If the advert had said of white english origins there would be flag burning in the streets by now
An advert for an IT professional "preferably of Indian origin" is being investigated after complaints were made to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. The ad, placed on jobsite.co.uk, said: "Minimum six years of experience in IT ... The person should be a UK citizen with security clearance from the UK Government. …
What sort of a Daily Mail 'commentard', border-line racist comment is this?
If the advert was for someone of white english origins then anyone with a brown face or with a white non-english face would be excluded. The only difference in this case is that anyone with a brown face that's not of indian origin or a white face of any nationality is excluded. In both cases nearly all of the same type of people are excluded.
Yet, surprisingly there still isn't any flag burning in the streets!
"Reminded me of a mate that swore blind that only white people could be racist."
Let's just if he were an asian IT person with a British passport working in Kuwait when the owner came around on his annual visit he'd be revising his view on this subject.
A study recently discovered that Canadian employers favoured white candidates to non-whites. This study used resumes with caucasian and non-caucasian names but with similar work experience.
I also once had an odd job interview where the interviewer said that his university, Imperial College, was better than mine, Manchester University. Didn't get that job.
"I still vote we swap the populations with Newfoundland and then blast the island free to float as they will."
As long as you get all the Screech* from Newfoundland first, that's just fine...
* The real stuff - not the namby-pamby stuff you find in liquor stores
They hire same people as themselves. If you go to IT department of any large company you will see lots of people of Indian origin. I would be rather surprised if they haven't tried to help their kin. At least whites will not waste their time to try to get a job they'll never get.
That doesn't apply to Central / East Europeans though, as they are a jealous bunch. I know it first hand, sadly...
Isn't specifying a preference for an Indian a xenophobic act, rather than racist?
You may or may not be surprised to know that in Dubai and Beijing it is still common-place for Chinese companies with an international element to specifically ask for a native of some countries rather than just speaker.
Eg: Not: German and English speaker preferred
but: "German native national only!"
Quote: "What they have said is essentially "must have brown skin"."
You can be white and of Indian origin you know, look at Spike Milligan ffs. All "of Indian origin" means is that you were born in India and India is a multi-cultural society with people of all races born there.
I haven't seen the ad so there's no way for me to tell whether it complies with Eq Opp regulations, but it is possible under defined circumstances to require particular backgrounds for a role if it is a reasonable request and a requirement for being able to perform that role. From the description the Reg provides here it doesn't sound like this was the case for this ad, but who knows if the Reg has reported all the details properly.
It's got nothing to do with race, religion, nationality or language skills.
I worked for an Indian outsourcing firm in the UK. All of their Indian staff received a full dispensation from UK Income Tax and National Insurance while working in the UK. That is why UK companies want Indian contract staff. They're half the cost of Brits.
I was sacked after six months in the job. They were very apologetic but they explained that they simply couldn't justify paying over 100% of my take home pay to Gordon in the form of NI & PAYE when they'd identified an employee in their Chennai office who could do my job tax free. I left on a Friday afternoon and the Indian bloke was sitting at my desk, tax free, on the Monday morning. I'm told that the client I was working for now has a strict 'Indians only' employment policy.
Like English? It's not like there's much of another lingua franca in indian IT.
The communication problems stem from mentality differences more than language differences (compare with a japanese person avoiding at all cost to say "no" and instead politely making all kind of sideways suggestions --- you feel they wasted your time when after endless struggle there's still no progress, they feel you're harassing them for something they made clear they can't deliver to you).
So if they'd written "local indian experience preferred" they'd be OK legally and practically --- they would get what they want, now including the possibility of a white english guy who worked there for long enough to be able to manage them.
This post has been deleted by its author
Well known by whom? You clearly haven't been anywhere near and Indian newspaper in the last 100 or so years. The same national daily broadsheet can have a dozen different spellings for the same place name and half a dozen constructions for the same sentence, all wrong. In one issue (The Hindu generally being an honourable exception). Even accounting for the very different styles of English usage between India and the UK, most written English the average person will encounter on the subcontinent reads like a literary train wreck in slow motion.
I generally love the way Indians use the language to express themselves, both written and spoken, but I see no point in claiming easily disprovable perfection for its delivery.
I would guestimate that the job description writers intentions were most likely to specify a language skillset, or perhaps even intimate cultural knowlage, but due to the many dialects employed in India decided to truncate their requirements into a rather unfortunate wording.
I wish local bodies would become this irate over real threats to human rights
Your most likely correct, and they're after someone who can fluently speak with their Indian office. But it doesn't say much for the company that they can't phrase it correctly. Maybe they should also advertise for someone of "British origin" to work in personel.
Jimmy Edwards would have them speaking properly
Daily Mail - 2,111,204 Average Net Circulation 01 Feb 2010 - 28 Feb 2010
The Guardian - 284,514 Average Net Circulation 01 Feb 2010 - 28 Feb 2010
The Daily Mail looks like quite a successful publication to me. Clearly they're more in tune with public opinion than some notably less successful publications that only keep going due to government and BBC job ads.
You should read the Daily Mail some time, you'll find plenty of accurate, balanced, informative reporting, no sign of hatred anywhere. It sounds like certain spiteful, hate-filled Reg-readers could use a dose of real news for a change to straighten their warped perceptions.
First point, distribution numbers does not necessarily equate to "better". Proof? IT angle - compare installations of Adobe Flash to any of the (arguably safer) clone versions. Hell, compare deployment of the cack that is IE6 versus Opera.
Second point, have you watched much British television recently? It seems to me that a lot of it is not so much reporting facts as telling people what to think. We get the Fail over here, a few days late, and it's frequently emotive suggestive front page headlines. Are people learning from the Fail, or being instructed by it?
Final point - I used to be an avid Daily Mail reader back in the '80s. Early '90s it all went so very wrong. I tend to equate it now with the likes of the Sun or the Mirror, only with words suitable for literate people (or sheep, really). I do pop by the Fail website from time to time. Littlejohn writes like such a twit, it's enjoyable reading (if you have a high tolerance level).
Great joke, there, about the Daily Mail being a decent newspaper.
Oh, sorry - you were being serious?
My mother reads the Daily Mail. I pick it up once every two or three weeks at her house to look at it, to try to find the "accurate, balanced, informative reporting, no sign of hatred anywhere" to which you refer.
What I always, ALWAYS, find is inaccurate, biassed, deliberately misleading articles and hate-spewing commentary.
It is revolting.
NOW YOU'VE DONE IT! STARTED ME OFF ABOUT THE DAILY FAIL!!!!
What the hell is it with Daily Fail and it's obsessions with Swan-eating Eastern Europeans ( who are only here for the Swan-eating, looting and pillaging apparently ) and the endless stories about WWII, ffs?
I cannot understand any person with an IQ above pond-life levels, having the nerve to pay for it and then actually sit and read it?!
Any excuse for the DM to stick-up for "white middle-Englanders" worried about Johnny Foreigner taking over the world. The empire is long gone, get over yourselves! We now spend our time bickering over property bounderies in upper-Snobbington and claiming we can still play cricket and football, both of which we no longer have a clue about!
Sheesh! * breathe * Breathe in love, blow out hate, repeat....
Rasczak, positive discrimination is a recognised term. For example if a government confers advantages to a minority group in order to redress a balance, then that is positive discrimination. Basically instead of discriminating AGAINST someone, you do something FOR them because they would normally be discriminated against.
It's pretty common for women to be the benefactors, for example when David Cameron said he would make at least a third of his cabinet women. Or this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/mar/06/women.discriminationatwork
I don't necessarily agree with it, and the spokeswoman for Torry Harris was saying they won't tolerate it. I don't understand why you've got a bit upset/angry with me. Yes it's negative for someone, that's pretty much the main problem with it.
I know exactly what positive discrimination is. It is a way to redress a perceived imbalance in the makeup of a workforce that ignores the one thing that is required in recruitment, namely, who is the best candidate for the job.
If the best way of productivity for a company means that the best candidates that applied were entirely women then why should a man get a job ahead of a better qualified woman, just because the male/female ratio is wrong ? That is not only negative for the woman who doesn't get the job, it is also negative for the company.
I know that it exists, is legal, and in some cases the government is attempting to make it illegal not to postively discriminate. Whatever it is still wrong, decisions should be based on suitability for the job and nothing else.
which race you are on
its all subjective.
but frankly, i don't give a flying shit. someone once had a go at me and made racist remarks (in a negative fashion) at work.
i didn't say anything to him, i didn't care enough about either him or the issue to argue the point.
does him mentioning my race make the fact that he was insulting me any worse than it already was? the answer is no.
calling me scottish is a compliment . adding bastard on the end just turns it into a point of view.
he was entitled to his, and by that point I had already decided he was sorely lacking both an education and another braincell to keep his existing one company.
i can fight my own fights. i don't need some politcally correct remtard being offended on my behalf, infact i find the idea truly offensive and repulsive.
if someone insulted me and i actually gave a shit, i'd deck the bastard. whether or not he mentioned what country i'm from would make little difference after i'd broken his jaw.
besides, if this company don't allow positive discrimination, how do they justify paying their execs more than the codemonkeys? that's what i'd call positive discrimination, from the point of view of the execs. i wonder what race *they* are?
anon for obvious and inflammatory reasons.
just go have a pint everyone, and fuckin chillax.
I used to work for the tiny company, when they were known as THBS, in their Southampton office. They are Indian in origin, (formally a door-to-door fish salesman I believe, and then someone bought the company name) with most of the work being done in Bangalore. Never struck me as racist when I was there, and when I went to their bangalore offices, they couldn't be friendlier. Probably just a poorly thought out job advert, although you would have thought this kind of thing would be picked up before publication in this day and age.
I for one welcome our hard working Indian overlords, and hope they will give me a job when they begin their war with China over dominion of Earth.
" Probably just a poorly thought out job advert, although you would have thought this kind of thing would be picked up before publication in this day and age. "
This is precisely the day and age when this sort of thing *wouldn't* be picked up. The immediacy of technology and the false assurances of spell checkers mean there's far more written material out there that hasn't been through the hands of a professional proof-reader.
In a previous day and age, there would have been some sort of "costumer service" between the advertiser and the press and they might have queried the wording.
Not today. Not this day and age.
There is a number of Indian outsourcing companies that continuously put racist and illegal ads on Jobsite, LinkedIn, etc. I have reported a few, but the general approach of the Home Office is "We do not give a flying f***".
I guess it takes the Daily Fail to intervene for someone to notice the one of the many ads.
That is of course the "visible" side of the coin here. There is also the invisible. Racial selection is ripe in the UK IT industry.
A while back I got so pissed off by not getting any responses for job apps that I invented a "lodger" that lived at my address, graduated from the worst Indian university I could find info on, went through a few companies that went bust and so on. Basically I cooked an Indian CV that had "failure" written all over it and applied for the jobs that never provided me with any feedback under that name. There were at least 3 big UK agencies that rang the "indian" phone (actually my second NTL line) like crazy for weeks after that.
We have the very same thing here in the U.S. where Asians and Indians get preference in technical jobs. Years ago I assumed that all the Patel's, Anand's, & Li's coming across my desk was due to the fact that mostly Indians and Asians were applying for IT jobs.
I eventually figured out that the recruiting agencies are terribly guilty of racial profiling and will send up the resumes they *think* seem more fitting based on race, not necessarily experience, training, or capabilities.
The HR side of the IT business went to hell in a hand basket a long time ago. After nearly two decades in the god forsaken industry I'll be glad to get out next year.
Is this a government agency hiring? No. This the private sector.
Then people should shut the fuck up.
If these dudes need Indians, then so be it. It's more efficient to be up front than to have candidates coming in which you then have to reject because they are not between 4'12'' and 4'13'' tall or something.
...i totally agree with.
- i pay the wages, i can pay who i want and if i reject a better qualified person as a result its my own stupid fault for hurting my business.
however legality has nothing to do ethics, morality or common-sense, only with (past and present) government policy and if the advert had said "no indians" or "whites only" they'd have been run out of town.
i think sexism is almost officially defined as "bias against women", so you can't actually be legally sexist by discriminating against men.
i can only assume that, given this and the BNP having to change their constitution (it would be so good if every "ethnic minority person" in the country tried to join) but with the Black Police Officers association (an explicitly racially exclusive name/organisation, no?) being allowed to continue existing, that the same sort of 1 way traffic must apply for race.
the joys of being white male - but thats a topic for the BBCs "Have Your Say" not mr. register's posting page :-)
Resticting membership of an association is different to restricting employment. Associations are no more than clubs, which to my mind, should always be allowed to be run as "private clubs" rather like I run a "private home".
If I decide not to let someone into my home because of his race, then my racism (and stupidity etc.) are irrelevent because it is *my* home and he/she has no right to demand an explanation. (If I shout racist crap at him from my doorway then that might be different.) The right to decide who you let in to your home/club/orgy/etc. is called freedom of association.
Employment is a different matter, although this is purely because the law has (rightly, IMHO) decided that freedom of association does not extend to staffing of a business be it public or private.
Looking at jobs as a cleaner. Office joint. Part-time work. Evening work, when everyone's fuc*ked off home. High-tech international company. For the client, English is the working language.
Ad. reads "Excellent Finnish essential (in Finnish)". Basically, they don't want some immigrant/refugee mopping the floor. They want a native.
Even if a Somalian refugee's learnt near-perfect Finnish, my Somalian mate who has, tells me there's still some excuse to trip him up, like a colloquialism he doesn't know. "What is a 'mäyräkoira'?" "I don't know" "It's a twelve-pack of beer. Sorry. Next" "But I'm Muslim, how would I know???" "NEXT!!!"
Same with McD's rival, Hesburger. Because of tourists/businessmen, every member of staff has to have English. But, to mop the floor, I need "Excellent Finnish skills"
Look at the classified jobs ads in the "Times of India" sometime. A few weeks ago I saw an Indian law firm advertising for a legal assistant, the ad stated "Persons aged over 35 need not apply." . Rules must be different there.
(Then read the matrimonial classifieds. It's a *very* different culture... )
This post has been deleted by its author
Questionable, that one. "There is a number of people" sounds a little odd, it's true, yet "there are a number of people" is clumsy. My question would be: "what number are that?"
"There is a group of people over there" is right. There are several people in that group, but there is only one group and that group "is", not that group "are".
The only upside here is if you know they are going to reject you if you are not Indian, you won't waste your time applying. Similary, if you are Indian, you might not waste your time if you know an employer is going to reject you because you aren't Anglo Saxon.
Jobserve and Jobsite are like eBay - placing all responsibility on the advertiser.
We need to audit these companies on the number of applications and their ethnic origin versus the ethnicity of the successful applicants. No positive descrimination, just need to penalise companies (e.g. by trebling their corporation tax) who vary from acceptable statistical variation based on UK population figures. OK, there may be flaws (e.g. in comparing areas like outer London to the Lake District).
India is such a big place I can't see the point in requiring an Indian...Sikhs may dislike Hindus who may dislike Moslems and then you have the whole caste system... being "Indian" does not ensure harmonious working. Of course, if you're on a work visa, you might be willing to work on contract for £150 a day versus £300 - at least until you've been here 4 years when you get permanent residency.
Stalin tried that with the USSR university admission policy (and it remained of years after he died).
The result was that let's say in maths or physics the passing grade for chuckcha (the russian equivalent of the innuit) was under 3 out of 5, for jews was 5 out 5 while for the general population in the same discipline it was around 4-4.5 out of 5.
Do we like it or not the population is inherently stratified. If you apply ethnicity/race statistics to any recruitment/admission policy the result will be positively discriminating against jews and a couple of other affluent ethnicities. Besides it being a bad idea (imagine denying Einstein a place in a Uni just because his grades are too high for a jew) it is going to happen only on a very cold day in hell.
This post has been deleted by its author
**Indians are well KNOW for using TOTALY 100% perfect written English. UNFORTUNATLY to most English speakers is comes ACCROSS very odd, because they use the type of English that we would have used 100 years ago.**
"know" should have been KNOWN, "totaly" = TOTALLY, "unfortunatly" = UNFORTUNATELY, "accross" = ACROSS
As your message isn't 100% perfect written English, we can safely assume that you are not Indian then lol.
but some are more equal than others.
It used to be called "positive discrimination", but that still included the bad "D" word, so the pigs decided to call it "affirmative action", and all of the other animals were happy.
Big Brother, because there isn't a Napoleon icon....
I keep wondering if there is a equivalent to Godwin's Law, where any any online discussion about the British Labour Government will eventually lead to someone mentioning Orwell.
Not surprised this story is coming from the ultra racist daily mail. They'll print anything that makes white people look downtrodden. They wouldn't have printed anything if the job ad was for asking for a woman.
..oh wait a minute, yes they would cos they hate women as well as black people.
Is "Indian" refering to an race/ethnicity or to "having citizenship of the country of India" (very possible for a caucasian to have)
Don't have a clue what the legal definition is, but...
- its race/ethnicity then surely this must be illegal?
- if its geographical/political then they wouild seem to be treating all EU citizens equally (thats the important bit) as NONE of them can apply and they are probably okay?
Does the capital letter ("Indian" as opposed to "indian") make it a geographical/political?
It may be actually useful in a workplace to have Indian language and cultural knowledge. Spelling of common names, say. Well, Cliff Richard was born in India (as Hari Webb). So was Spike Milligan. I'm not sure who I want running IT, but we've just had half a day downtime because something in Glasgow broke and there are worse things than a sing-along. I'm guessing that they had in mind someone more Indian than that, though. (Jai Ho!)
Of course it's quite likely that someone who has an Indian background like you is from the people that hate your people back home... they didn't think it through.
Sorry but you have it all wrong.
This is how you sort out Quebec.
First build a big water tight wall around the province, make sure no one escapes and shoot those that try.
Then flood the entire place.
Once all Quebecers have sufiiciently drowned, send in the Armed Forces to remove the bodies.
Next take down wall and build one big ass shopping mall. Multiple stories with theme parks and cinemas.
Now open it and let the Yanks come in and spend money.
Sure, it's illegal, but if they're going to discriminate anyways, the fact might as well be known up front.
The lesson this company will learn will be to either hide their intentions all together, or to squirm around the discrimination laws by requiring a skill only indians could have. Aka "10 years experience with the indian language".
What raving lunatic at the Reg thought it would be a good idea to make the comments link take me to the last page of the comments and not the 1st page?!?!?! When I want to read the comments on an article I want to start at the top of the thread, not somewhere in the middle.!
Fix it please el Reg.
(as to the article - who gives a toss if they want to employ foreigners, perhaps they feel Indians have a better work ethic?)
If they'd just listed a few Indian dialects and said "must be a fluent speaker in one of ..." nobody could/would've batted an eyelid. I work for a large company where the only black people employed have British-sounding names, proving someone else's point about racist CV-filtering
And next time they will just ensure that they write, 'preferably able to speak Hindi, Urdu and English', which pretty much excludes white people on all three counts, but will be perfectly legal.
There are lots of jobs advertised like this, here's two from today:
Personally I think this kind of advert should be legal. I do not condone the advert, however I think many innocent companies/employers are prosecuted for racial discrimination and loose because it is simply impossible to prove a negative. It is a law of good intentions with unexpected consequences.
I am not surprised, so many friends I know have lost their jobs to outsourced Indians, but I am not bitter because they too are being exploited. I met an Indian chap on a course recently, very bright chap. He told me that he has been working here for BT for 3 years, He was grateful for the opportunity until he found out how much his services are being billed for (250k).
He had no unique skill, he was just cheaper and it seems that enough to get a Visa and work permit these days.
Of course companies need people who are Indian because so many outsourced projects are screwed up when outsourced offshore, let's face it, it is hard enough getting a spec agreed between clients and developers speaking the same language!
Obviously they should have said someone who speaks both languages fluently.
They will still screw up the project.
The fact is people will employ who they want and have their own prejudices.
Well I can only guess they meant to say, able to speak Indian dialects. There legalised. Now question is:
If somebody put an advert in India saying Preferably British - would the outrage and eventual punishment be onpar. Just a thought.
Indeed will the punishment be onpar for a British advert advertising for British prefered. That will be interesting.
Either way not as good as the job I saw for a "data imputer" once. Still at least you can descriminate against people who can spell still, who can code in a certain language.
Descrimination is all around, take jobseekers for example - a man gets the same allowance to eat as a women - nomatter what size the person and despite the fact that it is a fact that a man required 1/5th more calories to operate a normal day than a women. Now is that legal, or has the PC/descimination world gone descriminatory on what it deems descrimination.
Either way - very funny, pls come again.
-not anon as I speak the truth
Well.... IF they do in the end hire that person and they are from Indian descent
then a class action can be made against the company and punative damages can be sought as I know for a fact companies like that will continue hiring in the same fashion and will need to be slapped in the face a few times to wake them up.
Can't wait to see how this plays out!
Kinda like that Programmers Guild video of the lawer on how NOT to hire Americans.
Seems this company has erred in morals in the same way.
Very shameful indeed!