The comments came in the case of a woman who took legal action after she lost out on a job with a marketing agency because she didn’t “vibe” with her interviewer.>
it was vibes that lost the women her interview. I would assume that vibes make up more dissisions on hiring panels than we think.
For football teams? Sure, maybe.
But that’s not the main point in the case, is it? To me this decision seems like it says you could decide not to hire someone because they don’t drink (since that’s basically what was being argued). Couldn’t that then be used to legally discriminate against, say, Muslims? Or people more committed to family than work?
No, it’s far simpler than that.
If it’s a protected characteristic then you cannot discriminate over it. If it is not a protected characteristic then you can discriminate.
Supporting a football team is not a protected characteristic, so the boss in this case was not breaking the law when they discriminated against hiring an employee that supported a team they didn’t like.
Religion is a protected characteristic, so your example would not be lawful.
By law, technically, yes. But that’s the trick: you say you didn’t hire someone because you think they wouldn’t fit the team. In reality, it’s because of their religion or ethnicity or gender. Officially though, you say it’s because they wouldn’t join in for drinks on Friday. “I just didn’t vibe with them”.
Of course this has caveats. It’ll only be possible between two equally qualified candidates, but that can be subjective as well.
Also this specific candidate was not hired because the employer said they didn’t vibe with them. The football team is an example used by the judge. The not drinking and being introverted was used by the candidate. It’s a weak case. I don’t think the candidate had much to stand on, but the judge’s ruling is way too generic is what my point is.
I guess an argument could be that not drinking is unlikely to cause fights, whereas supporting rival teams, depending on the rivalry in question… There’s a lot of potential for tension
Agreed. As another commenter says, in Glasgow the football team might just matter, and considering how things go: fair enough.
But this specific case was actually not about who the candidate supported, that’s just what the judge brought up as an example. I’d say it wasn’t even about not drinking, that’s what the candidate alleged. But the ruling seems like it would apply to all of those cases as precedent anyway.
In Glasgow if you have 2 guys go for a blue-collar job, where one is Celtic and one is Rangers, then who gets the position would be 100% determined by the team the boss follows, regardless of legislation.
That’s England as fuck right there. I get it though
Fuck Man U :)
deleted by creator
actual clown country
grow the fuck up
If you actually read the article though that’s not exactly what happened. It’s just saying it’s about football makes for a better headline.
while it wasn’t the main subject of the hearing, it was used as an example of something that would also be legal
i reiterate: if someone supporting another sports team would “disrupt the harmony of the office”, then the workers there are children that need to grow the fuck up
Sure, but that’s not the issue here.
The issue is what kind of discrimination is allowed. In common law countries like the UK, as a rule of thumb, things are permitted unless there is a law against it. With discrimination, discrimination is permitted unless you discriminate over a protected characteristic.
You can discriminate based on qualification, for example. You wouldn’t want to hire someone who wasn’t qualified for the job. So discrimination is in fact widespread and usually appropriate. It’s just that when we talk about discrimination we’re usually talking about the bad kind, ie when people discriminate because of sex, race, disability, etc, in a manner that is not considered “fair” by reasonable people.
Sex and gender is an even more nuanced example. Usually it’s wrong to discriminate over this, however in some cases it’s appropriate. A women’s domestic violence centre may require that it only be staffed by and only support women - particularly because the women they’re supporting may have a valid fear of men, regardless of whether the specific men they’re fearing pose a threat.
Anything else, that’s fair game. You could refuse to hire someone who was ginger, provided you can establish that wasn’t because of race or something. You could refuse to hire someone of a certain height, so long as you can establish it’s not a disability. In some cases, like with sex and gender, height may even be necessary to discriminate over for what the job is.
To take the football example further: it might be appropriate for Arsenal not to hire a Man U supporter as support staff, in a similar manner to qualifications. However this happens so infrequently that it isn’t worth becoming a protected characteristic. Someone refused a job at one place can still find work elsewhere; the discrimination is not widespread and has minimal harm, while preventing the discrimination may harm the effective performance of the business.
There’s nothing clowny about any of this. You just have a lack of understanding of what this is, and bought into a headline designed to make you disgruntled to grab your attention and get you to engage.
if someone supporting another sports team would “disrupt the harmony of the office”, then the workers there are children that need to grow the fuck up
This is true, except that it’s more of a “should” than a “need”. Employers should be fair and give equal opportunity, but they only need to do so within the bounds of the law. The rest is up to them to decide - the law isn’t meant to dictate everything, nor should it.
