tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7999633524276247455.post2165811148205599037..comments2023-07-04T16:57:28.929+01:00Comments on Where's the Benefit?: Red Tape ChallengeLisahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16714918894319998184noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7999633524276247455.post-1483479094663267222011-04-11T16:17:05.879+01:002011-04-11T16:17:05.879+01:00@Deus:
The 2 Ticks Scheme is separate from the DD...@Deus:<br /><br />The 2 Ticks Scheme is separate from the DDA/EA. The DDA/EA only criminalised negative discrimination, the 2 Ticks promoted positive discrimination.<br /><br />And, actually, it's a load of shit. I once applied for a job with an organisation that not only bore the 2 Ticks logo but really should've known better (*cough*DRC*cough*). I very clearly met all the minimum criteria for an interview so they should've given me one, even if they had no intention of hiring me (and, of course, they were absolutely free to not give me the job). So they lied and said I hadn't met all the criteria. Bit stupid just to weasel out of spending 20 mins interviewing me even if they had no intention of hiring me.<br /><br /><i>Yes, in fact "more disabled people [found] jobs WITHOUT anti-discrimination laws," as you put it.</i><br /><br />I refer you back to the stats in my post.Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16714918894319998184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7999633524276247455.post-16359934316306320902011-04-11T15:39:15.162+01:002011-04-11T15:39:15.162+01:00And here we part company.
Please read this NY Ti...And here we part company. <br /><br />Please read this NY Times piece by the Freakonomics guys that explains the "law of unintended consequences", mentioning specifically how the Americans with Disabilities Act actually ends up increasing discrimination against disabled people. (The example given is the cost of supplying sign language interpreters making doctors less likely to take on deaf patients in the US where they're private).<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20wwln-freak-t.html<br /><br />Is there any disabled person in the UK who is NOT familiar with the use and abuse of the two-ticks accreditation by employers? Yes, by identifying yourself as disabled you are guaranteed to get an interview... and almost as guaranteed NOT to get the job.<br /><br />In the past this problem was dealt with by the phenomenon of "passing", when overall people with disabilities were actually slightly MORE likely to be employed than they have been since equalities legislation. Yes, in fact "more disabled people [found] jobs WITHOUT anti-discrimination laws," as you put it.<br /><br />Discrimination is a fact. Simply "making a law" will not prevent it happening. Hands up anyone who's smoked dope, for example. <br /><br />I couldn't pass in a heavy fog but I'd still prefer to take my chances than accept an equal share of zero. Simply having a disability DOESN'T mean I'm happy with either the victim mentality OR that of a crab in a bucket.DeusExMacintoshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02728119585120029111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7999633524276247455.post-60833207669362992782011-04-11T15:29:24.716+01:002011-04-11T15:29:24.716+01:00It should be startling, but sadly isn't. I'...It should be startling, but sadly isn't. I've just spent a few minutes on the site (follow Lisa's link in the article straight to the Equality Act discussion), taking the Daily Heil readers to task and it's good to see that I am not the only person or organisation doing that -- but the more the merrier!<br /><br />The big question is whether the inclusion of the Equality Act, but not other primary legislation, is consistent with the Government's Public Sector Equality Duty.DavidGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734028655032503805noreply@blogger.com