Unless to answer is compulsory and they know the orientation of every employee then they will only know the orientation of those happy to declare it.
This will not prove anything so is a pointless exercise.
It doesn't matter if everyone answers. They can turn around and show anyone that asks that they are doing their best to comply with equality and diversity laws. That's the botgom line.
It doesn't matter if everyone answers. They can turn around and show anyone that asks that they are doing their best to comply with equality and diversity laws. That's the botgom line.
Exactly.
At work they recently launched a new HR system, in the 'My profile' section they have a sensitive information tab and sexuality is on there. However, as they didn't ask that when I applied, it's blank and no one has been asked to complete it. However, I assume they do ask it for new applicants.
I can understand the 'monitoring' thing but if it's not on a separate bit of paper there's always going to be the chance that someone is going to be influenced in some way or other in the decision process. On the other hand of course not knowing can lead to some wrong assumptions - seems like a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't though I'd imagine there would be cases where one approach is more appropriate than the other.
What exactly is the difference in all the types of sexuality, obviously I know the basics (straight/gay/bi/asexual) but pansexual? Or any of the others, what is the actual full list?
I'm not being facetious I am genuinely interested.
They aren't asking to be nosey parkers. It's for monitoring reasons to ensure that they are able to show that they are following eauality and diversity laws. You don't have to answer the questions if you don't want to and the forms aren't passed round the office for everyone to have a garp at.
It makes me laugh when people get so outraged and sensitive about this. HR couldn't give two shits what people put on their EO forms. You want to fill it out fine, you don't that's fine also, but most applicants do complete the form in its entirety.
Once offered the job we ask for the information again as our applicant EO data is anonymous. 95% of our new employees do fill out the form so obviously it's not too much of an issue for most. Employers fully expect the odd few not to though.
Employers can still discriminate regardless of whether EO data is filled out or not, admittedly not so much on sexuality. It can be done on sex and age, the latter is fairly easy to work out from the career history.
The only problem I can see is that there is no question about whether you are Human or Otherkin. How could we be so discriminative to aware wolves trapped in Human bodies.
I notice it's mainly the gay forum members in favour declaring their sexuality. Do they think it will give them an advantage when it comes to the final selection ?
Just out of curiosity, would that apply to questions on disability and ethnic background/nationality too?
I think equal opportunities monitoring is a positive endeavour.
I can see the reasons for disability. Businesses may need to adapt the workplace for disabled people. I can't think what extra facilities would be needed for gay/straight/bi/etc people. It's silly box ticking, "8.7% of our employees are gay which proves we are a dynamic modern company embracing diversity , so well done us".
What exactly is the difference in all the types of sexuality, obviously I know the basics (straight/gay/bi/asexual) but pansexual? Or any of the others, what is the actual full list?
I'm not being facetious I am genuinely interested.
pansexual- doesn't believe in binary gender, and is attracted to people rather than gender.
Asexual- Can hold romantic attractions but this is not based on sexual attraction. They do not feel sexual attraction.
Polysexual- Depends on the source, for some it's interchangeable with pansexual, for others it refers to those in polyamourous relationships. A polyamourous relationship is where you have a group that are dating and all love each other. Gender isn't important often.
I can see the reasons for disability. Businesses may need to adapt the workplace for disabled people. I can't think what extra facilities would be needed for gay/straight/bi/etc people. It's silly box ticking, "8.7% of our employees are gay which proves we are a dynamic modern company embracing diversity , so well done us".
Well sure, but sometimes a recruitment process can be unintentionally discrimatory, and this sort of thing can help them figure stuff like that out. It helps increase the talent pool.
I doubt outside of public services that this box-ticking actually occurs.
And within public services, I think it's a good thing.
Unless to answer is compulsory and they know the orientation of every employee then they will only know the orientation of those happy to declare it.
This will not prove anything so is a pointless exercise.
It's a box ticking exercise for the human resources department to show how inclusive they are.
It is perfectly within the law - you have every right not to answer the question.
I notice it's mainly the gay forum members in favour declaring their sexuality. Do they think it will give them an advantage when it comes to the final selection ?
Check out my comment at post 37 on this thread.
As for any thought of gaining an advantage of any kind in the selection process for a job, the last thing I'd want is to be given a job as a 'token' gay.
When I apply for any post, I want to be given the job because I was the best candidate and no other reason.
If I ever thought I'd been given a job just to fill a quota I'd resign.
What the hell has a person's private sexual orientation got to do with their potential employers anyway?
The mind boggles.
that's why there is an option to say Prefer Not to Say, however some employers with over 150 employees are obliged to provide information as proof of their good practice systems , an employee or potential employee cannot be forced to answer the question though.
Public authorities also covered by the specific duties: Listed bodies must
publish sufficient information to demonstrate that they have complied with the
general equality duty. For all listed bodies except schools, this must be done by 31
July 2011, and at least annually after that. Schools must publish by 31 December
2011 and annually thereafter.
Routine monitoring
Collecting information by routine monitoring through questionnaires or surveys may
be the most effective way in which you can gather sufficient evidence on your
services and your employees to enable you to meet your obligations. This is
particularly the case for larger organisations. In many instances, you can use either
2011 Census questions or National Statistics harmonised questions
The Commission would normally expect to see the following:
For bodies with 150 staff or more:
o the race, disability, gender and age distribution of your workforce
o an indication of likely representation on sexual orientation and religion
and belief, provided that no-one can be identified as a result
o an indication of any issues for transsexual staff, based on your
engagement with transsexual staff or voluntary groups
o gender pay gap information
o grievance and dismissal
Obviously not for a job at the BBC then, as the list would stop halfway down.
Not at all true. I'm a gay man with both and Bachelors and a Masters Media and Journalism degree and I've been rejected by the BBC for even the most entry level positions tons of times.
Its not who you are, its who you know/ are related to/ can blackmail unfortunately.
Comments
It's the 'them and us' mentality of some posters.
Put a group under one simple heading and it dehumanises all members of that group and makes 'them' easier to put down or attack.
You haven't found the answer in this thread?
Exactly.
At work they recently launched a new HR system, in the 'My profile' section they have a sensitive information tab and sexuality is on there. However, as they didn't ask that when I applied, it's blank and no one has been asked to complete it. However, I assume they do ask it for new applicants.
I see no 'Unisexual', do you have a problem with that? Unisexist! Uniophobe!
I think you're still supposed to specify whether or not there's a trifle present at the time.
Sounds like a variation on the auto-asphyxiation thing only with a bit more clang. And probably quicker even if less entertaining.
I'm not being facetious I am genuinely interested.
It makes me laugh when people get so outraged and sensitive about this. HR couldn't give two shits what people put on their EO forms. You want to fill it out fine, you don't that's fine also, but most applicants do complete the form in its entirety.
Once offered the job we ask for the information again as our applicant EO data is anonymous. 95% of our new employees do fill out the form so obviously it's not too much of an issue for most. Employers fully expect the odd few not to though.
I suppose that depends on what employers do with equal opportunities monitoring.
It gets filed away and gathers dust until someone asks them for info to show that they are complying with E+D laws.
I would have thought it was because the majority of the population are straight....:cool:
If it's good enough for Nana Royle, it's good enough for me.
That explains a lot.
I can see the reasons for disability. Businesses may need to adapt the workplace for disabled people. I can't think what extra facilities would be needed for gay/straight/bi/etc people. It's silly box ticking, "8.7% of our employees are gay which proves we are a dynamic modern company embracing diversity , so well done us".
I'll be Nana, you can be Twiggy.
pansexual- doesn't believe in binary gender, and is attracted to people rather than gender.
Asexual- Can hold romantic attractions but this is not based on sexual attraction. They do not feel sexual attraction.
Polysexual- Depends on the source, for some it's interchangeable with pansexual, for others it refers to those in polyamourous relationships. A polyamourous relationship is where you have a group that are dating and all love each other. Gender isn't important often.
Any others you want to know?
Well sure, but sometimes a recruitment process can be unintentionally discrimatory, and this sort of thing can help them figure stuff like that out. It helps increase the talent pool.
I doubt outside of public services that this box-ticking actually occurs.
And within public services, I think it's a good thing.
It's a box ticking exercise for the human resources department to show how inclusive they are.
It is perfectly within the law - you have every right not to answer the question.
Barbara... What do they actually do?
Check out my comment at post 37 on this thread.
As for any thought of gaining an advantage of any kind in the selection process for a job, the last thing I'd want is to be given a job as a 'token' gay.
When I apply for any post, I want to be given the job because I was the best candidate and no other reason.
If I ever thought I'd been given a job just to fill a quota I'd resign.
that's why there is an option to say Prefer Not to Say, however some employers with over 150 employees are obliged to provide information as proof of their good practice systems , an employee or potential employee cannot be forced to answer the question though.
http://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/en/councilservices/EducationandLearning/services/equalities/Documents/PDF%20Documents/information_guidance%20PUBLIC%20AUTH%20JAN%202011.pdf
Public authorities also covered by the specific duties: Listed bodies must
publish sufficient information to demonstrate that they have complied with the
general equality duty. For all listed bodies except schools, this must be done by 31
July 2011, and at least annually after that. Schools must publish by 31 December
2011 and annually thereafter.
Routine monitoring
Collecting information by routine monitoring through questionnaires or surveys may
be the most effective way in which you can gather sufficient evidence on your
services and your employees to enable you to meet your obligations. This is
particularly the case for larger organisations. In many instances, you can use either
2011 Census questions or National Statistics harmonised questions
The Commission would normally expect to see the following:
For bodies with 150 staff or more:
o the race, disability, gender and age distribution of your workforce
o an indication of likely representation on sexual orientation and religion
and belief, provided that no-one can be identified as a result
o an indication of any issues for transsexual staff, based on your
engagement with transsexual staff or voluntary groups
o gender pay gap information
o grievance and dismissal
http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4071
http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4071
Not at all true. I'm a gay man with both and Bachelors and a Masters Media and Journalism degree and I've been rejected by the BBC for even the most entry level positions tons of times.
Its not who you are, its who you know/ are related to/ can blackmail unfortunately.
Me bitter? Never! ;-)