if the equal opps form is to be returned in a separate envelope and there is no way of matching the EO form to the main application, then yes for monitoring purposes.

sadly this is often not the case. jobs in the civil service used to, and i believe they still do, require the EO form to be enclosed in the application envelope, and regardless of what they say about anonymity, will people actually trust the promised anonymity?

i think sexuality should always feature on EO forms, and these should always be untraceable to the applicant.

think thats against the law now after the employment equality (sexual orientation) regs 2003. And if your employer discriminates against you for perceived sexual orientation then you can sue, without having to declare it.

In any event you can refuse to say as it is a breach of your privacy (art 8 echr), same as asking if you plan to marry and have kids any time soon. In fact that is partly wrong because you could be gay and it presumes you're straight.

Clare

I think I'd choose not to answer the question.

Although I don't think being gay is an issue, obviously some people do. I wouldn't want to be denied a job for being gay, but at the same time I wouldn't want to get it just because I was.

Wasn't there a recruitment exercise recently for the RAF or something specifically to sign up homosexuals?

Hey everyone. I should really register, I've been spying on this politics thread for some time now. Not a member but writing my dissertation on employment equality (sexual orientation) regulations which came into force last december to make discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in the workplace unlawful. Not that I need an excuse to be here ;P

...I was just picking up on an anti-positive discrimination vibe, and wonder whether I can probe you for some reasons? I have many theories of my own as to why postive discrimination may not be acceptable...but what are yours?

Clare

Because it tells someone getting a job that the only reson they are being accepted over others is because they fulfil a quota, rather than deserving it because of personal merit. If someone offered me a job purely based on my sexuality, then I would refuse it.

John K x

Some scenarios -

If it got down to you and I, and then they chose you because of some secret positive action clause, you would have been chosen because your sexuality is a bonus. It would be me without the job feeling ****ed off, wondering why. I would think to myself, I am equally qualified - why am I not with the job? Alternatively, it may be me who gets the job because i am better qualified, even though you are 'qualified enough' and fit the quota.

I find it interesting to note that positive action may not be so different from an employer having a GOR - genuine occupational requirement- for a job. A gay men's advice line might best be hosted by gay men. What do you think about this idea? Isn't it more or less the same? Or, is this justified because all the applicants would be gay, and so one person wouldn't be chosen over another equally qualified straight person merely because they had the advantage of being gay? If all applicants were gay because that group of people had been invited to apply, then everyone would be judged according to their qualifications and skills. The sexuality becomes an irrelevance (during the interview process). However, you are still being given the opportunity by virtue of the fact you are a gay man. On the other hand, there will be plenty (and I mean plenty after these stupid exceptions havecome into play) of times where a gay/bi/lesbian person will be discriminated against when a straight person gets the job just because they are straight. Unfortunately this way round is going to be more common. Anti-discrimination law in itself is, yet again, discriminatory.

Well I think there is a different between positive discrimination and job requirements.

For example, on a gay advice line, the people are usually volunteers. I would expect them to be gay - the same as a woman calling a rape-support help line would expect the person on the other end to be female not male.

Now if your talking about a gay business for gay people, I don't think the applicant has to be gay. I worked in a gay club in my first year and a lot of my colleagues were straight. It didn't really matter.

Another scenario, for example, would be the position of womens officer on the Exec at uni. Would it be acceptable for a man to take up this position - I think not. Similarly I wouldn't expect and LGBT officer in the Union to be not LGB or T.

Now in a job, such as the public services for example I think that positive discrimination is an uncomfortable, but necessary evil for the moment. These public services are supposed to be representitive of our society - well they aren't. The police, for example, tends to be dominated by white heterosexual men. Technically there should be more women than men and at least ten percent of the work force must come from an 'ethnic minority' (I'm not totally comfortable with that phrase, but I think you'll get what I mean) and 10% should be gay. Actively recruiting women, black and asian and gay/lesbian/transgender officers is a good thing - especially when they are similarly qualified for the job. It readresses a balance. However, when someone who doesn't deserve to get a job on merit gets a job because to belong to a minority, thats when I take issue with positive discrimination.

Positive discrimination is also used as a scapegoat for such parties as the B N P and the N F who cry white racism, hetrophobia and sexism towards men, all three of which do NOT exsist in my opinion.

The main problem with LGBT recruitment in general I think is percieved stereotypes perpetuated by a heterosexist majority. Gay men are seen as, well not men, and gay women are seen as not women. And bi people are generally ridiculed or constantly sexualised. Transgender people are often labelled mentally ill, freaks, perverts or weird. I think much of the problem is stereotyping - and it begins with dumbass phrases like 'Thats so gay' and stupid programmes like 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy' and ends in violence, discrimination and too often murder.

Ok rant over now!

john k x

H o L are mad! See the Civil Partnerships Bill - in fact see all gay rights legislation rejected or attempted to be wrecked by the house of lords

*Section 28
*Equalising age of consent
*Adoption rights
*Civil Partnerships!

Sometimes I really give up with the H o L

Thank god the Gender Recognition Bill went through!

John K
x

Here's to getting rid of Lords, actually.
Didn't I hear something recently about Lords trying to get rid of the parliament act? It seems like a bit of an impossibility, but I don't see why they wouldn't try.