Comment by jokethrowaway | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jokethrowaway | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is incorrect. I hired in the UK and we were legally discriminating based on people being "minority" or women. It sickens me.

From Wikipedia:

>"Section 159 of the Equality Act 2010 allows an employer to treat an applicant or employee with a protected characteristic (eg race, sex or age) more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than someone without that characteristic who is as qualified for the role. The employer must reasonably think that people with the protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage or are under-represented in that particular activity. Taking the positive action must be a proportionate means of enabling or encouraging people to overcome the disadvantage or to take part in the activity."

Hmm, isn't that what I said? They can treat people with a characteristic more favourably, but they can't exclude people without that characteristic from the start.

I guess the difference is whether you can hire a minority candidate even if they are objectively less qualified for a job? My understanding was that you could only use the characteristics as a tie breaker if two candidates were otherwise the same, but maybe that's wrong.

> Hmm, isn't that what I said? They can treat people with a characteristic more favourably, but they can't exclude people without that characteristic from the start.

How would one even begin to prove the difference? This seems like some sort of mental gymnastic to explain away well meaning discrimination. If I had a thing against men, I'd take their applications, maybe give a few of them interviews for the sake of plausible deniability without a plan to actually hire them. And fortunately for me, society is callously indifferent to men in general unless they are part of a protected class.

Well that's a problem you always have with subjective decisions during hiring. At the end of the day you'll most likely get away with it unless you're being as blatant as OP's company. But it only takes one disgruntled whistleblower to get yourself into trouble.

And at least historically it's usually been the men who benefitted from this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com