A Political Thread

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Legally it's not discrimination... just about... when it comes to parents.

Indirect discrimination: putting rules or arrangements in place that apply to everyone, but that put someone with a protected characteristic at an unfair disadvantage (https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/how-you-can-be-discriminated-against)



Being a parent is not a protected characteristic. IMO that's an oversight on the government's behalf. But Muslims may have a case for example; not being able to attend social events in pubs when required for job progression would put them at an unfair disadvantage, and religion is a protected characteristic.

But yeah, if socialising/networking out-of-hours is required for job progression, and that precludes groups, that's discrimination precisely because it's an unfair disadvantage.

There are also plenty of issues with over-familiarity/friendliness in a team and in a workplace. Firstly, you have people scratching each others back to the top; where people pass over on the person best suited for a job to give it to their pal. Secondly, you can get cliquey environments, good for those who have been around for ages and call the shots, not so welcoming to newcomers and those on the fringes. Thirdly, especially if you're in a position of responsibility and management, you may unfairly treat your mates, consciously or not, better than others you are managing. It's not in the interests of an organisation or the people in it to let this happen.

Families have to make choices... You either both work and have lots of money and have to hire help OR one puts their career on held. Does it suck? Yes. But that is part of having kids. Now for single parents or families that can't afford to have one parent take off from work there probably

But when you speak of networking you are usually talking about middle class families who have the luxury of one parent not working.

 

[ncurd]

Here's the part you don't understand.

First up its not required and never has been anywhere I've worked. Social events after work tend to just occur naturally. After major off site is events like briefings and Christmas parties again they happen.

One guy I work with who's pretty good at his job now gets on very well with a VP as they had to go to India together. Surprisingly they socialised outside of working in the office out there and now they've got on the VP actually knows who he is.


People moan about brown nosing and what not but the real reality is I've only ever seen a couple of times where someone has been promoted when they shouldn't of been. And those occasions were never because out of office hours socialising.

Socialising/Networking just promotes better relationships within in the office and people naturally do it whether company enforced or not. People moaning about job advancement tend just come off as having sour grapes for not having put themselves forward enough in the workplace environment and expect to get noticed by just doing their job normally.


Do you know what's the greatest barriers for women with kids that politicians should be focusing on? Unequal pay in the same job. Why does that come about? A society that still feels a woman's place is with the children and a man's is at home. A society where men are more likely to earn more than their partners. A society which benefits women to stay at home with the kids more than it does men. That occurs through some companies being legally to continue to practice actual discrimatory practices such as Unequal pay/paying above the statutory rate for maternity pay over paternity or shared parental leave.

Let's fix the proper injustices first rather than the face Jim has a drink with Jeff and now they get on.

 

[McTallshort]

If you have kids like i do its very simple.....wife goes out with work mates i look after the kids. I go out with work she looks after the kids! The only things really stopping parents going out are lack of money and the fact you tend to be falling asleep around 9 but thats the choice we made.

 

[ratsapprentice]

The same goes for religion.

We should aspire to be secular, and we, as a country should not have to change a fairly significant part of our culture in order to accommodate a very small percentage of people who don't drink for religious reasons (around 5%).

 

[j'nuh]

I think people are misunderstanding what I am saying.

• If drinking culture is necessary for networking yourself into higher positions: bad (for both employees and organisation).
• If drinking culture is simply a way of unwinding and getting to know people and it is absolutely not connected to career prospects: good, but there should be no pressure on employees to spend their time and/or money to go. (It's £25 to go to my organisation's Christmas dinner, excluding drinks. F that.)

In my experience, I get the latter at my organisation, but I daresay the former exists either consciously in toxic organisations or unconsciously in incompetent organisations.

The same goes for religion.

We should aspire to be secular, and we, as a country should not have to change a fairly significant part of our culture in order to accommodate a very small percentage of people who don't drink for religious reasons (around 5%).

The protected characteristic of "religion" as under the Equality Act 2010 exists for all, including atheists. Inasmuch as precluding Muslims from something necessary for career progression, so it is too for precluding atheists. See: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/religion-or-belief-discrimination

 

[ratsapprentice]

They aren't precluded from doing anything other than drinking - they can still go to the pub and socialise, if they don't want to do that it's their choice.

If an entire workforce is uber religious and socialise by going to church or holding a prayer group in the evenings, then tough **** for the atheist who works with them.

What you're advocating is the genericisation of culture, and the oppression of individualism, IMO.

 

[j'nuh]

They aren't precluded from doing anything other than drinking - they can still go to the pub and socialise, if they don't want to do that it's their choice.

If an entire workforce is uber religious and socialise by going to church or holding a prayer group in the evenings, then tough **** for the atheist who works with them.

What you're advocating is the genericisation of culture, and the oppression of individualism, IMO.

Muslims are not allowed by their religion to go into a pub. How strictly most follow that, I can't say.

See: http://www.therevival.co.uk/can-muslims-go-to-the-pub

But that's an aside. You have created a straw man out of what I have said - one which I have already stated my opinion on in my last post. I'll post it again:

• If drinking culture is simply a way of unwinding and getting to know people and it is absolutely not connected to career prospects: good, but there should be no pressure on employees to spend their time and/or money to go. (It's £25 to go to my organisation's Christmas dinner, excluding drinks. F that.)

I'm not against social drinking in organisations. I'm against using it as a means of working your way up the organisation to the detriment of better employees. As I have said, it's as much in the organisation's interests as in the employees to stop this, else they end with idiots in high positions.

And yes, I absolutely am advocating the genericisation of culture in the workplace. Organisations and employees benefit from inclusive practices.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Like I say: tough ****...

Socialisation outside of the workplace is not "in the workplace", but there is no way to compartmentalise the effect socialisation outside the workplace has within the workplace.

I understand what you're saying, but there's no difference, IMO, between "organised" socialisation and organic socialisation - they will both have an impact on interpersonal relationships, and thus: employment prospects.

And it's irrelevant, really, because Corbyn was talking about people going out in the evening to socialise being somehow unfair. Which I believe to be not only patently ridiculous, but harmful.

The irony in his statement about "subtle discrimination" whilst saying that "obviously" women want to get home to look after their kids, but the dads couldn't give a **** is absurd.

 

[j'nuh]

Socialisation outside of the workplace is not "in the workplace", but there is no way to compartmentalise the effect socialisation outside the workplace has within the workplace.

You can mitigate the effects of it very easily through blind applications to higher positions, using multiple people to check over an application for a higher position, deliberately taking mates of the applicant out of the promotion panel etc.

You can also promote diversity in the workplace. You can run inclusive networking events within work hours.

There is a hell of a lot you can do to stop a toxic back-scratching environment.

And it's irrelevant, really, because Corbyn was talking about people going out in the evening to socialise being somehow unfair. Which I believe to be not only patently ridiculous, but harmful.

No he was not.

His exact words:
"The behaviour of companies that encourages an ethic of early evening socialisation in order to promote themselves within the company benefits men who don't feel the need to be at home looking after their children..."

Which is exactly the line I am taking. Companies shouldn't be encouraging out-of-hours socialisation: it should be coming from the employees themselves. Which is in my experience what happens, but I daresay that the former is true too.

The irony in his statement about "subtle discrimination" whilst saying that "obviously" women want to get home to look after their kids, but the dads couldn't give a **** is absurd.

I agree. I prefer to inclusively say that parents lose out.

 

[McTallshort]

You can mitigate the effects of it very easily through blind applications to higher positions, using multiple people to check over an application for a higher position, deliberately taking mates of the applicant out of the promotion panel etc.

You can also promote diversity in the workplace. You can run inclusive networking events within work hours.

There is a hell of a lot you can do to stop a toxic back-scratching environment.


No he was not.

His exact words:
"The behaviour of companies that encourages an ethic of early evening socialisation in order to promote themselves within the company benefits men who don't feel the need to be at home looking after their children..."

Which is exactly the line I am taking. Companies shouldn't be encouraging out-of-hours socialisation: it should be coming from the employees themselves. Which is in my experience what happens, but I daresay that the former is true too.


I agree. I prefer to inclusively say that parents lose out.

Why the hell shouldn't they?! When I was growing up employers built clubs and bars for their workforce to socialise out of hours the whole community got involved and we are a sadder society for their loss.

And why and when are parents losing out? I unlike yourself am a parent and I have never once felt like I am missing out on anything at work. If a work do is organised by the management I can either get a babysitter if its partners as well or if not my wife looks after the nippers like I do when she has a work do. Please please please don't feel you or comrade Corbyn have to fight for my inclusivity in the work place. There are other more pressing problems in the world that I would prefer the leader of the opposition to worry about than people not mixing in an after hours drinking club at work.

 

[j'nuh]

I think we are slightly coloured by our own experiences.

Maybe I am risking projecting here. But my dad would go to the pub 3-4 times a week when I was growing up and work on Saturdays. (I'm not moaning, I think this came with the machismo of Northern culture in the early 90s, especially in places like Bradford. But I think, in the more egalitarian society we live in these days, where both men and women share working and domestic duties, it wouldn't be possible nor should it be encouraged for this to happen.)

And a mate of mine - her Mum stayed at home and her dad worked 10-12 hour shifts each day. Again, not criticising life choices and all that. But I definitely think there's an obvious generational difference in parenting between my generation and yours.

I think we are caught in a transition between the breadwinner-homemaker model of my parents generation, and the even split of duties that is typical of my generation. And I think the issue is coming about because women's interest groups are (perhaps rightly) complaining that women are taking up more duties in work, but still take the lion's share of parenting and domestic duties.

There's not really any data I know of that can back this up, so I have to go on anecdotal experience, and my experience says that this is true to varying extents.

 

[j'nuh]

Owen Smith is so gaffe prone:

On Corbyn: "What you won't get from me is some, you know, lunatic at the top of the Labour Party, you'll have someone who tries to form a coherent narrative about what's wrong with Britain,"
On Leanne Wood appearing on QT: "I think your gender helps as well."
On Theresa May he wants to: "smash her back on her heels"
On ISIS he wants to get them around a table. (Fair enough IMO, but not exactly a popular message.)
On sexism and racism in Labour: "we didn't have this sort of abuse and intolerance, misogyny, antisemitism in the Labour party before Jeremy Corbyn became the leader."
Domestic abuse as a joke: "Surely, the Liberals will file for divorce as soon as the bruises start to show through the make-up?"

Corbyn probably should go, but not for Smith. Smith is terrible and Labour shouldn't be allowed to pretend their problems would be over with him elected.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Labour having to choose between Smith and Corbyn it's like a media dream combo for gaffs.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Big difference between out of hours socialisation - going on lash with colleagues - and networking. Our business as an expertise based service provider depends on introductions and recommendations, so we are constantly having to build and cement relationships. Frankly, doing so can be a huge pain, but that's the industry I'm in.

The reality of the world is that we all have targets to meet and diary pressures mean that some of this networking takes place after hours. We don't all have nice unions demanding that we go home at 5 or get paid overtime for every second we work afterwards.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

BLM is doing some major damage to themselves here ATM.

 

[ncurd]

BLM is doing some major damage to themselves here ATM.

You would of thought they'd be able to find a black person for their protest.... White people protesting on the behalf of black people doesn't send a very good message.

Sadly you read the actual protesting comments it's not BLM it's climate change protests done under a different banner. Which is worse they are hijacking a different protest and dragging it into their beliefs.

TBH I have very little time for protesters who inflict themselves upon people who have no control over the choices. I've flown from London City Airport for a holiday once because that's where the tour operator booked the flights from. Knowing how I was that day missing my original flight I know how ****** off I'd be for a flight I had zero control over other than 'not going on holiday'.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Have I missed all the amusement at Keith Vaz??

 

[ncurd]

Have I missed all the amusement at Keith Vaz??

Politician pays for sex is the oldest political scandal in the book (even if it same-sex), its so dull I'm surprised papers still report it.

 

[j'nuh]

Politician pays for sex is the oldest political scandal in the book (even if it same-sex), its so dull I'm surprised papers still report it.

The prostitution is a non-story to me. Prostitution should be legal and accepted anyway.

But tbf, I think cheating on a partner (provided his wife did not agree to it) may well be the worst non-illegal thing you can do to someone. I think it is even worse than a lot of illegal acts. It is something that a lot of people might fairly judge someone's character on. Does that make it sufficiently of public interest to override the privacy? Does it affect Vaz's ability to do a job? Difficult questions tbh.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

You would of thought they'd be able to find a black person for their protest.... White people protesting on the behalf of black people doesn't send a very good message.

Sadly you read the actual protesting comments it's not BLM it's climate change protests done under a different banner. Which is worse they are hijacking a different protest and dragging it into their beliefs.

TBH I have very little time for protesters who inflict themselves upon people who have no control over the choices. I've flown from London City Airport for a holiday once because that's where the tour operator booked the flights from. Knowing how I was that day missing my original flight I know how ****** off I'd be for a flight I had zero control over other than 'not going on holiday'.

what's wrong with white people protesting for black people? if that didn't happen i think sadly the united states would still have slavery