Smoking at work........

[Citizen X]

Oh tec oh tec it is clear that you cannot have a conversation: Let me explain just one of the things I mentioned in my "illegal" post.
If a client wants a MAN (only) to do a specific job, because the company is doing for example undercover market research into the mens changing rooms at a gym, then the criteria would be for MEN only !!!!!! The spec would say this, therefore the job is not open to women. I am afraid to say there is nothing illegal about this or "against the law".

I am even going to give you one futher example:- where there is nothing wrong with being dyslexic as Adrian says, but this person would not be hired in an accountants office writing down figures !! Therefore an accountant would not want this (in this job). This person could probably be fantastic at another job tho. But not at that job.

I am not going to have any further "discussions" with you regarding this thread. You are ill advised. You are making posts about the LAW without knowing what you are talking about !! You are even going so far as threatening another poster.

I am sure I will speak with you on another thread.

A very good afternoon to you HR Solutions,

I'm a trifle dissapointed with your position on recruitment and selection

The Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998(as amended) is very clear that no employer may discriminate, even in recruitment directly or even indirectly on any arbitrary and frivolous ground including disability. Disability includes learning disabilities. Corporate South Africa is well aware of this and actually have recruitment policies in place to comply by included all designated groups. The definitional clause in this Act is very informative in this regard!
Section 6(1) EEA:No person may unfairly discriminate, directly or indirectly, against an employee, in any employment policy or practice, on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, family responsibility, ethnic or social origin, colour,
sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, HIV status, conscience, belief, political opinion, culture, language and birth.


“designated groups” means black people, women and people with disabilities

“people with disabilities” means people who have a long-term or recurring physical or mental impairment which substantially limits their prospects of entry into, or advancement in, employment;


“employment policy or practice” includes, but is not limited to -


(a) recruitment procedures, advertising and selection criteria;

(b) appointments and the appointment process;

(c) job classification and grading;

(d) remuneration, employment benefits and terms and conditions of employment;

(e) job assignments;

(f) the working environment and facilities;

(g) training and development;

(h) performance evaluation systems;

(i) promotion;

(j) transfer;

(k) demotion;

(l) disciplinary measures other than dismissal; and

(m) dismissal.


Section 5 EEA: Elimination of unfair discrimination


Every employer must take steps to promote equal opportunity in the workplace by eliminating unfair discrimination in any employment policy or practice


The Bill of Rights(Constitution of 1996-Supreme Lawof our land) i.e. sections section 9(3) & (4)[ sub-section 4 read in conjunction with subsection 3]


(3) The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.

(4) No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination.


National Legislation in the form of the Employment Equity Act has been implemented for this purpose

PS I will address 'differentiation,' and the 'inherent requirements,' of a job shortly..

[Citizen X]

If a client wants a MAN (only) to do a specific job, because the company is doing for example undercover market research into the mens changing rooms at a gym, then the criteria would be for MEN only !!!!!!

I Presume that you using section 6(2)(b) of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 as a basis for you proposition. Indeed, there are two grounds for discrimination namely affirmative action and inherent requirements for a job.

Anyone with a disability which lawfully includes a learning disability is an affirmative action candidate. So let’s assume Mr X, has a learning disability, other applicants can be discriminated against and MR X given the position on the basis of affirmative action!

To address inherent requirements of a job, one must by necessity look at the objectives and purpose of this act and apply extreme reasonableness to the exclusion of an employee. To put things into perspective section 6(2)(b) of the EEA stipulates:
It is not unfair discrimination to -(a)take affirmative action measures consistent with the purpose of this Act; or (b) distinguish, exclude or prefer any person on the basis of an inherent requirement of a job.
To get a clear understanding of how our courts interpret section 6(2)(b) I think that Allpass v Mooikloof Estates (2011) 32 ILJ 1637(LC) is a very good place to start.

Inherent requirements of a job can only go so far legally!

[adrianh]

I back HR Solutions 100%.

What a total load of unadulterated horse crap!

Rather than get into an absurd debate regarding the merits of hiring a colour blind, quadraplegic, schizophrenic, dyslexic to pilot an Airbus A380 I would simply state that some people who frequent this forum are not only totally divorced from reality but are clearly out of their minds.

@HR Solutions - If you wonder why the government is infested with inappropriate, uneducated and unskilled people you have your answer. You may not employ somebody because that person has the appropriate skills and characterestics to perform a job, no, you have to employ the very first complete idiot who stumbles into your office because you may not discriminate against.....well any frigging moron.

I WILL WORK ALONE BEFORE I AM FORCED TO EMPLOY AN INCOMPETENT TWAT BECAUSE YOU LOT FEEL THAT I AM OBLIGED TO DO SO.

What an absolute absurd total frigging joke. I thought that I was out of my mind...ok, I am out of my mind but damn people, don't you think that your views are dangerous.

You want to force me to employ a 4'ft buxom blonde who is incapable of intelligent thought to work alongside 20 burly foul mouthed dockyard crane operators who drink and beat one another up just for the hell of it - because I am not allowed to discriminate against anybody - ARE YOU DRUNK?

God Damn, get off the silly political correctness soapbox and face reality! - LIFE IS NOT FAIR AND NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU LEGISLATE OR JUMP UP AND DOWN IT WILL NEVER BE FAIR.

I sure as hell hope that if I apply for a job as bikini model that I don't get hired (EVEN IF YOU LOT FEEL THAT IT IS UNFAIR TO ME) - @Vanash, tec0 - I can send you some pics of by g-string clad hairy ass then you can decide for yourself whether I should get the job! (NO - YOU HAVE TO GIVE ME THE JOB BECAUSE YOU MAY NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MY BUTT HAIR)

[Citizen X]

If a client wants a MAN (only) to do a specific job, because the company is doing for example undercover market research into the mens changing rooms at a gym, then the criteria would be for MEN only !!!!!!

This example is not entirely clear to me from a perspective of section 6(2)(b)! Let me explain as follows: It’s common cause that male genitors may clean male change rooms and female genitors may clean female change rooms. So both male and females are recruited and then quite simply male genitors are allocated to the male change room and the same applies to the female change room.
It’s unlikely that a gym will only have a need for undercover research into the men’s change room and not the females change room. They’ll probably apply the same principle as applied to genitors.

[tec0]

Actually this will be my last post, so no need to contact Dave and scream at him. The dyslexic thing was actually aimed at your poor sentence that led me to believe that you may have a son. Obviously you don't as you made that clear. But if you just added and "if" then I would never have thought that in the beginning. Me being me knows that...

But you isolated only that little bit "and yes everyone that reads this will see it for what it is" and tried to belittle me again by pulling it out of context.

As for your "friend/girlfriend and or "it": He is going to have a seriously bad time explaining himself once someone sees his posts. It is not legal in this country to discriminate especially if your responsibility is labour orientated.

I actually did try to be nice there. Anyhow people will read and find see what I saw and that is South Africa is clearly heading the wrong way when it comes to oppression and discrimination. It is just sad because I know it is not going to stay with on the "smoking VS no-smoking" Soon it is going to be blatant discrimination against "almost any attribute" a person may have. It already started as seen the many posts of HR Solutions.


Enjoy people.

[Citizen X]

I back HR Solutions 100%.


Rather than get into an absurd debate regarding the merits of hiring a colour blind, quadraplegic, schizophrenic, dyslexic to pilot an Airbus A380 I would simply state that some people who frequent this forum are not only totally divorced from reality but are clearly out of their minds.

There’s a reason why South Africa has a Ministry for woman and people with disabilities!

http://www.dwcpd.gov.za/

[Citizen X]

Actually this will be my last post, so no need to contact Dave and scream at him.

A very good afternnon to you Tec0,

Why should this be your last post? You merely expressing your opinion as are all contributors to this thread..

[tec0]

I am not going to have any further "discussions" with you regarding this thread. You are ill advised. You are making posts about the LAW without knowing what you are talking about !! You are even going so far as threatening another poster.

I never threatened you... I simply pointed out that someone in Human Recourses cannot go around posting stuff like that. You but both your clients and yourself at risk. Clearly the laws below will show you that I really was thinking towards your best interest there.

[Citizen X]

And I am afraid to say, but some companies wont hire dyslexic's either ! Call it discrimination if you want to, call it anything you want to , it is a fact of life !

There’s a reason why South Africa has a Ministry for woman and people with disabilities!
http://www.dwcpd.gov.za/

[HR Solutions]

Thank you Vanash. Yes we are operating fully within the law and its subsections. It is the companies out there that set out the criteria for a job specification. It is not our company that "discriminates". We fill positions for our clients as per our clients needs. For eg. a client requiring a male to go into a males changing room! You cannot send a woman into a male changingroom.

Remember at the end the day, we have a data base full of potential candidates. You submit keywords and it basically spits out the candidates for the specific job spec. Therefore it is not discrimination. We put forward 5 candidates suitable for a position.

With regards to HIV. We actually have a guy working for us full time at home. He is a fantastic person and worker, but is not discriminated because he may have an illness.

Perhaps sometimes a choice of words may be unsuitable in certain conversations. I would never discriminate a person for what they are. But I would soon see what kind of a worker they are, after a short period of time and based on past experience, therefore I would know what to look for when I hire the next person. With regards to our favourite colour argument in this country. To me there is no colour difference. You can either do the job or you cannot do the job. You either have the qualification or you dont. And by the way we check out every persons qualifcation with their permission.


PS. Perhaps the way things are said sometimes do come out wrong. I will give this to you tec.

[tec0]

A very good afternnon to you Tec0,

Why should this be your last post? You merely expressing your opinion as are all contributors to this thread..

I am actually heading towards a point where "dealing with unreasonable people" is no longer a concern of mine. You can try and show someone compassion. But having a deep awareness of people and sympathy for another's suffering isn't what drive some posters here. Not just on this Thread but many others.

It is the unwinnable war between the wealthy and the poor. It is like they are not even living on the same planet anymore. I thought I could change people's minds and have tried my best for the last few years. It simply can't be done.

So I will rather continue my fight trying to help those in real life then trying to convince others to give things a second thought. Clearly their minds are made up. But the people outside still needs someone help them navigate past the pitfalls.

[adrianh]

@Vanash, @tec

eish people....I just want to check - Are you acting in a Leon Schuster movie?

[adrianh]

@tec0

Please read this carefully:

THE WORLD OWES YOU NOTHING! You are free to be a victim all your life, that is your choice.

I AM DIRT POOR - Why, because I AM THE A$$HOLE WHO DOESN"T KNOW HOW TO DO BUSINESS, not because the government owes me or because the wealthy owes me, NO, BECAUSE I NEED TO LEARN FOR MYSELF HOW TO DO BETTER.

I have no sympathy, nothing, squat, diddly. Get off your butt, stop whining and make a better life for yourself!

I can only shake my head and go; man o man...you've gotta be kidding me.

@vanash

I WILL NEVER EMPLOY ANYBODY WHO DOES NOT FIT MY PROFILE - I DON"T GIVE A ROYAL CONTINENTAL RATS LEFT NUT.

This country will never be more than mediocre because that is it's mindset. Everybody deserves everything because they mangaged to get born. Sis man, no wonder nobody aspires to anything, everybody just get to sit on their asses and demand equality....welll f that. I teach my girls to be better, be faster, be brighter, work harder, run faster, attain more, take first place....why, because that is the way that it should be. My girls are not going to demand a job, they are going to study and they and going to work their asses off to be the best that they possibly can be, and then they will be better, and no I do not force them, they do it because they clearly understand that Leonado Da Vinci was a creative genius because he made it so, not because he dememded to be given a job because he was dyslexic.

What a disgusting outlook to have on life, an outlook of misery where the world owes you and you demand. I demand squat from anybody. I serve my customers and I serve my curiosity and I wish I had 20,000 hours a day to learn, to work, to teach and to do...and you know, they day that I feel sorry for myself is the day that I will personally hand you the keys to my piece of crap car so that you can drive over me. (I drive an Uno and I aspire to drive an Aston Martin but I sure ain't going to sulk because I don't have one. If I EARN one through my OWN inginuety then great, and if I don't well, so be it too)

[Citizen X]

Perhaps sometimes a choice of words may be unsuitable in certain conversations. PS. Perhaps the way things are said sometimes do come out wrong. I will give this to you tec.

I think we all have this tendency to express ourselves inaccurately at times i.e. one wants to say a certain something and it doesn’t come out the way we initially intended! This is human nature. It holds true that we sometimes say things that can be taken out of context and even misinterpreted. I think that if Adrian, Tec0, yourself and myself were to meet in a bar(I don’t drink, just using this as an example), as strangers and strike up a conversation in which all these issues were raised, our approach would perhaps be different!

Regrettably, you are not in a position to not abide by your client’s recruitment brief(You don’t have this luxury, you need to abide by your client’s brief). Should the client’s brief be unreasonable, there’s really nothing that you can do in your capacity as a recruitment agent. You recruit who the client wants you to recruit according to their job specification and job description. Any dispute will then be between the employer and employee (for EEA purpose, a job applicant is the same as an employee).

[Citizen X]

I am actually heading towards a point where "dealing with unreasonable people" is no longer a concern of mine. You can try and show someone compassion. But having a deep awareness of people and sympathy for another's suffering isn't what drive some posters here. Not just on this Thread but many others.

It is the unwinnable war between the wealthy and the poor. It is like they are not even living on the same planet anymore. I thought I could change people's minds and have tried my best for the last few years. It simply can't be done.

So I will rather continue my fight trying to help those in real life then trying to convince others to give things a second thought. Clearly their minds are made up. But the people outside still needs someone help them navigate past the pitfalls.

You can still do so right here as we engaging in dialogue and not monologue