# Racism rife as people with Irish sounding names twice as likely to be given job. ERSI



## Pique318 (7 May 2009)

An article in the Irish Independent here claims that foreign workers are being discriminated against in favour of Irish workers when it comes to applying for jobs via CV.

Now, I'm no fan of racism, but neither am I a fan of scattergun accusations of racism which seems to be the norm nowadays.

As far as I can see, Irish companies are hiring Irish workers first and foreign workers second. Fair enough I say. Hire the best, and if there 2 of equal talent/experience, of which one is Irish and the other not, then the Irish person gets the shout.

I don't see this as racism, maybe the equality authority would, but I don't. I understand that people want to give jobs to their compatriots. I also know that it happens in France, Germany and Spain as well as the well publicised accounts of it in Australia for many years. Barack Obama wants to encourage US companies to take their off-shore operations back to the US. Again, I understand the reasoning behind this and agree with it...albeit hopeful that my job isn't at risk (which it may be, should the initiative take off).

When times are good, then everyone can be hired, but when times are bad, shouldn't the country look after its own first ?

Opinions ?


----------



## Betsy Og (7 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*

I suppose the point usually is that the best person gets the job regardless of colour or origin etc.

That said, I think there might often be a case for a "native" of the particular country to be more suitable due to ability to interact with colleagues, or maybe more importantly customers. Is that a valid factor for making them the best person for the job?

I dont know the line between discrimaination & racism (if there is one) but my own guess is that racism is more active, actually hating a particular group rather than just preferring your own while not wishing ill on others or taking steps to make life harder for others.


----------



## Latrade (7 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*

There are too many variables with the research method that haven't been accounted for. Yes it does seem that interviews were given to those with "Irish" names. However, the applications were made to the financial sector, accountancy jobs (I think). Have they accounted for the fact that the company would have received more than the two CVs the researchers sent in? Have they accounted for the inundation of CVs in general HR departments are receiving these days, especially for financial posts?

Yes, there was a bias, but bias isn't the same as racism. I'm prepared to accept that in some cases the "foreign" names were discounted for prejudicial reasons, but largely I would expect that you had some poor sod having to sift through hundreds of CVs, all with similar qualifications.

The thing is we don't know because there is no follow up as to why those CVs never got a call up. We've no idea how many of the other legitimate applications were refused an interview. You would need to compare all the rejections, not just those you sent out to form a substantive conclusion.

As to Irish Jobs for Irish People, well if we hold that view then we should get ready for the deluge of Irish people in UK/US/France/Germany/Australia etc getting kicked out in favour of the indigenous population. Will be great having all these unemployed people suddenly coming home and claiming the dole.

As a note, the one damning factor about this report is that the CVs were identical and not just qualifications. The foreign names were, according to the CV, Irish citizens. They were schooled in Ireland and had English as their first language. 

How far are you going to take this Irish people first? They were all citizens or do we start doing gene pool analysis now to determine if they're really Irish?

The report is flawed, granted. It leaps to a conclusion without sufficient evidence and ignoring obvious variables (in my opinion), but to say Irish jobs for Irish only is just as flawed.


----------



## Smashbox (7 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*

I'm responsible for the hiring/firing in my job, and certainly the best person I interviewed would get the job, regardless of their nationality.

I've taken on Irish, English, Spanish, French, Polish, Lithuanian, Chinese, Nigerian, Australian, Italian, etc.

The person most suited for the position got the job, not necessarily the Irish.


----------



## Pique318 (7 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



Latrade said:


> As to Irish Jobs for Irish People, well if we hold that view then we should get ready for the deluge of Irish people in UK/US/France/Germany/Australia etc getting kicked out in favour of the indigenous population. Will be great having all these unemployed people suddenly coming home and claiming the dole.


It's already happening. OK not so far as being kicked out, but definitely being turned down jobs in favour of the 'locals', leaving them to work at lower skilled jobs. 
How many Indians/Asians are there with degrees/masters working as cabbies in Oz/US ?


----------



## Pique318 (7 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



Smashbox said:


> The person most suited for the position got the job, not necessarily the Irish.


The way it should be !

But what about if there's a 'deat heat' between Irish/foreign candidates ?


----------



## Smashbox (7 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



Pique318 said:


> But what about if there's a 'deat heat' between Irish/foreign candidates ?


 
There hasnt been so far Pique, its always fairly clear cut, and I've been here for 5 years.


----------



## csirl (7 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*

There is never a dead heat as you'll never get exactly identical candidates. 

I've also heard complaints about discrimination against Irish candidates as they are perceived to more demanding and more expensive that foreign candidates.


----------



## Latrade (7 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



Pique318 said:


> The way it should be !
> 
> But what about if there's a 'deat heat' between Irish/foreign candidates ?


 
But the dead heat was only on paper. The reasonable approach would be to interview both and put their competence to the test. In this study, the dead heat meant the Irish name got called up for an interview and the equivalent foreign name didn't. In theory they weren't even given the chance to demonstrate competency.

I'm not saying our application of "equality" decisions isn't sometimes over fellow Member States, that's partly due to our legal system and in some cases the decisions of the Equality Appeals. However, I see no strong evidence that there are huge numbers of Irish people losing their jobs because individual states are only employing their "own". 

My points were:

1. would you accept an influx of unemployed irish people returning and signing on if other states took the same view?

2. define what you mean by "irish" in order to give the jobs to irish people. As I said in this study the "foreign" names were actually Irish citizens.


----------



## Pique318 (7 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*

Latrade:

I'm not saying it's right, but it's understandable...and certainly not racist imo. Discriminatory, perhaps, in favour of the 'Irish' (by which I mean residents of Ireland, living here legally).
Would I accept an influx of returning emigrants ? I don't think that's ever likely to happen as those who emigrate will find another job (maybe at a lower position or in a different location) before giving up the fight and returning home to Ireland, where things aren't great anyway, and so there's no guarantee of them being able to secure the high-level position they may think they deserve.
AFAIK, there is already an EU law/directive declaring that staff must be found from within the EU, and only non-EU people can be hired if it has been demonstrated that a suitable candidate could not be found in the EU. A company I worked for had a huge amount of non-EU staff and when this directive came into effect, any of those staff who left had to  be replaced by someone from within the EU to keep the percentages acceptable. I forget the figures but it may have been 40-50% of staff had to be EU citizens. 
This, in my view, amounts to the same thing, albeit a broader version, and it's 'official'.


----------



## Latrade (7 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



Pique318 said:


> Latrade:
> 
> I'm not saying it's right, but it's understandable...and certainly not racist imo. Discriminatory, perhaps, in favour of the 'Irish' (by which I mean residents of Ireland, living here legally).
> Would I accept an influx of returning emigrants ? I don't think that's ever likely to happen as those who emigrate will find another job (maybe at a lower position or in a different location) before giving up the fight and returning home to Ireland, where things aren't great anyway, and so there's no guarantee of them being able to secure the high-level position they may think they deserve.
> ...


 

There's no official quota on employment and country of origin. The EU aspect is due to open borders. Non EU is always subject to work permits, which in effect is that you have to show lack of response/interest/talent from within the EU for the job.

I don't think that we can call all cases in this report "racism" i don't think the report does either, that would be the media's tag. But I'm sure some were not selected based on this. But we'll never know because like all good state sponsored reports they wait until they find the conclusion they set out to achieve and then shut the doors without delving further.

And again, you're right, it is unlikely to happen that we will get an influx, but is this not a possible consequence of you model of "irish jobs for irish people"? Would we not feel irked if our application for a dream job was turned down purely on the basis of being Irish?


----------



## mick1960 (7 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*

It could be that in the past every one was treated evenly and foreign workers were a novelty, the best canidate got the job,and now that company's have experience of hiring foreign (perceived) workers they have decided it does not suit them and giving them a interview would be wasting their time.


----------



## Pique318 (7 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



Latrade said:


> And again, you're right, it is unlikely to happen that we will get an influx, but is this not a possible consequence of you model of "irish jobs for irish people"?


Yes, it's possible, I grant you. I don't agree with a view of 'give the job to the local, regardless of their talent' either FWIW, 


Latrade said:


> Would we not feel irked if our application for a dream job was turned down purely on the basis of being Irish?


If I was in another country where there were thousands of their own citizens unemployed ? Probably not, TBH. I know people who've been in that situation and weren't bitter about it too.


----------



## Caveat (7 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*

At the end of the day don't forget there are a few ways, in many cases, that employers can choose to discriminate if they so wish whilst making the selection process seem fair/transparent.

E.g. Complete fluency in English required (Foreign applicants could be deliberately tripped up at interview with obscure vocabulary etc); 

Excellent telephone voice/manner required (people with 'foreign' accents may be suddenly regarded as unsuitable even if they speak perfectly clearly)


----------



## Slash (7 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*

What a complete and utter waste of time. 

Four people in the ESRI/EA worked on this rubbish. Gimme strength!!

What does this so-called research tell us? A CV with an Irish sounding name is more likely to get an interview than a foreign-sounding name. So what? Is that racism? Even if it is, what can be done about it? Nothing.

The ESRI would be better spending their time doing proper work instead of this nonsense.

Oh, and by the way, the project had a budget of €50,000!!


----------



## UptheDeise (7 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*

I would like to know how many foreign folk work in the ESRI/EA?


----------



## Caveat (7 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



UptheDeise said:


> I would like to know how many foreign folk work in the ESRI/EA?


 
Hmmm. Exactly.


----------



## Slash (7 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



UptheDeise said:


> I would like to know how many foreign folk work in the ESRI/EA?



There is a complete list of employees' names on the ESRI website. So, maybe you could tell from their names if they are Irish or not...................but then you might be accused of being a racist!


----------



## Smashbox (7 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



Slash said:


> Oh, and by the way, the project had a budget of €50,000!!


 
What a waste!!


----------



## dodo (7 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*

I'll be honest I had to let a few guys go in the last couple of months in a company I work for,all good workers but I did feel it was right to look after the Irish guys first.Might not be the PC thing to do but I was never a fan of that nonsense anyway.I know the lads I let go had planned to work here a few years save their money to build a house etc back home so that played a part in my decision. 
The Aussie policy is to employ a native first if possible then so on.
From a company point of view we do want our employee's to stay with us a long time especially with all the resources and money that we put into training  and development with our employee's.
Surely we have a right to keep the person who wants to stay for life with us rather than the person who will leave when he has saved enough money to build his house back in his native Country.I know this is not the case for all non Irish workers but there is alot who do think that way.


----------



## Pique318 (7 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



dodo said:


> I'll be honest I had to let a few guys go in the last couple of months in a company I work for,all good workers but I did feel it was right to look after the Irish guys first.Might not be the PC thing to do but I was never a fan of that nonsense anyway.I know the lads I let go had planned to work here a few years save their money to build a house etc back home so that played a part in my decision.
> The Aussie policy is to employ a native first if possible then so on.
> From a company point of view we do want our employee's to stay with us a long time especially with all the resources and money that we put into training  and development with our employee's.
> Surely we have a right to keep the person who wants to stay for life with us rather than the person who will leave when he has saved enough money to build his house back in his native Country.I know this is not the case for all non Irish workers but there is alot who do think that way.


Did they think it was racism-related ?
I hope for your sake they don't read that article and think that they've got some sort of comeback...


----------



## Simeon (7 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*

This appeared in the SA Mercury last month:
 [FONT=Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]
[/FONT]This was a reply to an article, in the Mercury, where the previously disadvantaged
 (Blacks) stated that it's not too late for the previously advantaged (including whites, Indians
and Coloureds) to apologize for apartheid. Check out the reply. Just too hot and so true.
 The main headline stated the following:

It's not too late for whites to say sorry for Apartheid.............

'To the Previously Disadvantaged'

We are sorry that our ancestors were intelligent, advanced and daring enough to explore the wild oceans to discover new countries and develop them.

We are sorry that those who came before us took you out of the bush and taught you that there was more to life than beating drums, killing each other and chasing animals with sticks and stones.

We are sorry that they planned, funded and developed roads, towns, mines, factories, airports and harbours, all of which you now claim to be your long deprived inheritance giving you every right to
 change and rename these at your discretion.

We are sorry that our parents taught us the value of small but strong families, to not breed like rabbits and end up as underfed, diseased, illiterate shack dwellers living in poverty.

We are sorry that when the evil apartheid government provided you with schools, you decided they'd look better without windows or in piles of ashes.

We happily gave up those bad days of getting spanked in our all white Schools for doing something wrong, and much prefer these days of freedom where problems can be resolved with knives and guns.

We are sorry that it is hard to shake off the bitterness of the past when you keep on raping, torturing and killing our friends and family members, and then hide behind the fence of 'human rights'
with smiles on your faces.

We are sorry that we do not trust the government... We have no reason to be so suspicious because none of these poor "hard working intellectuals" have ever been involved in any form of "corruption or
 irregularities".

We are sorry that we do not trust the police force and, even though they have openly admitted that they have lost the war against crime and criminals, we should not be negative and just ignore their
 corruption and carry on hoping for the best.

We are sorry that it is more important to you to have players of colour in our national teams than winning games and promoting patriotism.

We know that sponsorship doesn't depend on a team's success.

We are sorry that our border posts have been flung open and now left you competing for jobs against illegal immigrants from our beautiful neighbouring countries.

All of them countries that have grown into economic powerhouses after kicking out the 'settlers'.

We are sorry that we don't believe in witchcraft, beet root and garlic cures, urinating on street corners, virginity testing, slaughtering of bulls in our back yards, trading women for cattle and other
barbaric practices.

Maybe we just grew up differently.

We are sorry that your medical care, water supplies, roads, railways and electricity supplies are going down the toilet because skilled people who could have planned for and resolved these issues had to be thrown away because they were of the wrong ethnic background and now have to work in foreign countries where their skills are highly appreciated.

We are so sorry that we'd like this country to fulfil its potential so we can once again be proud South Africans.


The Previously
Advantaged'

PS In the old regime... we had lights and water


----------



## mick1960 (8 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*

Top class writing


----------



## Latrade (8 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



mick1960 said:


> Top class writing


 
Yes in the sense that Enoch Powell was a great orator. Talked utter and contemptible tripe (no offence to the offal industry), but he did it with style.

Change a few key terms in that statement so it relates to Ireland under British rule and see how top class it is then.


----------



## gillarosa (8 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*

It's bad enought that a piece of tripe like that took up print space in South Africa (if it actually did?) but quoting it here is pathetic, nothing to do with the original post or the issues to hand.


----------



## NorthDrum (8 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*

On the OP's post . . 

Personally I think the world is PC mad. Theres no balance or clarity on what exactly is racist or not.

If a colored person in the middle of an arguement called a white person "white trash" there would be nothing much said about it or it probably wouldnt register. If I was having an arguement with a colored person and called them a black piece of dirt (in the heat of the moment), the arguement would end and they would win on the race card irrespective of whether or not I meant it soley as an insult or actually the real bad stigma that comes with racist peoples beliefs . . 

Is there racism in the world . . Most definantly . . . 

Do minoritys and certain cultures get targeted. . . Most definantly . . 

Are the boundaries of whats racist and whats not accepted as politically correct difficult to seperate . . . Most definantly . . 

Case in point, capitalism is about supply and demand. Up until now Irish People in many regards were too snobby to take certain jobs, some of them customer service jobs. Right now its an employers market. 

If you have 2 CV's on front of you and you have a natural English speaking person with the same qualifications as somebody who has learned English as a second language I believe its not racist to choose the English speaking person from an employers perspective, particularly if having good english is important for the job in question.

I do feel for foreigners in this country that do get isolated because of racism, but also because most Irish people do have an advantage of language over any adopted national. But thats capitalism, I dont see anywhere in the capitalism code of ethics that its important to only make money by being fair and just to all humanity. Its a sad statement but very true . .


----------



## Latrade (8 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



NorthDrum said:


> On the OP's post . .
> 
> Personally I think the world is PC mad. Theres no balance or clarity on what exactly is racist or not.


 
Oops, am about to take it away from OP's post...sorry (and sorry for the ellipsis, I forget who that offends on here).

But two things for me:

1. PCism is largely a media creation. A large proportion of what is supposed to be "PC gone mad" was fabricated by the press or even the press failing to spot satirical writings which they adopted as the truth. Unfortunately there has been a mass uptake of it being the case and has led to a fear of offence.

2. There is no boundary. It's difficult to say (at least in a short statement conducted on the internet instead of down the pub) why "white trash" isn't offensive yet "black piece of dirt" is. To be honest: it just is. There's a plethora of socio-political and historical justification for it, but the upshot is that one is offensive and one isn't.

That's the whole point of "PC", it is society who dictate what is appropriate or not. There's no cut off or point where you can say "that's when you couldn't say 'gay' or 'coloured' anymore", it just seems to be at some indefined point a generation feel it is no longer appropriate. At that point society has determined what is offensive.

Look at old BBC comedies of the 60s and 70s. Even some of the so-called classics, you look at them now from current, modern sensibilities and can't help but cringe and wonder how we ever laughed at that.

The point of all this though is that it is for society to adjust and decide what is appropriate. You cannot legislate for it in order to speed up the process. And that's the fundamental flaw in some political thought.

And finally, just to mention your point on language. I accept that totally, but this report actually eliminated that because all candidates were Irish citizens with English as their first language, the only difference was name. 

None of the reason discussed here (such as communication, length of service/stay in country) stand up to that aspect of the report. It perhaps suggest that people have that prejudice when they see the names and then dismiss the CV purely on the basis of name. If they actually read further they would see the individual is Irish and has English as their first language.


----------



## NorthDrum (8 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



Latrade said:


> Oops, am about to take it away from OP's post...sorry (and sorry for the ellipsis, I forget who that offends on here).
> 
> But two things for me:
> 
> ...


 

Very Good post and I agree with it pretty much to the letter. 

I admit I didnt read the report, perhaps my beef is with the PC brigade of the world, but if its an honest case of choosing an Irish Name over a foreign name then I concur with your assessment..

I was playing a soccer video game with a friend (who lives in the US, probably the most PC country in the world) and I missed a chance on goal and said innocently "Ah ye feckin donkey" not even thinking about the colour of the player. He actually said it was a racist comment. I wont write down the "discussion" we had after that but I refused to accept his point. 

Hypothetically If I am angry at somebody and I am looking to insult them and use the colour of their skin to get to them is that necessarily racist. E.G. A colored person robs my house and I call them a black piece of dirt (because Im angry and looking to really get under their skin). . . It can be construed as a racist comment, but does not mean I have racist intentions or beliefs. Trying to get under peoples skin is about tactically annoying the hell out of them by any means necessary. I suppose what i am saying is, is your intention of the insult as important as the use of it or are you racist for even reverting to racist kind of insults.


----------



## Pique318 (8 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*

I think if you specifically mention the persons skin colour in an insult, then the insult is linked with the skin colour, making it racist. Whereas if it's descriptive (as in, that black guy over there) then it's not racist. And don't give me that 'oh you should be colour-blind'. Why? If people are proud to be black, white, yellow or purple, then why should they take umbrage at being called it ?

Anyway, regarding the OP, I'd like to ask the compilers of the study to do it 10 times and see if there's a pattern. One study gives no definitive basis for making a conclusive statement.

Besides what if they were like David Brent [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
"Avoid                    employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in                    the bin without reading them." 
[/FONT]


----------



## Latrade (8 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



NorthDrum said:


> I suppose what i am saying is, is your intention of the insult as important as the use of it or are you racist for even reverting to racist kind of insults.


 
In (american) journalism terms: that's the nutgraph.

There is a perception (and even application in the Equality cases) that offence is in the eye of the person offended. However, the definition of "harassment" is actually quite reasonable because it includes the term "could reasonably be regarded" as being offensive. To my knowledge it has never been argued as to whether in certain examples, the individual was being unreasonable in taking "offence".

In your example, in footballing and other sporting circles a "donkey" is universally applied to all crap footballers irrespective of colour. In fact the most well known was Tony Adams during his drinking days. A terrible footballer at the time and even carried the name "eeyore" beyond giving up the drink and actually turning out to be quite decent.

Though I still think it would have been more appropriate to vent your frustration using the term "non-denominational, non-culturally, non-geographically specific, domesticated member of the equidae family who happens to be of the species E. africanus, but that is no way meant to mean that only those of an african origin would have missed that goal scoring opportunity and that it is equally likely that even a european derrived member of the equidae family, given that they are odd-toed ungulates, would have also missed that opportunity."


----------



## NorthDrum (8 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



Latrade said:


> In (american) journalism terms: that's the nutgraph.
> 
> Though I still think it would have been more appropriate to vent your frustration using the term "non-denominational, non-culturally, non-geographically specific, domesticated member of the equidae family who happens to be of the species E. africanus, but that is no way meant to mean that only those of an african origin would have missed that goal scoring opportunity and that it is equally likely that even a european derrived member of the equidae family, given that they are odd-toed ungulates, would have also missed that opportunity."


 
Ive written that down, thanks for that. Next time this player in question misses an opportunity I will pause the game before reading off this line . . .


----------



## NorthDrum (8 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*

Edit: Probably too sensitive discussion for "shooting the breeze" . .


----------



## Simeon (8 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



gillarosa said:


> It's bad enought that a piece of tripe like that took up print space in South Africa (if it actually did?) but quoting it here is pathetic, nothing to do with the original post or the issues to hand.





Pique318 said:


> An article in the Irish Independent here claims that foreign workers are being discriminated against in favour of Irish workers when it comes to applying for jobs via CV.
> Opinions ?





Simeon said:


> This appeared in the SA Mercury last month:
> [FONT=Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]
> [/FONT]This was a reply to an article, in the Mercury, where the previously disadvantaged
> (Blacks) stated that it's not too late for the previously advantaged (including whites, Indians
> and Coloureds) .......


gillarosa, in your mind it may have nothing to do with the original post or the  issues in hand but, as both articles were discussing RACISM, I thought it relevent. (In SA it was deemed "whites, Indian and Coloureds" who were the instigators). Have a read at the opening paragraph again. And why using a newspaper quote is "pathetic" is beyond me. Perhaps you'ld like to extrapolate for the benefit of people who do see the connection.


----------



## capall (8 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*

I think in a jobs market where supply is plentiful local candidates will always be preferred for certain types of jobs
Hirers are normally more familiar with their qualifications for one thing and will feel they can judge a local person better as in they have a frame of reference against which to judge them. They will feel more confident of making a personal judgement  about a local person in terms of their track record and motivation


----------



## gillarosa (8 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



Simeon said:


> gillarosa, in your mind it may have nothing to do with the original post or the issues in hand but, as both articles were discussing RACISM, I thought it relevent. (In SA it was deemed "whites, Indian and Coloureds" who were the instigators). Have a read at the opening paragraph again. And why using a newspaper quote is "pathetic" is beyond me. Perhaps you'ld like to extrapolate for the benefit of people who do see the connection.


 
What are you asking for? you obviously know that article did not appear in print in that paper or any other. As far back as November 2008 it was being quoted on the net, it is an e-mail that some little twerp wrote in response to a serious article in that paper and was circulated by his or her fellow travellers and here again you have misrepresented it and posted it to AAM. The term pathetic doesn't actually do justice to your post.


----------



## Simeon (8 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



gillarosa said:


> What are you asking for? you obviously know that article did not appear in print in that paper or any other. As far back as November 2008 it was being quoted on the net, it is an e-mail that some little twerp wrote in response to a serious article in that paper and was circulated by his or her fellow travellers and here again you have misrepresented it and posted it to AAM. The term pathetic doesn't actually do justice to your post.



To my knowledge this was a reply to an article in the SA Mercury. Regardless of it's origin, do you not think that it is thought provoking? Have a read of Uncle Tom's Cabin or Dinesh d'Souza's The End of Racism. Could we have your views on Zimbabwe, Uganda or Watts, Compton?


----------



## S.L.F (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*

Pique I don't see it as being racism I see it more as looking after our own.

Why the hell shouldn't we?


----------



## Pique318 (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



S.L.F said:


> Pique I don't see it as being racism I see it more as looking after our own.
> 
> Why the hell shouldn't we?



Wehay, and here's me thinking after the Gay Marriage thread, we'd never agree on anything 

Fancy a pint ?


----------



## S.L.F (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



Pique318 said:


> Wehay, and here's me thinking after the Gay Marriage thread, we'd never agree on anything
> 
> Fancy a pint ?


 
You can buy the first one but no matter how much you ask we are not going to a gay bar...


----------



## Padraigb (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



S.L.F said:


> ... I don't see it as being racism I see it more as looking after our own...



Our own what? Our own people, I suppose. So we favour some people over others simply because they are Irish, and we claim that is somehow right. I'll bet it doesn't look right to the Latvian who has worked here for the past five years, has just lost her job, and is trying to get another one.

This is a thread of weasel words: we don't love them less; it's just that we love ourselves more.

I agree that it's probably not racism, because there is also a bias against other foreigners that are in the same racial group as ourselves. It's xenophobia, and it's not nice.


----------



## Padraigb (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



Simeon said:


> To my knowledge this was a reply to an article in the SA Mercury. Regardless of it's origin, do you not think that it is thought provoking? ...



Yes, it is thought-provoking. The thought that it provokes in me is that it is an apologia for racism, and that those who quote it with approval are defending racism.


----------



## Pique318 (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



capall said:


> I think in a jobs market where supply is plentiful local candidates will always be preferred for certain types of jobs
> Hirers are normally more familiar with their qualifications for one thing and will feel they can judge a local person better as in they have a frame of reference against which to judge them. They will feel more confident of making a personal judgement  about a local person in terms of their track record and motivation



But is it racist or xenophobic ? No IMO. It's natural.

If my sister and my friend were applying to me for a job (assuming both had equal qualifications/experience) I'd give my sister the job.
If it were my friend and a stranger, my friend would get it.

Is that discrimination too ? Well then SO BE IT.
If I were the losing candidate in the above scenarios, I'd understand, wouldn't anybody ?

This thread is discussing an extention of that scenario.

If we find other intelligent life, and have to consider them for jobs as well as an 'Earthling', then what ? Hire LUNNGHHHHCCCTTT or someone you share a planet with ? Is that racist against earthlings?


----------



## S.L.F (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



Pique318 said:


> But is it racist or xenophobic ? No IMO. It's natural.
> 
> If my sister and my friend were applying to me for a job (assuming both had equal qualifications/experience) I'd give my sister the job.


 
That's probably sexist not racist.

Speaking of which.

But supposing your sister was up against a very good looking woman who had the hots for you who would you pick then?


----------



## Chocks away (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*

Padraigb, would you rather positive discrimination? You can say that you don't like tall or fat or small or skinny or simple or overintelligent or docile or arrogant or politicians or used car salesmen or clerics or Dubs or Cork people (hallo there boys, like  ) or people of your own colour. But woe betide if you say the same of people of a different race. Do we, as human beings, not have the right to like or dislike anyone - for whatever reason. During President Obama's campaign, a well known black academic said it was time that the black population stopped playing the race card. Now if he was white, he'd be castigated. Before any of the bleeding hearts jump on my back, I have two old black school pals that are in regular contact since we left university.


----------



## Padraigb (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



Chocks away said:


> ... Before any of the bleeding hearts jump on my back, I have two old black school pals that are in regular contact since we left university.



Jaysus! That's a classic, right up there with "some of my best friends are Jews".


----------



## Chocks away (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



Padraigb said:


> Jaysus! That's a classic, right up there with "some of my best friends are Jews".


That is not a very nice remark. I come from Canada and have heard lots of Irish people criticising the USA and saying they "don't like yanks". Considering the economic help that that country has bestowed on this country, it is a little ungrateful. Why do you take the moral high ground? Inverted snobbery? Or are you a type of person that finds something to rant about whenever you're feeling low? Whichever, you should listen to comment, analyse and then come to a conclusion.


----------



## Pique318 (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



S.L.F said:


> That's probably sexist not racist.
> 
> Speaking of which.
> 
> But supposing your sister was up against a very good looking woman who had the hots for you who would you pick then?



My sister, obviously.

I may, however, try to 'commiserate' the poor sould who lost out, however


----------



## S.L.F (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



Padraigb said:


> Jaysus! That's a classic, right up there with "some of my best friends are Jews".


 
I don't think that's a very nice thing to be saying at all.


----------



## S.L.F (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



Pique318 said:


> My sister, obviously.
> 
> I may, however, try to 'commiserate' the poor sould who lost out, however


 
Are you mad?

Your sister would eventually forgive you..........some day.......maybe

Take the good looking woman with the hots for you for christs sake!!!

(I'll bet you are wishing it was the case now)


----------



## Pique318 (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



S.L.F said:


> Take the good looking woman with the hots for you for christs sake!!!
> 
> (I'll bet you are wishing it was the case now)



Nah, she'd probably sleep with the boss (who she also had the hots for, upon realising that her career advancement was 'negotiable' ), get promoted and end up firing me! Besides, what if she was a psycho nutjob stalker ? 

Just how hot are we talking here ? 

Siblings are safer(ish).


----------



## mick1960 (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*

Racism.. ill feeling towards someone because of their race, is taught you are not born with it you have to be taught it,only education can eradicate it,but some people never learn.As for the job applicants the person rejecting them could have many reasons but all stem from prejudice taught or learnt.As for what you can say or not say is down to how you are perceived by that group and the trust of that group towards you regardless of ethnic background.


----------



## S.L.F (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



Pique318 said:


> Nah, she'd probably sleep with the boss (who she also had the hots for, upon realising that her career advancement was 'negotiable' ), get promoted and end up firing me! Besides, what if she was a psycho nutjob stalker ?
> 
> Just how hot are we talking here ?
> 
> Siblings are safer(ish).


 
Ever seen From Dawn till Dusk "the dance scene" in the bar   That hot  and I mean hot hot hot...


----------



## Pique318 (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



Padraigb said:


> we don't love them less; it's just that we love ourselves more.





mick1960 said:


> Racism.. ill feeling towards someone because of their race,


Who said ANYTHING about ill feeling towards anybody ? I HATE when this is what's brought up as the justification of racism. Who said I have any 'ill feeling ' towards them, they may be very good candidates, but I don't base my personal emotional feelings about anybody on their race. There is NO 'ill feeling' involved.



Padraigb said:


> we don't love them less; it's just that we love ourselves more.[than them]



Padraigb put it well, TBH. I don't like my friends any less, but I'd still hire my sibling. 

Is that wrong? Is it any different ?


----------



## Pique318 (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



S.L.F said:


> Ever seen From Dawn till Dusk "the dance scene" in the bar   That hot  and I mean hot hot hot...



Ah now, you're not being fair....Salma Hayek ? Vampire or not, she get's the job !!!!


----------



## S.L.F (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



Pique318 said:


> Ah now, you're not being fair....


 
Are you accuseing me of being.......sexist, racist or somethingelseist?


----------



## Pique318 (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



s.l.f said:


> are you accuseing me of being.......sexist, racist or somethingelseist?


lol


----------



## mick1960 (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



Pique318 said:


> Who said ANYTHING about ill feeling towards anybody ? I HATE when this is what's brought up as the justification of racism. Who said I have any 'ill feeling ' towards them, they may be very good candidates, but I don't base my personal emotional feelings about anybody on their race.
> 
> I did not say you did,or anybody else, did!


----------



## mick1960 (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



mick1960 said:


> Racism.. ill feeling towards someone because of their race, is taught you are not born with it you have to be taught it,only education can eradicate it,but some people never learn.As for the job applicants the person rejecting them could have many reasons but all stem from prejudice taught or learnt.As for what you can say or not say is down to how you are perceived by that group and the trust of that group towards you regardless of ethnic background.


----------



## Padraigb (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



Chocks away said:


> That is not a very nice remark.



It's a fair observation. You are implying that discrimination against members of particular groups is okay, and then covering your ass by claiming friendship with members of one of those groups.



> I come from Canada and have heard lots of Irish people criticising the USA and saying they "don't like yanks". Considering the economic help that that country has bestowed on this country, it is a little ungrateful.



You won't hear this Irish person saying things like that. You cannot judge my attitude to Americans or how grateful or ungrateful I might be on the basis that I happen to be Irish. It's not right to judge an individual by the behaviour of others in a category in which you can place that individual.



> Why do you take the moral high ground?



Because I will stand up for what I believe to be right and oppose what I believe to be wrong,



> Inverted snobbery? Or are you a type of person that finds something to rant about whenever you're feeling low?



That sort of personal attack by innuendo is dishonourable.



> Whichever, you should listen to comment, analyse and then come to a conclusion.



I came to one particular conclusion many years ago, and I stand by it: people are entitled to be considered as individuals, and should not be prejudged on the basis of ethnicity or sex or age (within reasonable limits) or the type of work they do (again, within reasonable limits) or their marital status or the type of school they went to or the type of car they drive or several other categorisations that some people employ.


----------



## Purple (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



Padraigb said:


> I came to one particular conclusion many years ago, and I stand by it: people are entitled to be considered as individuals, and should not be prejudged on the basis of ethnicity or sex or age (within reasonable limits) or the type of work they do (again, within reasonable limits) or their marital status or the type of school they went to or the type of car they drive or several other categorisations that some people employ.


Well said. 
I suppose you are not part of the "I'm not racist, but..." group then?


----------



## MandaC (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*

A friend of mine was Supervisor where one of the guys in the warehouse was coloured.

He was taken on to to a particular job, but once he got his foot in the door he started on - how come I have to do this and nobody else has to, even though that is what he was taken on to do.

Another non Irish worker taken on proved quite difficult to work with too, because of his religious beliefs.

Both were very difficult to work with and put the company off taking on any more non Irish workers as they were just too much hassle.

Companies run a mile from anybody playing the race card


----------



## DavyJones (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



MandaC said:


> A friend of mine was Supervisor where one of the guys in the warehouse was *coloured*.



 Racist.


----------



## MandaC (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



DavyJones said:


> Racist.



Oh dear.

Is it deemed racist to say coloured?

I had black orginally and then went back in and changed it  because I thought that might be offensive.

I am not racist but am the first to say I have had no close friends in said nationalities (for want of a better word) that you could have conversations about stuff like that, so have no idea how they wish to be correctly addressed.     I did have African neighbours at one point, but the day to day conversation never got around to backgrounds/etc.  To be honest, I actually steered away from any references to any colours whatsoever for fear of (unintentionally) insulting them.  It was kind of like taking your words out and examining them before you spoke.  And I still probably said the wrong thing!


----------



## DavyJones (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



MandaC said:


> Oh dear.
> 
> Is it deemed racist to say coloured?
> 
> I had black orginally and then changed it  because I thought that might be offensive.




Black is more PC I think, but yeah it's hard to know. PC seems to change on a regular basis.

On a side note, a black guy wrote a song a few years ago (it was in the charts) about how white people have different colours ( when they are cold, hot, sick etc) and that white people have a cheek to call black people coloured. It is amusing.


----------



## Padraigb (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



MandaC said:


> Oh dear.
> 
> Is it deemed racist to say coloured?...



It's more racist to attribute to his race any difficulties people had in dealing with him. You can find good and bad individuals in any ethnic category.


----------



## MandaC (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



jaybird said:


> I'm sure they never had a worker from Ireland who was difficult to work with? Must have put them off hiring Irish people if they did......
> 
> Of course you can find people who are good or bad at their job in any and all ethnic categories, to suggest that they behaved in a particular manner merely because of their ethnic background is exactly the kind of racism that is so widespread in this country. To not employ future candidates from particular backgrounds because of poor performance of previous workers from vaguely similar backgrounds (or more likely, not remotely similar, but hey, they all look alike, right?) is extremely racist behaviour, and I would hope they get the book thrown at them. Not that they ever would.
> 
> And *playing the race card????* People are generally accused of this when they are highlighting the fact that they are being subjected to racist behaviour. Should they say nothing so as not to draw attention to themselves? If you refused to employ me because someone who looks a bit like me once caused you trouble I would "play the race card" till I was blue in the face.



I am not saying I agree with them.  I am saying what happened.  If someone says - why have I the rubbish job - is it because I am black and the real answer is, no, that is what you were told the job would be at interview, it causes no end of bother for the employer at the end of the day.

My sister had an incident where she caught a traveller stealing in the shop she managed and confronted her.   Person had been coming in and stealing small items for ages and the other staff (younger students) were afraid of her so just turned a blind eye.  Person was barred from the shopping centre for same reasons and had a criminal record as long as your arm, but Gardai said waste of time prosecuting as the person never got to leave the premises with the item that had fallen into their bag.

 Said person attacked my sister and tore her around the shop by the hair (my sister was pregnant at the time) and then tried to bring a case against the shop for discrimination.   Shop owner wanted to pay up for it to "go away", but my sister said if he did that she was leaving, so went herself to the hearing and said her piece.  Of course, common sense prevailed and the person involved got nothing.  But how many people in business would have just paid up to make it go away.

  Same thing in jobs, employers are terrified of any accusations of racism/discrimination and will steer away from the topic if at all possible.


----------



## Simeon (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*

Remember Kid Creole and the Coconuts? In black parlance what is a coconut? A person who's black on the outside but white on the inside. A pejorative description of a fellow human being of the same ethnic (got to be careful here) hue. So, a person of the said hue is able to discuss persons of similiar hue without prejudice but a person of a different hue cannot. This is balderdash .......... created by self styled liberal intellectuals and followed on the path to righteousness by lesser imitators who take the easy way out. You have only got to look at the UK and their style of cultural integration to see what a success that is . People of all races can live in harmony side by side and discuss things in real debate. But trying to square the circle by implying that everything in life follows a perfect pattern is utopic. Life, nature and culture are not level playing fields.


----------



## S.L.F (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



Padraigb said:


> Our own what? Our own people, I suppose. So we favour some people over others simply because they are Irish, and we claim that is somehow right.


 
Irish yes but Cork people need not apply...

Lex that means you.


----------



## S.L.F (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



MandaC said:


> I had black orginally and then went back in and changed it because I thought that might be offensive.


 
Consider this would you be offended if a black person called you white.

There is far too much pussy footing around when it comes to peoples colours.

They are black, red, yellow, olive skinned, brown or green (just in case any martians or the little folk are reading this) and we are white.


----------



## S.L.F (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



jaybird said:


> I was blue in the face.


 
We don't employ blue people either.


----------



## MandaC (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



S.L.F said:


> Consider this would you be offended if a black person called you white.
> 
> There is far too much pussy footing around when it comes to peoples colours.
> 
> They are black, red, yellow, olive skinned, brown or green (just in case any martians or the little folk are reading this) and we are white.



No I would not be offended, because it is a fact,  but to be honest people are afraid to say anything because it can be construed as offensive.    I mean, some people are fat and that is a fact too, but its kind of like, don't mention the war.  

I agree there is too much Policitical Correctness and pussy footing around but at the end of the day nobody  wants to insult any body else.  By me tying to be nicey nice I have probably offended my ex-neighbours and I did not even realise it at the time.


----------



## Pique318 (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



Purple said:


> Well said.
> I suppose you are not part of the "I'm not racist, but..." group then?


Do you ever suffer from racial discrimination ? I mean because of your colour ?


----------



## S.L.F (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



Pique318 said:


> Do you ever suffer from racial discrimination ? I mean because of your colour ?


 
I have been.

When I was living in London I've been discriminated against because I was Irish and used to get plently of hate stares from young black men on the tube.

Having said that my best friend in London was a black guy called Presley.


----------



## MandaC (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



Pique318 said:


> Do you ever suffer from racial discrimination ? I mean because of your colour ?



Funny this, because I went today to a market/warehouse type supermarket that opened up near to where my mum lives.  I was definitely in the minority  (by about 200-1) and a couple of stares (by a small number of people), I might add, made it quite clear I was not welcome.  I just kept on shopping (anything for shopping, me)

On the way out, I overheard one woman who had also made a sharp exit on the phone to someone from home saying "but sure how was I to know"

I also experienced a racist incident  (by teenagers) whereby I was the minority when I was living in Lucan (odd as it may sound)


----------



## sandrat (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



Pique318 said:


> Ah now, you're not being fair....Salma Hayek ? Vampire or not, she get's the job !!!!


 
You'd hardly want her now that she is a lactivist though


----------



## ajapale (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism rife as people with Irish sounding names twice as likely to be given job.*

Who would you give the job to Eddie Murphy or Barak Obama?

I worked with a guy many years ago who would not give a job to a person who used the Gaelic version of their names. He figured they were subversives. The same man would not hire a man with a pony tail!

I know that in Norn Iron in the bad old days employers used schools attended to work out the religion of the applicant. Girls names such as Roisin (or any een) were in one category while Hazel/Rose/Violet/Daisy (or any flower) were in the other category.

I know that in some parts of rural Ireland you will have difficulty getting a job interview if your name is Ward or McDonagh.

Using names to discriminate is about as irrational as you can get.


----------



## Simeon (9 May 2009)

*Re: Racism rife as people with Irish sounding names twice as likely to be given job.*

At the heel of the hunt, it is within the employers right to hire whom he/she wants to. As most employers have a keen eye on the botom line, I would imagine that the best (for the company) man/woman wins.


----------



## MandaC (10 May 2009)

*Re: Racism rife as people with Irish sounding names twice as likely to be given job.*



Simeon said:


> At the heel of the hunt, it is within the employers right to hire whom he/she wants to. As most employers have a keen eye on the botom line, I would imagine that the best (for the company) man/woman wins.



Absolutely.

Have to say though, Barack Obama is a really great sounding name.


----------



## Padraigb (10 May 2009)

*Re: Racism rife as people with Irish sounding names twice as likely to be given job.*



Simeon said:


> At the heel of the hunt, it is within the employers right to hire whom he/she wants to...



Not true, under the Employment Equality Acts. See http://www.equality.ie/index.asp?locID=17&docID=-1 and note that there cannot be discrimination on *access to employment*.


----------



## ajapale (10 May 2009)

*Re: Racism rife as people with Irish sounding names twice as likely to be given job.*



Simeon said:


> At the heel of the hunt, it is within the employers right to hire whom he/she wants to.



Employers must comply with the law of the land. (This includes the various anti discrimination measures, child labour regulations, etc enshrined in Irish law).

Employers must also comply with various industry regulations which govern the qualifications of employees (for instance if someone employed as a pharmacist must meet the relevant qualifications as set out by the regulatory body).


----------



## Simeon (10 May 2009)

*Re: Racism rife as people with Irish sounding names twice as likely to be given job.*

Nobody is talking about breaking the law. I'm merely stating that as an employer, I have the right to employ who I like. And so does any other employer. I go through an interview process and in the following week make a decision. Now, tell me where I'm going wrong.


----------



## ajapale (10 May 2009)

*Re: Racism rife as people with Irish sounding names twice as likely to be given job.*

If you comply with the law of the land and any industry regulations then you are not going wrong at all!


----------



## Padraigb (10 May 2009)

*Re: Racism rife as people with Irish sounding names twice as likely to be given job.*



ajapale said:


> If you comply with the law of the land and any industry regulations then you are not going wrong at all!



The "law of the land" is quite extensive. While the Employment Equality Acts are not wholly clear (perhaps it might be better to say "easy to read") on selection processes, the Director of Equality Investigation has, in handling specific cases, addressed questions of discriminatory selection processes. While most of the cases of which I am aware involve discrimination on grounds of gender or marital status, discrimination on grounds of race is also covered by the same legislation. Race is defined broadly, to include ethnic or national origins.

Put simply: you are legally required to avoid discrimination in your selection procedures; the onus is own you to be able to show that you did not discriminate.

For a summary description of the law, see [broken link removed]


----------



## Simeon (10 May 2009)

*Re: Racism rife as people with Irish sounding names twice as likely to be given job.*



Simeon said:


> At the heel of the hunt, it is within the employers right to hire whom he/she wants to. As most employers have a keen eye on the bottom line, I would imagine that the best (for the company) man/woman wins.





Padraigb said:


> Not true, under the Employment Equality Acts. See http://www.equality.ie/index.asp?locID=17&docID=-1 and note that there cannot be discrimination on *access to employment*.


Who is talking about access to employment? The job seeker has access to the interview but that is as far as it goes. The future employer decides who to hire and is within his/her right to so choose. So when you say that my initial statement was "not true", I don't understand.



Padraigb said:


> The "law of the land" is quite extensive. While the Employment Equality Acts are not wholly clear (perhaps it might be better to say "easy to read") on selection processes, the Director of Equality Investigation has, in handling specific cases, addressed questions of discriminatory selection processes. While most of the cases of which I am aware involve discrimination on grounds of gender or marital status, discrimination on grounds of race is also covered by the same legislation. Race is defined broadly, to include ethnic or national origins.
> 
> Put simply: you are legally required to avoid discrimination in your selection procedures; the onus is own you to be able to show that you did not discriminate.
> 
> For a summary description of the law, see [broken link removed]


I don't need to read anything more about my status as a future employer. All I know is that if I advertise a post I expect to be able to choose who best fills that post. I don't have a chip on my shoulder nor would I want an employee of mine to be carrying one either. No good for harmony in the work place.


----------



## Padraigb (10 May 2009)

*Re: Racism rife as people with Irish sounding names twice as likely to be given job.*



Simeon said:


> I don't need to read anything more about my status as a future employer. All I know is that if I advertise a post I expect to be able to choose who best fills that post. I don't have a chip on my shoulder nor would I want an employee of mine to be carrying one either. No good for harmony in the work place.



The law takes an interest in how you decide who best fills a post.


----------



## Simeon (10 May 2009)

*Re: Racism rife as people with Irish sounding names twice as likely to be given job.*

Really. So? I still chose who I want.


----------



## Simeon (11 May 2009)

*Re: Racism rife as people with Irish sounding names twice as likely to be given job.*



ajapale said:


> Employers must comply with the law of the land. (This includes the various anti discrimination measures, child labour regulations, etc enshrined in Irish law).
> 
> Employers must also comply with various industry regulations which govern the qualifications of employees (for instance if someone employed as a pharmacist must meet the relevant qualifications as set out by the regulatory body).





Padraigb said:


> The "law of the land" is quite extensive. While the Employment Equality Acts are not wholly clear (perhaps it might be better to say "easy to read") on selection processes, the Director of Equality Investigation has, in handling specific cases, addressed questions of discriminatory selection processes. While most of the cases of which I am aware involve discrimination on grounds of gender or marital status, discrimination on grounds of race is also covered by the same legislation. Race is defined broadly, to include ethnic or national origins.
> 
> Put simply: you are legally required to avoid discrimination in your selection procedures; the onus is own you to be able to show that you did not discriminate.
> 
> For a summary description of the law, see [broken link removed]


Ah, perfectly clear lads!
[broken link removed]


----------



## Simeon (12 May 2009)

*Re: Racism or not ?*



jaybird said:


> And *playing the race card????* People are generally accused of this when they are highlighting the fact that they are being subjected to racist behaviour. Should they say nothing so as not to draw attention to themselves? If you refused to employ me because someone who looks a bit like me once caused you trouble I would "play the race card" till I was blue in the face.


Do you not think that malcontents use this? I've worked in the Middle East, Africa, and spent 15 years in mainland Europe. In that time I've seen lots of different nationals use this ploy. I've yet to see a good worker get sacked. But I've seen lots of slackers, attitude heads, anti social people, people not up to the job etc. get the high jump. Those people then shouted their mouths off about being given a wrong deal. If you were running a small firm you would understand what I mean. Otherwise, it's the tail wagging the dog. And ultimately your business would go under.


----------



## ashambles (12 May 2009)

*Re: Racism rife as people with Irish sounding names twice as likely to be given job.*

These surveys have the same result the world over, showing to some degree applicants similar to the recruiter have a better chance. 
It's nothing new, Germans will do the same to Irish applicants. Cry me a river.

But only to jobs where the CV actually isn't that important, if the CV is important then 2 identical apart from name CVs will be spotted. So the whole survey falls apart. By definition it targets recruiters for jobs where the CV doesn't really matter. So saying that two candidates with identical CVs end up with different responses isn't a surprise.

For someone looking for specific skills a duplicate CV would be noticed. Even for students from the same college, I'd expect to see a different project or something. 

Also the recruiter it'll target will often be the recruiters with the highest pencentage of non-Irish staff, so while the survey could throw up discrimination based on CV responses, discrimination based on employees hired might be absent.

When QANGOs and government bodies come up this type of talking down to employers I'm reminded of this blog comment from a Russian ex-pat working in Ireland

http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2009/01/foreigner-we-dont-want-you-in-our.html



> "For a foreign national residing in Ireland, the probability of ending up in Public Sector employment ranged from 11.1% in Health & Social Work, to 3.9% in Education, to ca 2.2% in our semi-state companies and 1.6% in Public Administration. In other words, a foreigner is 19 times (!) more likely to gain a job in our private economy than in the most insulated and unions-protected Irish Public Administration sector!"


----------



## Simeon (12 May 2009)

*Re: Racism rife as people with Irish sounding names twice as likely to be given job.*

Shhhhuush! Everyone seems to have gone quiet. I wonder why?
Quote:
                    "For a foreign national residing in Ireland, the probability of ending up in Public Sector employment ranged from 11.1% in Health & Social Work, to 3.9% in Education, to ca 2.2% in our semi-state companies and 1.6% in Public Administration. In other words, a foreigner is 19 times (!) more likely to gain a job in our private economy than in the most insulated and unions-protected Irish Public Administration sector!"


----------



## Padraigb (13 May 2009)

*Re: Racism rife as people with Irish sounding names twice as likely to be given job.*

Gurdgiev seems to be making an anti-union case and, to assist his argument, describes primary education as "virtually un-unionised"; that might surprise the INTO.

I find his report of " foreign national comprising 30.6% of employment in the broadly defined private sector economy" surprising, but can't get sufficiently interested (it's Gurgdiev, after all) to dig into CSO figures.


----------



## liaconn (13 May 2009)

*Re: Racism rife as people with Irish sounding names twice as likely to be given job.*



Simeon said:


> Nobody is talking about breaking the law. I'm merely stating that as an employer, I have the right to employ who I like. And so does any other employer. I go through an interview process and in the following week make a decision. Now, tell me where I'm going wrong.


 
Actually, the law states that if a suitable EEA national is available to take the job, you cannot offer it to a non-EEA national even if he is a better candidate.


----------



## Simeon (13 May 2009)

*Re: Racism rife as people with Irish sounding names twice as likely to be given job.*

Hmmmmmmm! Discrimination by the lawmakers. Sooooooo, some human beings are more equal than others? You know Liaconn, you're going to upset a lot of the malcontents and pinkos here.


----------



## mick1960 (13 May 2009)

*Re: Racism rife as people with Irish sounding names twice as likely to be given job.*

Advertise the job in Irish that would solve the problem.Ádh mór ort agus Sláinte


----------



## ajapale (13 May 2009)

*Re: Racism rife as people with Irish sounding names twice as likely to be given job.*

Since the original comment/question regarding *people with names not regarded as Irish not being called for interview* is not being discussed any more the thread is now closed.


----------

