I appreciate everyone's feedback:
- I've really enjoyed the show other than this issue
- I wouldn't consider myself particularly PC or easily offended
- I fully appreciate it is a tv entertainment show
- As it happens I am not Geraldine (or Aoiffe!)
Jobs are hard to come by now. These people are competing for a job (1-year contract as I understand it), and it's on national tv. Perhaps the producers, etc. have some duty of care to the participants. It's not quite UK's big brother with Shelpa Shetty, but it is a form of discrimination. I would have been more than happy if they had made an even minor reference to this during / after the show.
I appreciate everyone's feedback:
- I've really enjoyed the show other than this issue
- I wouldn't consider myself particularly PC or easily offended
- I fully appreciate it is a tv entertainment show
- As it happens I am not Geraldine (or Aoiffe!)
Jobs are hard to come by now. These people are competing for a job .....
I think competing is an important word here, despite what the show is called the job is a prize!
By the by - wht don't we write the the Employment Appeals Tribunal also. A number of them seem to have been dismissed without recourse to due process and rights of natural justice!!
BAI are currently investigating a seperate complaint from me.And the BAI isn't up and running yet , so Ireland effectively has no television regulator at the moment.
BAI are currently investigating a seperate complaint from me.
<snip>
§ Discrimination in terms of a person’s disability (dyslexia and alcoholism) - the interviewer discriminated by assuming that dyslexia (or alcoholism) would be an issue (or a “very high risk”) rather than asking the candidate if they themselves believe it would impact on their job.
<snip>
I understand alcoholism to be a form of addiction, one that leads to substance abuse, the substance being alcohol.
Some people prefer to define it as a disease, which I'm sure is a better way of dealing with it long term for family and friends.
As far as dealing with it in the workplace I offer this: [broken link removed] but them calling it a disability is not correct IMO
‘‘disability’’ means—
(a) the total or partial absence of a person’s bodily or mental
functions, including the absence of a part of a person’s
body,
(b) the presence in the body of organisms causing, or likely to
cause, chronic disease or illness,
(c) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of
a person’s body,
(d) a condition or malfunction which results in a person learning
differently from a person without the condition or
malfunction, or
(e) a condition, illness or disease which affects a person’s
thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or
judgement or which results in disturbed behaviour,
and shall be taken to include a disability which exists at present, or
which previously existed but no longer exists, or which may exist in
the future or which is imputed to a person;
No disrespect, but your book doesn't really matter in this context. It is what is in the law book that matters.I didn't see the episode in question [Bill is too much], but if alcoholism was involved, the employer has every right to grill the potential employee in my book.
You don't see any specific conditions or diseases mentioned in the law book. Are you saying that you don't believe that alcohol is "a condition, illness or disease which affects a person’s thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgement or which results in disturbed behaviour"?I don't see alcoholism in the law book, just your interpretation of it. So are you legally trained to interpret Irish employment statutes?
I see - so you are arguing for the sake of argueing. Perhaps you might want to check with the guys who decide the law in these cases then.What I believe is irrelevant, as you say, that's my book, not the law book.
discrimination on the grounds of disability not found although the Equality Officer did find inter alia that alcoholism came within the definition of disability in the Act
Right - so only those who are 'legally trained' can comment on legal issues. Architects/QS/Engineers should not comment on building regulations, HR people should not comment on employment law, IT people should not comment on Data Protection law etc etc.I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I asked you a specific question which you neatly avoided. You were the one making claims regarding interpretation of law, perhaps you should be the one to check with the ones who decide law before you make such claims. Especially since it seems clear you are not legally trained.
I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I asked you a specific question which you neatly avoided. You were the one making claims regarding interpretation of law, perhaps you should be the one to check with the ones who decide law before you make such claims. Especially since it seems clear you are not legally trained.
Must say its a badge of honour to have Complainer acuse me if arguing for the sake of arguing!
I think it's a TV show so it shouldn't be taken seriously.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?