Unreliable Discrimination

[Lighthawk]

Last year's news, but still a stunning victory of political correctness over common sense.

Advert for 'reliable workers' banned as discrimination by Jobcentre Plus
The boss of a recruitment firm said she was told she could not place an advert for ''reliable workers'' because it discriminated against unreliable people.

Nicole Mamo, 48, wanted to post an advert for a £5.80-an-hour domestic cleaner on her local Jobcentre Plus website.

The text of the advert ended by stating that any applicants for the post ''must be very reliable and hard-working''.

But when Ms Mamo called the Jobcentre Plus in Thetford, Norfolk, the following day she was told that her advert would not be displayed instore.

A Jobcentre Plus worker claimed that the word ''reliable'' meant they could be sued for discriminating against unreliable workers.

Ms Mamo, a mother-of-two, from Boreham Wood, Herts., said the situation was ''ridiculous''.

''I placed the advert on the website and when I phoned up to check I was told it hadn't been displayed in the job centre itself," she said. ''She said 'oh we can't put that advert on the job points'. She said it was because they could have cases against them for discriminating against unreliable people.

''I laughed because I thought that was crazy. We supply the NHS with staff so it's very important for the patients that we have reliable workers.

''We find jobs for hundreds of temporary staff every week and are proud of our workers but our reputation is at stake if they aren't reliable.

''We are taking people off the dole and finding them jobs so not displaying the advert just seems absolutely ridiculous to me.''

Ms Mamo, who runs Devonwood recruitment agency and employs eight people, placed her advert on the Thetford Jobcentre Plus website on January 21.

A spokeswoman for the Campaign Against Political Correctness said: ''This situation is absolutely ridiculous - of course people want reliable workers and of course employers should be able to ask for them.

''If they can't advertise for what they actually want then the system is broken. They won't be able to find workers who meet their criteria. In order to have decided that the word 'reliable' can't be used they must have put a great deal of thought and time into it.

''That time could be better spent getting the right people to apply for the right jobs - which is what this advert was trying to do in the first place.''

A spokeswoman for the Department for Work and Pensions refused to comment on the phone call made to Nicole Mamo.

She said: “We cannot comment about the phone call. I can confirm that we took the advert from the employer and put it onto our website. Every advert goes onto our website and onto the job points.

“Reliability is important to employers, as it is for Jobcentre Plus - and we welcome ads seeking reliable applicants.”

Source

[Graham Kennedy]

Wow. Just.... wow.

[Mikey]

Remember that thread about how to save humanity from an impending apocalypse? Forget it. We should just all die.

[Nickswitz]

Yeah, I'm gonna have to agree with that sentiment.

Does this mean that if I show up for work late every day I can't be fired because they're discriminating against lazy people?

[Lighthawk]

Why not? Seems like racial background, religious practices, and sexual orientation have been unfairly hogging the right to be discriminated against. It's time for personality and character flaws to have their time!

[Nickswitz]

Damn straight, I should get to be lazy without consequences because that's just how I am!

I don't think my boss would agree at all, and for some reason I doubt that that would win in court either, but it shouldn't!

[alexmann]

Imagine a RAF engineer not bothering to refuel a plane because he is lazy. That plane then crashes causing the deaths of 30 people. That rule would mean that even though he caused all those deaths, they could not boot him for lazyness. What the hell?

[Captain Seafort]

Imagine a RAF engineer not bothering to refuel a plane because he is lazy. That plane then crashes causing the deaths of 30 people. That rule would mean that even though he caused all those deaths, they could not boot him for lazyness. What the hell?

Stupid analogy, given that a) the pilot would be at fault for not keeping an eye on his fuel levels, and b) not doing your job is perfectly justifiable grounds for dismissal. Which is why the Job Centre complaint is stupid.

[Giuseppe]

I always suspected too much tolerance and political correctness go hand in hand with stupidity. I didn't realize that such extreme proof of my suspicion is readily available.

[alexmann]

Imagine a RAF engineer not bothering to refuel a plane because he is lazy. That plane then crashes causing the deaths of 30 people. That rule would mean that even though he caused all those deaths, they could not boot him for lazyness. What the hell?

Stupid analogy, given that a) the pilot would be at fault for not keeping an eye on his fuel levels, and b) not doing your job is perfectly justifiable grounds for dismissal. Which is why the Job Centre complaint is stupid.

It was a bad analogy but I couldn't think of anything else. Have you got a better one?

[Captain Seafort]

No analogies are needed - it's simply an example of people being stupidly overcautious.

[alexmann]

Stupidly being the operative word.