Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > UK: Every employee to be quizzed on gay rights

UK: Every employee to be quizzed on gay rights
Thread Tools
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2006, 10:57 AM
 
Businesses face legal action for failing to give staff 'gay rights quiz' | the Daily Mail

Businesses have been warned by a Government watchdog they must individually quiz every member of staff on gay rights - or risk being sued for discrimination.

Industrial relations quango Acas has spent thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money drawing up a detailed 18-question test to establish whether workers are being unfair to any homosexual colleagues.

Employers are advised to use the so-called 'audit tool' on all staff, then check their answers against a special score sheet to ensure staff do not have a bad attitude.
Right, so what happens if a member of staff has a "bad attitude"? Do they get fired? Do they get sent to the gulags for re-education? What the hell happened to the human rights laws guaranteeing freedom of conscience and freedom of expression? Where's the equality quiz for hair metaller rights?
( Last edited by Doofy; Dec 27, 2006 at 11:09 AM. )
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2006, 11:31 AM
 
Human rights laws guaranteeing freedom of conscience and freedom of expression end exactly at the point where there is a real danger of OTHERS' human rights being encroached upon.

Which is why there is little tolerance for gay-haters, Nazis, etc.

I'm not entirely certain this quiz is the right way to go about this, but the idea makes sense.
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2006, 11:44 AM
 
I understand what they're trying to accomplish here, often times if there is a truly abusive environment going on in the workplace then management may not be aware of it. But that stems from a lack of communication between management and employees. It's worth noting that the questionairre is simply billed as a way to find out if your workplace may be "at risk" for being sued over discrimination, and entitles the business to free consulting to help remedy the problem. But a questionairre with only yes/no or multiple choice answers are an extremely bad way to go about finding out about it. Especially with questions like these:

Questions range from knowing how many gays live in the UK, to whether the business displays a 'rainbow flag' - a symbol of homosexual rights - on the premises.

Poor scores are awarded for, for example, any 'jokes or banter' relating to gay or bisexual people.
The gay people I know are the absolute worst with regards to 'jokes or banter' relating to gay people! And why exactly does knowing how many gays live in your country make you more tolerant? Ot not knowing that factoid contribute to discrimination? I have no clue how many gays are living in the U.S., but consider myself tolerant of their lifestyle.

This will not change the minds of people who do not approve of homosexuality. If anything, it will reinforce the notion that they are being "forced" to tolerate that behavior, and increase hostilities. The way to change people's behavior is to stress that orientation does not affect job performance, so it should not be taken into consideration at the workplace.
     
Dakar²
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Annals of MacNN History
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2006, 11:45 AM
 
Knowing how many gays live in the UK is no way an indication of bias in either direction.
     
Doofy  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2006, 11:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
Human rights laws guaranteeing freedom of conscience and freedom of expression end exactly at the point where there is a real danger of OTHERS' human rights being encroached upon.
And who's the judge of when others' rights are encroached upon? Do we all end up mired in political correctness because we're all walking on eggshells trying not to offend anyone?

Originally Posted by analogika View Post
Which is why there is little tolerance for gay-haters, Nazis, etc.

I'm not entirely certain this quiz is the right way to go about this, but the idea makes sense.
So let's say that an employee doesn't like gays. He was minding his own business, keeping his mouth shut about that fact and just getting on with the job. Then along comes this idiotic quiz. Does he get fired? Does he get sent for re-education?

This kind of "you must conform to what we say is right" is exactly how the nazis operated. Only this time it's not "you must hate Jews", it's "you must not dislike gays".

This whole thing sounds very familiar: It's the old leftie mindset of "freedom of thought/speech as long as you agree with what we say".

Knackers to that.
     
Doofy  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2006, 11:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
It's worth noting that the questionairre is simply billed as a way to find out if your workplace may be "at risk" for being sued over discrimination, and entitles the business to free consulting to help remedy the problem.
This is, of course, not as clear cut as it seems. What one must understand is that this is generally how the UK government underhandedly socially engineers things.

What happens to the employee who doesn't conform? If his employer wishes to avoid being sued and runs the test, what will the employer do to raise the company's score? Fire the guy? Send him to the gulags? Thus a fear of being fired (or worse) seeps into the workplace. Social control achieved.

Gays today. What tomorrow?


(Now don't get me wrong, I ain't against gays. I'm against government interference in things which have nothing to do with them).
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2006, 12:10 PM
 
It's funny, my wife and I were talking about something similar yesterday. It might seem off-topic, but it's not really!

My 2-year-old daughter is getting into The Wiggles (which, if you don't know, are a bunch of Austrailian men in solid-color jumpsuits who jump around and sing songs with a guy in a pirate suit. Just that part might be on topic for this discussion ) yesterday, the TiVo caught the Wiggles Christmas special.

Now, this wasn't a Generic Holiday special or a Chris-Kwan-Makuh soecial that aims to make everyone happy, it was a very blatant Christmas special, with Christian-themed christmas carols and a manger scene in between the Santa skits. We were suprised at this at first, and felt a little guilty that were were watching it, and "ignoring" the other holidays. Then we snapped out of it -- we wouldn't object to our daughter watching a show that talked about the holidays of other faiths, so why were we being so cautious about this show, which taught some of the basic tenets of our faith in a form that she could understand (and enjoy more than the Christmas Day service, after all)?

Of course, it's because we've been conditioned that showing preference to any belief system publically, even your own, is somehow not desirable. That's absurd. Discrimination does happen, but there's a big difference between actively discriminating against someone and simply noting that different people have different beliefs, and while my beliefs do not invalidate yours even if we disagree, we are not all going to agree on everything.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2006, 12:42 PM
 
Um... is this quiz geared for finding out what people believe (possibly to target certain people for "sensitivity training"), or for finding out what is happenning at people's places of employment? The article doesn't seem clear on that.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Doofy  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2006, 12:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium View Post
Um... is this quiz geared for finding out what people believe (possibly to target certain people for "sensitivity training"), or for finding out what is happenning at people's places of employment?
The former, by the looks of it.

http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1204
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2006, 01:59 PM
 
I just reviewed the audit tool, and it doesn't appear to be invasive or inappropriate. It doesn't challenge an employee's personal views, it simply asks questions about the workplace environment.

You're making a mountain out of a mole-hill, Doofy.
Originally Posted by Millennium
Um... is this quiz geared for finding out what people believe (possibly to target certain people for "sensitivity training"), or for finding out what is happenning at people's places of employment?
Originally Posted by Doofy
The former, by the looks of it.
No, it's the latter.
     
Doofy  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2006, 02:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I just reviewed the audit tool, and it doesn't appear to be invasive or inappropriate. It doesn't challenge an employee's personal views, it simply asks questions about the workplace environment.
And what happens to those employees who don't answer the questions appropriately? Really. Tell me.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
You're making a mountain out of a mole-hill, Doofy.
Nope. Live in the UK for a while and you'll gain an insight into how the government operates.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
No, it's the latter.
If it were the latter, they wouldn't be offering consultations on how to fix the "problem".

Why the hell do you lefties bang on about "rights" all the time yet constantly fail to heed the signs warning of the removal of those rights? Is your bandwidth that low? (don't answer that - I know for fact that a majority of the people who voted this current government in watch/read the news no more than once a week). This is a perfect illustration of the blind march into societies where "thought crime" exists.
     
Dakar²
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Annals of MacNN History
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2006, 02:33 PM
 
Don't look at me, I think this is weird.
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2006, 02:46 PM
 
From the guidelines: "the main aim is to raise awareness of sexual orientation in the workplace and encourage people to think about it". I currently have no idea if any of my workmates are gay. I don't need to know, they don't need to tell me. Why should they? I don't have to tell them if I prefer oral, bondage, old ladies or threesomes, why should I be forced to learn about their foibles? ... and the last thing that I want to do is think about it. Yuk.

This is the same idiocy that promotes our racist 'anti-racism' policy in the UK - make sure that you make everyone acutely aware of the differences between people, by emphasising them and pointing them out - up until the madness of political correctness took hold, we used to emphasise the similarities between people, and encourage integration, hence hardly any inter-community friction.

The road to hell is, truly, paved with good intentions.
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2006, 02:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
And what happens to those employees who don't answer the questions appropriately? Really. Tell me.
Nothing. The audit can be done anonymously.
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Nope. Live in the UK for a while and you'll gain an insight into how the government operates.
Translation: stop meddling, outsider!
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
If it were the latter, they wouldn't be offering consultations on how to fix the "problem".
The consultations are simply to train management and staff about workplace relations and legal rights; a standard business practice.
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Why the hell do you lefties bang on about "rights" all the time yet constantly fail to heed the signs warning of the removal of those rights?
I'm not a "lefty." No one's rights are being removed by having workplace surveys or workplace relations training.
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
This is a perfect illustration of the blind march into societies where "thought crime" exists.
Rubbish and hysteria. If employees are being harassed or denied promotions because they are gay, that's a real problem.
     
Doofy  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2006, 03:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
The audit can be done anonymously.
It can? Did you know that 89% of UK companies employ no more than four people?

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Translation: stop meddling, outsider!
Translation: You don't know how the UK government works, so you haven't a clue as to the real implications of this. ChrisT got it (because he's in the UK and knows how the government operates).
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2006, 03:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by christ View Post
From the guidelines: "the main aim is to raise awareness of sexual orientation in the workplace and encourage people to think about it". I currently have no idea if any of my workmates are gay.
The point isn't to know whether your co-workers are gay. The point is to ensure the business isn't stuck with a harassment lawsuit because the management didn't take steps to deter harassment and discrimination against gays.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2006, 03:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Right, so what happens if a member of staff has a "bad attitude"? Do they get fired? Do they get sent to the gulags for re-education? What the hell happened to the human rights laws guaranteeing freedom of conscience and freedom of expression? Where's the equality quiz for hair metaller rights?
I pitched this past the SO, and she mentioned "that sounds like the whole sexual harassment thing over here."

I thought that was a pretty good observation.
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2006, 03:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
The point isn't to know whether your co-workers are gay. The point is to ensure the business isn't stuck with a harassment lawsuit because the management didn't take steps to deter harassment and discrimination against gays.
But the questions they are asking in this survey (at least, the ones the article points out) have nothing to do with actual discrimination. Unless gays are being discriminated against because there is no "rainbow flag" hanging in the office.

even the question about "jokes annd banter about gay people" is suspect. If a gay person is made a constant target of unwanted ridicule in the workplace, that's not a good environment to work in and must be fixed. But that shouldn't make every bit of "banter" off-limits.
     
Zeeb
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Manhattan, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2006, 03:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
This is, of course, not as clear cut as it seems. What one must understand is that this is generally how the UK government underhandedly socially engineers things.
The article states that this comes from a "government watchdog" organization. At first I thought that meant some type of private firm but then I see its funded by taxpayer money. I guess I don't quite understand who exactly this effort originates from.

Nevertheless, I see this as just another way that consultants can cash in. You do poorly on a report and suddenly HR hires a ton of people to deal with the problem. I have to say most business consultants are the most overpriced useless people that you can hire. 95% of what they contribute could be read in any management or human resource book available at the library. The one that works with my organization charges $2,500 per day and doesn't do a thing that changes the way this place operates.

That being said, while I can appreciate this effort toward sensitivity as a gay man myself, they are going about this entirely the wrong way and it may result in a backlash. I don't want to tell someone how they should feel because they disagree with me. I just want to work in a safe, fair environment free of harassment. If one doesn't like my lifestyle that's fine--just don't let that opinion affect how you treat me in the workplace.

Why should a business be required to display a rainbow flag? Many gaybars I frequent don't even have them. How silly.
     
Doofy  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2006, 04:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Zeeb View Post
The article states that this comes from a "government watchdog" organization. At first I thought that meant some type of private firm but then I see its funded by taxpayer money. I guess I don't quite understand who exactly this effort originates from.
It's a quango. Essentially, a think-tank extension of the government.
Think "politburo".

Originally Posted by Zeeb View Post
That being said, while I can appreciate this effort toward sensitivity as a gay man myself, they are going about this entirely the wrong way and it may result in a backlash. I don't want to tell someone how they should feel because they disagree with me. I just want to work in a safe, fair environment free of harassment. If one doesn't like my lifestyle that's fine--just don't let that opinion affect how you treat me in the workplace.
Exactly. Nobody cares if you're gay. You might get as many gay jokes as I get hair metaller jokes, but everyone will basically get along. And then the government comes along and sticks its nose in...
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2006, 04:35 PM
 
I would think being quizzed on was sexual harassment.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2006, 04:55 PM
 
we just had a meeting where we were told by our managers that anything could be offensive. EVERYONE is part of a protected group— old, young, gay, straight, male, female, dem, rep, etc. Thus, we were encouraged not to send any jokes, talk about any politics, or do ANYTHING within earshot of others that MAY offend ANYONE, because Human Resources would have to take any complaint seriously, no matter how ridiculous, no matter how overheard, no matter if it was aimed at anyone or not, on the advice of their lawyers.

it's CYA, and it's international.
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2006, 05:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
we just had a meeting where we were told by our managers that anything could be offensive. EVERYONE is part of a protected group— old, young, gay, straight, male, female, dem, rep, etc. Thus, we were encouraged not to send any jokes, talk about any politics, or do ANYTHING within earshot of others that MAY offend ANYONE, because Human Resources would have to take any complaint seriously, no matter how ridiculous, no matter how overheard, no matter if it was aimed at anyone or not, on the advice of their lawyers.

it's CYA, and it's international.
Sounds rather bland, too.
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2006, 04:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Right, so what happens if a member of staff has a "bad attitude"?
Nothing 'happens'. The audit has served it's purpose in identifying an area of risk for you and your business, under current equality legislation.

What you decide to do about that is up to you. You could take advantage of the free consultancy on offer to address that risk. Alternatively you could decide it's not a problem, or that you're happy to defend the prejudice you've uncovered if it ends up in tribunal at some later point.

This is an entirely suitable service for a taxpayer funded advisory agency to provide, and it will actually save money if it helps businesses to avoid tribunals, which are far more costly to both the taxpayer and the parties involved.

Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Translation: You don't know how the UK government works, so you haven't a clue as to the real implications of this. ChrisT got it (because he's in the UK and knows how the government operates).
I'm in the UK, and have some experience in employment law. In my view, you haven't got a clue as to the real implications of this, and are displaying a remarkable lack of intelligence by choosing to take your cue from a downmarket tabloid newspaper which is well-known for it's opposition to equal rights in the workplace.

The Daily Mail may well do a good job of getting yourself and a nation of bigoted grannies all hot and bothered, but the main premise of the article (from the headline) that 'Businesses face legal action for failing to give staff 'gay rights quiz'' - is patently false. Businesses face legal action for not ensuring equality of opportunity, or for allowing discrimination, in the workplace. This tool is one means of helping them to identify and address that risk.

Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
You might get as many gay jokes as I get hair metaller jokes
The difference is that your condition is an affliction that can, and arguably should, be cured.
( Last edited by nath; Dec 28, 2006 at 05:29 AM. )
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2006, 07:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
we just had a meeting where we were told by our managers that anything could be offensive. EVERYONE is part of a protected group— old, young, gay, straight, male, female, dem, rep, etc. Thus, we were encouraged not to send any jokes, talk about any politics, or do ANYTHING within earshot of others that MAY offend ANYONE, because Human Resources would have to take any complaint seriously, no matter how ridiculous, no matter how overheard, no matter if it was aimed at anyone or not, on the advice of their lawyers.

it's CYA, and it's international.
This must make social interaction a little tricky. You can't talk about cooking because you may offend the vegan, you can't talk about the holidays, because you may offend someone on religious grounds (there shouldn't even be a holiday) or environmental grounds (you shouldn't travel by plane, or car), or pecuniary grounds (offending the poor chap in the corner), you can't talk about family (think of poor Gladys, that can't have children because she used to be a man, or Gerald who just lost his family in a bank raid) or your spouse (Gladys again), or anything else. You can't talk about Iraq, because Saddam Hussein has received the death penalty, and the death penalty, as we all know, is racist. There is always someone in the office that can construe some way of taking offence at something - your company lawyers must be really busy.

This equal opportunity victimhood is A Bad Thing.
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
Doofy  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2006, 09:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by nath View Post
Nothing 'happens'. The audit has served it's purpose in identifying an area of risk for you and your business, under current equality legislation.
And if the business wants to eliminate that risk? How do they do it without firing or re-educating the questionable employees?

Originally Posted by nath View Post
This is an entirely suitable service for a taxpayer funded advisory agency to provide
No, it's not. My paying taxes to help a company on the other side of the country which I've never heard of avoid legal action is about as suitable as my paying taxes for them to avoid cashflow problems caused by poor management. Nowt to do with me or my tax dollar.

Originally Posted by nath View Post
I'm in the UK, and have some experience in employment law. In my view, you haven't got a clue as to the real implications of this
Yes, I do. You're the one with no idea of the implications. Like I said earlier, you lefties don't see when your rights are taken from you.

Originally Posted by nath View Post
and are displaying a remarkable lack of intelligence by choosing to take your cue from a downmarket tabloid newspaper which is well-known for it's opposition to equal rights in the workplace.
Dude, if the Mail said that grass was green you'd argue with it. Standard leftie tactic of discrediting the source.

Originally Posted by nath View Post
The difference is that your condition is an affliction that can, and arguably should, be cured.
Arh. So there we go. Lefties defending minorities which they've been told to defend yet not applying those principles to others. As usual.
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2006, 11:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
And if the business wants to eliminate that risk? How do they do it without firing or re-educating the questionable employees?
That's up to them. If you disagree with the actual legislation under discussion here, that's a different matter. The headline you linked to said 'Businesses face legal action for failing to give staff gay rights quiz', which, as I pointed out, is quite incorrect.

Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
My paying taxes to help a company on the other side of the country which I've never heard of avoid legal action is about as suitable as my paying taxes for them to avoid cashflow problems caused by poor management. Nowt to do with me or my tax dollar.
Your tax 'dollar'(?!) will pay for much of the tribunal that results from their poor management anyway. This is actually a case of a quango saving you money, by proactively helping people - such as yourself - who don't understand or agree with employment law, from breaking it and ending up in trouble as a result.

It might be more appropriate for you to show a little gratitude.

Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Yes, I do. You're the one with no idea of the implications.
Ooh, tomayto/tomarto. As always I'm stunned by the brilliance of your logic.


Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Lefties defending minorities which they've been told to defend yet not applying those principles to others. As usual.
You're not a minority in need of defence Doofy, you're a person with criminally bad taste in music and hair.

But don't worry. Together we'll beat this terrible affliction.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2006, 12:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by nath View Post
...getting yourself and a nation of bigoted grannies all hot and bothered...
roflcopter
     
Doofy  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2006, 12:43 PM
 
Answer the question Nath. What happens if a business wants to eliminate the "discovered" risk? How do they do it without firing or re-educating the questionable employees?

And don't say "it's up to them" in order to avoid the answer.
     
kmkkid
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Brantford, ON. Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2006, 01:08 PM
 
Homophobics should be re-educated. Period.
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2006, 01:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
What happens if a business wants to eliminate the "discovered" risk? How do they do it without firing or re-educating the questionable employees?
As a people manager myself, I would question whether that person's attitude was prejudicial in respect of their behaviour towards others. Professionally, I don't care what their beliefs are, as long as they're not offending others in the way they express them. I think you are probably smart enough to see the distinction.

However, there is likely to be far more scope for such difficulties if that person is managing others themselves.

For example, your own attitude of 'I don't mind gays as long as they're not demonstrably gay around me' (to paraphrase the way you've expressed it previously on these pages) could present a problem if one of your team exhibited gay behaviour in your presence which you then decided to take objection to (for example with a partner, at an out of work social occasion).

The question I'd be asking is how you would express that objection, and whether any resulting behaviour on your part would make the organisation vulnerable to the legislation in question. There are a range of steps that could then be taken to address your difficulty in working with others, some involving training (or 're-education'), some involving disciplinary action.
     
noot
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2006, 01:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by kmkkid View Post
Homophobics should be re-educated. Period.
Thinking that homosexual behaviour is wrong does not necessarily makes you a homophobe. Crying out "homophobe" when anyone expresses disagreement in this issue is a cop out.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2006, 01:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Answer the question Nath. What happens if a business wants to eliminate the "discovered" risk? How do they do it without firing or re-educating the questionable employees?

And don't say "it's up to them" in order to avoid the answer.
You keep using the term "re-education" in an Orwellian manner. That's way off-base.

In the military, we get harassment and diversity training. It basically boils down to: here is the standard of acceptable conduct in the Forces. Toe the line or face the consequences.

There's no proselytization, no ridicule, no indoctrination. Everyone is trained on the rules regarding workplace relations, and then we get back to the business of training for war.

It's an important experience. Many men (myself included) never met a lesbian before joining the military. Clear-cut rules on conduct helped us and them get past the awkwardness and get on with the job.
     
kmkkid
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Brantford, ON. Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2006, 01:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by noot View Post
Thinking that homosexual behaviour is wrong does not necessarily makes you a homophobe. Crying out "homophobe" when anyone expresses disagreement in this issue is a cop out.
Let me rephrase.

Anyone who dislikes gays or their 'behavior' should be re-educated. Period.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2006, 01:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by kmkkid View Post
Let me rephrase.

Anyone who dislikes gays or their 'behavior' should be re-educated. Period.
If you're suggesting "re-education" via voluntary means, I'm all for it. If you mean by government action, definitely not.

You and Doofy are both advocates of false choices. The state can't mandate what people believe, but it can demand standards of behaviour.
     
kmkkid
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Brantford, ON. Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2006, 02:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
If you're suggesting "re-education" via voluntary means, I'm all for it. If you mean by government action, definitely not.

You and Doofy are both advocates of false choices. The state can't mandate what people believe, but it can demand standards of behaviour.
I'm not suggesting either.

I'll re-educate them myself if the opportunity presents itself.
     
kmkkid
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Brantford, ON. Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2006, 02:40 PM
 
On topic - I don't think the quiz is needed. Maybe a quiz on general harassment in the workplace, but I don't feel there is a need to pinpoint on the gay issue.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2006, 02:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by kmkkid View Post
I'll re-educate them myself if the opportunity presents itself.
That's what I meant by "voluntary means."
     
kmkkid
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Brantford, ON. Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2006, 02:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
That's what I meant by "voluntary means."
I believe getting their ass kicked would be involuntary on their part
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2006, 03:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by kmkkid View Post
I believe getting their ass kicked would be involuntary on their part
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2006, 03:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by kmkkid View Post
Anyone who dislikes gays or their 'behavior' should be re-educated. Period.
Interesting how you put 'behavior' in quotes. Are you saying you believe that disliking someone's actions is the same as disliking the person?

Because, see, I think that people who can't separate what a person does from who a person is need to be re-educated, regardless of who or what they like or dislike.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2006, 03:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by kmkkid View Post
I'll re-educate them myself if the opportunity presents itself.
That doesn't sound particularly voluntary.

But then, I suppose that when one's view of reality is too warped to tell action apart from identity, it would get similarly difficult to tell voluntary apart from compulsory. Is this what they mean by being Fuzzy?
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
kmkkid
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Brantford, ON. Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2006, 03:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium View Post
Interesting how you put 'behavior' in quotes. Are you saying you believe that disliking someone's actions is the same as disliking the person?

Because, see, I think that people who can't separate what a person does from who a person is need to be re-educated, regardless of who or what they like or dislike.
Behavior is in quotes because that is what the person I quoted had said. I have no idea what his idea of gay 'behavior' is. It could be anything from the way they act to the way they partake in the bar scene, or even the way they have sexual relations.

Behavior could mean anything.
     
kmkkid
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Brantford, ON. Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2006, 03:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium View Post
That doesn't sound particularly voluntary.

But then, I suppose that when one's view of reality is too warped to tell action apart from identity, it would get similarly difficult to tell voluntary apart from compulsory. Is this what they mean by being Fuzzy?
Eh? Put simply, if a homophobe calls me out; I'll kick his ass.
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2006, 06:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by kmkkid View Post
Eh? Put simply, if a homophobe calls me out; I'll kick his ass.
Aha. So 'straight-bashing' is OK, then?
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2006, 09:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by nath View Post
As a people manager myself, I would question whether that person's attitude was prejudicial in respect of their behaviour towards others. Professionally, I don't care what their beliefs are, as long as they're not offending others in the way they express them. I think you are probably smart enough to see the distinction.
Is there an objective standard to what can be offensive, or is it always up to the standards of the offendee? Because I don't know how things are in the UK right now, but it seems like people are way too easily offended here in the US.

Re-read andi*pandi's post: everything has the potential to offend someone. Where do we draw the line? Is the right to never be exposed to anything offensive a basic human right now?
     
Dakar²
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Annals of MacNN History
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2006, 09:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
it seems like people are way too easily offended here in the US.
I take offense to that thought!
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2006, 09:56 AM
 
There is no such thing as a 'basic human right' - that sort of thinking has got us into this mess.
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
Doofy  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2006, 10:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
Is there an objective standard to what can be offensive, or is it always up to the standards of the offendee?
Officially, it's the latter. Unofficially, anything which disagrees with leftie principles is offensive.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2006, 11:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by christ View Post
There is no such thing as a 'basic human right' - that sort of thinking has got us into this mess.
Yeah, let's blame John Locke and Thomas Jefferson for everything.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:00 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,