mollymeek (mollymeek) wrote,
mollymeek
mollymeek

Discriminatory Ads vs Discriminatory Practices

From The Straits Times

A REPUTABLE preschool is seeking a teacher for English and in its newspaper advertisement, it specified 'Caucasian' as a criteria.

Such discriminatory job advertisements are, however, few and far between nowadays, according to the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (Tafep). [Maybe people are just becoming less open about showing their discrimination.]

Its monitoring of print advertisements found that last year, only 1 per cent specified race, age, gender or other preferred characteristics, without explaining why these were necessary for the job. [Does it mean that stating preferred characteristics with ridiculous "explanations" will qualify them as non-discriminatory ads?]

In 2006, it was 19.7 per cent. The plunge is a feather in the cap for Tafep, which released its first progress report on Wednesday.

Its general manager, Mr Andrew Fung, attributed it to heightened awareness among employers of the need to recruit on a fair, meritorious basis. [Bullshit]

For the unaware few, like the preschool, Tafep contacts them to explain the importance of using only relevant and objective job criteria in hiring. [That's about as good as telling a barbarian to behave like a gentleman in public even if he remains a brute through and through.]
 
Fewer discriminatory ads? But who cares about ads? The most politically correct ad does not guarantee the fairest employment practices.

And, really, you don't even need to specify anything that sounds discriminatory. Just offer a salary that only certain groups of people will take, for instance. (And then blame the others for being picky.)
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 8 comments