Speaking as a White Irish Catholic Male, would being Irish and Catholic offset the White Male aspects of my identity and allow me to be assessed on my merits/abilities?
If anti discrimination law is flawed and doesnt act as a deterrent, then change it to address the issues. Positive discrimnination is merely New Speak to justify discrimination against non- fashionably protected categories of employees. Linking Anti Discrimination legislation to Human Rights is the only way forward here. I believe our cousins in the colonies are regretting some of their Positive Action (PC Speak) measures. Interestingly, I believe that in Southern California Americans of European ancestry are now in a minority and could claim protection under positive discriination measures, IF they were designed symmetrically. How likely is that?
Rate this!
Daniel Sweeney
Member - 7 posts
Wasnt there some work carried out on behalf of the DRC that indicated that disabled staff tended to have less 'casual sickness' than non disabled staff? Is the employee in question currently in good health, and was he or she at the time of the application? If they were then no lie has been told. In relation to full disclosure and materiality, should we all not be including a statement to the effect that 'I'm prone to death sometime between now and 75'?
Enough of the shibboleths about disabled employees being a cost to an organisation.
Rate this!
Daniel Sweeney
Member - 7 posts
I havent seen the judgement yet, just the reports and comments however employers need to bear in mind that its new regulations, and the tribunals may , quite rightly, be sending out a clear message: Age discrimination is unacceptable and will be costly. We cannot legislate against sin, but we can attach tangible consequences to the act. If I can paraphrase Lord Soper, you can say (or do) what you like, but watch out for legal Karma .
In any event, its in the mid band of the Vento scale so they got away fairly easily. Its a pity the Tribunals and County Courts (GFS Cases) didn't set the markers down clearly in a similar fashion in the early years of the DDA.
Rate this!
Daniel Sweeney
Member - 7 posts
Is it a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate (or essential) aim? If the stated aim is to be relied on ie to improve the employability of young people who have difficulties accessing labour markets, then yes, this is legimate. THen comes the question of proportionality: Is it a proportionate way of achieving this aim? I'm afraid the answer is likely to be no as it applies to all workers in the age bands, not just those who have such difficulties. I think we should be honest and recognise that this is about providing cheap labour and under these circumstances the Government would have a lot harder job creating a justification to a challenge under the Framework Directive, than for the HEYDAY referral to ECJ.
0 (0)
