Must Be Clean-Shaven - Is It Legal?
Robert Coates
applicants must be "clean shaven".
Is that legal? Because I can think of members of a few religious
groups amongst others who would be discriminated against by such a
statement.
I could see no "technical" reason why it would be necessary for that
particular job.
I'm not interested in WHY they are asking it, just whether it would be
regarded as discriminatory and hence illegal.
And before anyone asks, I'm clean-shaven :-)
the Omrud
And does it apply to women?
--
David
Lordgnome
"Robert Coates" <bobk...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:80de8b51-52a1-4775...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
There are jobs where it may be necessary, for example in the food industry,
the alternative being to wear some form of mask all day. It would also seem
a bit risky for someone with a very long flowing beard to be operating a
lathe or similar machine.
All to often the "discrimination" card is used to circumvent sensible safety
precautions. Crash helmets come to mind.
Les. (Bearded).
Peter Crosland
news:80de8b51-52a1-4775...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
It is potentially a can of worms. There may be valid reasons for the
requirements but this would automatically exclude members of some religious
groups in which because it would indirectly discriminate against them. As
far as I can see with this advertisement anyone who is not clean shaven is
effectively being discriminated against. For example a non Muslim with a
beard is potentially being treated less favourably because of his religion,
or lack of it. Likewise men with beards are being treated less favourably
than women without beards. This just goes to show how difficult it has
become to frame legislation that is equitable and has some degree of common
sense.
Peter Crosland
Geoff Berrow
wrote:
>> I could see no "technical" reason why it would be necessary for that
>> particular job.
>> I'm not interested in WHY they are asking it, just whether it would be
>> regarded as discriminatory and hence illegal.
>
>There are jobs where it may be necessary, for example in the food industry,
>the alternative being to wear some form of mask all day.
As they do.
> It would also seem
>a bit risky for someone with a very long flowing beard to be operating a
>lathe or similar machine.
Indeed, but for most beards there is no problem.
On the face of it, it seems clearly discriminatory to me.
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker
Szymon von Ulezalka
you have masks- i don't see a reason why not to wear it (personally: i
prefer shaving than that, but its my opinion)
> a bit risky for someone with a very long flowing beard to be operating a
> lathe or similar machine.
as above
The Todal
"Robert Coates" <bobk...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:80de8b51-52a1-4775...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
You are right, the advertisement may be illegal.
See
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/ResolvingWorkplaceDisputes/DiscriminationAtWork/DG_10026557
"Indirect discrimination is when a working condition or rule disadvantages
one group of people more than another. For example, saying that applicants
for a job must be clean shaven puts members of some religious groups at a
disadvantage.
Indirect discrimination is unlawful, whether or not it is done on purpose.
It is only allowed if it is necessary for the way the business works, and
there is no other way of achieving it. For example, the condition that
applicants must be clean shaven might be justified if the job involved
handling food and it could be shown that having a beard or moustache was a
genuine hygiene risk"
That particular example seems to have derived from this case ages ago:
Singh v Rowntree MacKintosh Ltd:
A rule in a food factory that employees may not wear beards upon grounds of
hygiene may be justifiable notwithstanding that it discriminates against
Sikhs. The applicant, a Sikh whose religion debarred him from removing
facial hair, was unsuccessful in his application for employment at the
employer's sweet factory, since he refused to comply with the rigidly
enforced rule at that factory that no employee was permitted to have a beard
on grounds of hygiene. His complaint of racial discrimination was dismissed
on the ground that the rule resulting in discrimination was "justifiable"
under Race Relations Act 1976 s.1(1).
Held, dismissing his appeal, that the industrial tribunal had applied the
correct test in that the rule was not merely one of convenience but one
which was generally equitable and reasonable in all the circumstances.
Court: (EAT) Employment Appeal Tribunal
Judgment date: March 16, 1979.
Flop
There are a number of situations where a beard could be disadvantageous
- food industry, where a Breathing Apparatus may be required etc.
I suspect that it is not discriminatory in that there is no specific
group which is targeted.( I am white Anglo-Saxon with a beard but not
paranoid).
However, if this condition is being used to select by race or religion,
I suspect that it would be at risk of being defined as discrimination.
Without knowing details of the position, it is really up to any
potential candidate to ask for an explanation of the logic behind this
criterion.
If the employer can justify it, there is no problem.
Flop
Man at B&Q
> Just spotted a job advert in which one of the requirements was that
> applicants must be "clean shaven".
> Is that legal?
What's the job? Testing after shave balm?
MBQ
Geoff Berrow
>I suspect that it is not discriminatory in that there is no specific
>group which is targeted.( I am white Anglo-Saxon with a beard but not
>paranoid).
Are beard wearers not a group?
It seems to me that beard wearers are the norm, after all beards grow
naturally. What would you think of a company that demanded you shave
your head?
Geoff Berrow
wrote:
>That particular example seems to have derived from this case ages ago:
>
>Singh v Rowntree MacKintosh Ltd:
>A rule in a food factory that employees may not wear beards upon grounds of
>hygiene may be justifiable notwithstanding that it discriminates against
>Sikhs. The applicant, a Sikh whose religion debarred him from removing
>facial hair, was unsuccessful in his application for employment at the
>employer's sweet factory, since he refused to comply with the rigidly
>enforced rule at that factory that no employee was permitted to have a beard
>on grounds of hygiene. His complaint of racial discrimination was dismissed
>on the ground that the rule resulting in discrimination was "justifiable"
>under Race Relations Act 1976 s.1(1).
>Held, dismissing his appeal, that the industrial tribunal had applied the
>correct test in that the rule was not merely one of convenience but one
>which was generally equitable and reasonable in all the circumstances.
>Court: (EAT) Employment Appeal Tribunal
>Judgment date: March 16, 1979.
It's hard to see how that one was upheld. The hygiene grounds
presumably refer to the risk of beard hair falling into product. I've
worked assignments in food factories where bearded workers simply had
to wear net masks. Given a viable alternative how could it be
justifiable?
Robert Coates
> There are jobs where it may be necessary, for example in the food industry,
> the alternative being to wear some form of mask all day. It would also seem
> a bit risky for someone with a very long flowing beard to be operating a
> lathe or similar machine.
>
> All to often the "discrimination" card is used to circumvent sensible safety
> precautions. Crash helmets come to mind.
>
> Les. (Bearded).
I was hoping I'd phrased the post so that I didn't get answers like
this.
I know there may be some industries where this could be relevant, but
I did say I could see no "technical" reason for the requirement.
It was NOT in the food industry. From what I can remember I think it
was in the IT industry, but I've thrown the paper away now, so we'll
never know!
To repeat, I could see no rhyme nor reason why it might be a
requirement for this job. I could only think the owner didn't like
beards, or maybe the sort of people who tend to wear beards!
I know full well that there are always ways around legislation. He
could always interview people and just find that the people he didn't
like "weren't the best candidates".
It's just putting something like this openly in an advert I've never
seen before.
BartC
"Robert Coates" <bobk...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:80de8b51-52a1-4775...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> Just spotted a job advert in which one of the requirements was that
> applicants must be "clean shaven".
> Is that legal? Because I can think of members of a few religious
> groups amongst others who would be discriminated against by such a
> statement.
Suppose the religion of the employer prohibited employing (or having any
sort of contact with) people with beards?
Which religion wins out, when either possibility (prohibiting beards or not)
will discriminate against one party?
Is it possible anyway that the advert would be allowed for small companies
with below a certain number of employees? (I seem to remember that from
gender discrimination.)
And what if the advert is for a child-minder, for a child who's terrified of
beards? How about an adult employer with a phobia of beards? An actor? Etc.
(I'm assuming here that 'clean-shaven' refers to the face..)
--
Bartc
the Omrud
AFAICR, when Ross Perot was in charge of EDS (a multi-national IT
services business, M'Lud) he banned beards, even in the UK.
--
David
sid
Far more skin cells fall off a person than hair, I've yet to see hair
from my beard fall out anywhere, I've often found hair in food over the
years at restaurants, usually long head hair (so I suppose probably
female).
Sla#s
As has been pointed out some breathing masks will not work unless one is
clean shaven, this is why military recruits are taught how to give
themselves very close shaves.
Slatts
Slatts
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>On 2 Nov, 10:00, "Lordgnome" <l...@nospam.null> wrote:
>
>> There are jobs where it may be necessary, for example in the food industry,
>> the alternative being to wear some form of mask all day. It would also seem
>> a bit risky for someone with a very long flowing beard to be operating a
>> lathe or similar machine.
>>
>> All to often the "discrimination" card is used to circumvent sensible safety
>> precautions. Crash helmets come to mind.
>>
>> Les. (Bearded).
>
>I was hoping I'd phrased the post so that I didn't get answers like
>this.
>I know there may be some industries where this could be relevant, but
>I did say I could see no "technical" reason for the requirement.
>It was NOT in the food industry. From what I can remember I think it
>was in the IT industry, but I've thrown the paper away now, so we'll
>never know!
Could it include working in a "clean room"? That's another place where a
beard may be unhelpful.
>To repeat, I could see no rhyme nor reason why it might be a
>requirement for this job. I could only think the owner didn't like
>beards, or maybe the sort of people who tend to wear beards!
>
>I know full well that there are always ways around legislation. He
>could always interview people and just find that the people he didn't
>like "weren't the best candidates".
>It's just putting something like this openly in an advert I've never
>seen before.
It's not illegal to discriminate on the basis of facial hair per se, since
you can discriminate on pretty much anything except those things for which
discrimination is specifically forbidden by law - and facial hair is not
one of them. If, however, facial hair was being used as a proxy for some
form of discrimination which is illegal - such as race or sex - then that
wouldn't be any help in avoiding breaking the law relating to that
discrimination.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Mark Goodge
>
>
>"Robert Coates" <bobk...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>news:80de8b51-52a1-4775...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> Just spotted a job advert in which one of the requirements was that
>> applicants must be "clean shaven".
>> Is that legal? Because I can think of members of a few religious
>> groups amongst others who would be discriminated against by such a
>> statement.
>
>Suppose the religion of the employer prohibited employing (or having any
>sort of contact with) people with beards?
>
>Which religion wins out, when either possibility (prohibiting beards or not)
>will discriminate against one party?
The nature of the job wins. Employers are not permitted to discriminate on
the basis of their own beliefs if those beliefs require them to break the
law. Any requirements which would otherwise be in breach of
anti-discrimination law are only permissible if the actual job itself makes
them a requirement. The simple fact that the employer wants them to be a
requirement isn't enough.
This has already been established with reference to religious beliefs. An
employer who is a member of one religion cannot insist that his employees
share that religion, or abide by the requirements of that religion, unless
the job is itself directly related to the rites and practices of that
religion. So, for example, the Catholic church cannot refuse to employ a
Buddhist woman as a cleaner or a Muslim as an electrician, but can insist
on only employing male Catholics as priests and deacons.
>And what if the advert is for a child-minder, for a child who's terrified of
>beards?
That could be a genuine occupational requirement. It would depend on the
precise circumstances.
>How about an adult employer with a phobia of beards? An actor? Etc.
Acting is one of the few jobs where the physical appearance of the
applicant is always a valid occupational requirement.
Percy Picacity
news:tlk0d6h7mnvh1afps...@news.markshouse.net:
>
> It's not illegal to discriminate on the basis of facial hair per
> se, since you can discriminate on pretty much anything except
> those things for which discrimination is specifically forbidden by
> law - and facial hair is not one of them. If, however, facial hair
> was being used as a proxy for some form of discrimination which is
> illegal - such as race or sex - then that wouldn't be any help in
> avoiding breaking the law relating to that discrimination.
>
> Mark
The whole point of indirect discrimination is that the complainant does
*not* have to prove a discriminatory motive. He or she does not have to
prove intentional "use as a proxy". He or she only has to prove that
the condition is unnecessary and that it bears unfairly on one sex,
race or other protected minority. In this case orthodox jews,
christians or muslims would seem to be at a clear disadvantage. The
advert quoted is clearly unlawful if the OP's facts are as stated.
--
Percy Picacity
Dave
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:00:04 +0000, "Lordgnome"<l...@nospam.null>
> wrote:
>
>>> I could see no "technical" reason why it would be necessary for that
>>> particular job.
>>> I'm not interested in WHY they are asking it, just whether it would be
>>> regarded as discriminatory and hence illegal.
>>
>> There are jobs where it may be necessary, for example in the food industry,
>> the alternative being to wear some form of mask all day.
>
> As they do.
>
>> It would also seem
>> a bit risky for someone with a very long flowing beard to be operating a
>> lathe or similar machine.
>
> Indeed, but for most beards there is no problem.
>
> On the face of it, it seems clearly discriminatory to me.
Was that a pun :-)
In the food industry you have to wear a hair net, if in contact with
food. Likewise, if you have a beard you have to wear a similar thing
over the beard. It has a name, but I can't remember it ATM.
There are other jobs, where for security reasons you can't have facial hair.
What was the job?
HTH
Dave
Owain
> In the food industry you have to wear a hair net, if in contact with
> food. Likewise, if you have a beard you have to wear a similar thing
> over the beard. It has a name, but I can't remember it ATM.
Beard snood.
Owain
Stuart A. Bronstein
Adam Funk
> On 2 Nov, 10:00, "Lordgnome" <l...@nospam.null> wrote:
>
>> There are jobs where it may be necessary, for example in the food industry,
>> the alternative being to wear some form of mask all day. It would also seem
>> a bit risky for someone with a very long flowing beard to be operating a
>> lathe or similar machine.
>>
>> All to often the "discrimination" card is used to circumvent sensible safety
>> precautions. Crash helmets come to mind.
>>
>> Les. (Bearded).
>
> I was hoping I'd phrased the post so that I didn't get answers like
> this.
> I know there may be some industries where this could be relevant, but
> I did say I could see no "technical" reason for the requirement.
> It was NOT in the food industry. From what I can remember I think it
> was in the IT industry, but I've thrown the paper away now, so we'll
> never know!
Aha! It must be keep condescending Unix users out.
John Briggs
Christians?
--
John Briggs
Dave
That's it :-)
We were only talking about them in the real ale pbe I drink in. It was
the Indian chef who brought up the name, as he has to wear one at the
care home he also works at.
Dave
Percy Picacity
news:bG%zo.14863$a32....@newsfe21.ams2:
> Christians?
Well, orthodox priests, anyway.
--
Percy Picacity
John Briggs
> John Briggs<john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in
> news:bG%zo.14863$a32....@newsfe21.ams2:
>
>
>> Christians?
>
> Well, orthodox priests, anyway.
Isn't that a full-time job?
--
John Briggs
Szymon von Ulezalka
> services business, M'Lud) he banned beards, even in the UK.
IT guys- without beards? thats heresy!
Nightjar <"cpb"@
Beard snoods themselves are a potential problem. Unlike hair snoods,
which tend to stay on the head if the elastic goes, a beard snood will
probably fall off. If it falls into a large vat of foodstuffs, the
entire vat will have to be condemned.
That does not mean that there is necessarily a case for banning the use
of beard snoods in all areas, but there may well be a justification for
banning them in specific areas. If workers are expected to work in any
part of the factory, there may be case for banning beards.
Colin Bignell
Peter Parry
>From what I can remember I think it
>was in the IT industry, but I've thrown the paper away now, so we'll
>never know!
How old was the paper? One large US owned IT company in the UK had a
"white shirts and no beards for men, no trousers for women" policy but
that ended about 15 years ago.
>To repeat, I could see no rhyme nor reason why it might be a
>requirement for this job. I could only think the owner didn't like
>beards, or maybe the sort of people who tend to wear beards!
It was indeed that the owner didn't like beards (and many informal
forms of work clothes as well).
Pedt
<ff67ccc3-f9db-485e...@t35g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, at
14:35:09 on Tue, 2 Nov 2010, Robert Coates <bobk...@googlemail.com>
>On 2 Nov, 10:00, "Lordgnome" <l...@nospam.null> wrote:
>
>> There are jobs where it may be necessary, for example in the food industry,
>> the alternative being to wear some form of mask all day. It would also seem
>> a bit risky for someone with a very long flowing beard to be operating a
>> lathe or similar machine.
>>
>> All to often the "discrimination" card is used to circumvent sensible safety
>> precautions. Crash helmets come to mind.
>>
>> Les. (Bearded).
>. From what I can remember I think it
>was in the IT industry, but I've thrown the paper away now, so we'll
>never know!
>
>To repeat, I could see no rhyme nor reason why it might be a
>requirement for this job. I could only think the owner didn't like
>beards, or maybe the sort of people who tend to wear beards!
Given the preponderance of IT people to be bearded IME it seems an odd
requirement.
It could be as Mark suggests, a clean room environment where a beard
would be a distinct disadvantage.
I rather think that sight of the original job description is going to be
needed to see if it was actually a reasonable restriction for that job.
>It's just putting something like this openly in an advert I've never
>seen before.
>
I've seen similar in the food industry but on the lines of 'bearded
applicants are welcome to apply but if you cannot be fitted with a beard
snood then your application will be rejected"
--
Pedt (bearded)
Desk Rabbit
> applicants must be "clean shaven".
> Is that legal? Because I can think of members of a few religious
> groups amongst others who would be discriminated against by such a
> statement.
>
> particular job.
> I'm not interested in WHY they are asking it, just whether it would be
> regarded as discriminatory and hence illegal.
>
Oh how I long for the days when I could employ the people I wanted to
employ for my own reasons.
Geoff Berrow
wrote:
>Oh how I long for the days when I could employ the people I wanted to
>employ for my own reasons.
I don't really think that has ended.
Geoff Berrow
<blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
>>There are jobs where it may be necessary, for example in the food industry,
>>the alternative being to wear some form of mask all day.
>
>As they do.
Coincidentally, I came across this today
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs619.snc4/57917_426792855657_277345455657_5501016_6069221_n.jpg
Don't hairs fall out of eyebrows?
pcb1962
wrote:
> > AFAICR, when Ross Perot was in charge of EDS (a multi-national IT
> > services business, M'Lud) he banned beards, even in the UK.
>
> IT guys- without beards? thats heresy!
No sandals either.
I remember many stories about this company, there's an interesting
article about some of their employment policies here:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920607&slug=1495858
Percy Picacity
news:iarfuv$34p$5...@deskrabbit.motzarella.org:
You still can provided they meet the specification for the job and that
you don't make an issue of why you've chosen them. If you want to
broadcast that you won't employ certain categories, then you may be
making unnecessary problems for yourself.
--
Percy Picacity
sid
I bet a real ale pub is chock a bloc with beards?
mcp
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>Could it include working in a "clean room"? That's another place where a
>beard may be unhelpful.
Any clean room is likely to require at least a surgical style face
mask so the beard will be covered anyway.
Robert Coates
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 14:35:09 +0000, Robert Coates
>
> >From what I can remember I think it
> >was in the IT industry, but I've thrown the paper away now, so we'll
> >never know!
>
> How old was the paper? One large US owned IT company in the UK had a
> "white shirts and no beards for men, no trousers for women" policy but
> that ended about 15 years ago.
>
It was a few days ago. In fact due to the interest created by my post
I went rummaging through the bins and found it again.
I do have one correction to make though, it was not for an IT person
as I'd suggested, but a Pest Control Operative!
I suppose then this might make sense as I guess there are some pests
which need a mask to be worn when controlling them.
Robert Coates
> Oh how I long for the days when I could employ the people I wanted to
> employ for my own reasons.
But surely you still can.
There are lots of valid and legal ways to decline employing a person.
You just don't shout the real reason out loud!
You give some other reason.
An odd one I once came across was an emminently qualified person
turned down for a job because they were French.
I know the reason why, which I'm not expanding on except to say it
would have caused "logistical" difficulties for that company at the
time to employ a French person. German, Spanish etc no problem.
But it clearly would have been illegal to use "being French" as the
reason. So the person was simply "not suitable" for the job.
sid
I think they require a full body suit, even a microscopic particle of
skin getting into a hard drive platter can have catastrophic effects.
Peter Parry
<bobk...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>I do have one correction to make though, it was not for an IT person
>as I'd suggested, but a Pest Control Operative!
>
>I suppose then this might make sense as I guess there are some pests
>which need a mask to be worn when controlling them.
The employee would undoubtedly be required to use a full face
respirator with certain chemicals - these seal completely around the
face and obviously don't work with a beard (hence the Royal Navy
command of "off beards" when war appears to be likely and respirators
may need to be worn).
the Omrud
> On 3 Nov, 10:00, Peter Parry<pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 14:35:09 +0000, Robert Coates
>>
>> <bobko...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > From what I can remember I think it
>>> was in the IT industry, but I've thrown the paper away now, so we'll
>>> never know!
>>
>> How old was the paper? One large US owned IT company in the UK had a
>> "white shirts and no beards for men, no trousers for women" policy but
>> that ended about 15 years ago.
>>
>
> It was a few days ago. In fact due to the interest created by my post
> I went rummaging through the bins and found it again.
>
> I do have one correction to make though, it was not for an IT person
> as I'd suggested, but a Pest Control Operative!
>
> I suppose then this might make sense as I guess there are some pests
> which need a mask to be worn when controlling them.
It must be quite hard to get a pest to wear a mask, especially if you're
in the middle of "controlling" it.
--
David
Dave
Not really. There are only three us with beards and I have only just
grown mine after about 25 years of shaving.
Dave
Steve Firth
> AFAICR, when Ross Perot was in charge of EDS (a multi-national IT
> services business, M'Lud) he banned beards, even in the UK.
It now seems impossible to find an EDS man without a beard. Well
impossible to find an EDS man since they haven't existed since sometime
around May. But the ones I meet are generally sprouting full face
fungus.
JMS
<bobk...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>Just spotted a job advert in which one of the requirements was that
>applicants must be "clean shaven".
>Is that legal? Because I can think of members of a few religious
>groups amongst others who would be discriminated against by such a
>statement.
>
>I could see no "technical" reason why it would be necessary for that
>particular job.
>I'm not interested in WHY they are asking it, just whether it would be
>regarded as discriminatory and hence illegal.
>
>And before anyone asks, I'm clean-shaven :-)
I cannot answer the question - but:
Do you remember Ross Perot - and EDS.
At one time if you worked at EDS - you were not allowed to have facial
hair.
Back in 1979 the Iranian government took two EDS members of staff
hostage.
Perot successfully negotiated their release. Of course because they
had been held hostage for x months - they had grown beards.
However - Perot insisted that they were shaved off before they faced
the press - as they were representing EDS !!
(There were lots of other interesting happenings at that time:
American planes held by Iran; the American Embassy surrounded : the
staff shredding every document they could find; the American Embassy
invaded and held by students: the painstaking process of sticking back
together all the shredded documents!!)
sid
>
> It must be quite hard to get a pest to wear a mask, especially if you're
> in the middle of "controlling" it.
>
Not if the said pest is in a gimp suit and paying for the privilege of
being controlled....
David Kirkby
wrote:
> Could it include working in a "clean room"? That's another place where a
> beard may be unhelpful.
There are different grades of clean room
http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/www_cleanroom/cleanroom/cr_standards.html
but I worked in a clean room with a beard. That said, whilst I can't
remember the grade of the room, the amount of foreign matter that
could be tolerated would have been much higher than when making CPUs
for example.
I used to wear something over the hair on my head, but nothing over a
beard. But as I say, this was a less demanding application than some
others.
Dave
Desk Rabbit
> On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 11:15:05 +0000, Desk Rabbit<m...@example.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Oh how I long for the days when I could employ the people I wanted to
>> employ for my own reasons.
>
> I don't really think that has ended.
Maybe not but it has become increasingly difficult. In the line of
business I'm in (IT support), it's a highly technical field but years of
experience has taught me that the best trained, most highly qualified
person is not always the best person for the job. 99% of the job for the
front line engineer is being a "people person", calming the client down,
working efficiently and smiling and saying "thank you, can I please have
another slice of abuse please?"
I can train a smart person to fix computers, networks etc but I can't
train a person who doesn't really get on with other people to be a
sociable person. So, given a fresh out of uni, qualified to the gills
socially inept geek and a smart, sociable, but less qualified person, if
I give the job to the less qualified person I open myself up to
discriminating against the person who is better qualified. It's a
minefield which as a small business owner scares me sh*tless* when it
comes to recruiting.
Adrian
saying:
> Maybe not but it has become increasingly difficult. In the line of
> business I'm in (IT support), it's a highly technical field but years of
> experience has taught me that the best trained, most highly qualified
> person is not always the best person for the job. 99% of the job for the
> front line engineer is being a "people person", calming the client down,
> working efficiently and smiling and saying "thank you, can I please have
> another slice of abuse please?"
>
> I can train a smart person to fix computers, networks etc but I can't
> train a person who doesn't really get on with other people to be a
> sociable person. So, given a fresh out of uni, qualified to the gills
> socially inept geek and a smart, sociable, but less qualified person, if
> I give the job to the less qualified person I open myself up to
> discriminating against the person who is better qualified.
No, you don't. Academic qualifications are not the only job
qualifications as you so rightly pointed out in the first para. Soft
skills are relevant, too.
The only time it becomes a minefield is if you allow gender, race,
religion, sexual orientation, age etc to take precedence over the ability
to do the job. It's entirely possible that they might actually be
relevant, of course - gender is relevant if you're looking for somebody
to be a swimming-pool changing room attendant or bra fitter. Religion is
relevant if you're looking for somebody to be a minister of religion. Age
or sexual orientation are relevant if you're looking for somebody for
some kind of outreach role to specific sectors of the community.
None of those is likely to be relevant in a general IT support role,
though.
the Omrud
It's perfectly legal to discriminate on grounds of ability (or
inability). Discrimination just means "choose". You're only disallowed
from discriminating where this is explicitly prohibited by law. I don't
think there's any statute which stops you discriminating on grounds of
personality.
--
David
Stuart A. Bronstein
> I can train a smart person to fix computers, networks etc but I
> can't train a person who doesn't really get on with other people
> to be a sociable person.
Actually you can - I've seen it done. But the person has to
understand that he's not a sociable person, and be willing to learn.
That's the part that's hard to find.
Clive George
If you restrict your definition of "qualified" to the technical matters,
then maybe. But as you've just explained, the required skills include
the softer ones, and you can and should recruit based all the required
skills. Make sure it's clear that the job requires these skills, and
you're covered.
("fresh out of uni, qualified to the gills"? Has that ever been true?)
Percy Picacity
>
> I can train a smart person to fix computers, networks etc but I
> can't train a person who doesn't really get on with other people
> to be a sociable person. So, given a fresh out of uni, qualified
> to the gills socially inept geek and a smart, sociable, but less
> qualified person, if I give the job to the less qualified person I
> open myself up to discriminating against the person who is better
> qualified. It's a minefield which as a small business owner scares
> me sh*tless* when it comes to recruiting.
>
>
That's no problem. Put at least a sentence in the job advert about
social skills/customer relations being vital. It would be good to
write a few notes about your assessment of each candidate's social
skills as well as qualifications and file them, but even this isn't
necessary if you have a fairly good memory (and no line manager who
wants a report!). You can have no problem choosing people by your
judgement of the sensible requirements for the job. So this would
work even if it isn't in the advertisement, but people are much less
likely to argue if you do put it in: unless they are well on the
autistic spectrum with no insight, in which case you will definitely
win in the tribunal hearing!
--
Percy Picacity
Paul
> Just spotted a job advert in which one of the requirements was that
> applicants must be "clean shaven".
> Is that legal? Because I can think of members of a few religious groups
> amongst others who would be discriminated against by such a statement.
>
> I could see no "technical" reason why it would be necessary for that
> particular job.
> I'm not interested in WHY they are asking it, just whether it would be
> regarded as discriminatory and hence illegal.
>
> And before anyone asks, I'm clean-shaven :-)
particular ethnic or religious group. Anyone can have facial hair. It's
merely a preference for someone who meets their criteria. Just like
saying we prefer someone with XYZ experience, or someone physically fit.
Zapp Brannigan
"Paul" <pa...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Fb2dnR577uN7ulrT...@brightview.co.uk...
whom a beard is not merely a preference, and it would be very vulnerable to
a discrimination challenge.
Paul
minimum height. Is that discriminating against shorter people? What about
ethnic groups where people are generally below that height, for example
people of Japanese origin who are generally much shorter than the
national average in UK. Are the police discriminating against an entire
ethnic group? This discrimination stuff can get absurd.
Paul
consider the "intent" behind this criteria. I don't think it's
straightforward to say yes it discriminates because two religious groups
have beards. If they said we only want female or white applicants, that's
a general discrimination, but surely facial air is no difficult to saying
we want someone with neat short hair to do this job. The police have such
a requirement that hair has to be kept short. Is that discriminating
against Sikhs?
Zapp Brannigan
>> "Paul" <pa...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>>> particular ethnic or religious group. Anyone can have facial hair. It's
>>> merely a preference for someone who meets their criteria. Just like
>>> saying we prefer someone with XYZ experience, or someone physically
>>> fit.
>>
>> I think you're wrong. It explicitly bars Sikhs and Amish applicants,
>> for whom a beard is not merely a preference, and it would be very
>> vulnerable to a discrimination challenge.
>
> Taking the police example further, they also have a requirement on
> minimum height. Is that discriminating against shorter people? What about
> ethnic groups where people are generally below that height, for example
> people of Japanese origin who are generally much shorter than the
> national average in UK. Are the police discriminating against an entire
> ethnic group? This discrimination stuff can get absurd.
recognised to be discriminatory.
"No British force now requires its recruits to be of any minimum height. The
shortest officer in the UK, PC Sue Day of Swindon Police, is 4 feet 10
inches tall"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_Kingdom#Height
Zapp Brannigan
>> "Paul" <pa...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:Fb2dnR577uN7ulrT...@brightview.co.uk...
>>> particular ethnic or religious group. Anyone can have facial hair. It's
>>> merely a preference for someone who meets their criteria. Just like
>>> saying we prefer someone with XYZ experience, or someone physically
>>> fit.
>>
>> I think you're wrong. It explicitly bars Sikhs and Amish applicants,
>> for whom a beard is not merely a preference, and it would be very
>> vulnerable to a discrimination challenge.
>
> Yes but surely a court considering any discriminatory charge will
> consider the "intent" behind this criteria. I don't think it's
> straightforward to say yes it discriminates because two religious groups
> have beards. If they said we only want female or white applicants, that's
> a general discrimination, but surely facial air is no difficult to saying
> we want someone with neat short hair to do this job. The police have such
> a requirement that hair has to be kept short. Is that discriminating
> against Sikhs?
accordance with their faith.
More generally, the subject you need to be googling is "indirect
discrimination". This applies to any restriction which disproportionately
impacts upon particular groups, and is only lawful where necessity can be
demonstrated. So for example if you were advertising processing jobs in a
bacon factory, you might lawfully stipulate the handling of pork meat even
though this was contrary to Judaism and Islam.
Paul
This seems to be just absurd and a reflection of how far this country has
gone backwards for the sake of political correctness. It should be that
the BEST people most suitable are hired for the job. Common sense.
Percy Picacity
news:UI-dnb43UKzTUFrT...@brightview.co.uk:
against immigrants. So we don't have to worry about Political
Correctness Gone Mad. Unless all women are in fact illegal
immigrants ...
--
Percy Picacity
Percy Picacity
news:ZaednVJF-rquIlrT...@brightview.co.uk:
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 10:50:02 +0000, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>> I think you're wrong. It explicitly bars Sikhs and Amish
>> applicants, for whom a beard is not merely a preference, and it
>> would be very vulnerable to a discrimination challenge.
>
> Yes but surely a court considering any discriminatory charge will
> consider the "intent" behind this criteria.
the precise opposite of what the law says. The law explicitly ignores
intent and deals with effect.
--
Percy Picacity
Paul
view that "must be clean shaven" has been taken completely out of context
and misinterpreted to mean something it was never intended to.
It seems more likely the employer is simply saying you must have a tidy
appearance and not turn up with stubble if you don't have a beard. i.e.
it's not saying you can't have a beard or have facial hair to do the job,
but rather, you can't look scruffy!
Zapp Brannigan
skill.
Alex Heney
for the requirement that police officers be of at least a given size.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Don't worry, I'm fluent in weirdo.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Paul Cummins
up to me and whispered:
> It can, but in the situation you mention, there is an objective
> reason for the requirement that police officers be of at least a
> given size.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
IF you think this http://bit.ly/u5EP3p is cruel
please sign this http://bit.ly/sKkzEx
---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----
John Briggs
> We were about to embark at Dover, when m...@privacy.net (Alex Heney) came
> up to me and whispered:
>
>> It can, but in the situation you mention, there is an objective
>> reason for the requirement that police officers be of at least a
>> given size.
>
> Except they don't any more.
--
John Briggs
Just zis Guy, you know?
shaving facial hair, this discriminates against those groups. The
advertiser would need to show a credible reason why they make this
stipulation, and why the normal mechanisms for dealing with facial
hair in, say, hygiene situations, would not be appropriate.
Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
Just zis Guy, you know?
>This seems to be just absurd and a reflection of how far this country has
>gone backwards for the sake of political correctness. It should be that
>the BEST people most suitable are hired for the job. Common sense.
of best you meant was it?
Paul
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:40:02 +0000, Paul <pa...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>This seems to be just absurd and a reflection of how far this country
>>has gone backwards for the sake of political correctness. It should be
>>that the BEST people most suitable are hired for the job. Common sense.
>
> Yes, even if they are 4'10" tall. Oh, wait, no, that was not the kind of
> best you meant was it?
>
> Guy
police officer?! It goes against common sense. Police need to be visible
in crowds and need to be able to handle themselves. It therefore makes
sense to apply a minimum height, minimum fitness level, and other
criteria that makes for police officers who able to carry out their
duties properly and work effectively and efficiently as a force.
Paul
>
>>On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 08:40:02 +0000, Robert Coates wrote:
>>
>>> Just spotted a job advert in which one of the requirements was that
>>> applicants must be "clean shaven".
>>> Is that legal? Because I can think of members of a few religious
>>> groups amongst others who would be discriminated against by such a
>>> statement.
>>>
>>> I could see no "technical" reason why it would be necessary for that
>>> particular job.
>>> I'm not interested in WHY they are asking it, just whether it would be
>>> regarded as discriminatory and hence illegal.
>>>
>>> And before anyone asks, I'm clean-shaven :-)
>>
>>No it's no discriminatory because it does not discriminate against one
>>particular ethnic or religious group. Anyone can have facial hair. It's
>>merely a preference for someone who meets their criteria. Just like
>>saying we prefer someone with XYZ experience, or someone physically fit.
>
> ....is the wrong answer. Several religious groups have a prohibition on
> shaving facial hair, this discriminates against those groups. The
> advertiser would need to show a credible reason why they make this
> stipulation, and why the normal mechanisms for dealing with facial hair
> in, say, hygiene situations, would not be appropriate.
to mean no-one with a beard can apply. It most likely means, of a clean
and tidy appearance, i.e. not looking scruffy with stubble.
So no, it does not discriminate against any particular religious or
ethnic group. It would only be discriminating if a person with a beard
was refused on the basis of having a beard, which seems very unlikely!
Roland Perry
03:00:05 on Sun, 20 Nov 2011, Paul <pa...@nospam.net> remarked:
>How can a person who is 4'10" tall be the best type of person to be a
>police officer?! It goes against common sense. Police need to be visible
>in crowds and need to be able to handle themselves. It therefore makes
>sense to apply a minimum height, minimum fitness level, and other
>criteria that makes for police officers who able to carry out their
>duties properly and work effectively and efficiently as a force.
children.
One size doesn't fit all, to coin a phrase.
--
Roland Perry
Just zis Guy, you know?
>>>This seems to be just absurd and a reflection of how far this country
>>>has gone backwards for the sake of political correctness. It should be
>>>that the BEST people most suitable are hired for the job. Common sense.
>>
>> Yes, even if they are 4'10" tall. Oh, wait, no, that was not the kind of
>> best you meant was it?
>police officer?!
The average height in the Royal Regiment of Gurkhas is apparently
5'3". Would you like to tell one of them that they'd be no good in a
fight?
Just zis Guy, you know?
source that does not include being, well, shaven. The term is commonly
understood to mean that the person does not have a beard. I have never
encountered a situation where a person with a beard was described as
clean-shaven.
Simon Farnsworth
maintain a neat and tidy appearance". And, in my experience, "clean-shaven"
is usually intended to mean just that - no facial hair.
--
Simon Farnsworth
Paul Cummins
me and whispered:
> So no, it does not discriminate against any particular
> religious or
> ethnic group. It would only be discriminating if a person with
> a beard
> was refused on the basis of having a beard, which seems very
> unlikely!
expected to be clean shaven - as a demonstration of the quality of their
products.
Whether this meant all bodily hair or merely facial, I don't (want to)
know.
Roland Perry
2011, Simon Farnsworth <si...@farnz.org.uk> remarked:
>maintain a neat and tidy appearance". And, in my experience, "clean-shaven"
>is usually intended to mean just that - no facial hair.
children) it's very difficult to introduce subjective issues like "neat
and tidy". Especially when one of them turns up at school with it dyed
bright pink.
--
Roland Perry
Fredxx
reason/excuse is NBC equipment.
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
human colour" - this was back in the days of punk.
Roland Perry
Sun, 20 Nov 2011, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<usen...@chapmancentral.co.uk> remarked:
>>children) it's very difficult to introduce subjective issues like "neat
>>and tidy". Especially when one of them turns up at school with it dyed
>>bright pink.
>
>My school's policy was something like "neat and tidy hair of normal
>human colour" - this was back in the days of punk.
self-fulfilling, test: "having the effect of drawing attention to the
student concerned".
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
15:40:02 on Sun, 20 Nov 2011, Janet <H...@invalid.net> remarked:
>> >>children) it's very difficult to introduce subjective issues like "neat
>> >>and tidy". Especially when one of them turns up at school with it dyed
>> >>bright pink.
>> >
>> >My school's policy was something like "neat and tidy hair of normal
>> >human colour" - this was back in the days of punk.
>>
>> Our school has gone for a different kind of subjective, but almost
>> self-fulfilling, test: "having the effect of drawing attention to the
>> student concerned".
>
>natural hair.. no dying, bleaching, curling, straightening etc.
They certainly wouldn't get away with bright pink hair.
But there are genuine issues of symmetry - for example should male
teachers default to wearing ties, like the pupils?
I'm perhaps not a good person to ask, because at my school the teachers
mainly wore gowns, something I didn't have to do until University.
[And yes, I do know the difference between a graduate gown and a student
one].
--
Roland Perry
Percy Picacity
news:CMXxq.28129$3Y.2...@newsfe18.ams2:
equality law to work round it.
--
Percy Picacity
Yellow
pa...@nospam.net says...
riot squads- it's a much greater field than that.
A friend of mine's daughter is a police officer and she's a tiny thing.
But when she has her uniform on she has presence and she of course has
training. She is currently working in the area of interviewing suspects
and witness but started out on patrol.
Adam Funk
painful & messy (& sometimes at risk of infection), is more common
among people with curly hair, especially black (Afro-Carribean)
people. Even the US Army (technical bulletin TB MED 287) says that
exceptions to shaving regulations need to be made for people with this
problem.
Alex Heney
That is the only normal meaning of the phrase in the English language.
"Clean-shaven" means no facial hair.
> It most likely means, of a clean
>and tidy appearance, i.e. not looking scruffy with stubble.
along those lines.
>
>So no, it does not discriminate against any particular religious or
>ethnic group. It would only be discriminating if a person with a beard
>was refused on the basis of having a beard, which seems very unlikely!
>
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Zoe OConnell
> Hmm - are you sure? The army can discriminate on facial hair. The
> reason/excuse is NBC equipment.
reasons, but there is an expectation that you'll have to shave it in
order to be able to wear a respirator if there's a credible CBRN
(a.k.a. NBC) threat. Permission will be given by the Commanding
Officer, who is also the one who will be held to account if permission
is withheld unreasonably and in a discriminatory way. (Queen's
regulations 5.366 if you're bored enough to look up the exact wording)
Chris R
>
>
> "Zoe OConnell" wrote in message
> news:e6a95829-843e-425f...@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
in the Royal Navy.
--
Chris R
Jethro
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 08:40:02 +0000, Robert Coates wrote:
>
>> Just spotted a job advert in which one of the requirements was that
>> applicants must be "clean shaven".
>> Is that legal? Because I can think of members of a few religious groups
>> amongst others who would be discriminated against by such a statement.
>>
>> I could see no "technical" reason why it would be necessary for that
>> particular job.
>> I'm not interested in WHY they are asking it, just whether it would be
>> regarded as discriminatory and hence illegal.
>>
>> And before anyone asks, I'm clean-shaven :-)
>
> No it's no discriminatory because it does not discriminate against one
> particular ethnic or religious group. Anyone can have facial hair. It's
> merely a preference for someone who meets their criteria. Just like
> saying we prefer someone with XYZ experience, or someone physically fit.
operates a "no beards" policy in the US (their home country). I'd be
curious to know if they could insist on such a requirement in the UK/EU ?
Roland Perry
Nov 2011, Jethro <krazy...@googlemail.com> remarked:
>operates a "no beards" policy in the US (their home country).
who live there, that don't chime well with Europeans.
But do they still, now that a possibly more enlightened company acquired
the business in 2008?
>I'd be curious to know if they could insist on such a requirement in
>the UK/EU ?
--
Roland Perry
Adam Funk
>> "Zoe OConnell" wrote:
>> On 20 Nov, 12:55, Fredxx <fre...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> > Hmm - are you sure? The army can discriminate on facial hair. The
>> > reason/excuse is NBC equipment.
>>
>> Beards are permitted (with permission) for religious or medical
>> reasons, but there is an expectation that you'll have to shave it in
>> order to be able to wear a respirator if there's a credible CBRN
>> (a.k.a. NBC) threat. Permission will be given by the Commanding
>> Officer, who is also the one who will be held to account if permission
>> is withheld unreasonably and in a discriminatory way. (Queen's
>> regulations 5.366 if you're bored enough to look up the exact wording)
>
> How times change. Moustaches used to be compulsory in the Army, and beards
> in the Royal Navy.
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>There is a multi national software services company, whose founder
>operates a "no beards" policy in the US (their home country). I'd be
>curious to know if they could insist on such a requirement in the UK/EU ?
true. But that firm is now owned by another firm with a much more
relaxed code.
Neil Williams
<usen...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:
> And no same-sex partners' health benefits, if the news stories are
> true. But that firm is now owned by another firm with a much more
> relaxed code.
then I have worked for them (2001-2006) and there was no such rule
then, don't think it existed in the US at that time either.
Neil
--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK
Zapp Brannigan
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <usen...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0ipnc7hdotatg65t9...@4ax.com...
>>> How times change. Moustaches used to be compulsory in the Army, and
>>> beards
>>> in the Royal Navy.
>>
>>rum, etc. (Churchill, supposedly)
>
> Wasn't that the title of George Melly's memoirs?
Jethro
with them myself, I was very impressed by their attitude to
healthcare ... no insurance scheme - just get the work done and put the
bill in, is how I was told it worked.
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
memoirs, which left a lasting impression on me in my youth.
Just zis Guy, you know?
Bernard Peek
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 18:50:02 +0000, Neil Williams <pace...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 18:20:02 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>> <usen...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:
>>> And no same-sex partners' health benefits, if the news stories are
>>> true. But that firm is now owned by another firm with a much more
>>> relaxed code.
>>
>> If the firm concerned has 3 letters in their name, and isn't IBM,
>> then I have worked for them (2001-2006) and there was no such rule
>> then, don't think it existed in the US at that time either.
>
> No, it's Perot.
in Cambridge (UK) staffed by some of the brightest Cambridge maths
graduates. Apparently their HR droid nearly had a heart-attack the first
day he visited the site.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com