We would like to congratulate Dawn Milman-Hurst, Managing Director of Diversity recruitment specialists Equal Approach, who has been named Entrepreneur of the Year at the 2010 Burton Mail Business Awards.
The awards, a celebration of business excellence across East Staffordshire and South Derbyshire, took place at the Pirelli Stadium and were attended by over 250 businessmen and women. Dawn was named Entrepreneur of the Year for successfully identifying a niche in the market and turning it into a profitable business which reaps positive rewards both for candidates and businesses. She said, “I am delighted to have won this award. My aim has always been to establish Equal Approach as a trailblazer in diversity recruitment and this helps to raise awareness of what we do and the positive impact it has for all involved. I would like to thank the team here at Equal Approach for their commitment to promoting the benefits of equality and diversity within an organisation. There is a huge amount of diverse talent to be embraced and our whole ethos is around removing any perceived barriers to achieve equality of opportunity.”
Established in 2005, Equal Approach embraces equal opportunities and diversity in all of its business activities, offering consultative recruitment solutions by working in partnership with both clients and applicants to produce results that directly and positively impact on their business objectives.
Equal Approach works in partnership with a wide portfolio of organisations throughout the UK, within the Private, Public and Third Sectors, to remove perceived barriers and allow access to the most senior positions within the UK to the widest range of people and skills.
For further details of Equal Approach visit: www.equalapproach.com
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
The one best job search tool? Networking
The last few weeks have seen a complete upheaval in the UK job market. At least 490,000 are scheduled to lose their jobs or not be replaced when they retire. And this will have a ripple effect on other parts of the employment market. it is definitely a bitter pill to swallow although many will have absolutely no choice.
So what to do if you find yourself mid-career and having to pick up and start again?
You lost your job and you don't have the first clue where you should start looking for another one? Happens all the time. People are often so ill-prepared to start over again. While you may not have been happy in your previous job, you were probably comfortable there. The old saying "Better the devil you know ..." didn't come from out of the blue. It's true. You may also still be angry at your ex-employer for putting you in this position to begin with and it's probably reasonable to guess that you are probably in shock.
Coming to terms with your new reality is an important starting point. But only a starting point. There are some things you can do to undertake an effective job search and find new employment. First, you have to surround yourself with people who are positive and help you feel positive. The same is true of placing yourself in a positive physical environment. You cannot afford to slip into the doldrums right now. t's also important to realize the even if you do these things, the path will not likely be straight or simple. There will be lots of ups and downs.
But the most important thing you can do to help yourself is to get out there and see people. Call your old business contacts, join professional associations and go to the monthly meetings. Smile a lot and speak to people. The easiest and most comforting thing to do at these times is to stay home and turn on your computer, but you have to fight the urge to do that too much. If you find it difficult at first, set modest networking goals for the first week or month. But you have to continue to add to those initial goals. Set up lunch dates. Go to parties. Call people you haven't talked to in a while. The best way to find a new job is through your contacts.
So what to do if you find yourself mid-career and having to pick up and start again?
You lost your job and you don't have the first clue where you should start looking for another one? Happens all the time. People are often so ill-prepared to start over again. While you may not have been happy in your previous job, you were probably comfortable there. The old saying "Better the devil you know ..." didn't come from out of the blue. It's true. You may also still be angry at your ex-employer for putting you in this position to begin with and it's probably reasonable to guess that you are probably in shock.
Coming to terms with your new reality is an important starting point. But only a starting point. There are some things you can do to undertake an effective job search and find new employment. First, you have to surround yourself with people who are positive and help you feel positive. The same is true of placing yourself in a positive physical environment. You cannot afford to slip into the doldrums right now. t's also important to realize the even if you do these things, the path will not likely be straight or simple. There will be lots of ups and downs.
But the most important thing you can do to help yourself is to get out there and see people. Call your old business contacts, join professional associations and go to the monthly meetings. Smile a lot and speak to people. The easiest and most comforting thing to do at these times is to stay home and turn on your computer, but you have to fight the urge to do that too much. If you find it difficult at first, set modest networking goals for the first week or month. But you have to continue to add to those initial goals. Set up lunch dates. Go to parties. Call people you haven't talked to in a while. The best way to find a new job is through your contacts.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
You still can't have it all
In the 1980s when the younger baby boomers were coming of age, there was a very strong perception in the workplace that women could have it all – a challenging and successful career as well as a fulfilled personal life. And of course, many women wanted that. The problem was that there was no such thing and a lot of women learned that the hard way.
There is an old saying that if it sounds too good to be true it probably is. Women having it all fits into this category.
The truth is that equal opportunity for women is really no closer than it was 30 years ago. There are a few reasons for this. First, the culture in which women are working to achieve remains a culture defined by men. And second, because women have more than one role to fill in our society, total achievement in one area means sacrifices in another.
Women will always struggle in the workforce as long as they are the primary caretakers for both their children and frequently, their aging parents. It is not possible to take on a very responsible leadership position unless you are prepared to ignore the people who need you and depend on you.
It is also ironic that men gain respect when they become parents. They are perceived to be more responsible and reliable because they are breadwinners with mouths to feed. Women, on the other hand, often see their careers stalled because they became parents.
For women to achieve corporate success on their own terms means sacrifice. Sacrificing children. Sacrificing husbands and partners. Sacrificing sitting at the bedsides of ailing parents. Sacrificing me time. Those are big sacrifices that often cannot be corrected somewhere down the road.
There was a greeting card in circulation about 15 years ago. On the cover was a Lichtenstein-like cartoon character woman who was crying dramatically. The caption read: “Oh no, I forgot to have children.”
At the time, it was a funny card. Today, the message sounds sad. Walking away from family might well be the price that women have to pay to succeed at work. Or worse still, having children and then neglecting them for the sake of one’s career.
Forty years into the women’s movement and in many ways nothing has changed: if you want a top-level job with big responsibility then you are going to have to make sacrifices either at work or at home. Women are no more like men than they ever were. Many family responsibilities automatically fall on women’s shoulders even if they have wonderful nannies and or supportive husbands.
However, to play in a man’s world a woman has to be available for a man’s hours. Today, that means 24/7 and a lot of compromises.
There is an old saying that if it sounds too good to be true it probably is. Women having it all fits into this category.
The truth is that equal opportunity for women is really no closer than it was 30 years ago. There are a few reasons for this. First, the culture in which women are working to achieve remains a culture defined by men. And second, because women have more than one role to fill in our society, total achievement in one area means sacrifices in another.
Women will always struggle in the workforce as long as they are the primary caretakers for both their children and frequently, their aging parents. It is not possible to take on a very responsible leadership position unless you are prepared to ignore the people who need you and depend on you.
It is also ironic that men gain respect when they become parents. They are perceived to be more responsible and reliable because they are breadwinners with mouths to feed. Women, on the other hand, often see their careers stalled because they became parents.
For women to achieve corporate success on their own terms means sacrifice. Sacrificing children. Sacrificing husbands and partners. Sacrificing sitting at the bedsides of ailing parents. Sacrificing me time. Those are big sacrifices that often cannot be corrected somewhere down the road.
There was a greeting card in circulation about 15 years ago. On the cover was a Lichtenstein-like cartoon character woman who was crying dramatically. The caption read: “Oh no, I forgot to have children.”
At the time, it was a funny card. Today, the message sounds sad. Walking away from family might well be the price that women have to pay to succeed at work. Or worse still, having children and then neglecting them for the sake of one’s career.
Forty years into the women’s movement and in many ways nothing has changed: if you want a top-level job with big responsibility then you are going to have to make sacrifices either at work or at home. Women are no more like men than they ever were. Many family responsibilities automatically fall on women’s shoulders even if they have wonderful nannies and or supportive husbands.
However, to play in a man’s world a woman has to be available for a man’s hours. Today, that means 24/7 and a lot of compromises.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
The government’s age-related recruitment messages are contradictory
Is it discriminatory to insist that someone retire at 65? For some people who feel good, young-at-heart and want to keep working, the answer is a resounding yes. However, for others, reaching the holy grail of retirement at 65 is a well-earned gift.
But like it or not, it seems that the days of compulsory retirement at 65 are about to become a thing of the past. Of course, that does not mean that the British people are going to go quietly into the night. The government, for example, is facing growing anger from business groups over plans to phase out the default retirement age by October next year.
According to leading business groups, this doesn’t give companies much time to prepare. It also leaves them with many unresolved issues. For example: how to address an employee’s future after 65? While companies may have senior employees with a lot of valuable experience, they want to maintain control of managing their workforces as suits them.
As people reach 65 they will begin to worry about where they stand in the employment mix. Is a young inexperienced employee more valuable than an older, experienced one? And unfortunately, employers may not have the answers. And what if the older employee feels forced to leave their job? Will that constitute age discrimination?
It surely won’t be simple.
There will need to be more than a code of practice to address these practical issues; we will need changes in the law to deal more effectively with difficult employment situations."
At this point employers are feeling squeezed at both ends. On one hand they feel compelled to hire younger, less experienced people to help reduce youth unemployment. And now, on the other hand, the government is making retirement an outdated concept.
Something is going to have to give.
But like it or not, it seems that the days of compulsory retirement at 65 are about to become a thing of the past. Of course, that does not mean that the British people are going to go quietly into the night. The government, for example, is facing growing anger from business groups over plans to phase out the default retirement age by October next year.
According to leading business groups, this doesn’t give companies much time to prepare. It also leaves them with many unresolved issues. For example: how to address an employee’s future after 65? While companies may have senior employees with a lot of valuable experience, they want to maintain control of managing their workforces as suits them.
As people reach 65 they will begin to worry about where they stand in the employment mix. Is a young inexperienced employee more valuable than an older, experienced one? And unfortunately, employers may not have the answers. And what if the older employee feels forced to leave their job? Will that constitute age discrimination?
It surely won’t be simple.
There will need to be more than a code of practice to address these practical issues; we will need changes in the law to deal more effectively with difficult employment situations."
At this point employers are feeling squeezed at both ends. On one hand they feel compelled to hire younger, less experienced people to help reduce youth unemployment. And now, on the other hand, the government is making retirement an outdated concept.
Something is going to have to give.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Pretty or pretty good
There was recently an article in the papers about how attractive people were more likely to get jobs than less attractive people and I think that that is a sad statement about our society.
There are so many old sayings about this that they are too many to list. Beauty is only skin deep and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, are just two.
What I cannot understand is why someone would choose outward appearances over skills and ability when it comes to hiring. Are people really that shallow and short-sighted? And what does that about ugly or less attractive people? Is this sexism under a different name?
I was raised to believe that hard work, reliability, being good for your word and other silly notions like that we what made a good person, and by extension, a good employee. However, this does not seem to be the case.
If beauty is the most reliable criteria for success then being less attractive has become a liability and the beginnings of a new diversity category. And similar to the other categories of diversity, beyond one’s control. We cannot control how beautiful we are anymore than we can control our gender or our sexual preferences.
And I cannot understand why we should be judged by these criteria rather than criteria that are related directly to our ability to do a job and do it well.
There are already too many areas of diversity that separate groups of people from the main. Adding another category simply moves us in the wrong direction which is away from a more unified society where potential employees are judged from their abilities and nothing else.
I found a quote by the playwright Henrik Ibsen on the internet. It says:” A thousand words will not leave so deep an impression as one deed.” It is sad to think that someone as clever as Ibsen would be dismissed as naive in today’s working world. I checked his picture and he wasn’t that attractive.
E. Ward
There are so many old sayings about this that they are too many to list. Beauty is only skin deep and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, are just two.
What I cannot understand is why someone would choose outward appearances over skills and ability when it comes to hiring. Are people really that shallow and short-sighted? And what does that about ugly or less attractive people? Is this sexism under a different name?
I was raised to believe that hard work, reliability, being good for your word and other silly notions like that we what made a good person, and by extension, a good employee. However, this does not seem to be the case.
If beauty is the most reliable criteria for success then being less attractive has become a liability and the beginnings of a new diversity category. And similar to the other categories of diversity, beyond one’s control. We cannot control how beautiful we are anymore than we can control our gender or our sexual preferences.
And I cannot understand why we should be judged by these criteria rather than criteria that are related directly to our ability to do a job and do it well.
There are already too many areas of diversity that separate groups of people from the main. Adding another category simply moves us in the wrong direction which is away from a more unified society where potential employees are judged from their abilities and nothing else.
I found a quote by the playwright Henrik Ibsen on the internet. It says:” A thousand words will not leave so deep an impression as one deed.” It is sad to think that someone as clever as Ibsen would be dismissed as naive in today’s working world. I checked his picture and he wasn’t that attractive.
E. Ward
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Why don’t women get paid the same as men?
I am suspicious of the gender pay gap. I suspect that there is some key information missing from the story.
If you have a woman cleaning your house or a man, do you pay them differently? I don’t. From my perspective, all that matters is that the house is cleaned. Who cleans it; the colour of their skin; the religion they observe; their sexual preference and so on, mean absolutely nothing. And frankly the same is true of office workers.
However, in the corporate world, there are other criteria that are factored into the pay formula. The number of hours worked; experience; time off for maternity and other leave; education; non-educational skills and more.
Female workers generally work less hours because they tend to be the primary home makers and child carers. This factor must be kept in mind when interpreting the wage ratio. And whether we like it or not, men are often freer to pursue their career goals unhindered by family obligations if they so choose.
That doesn’t mean that there aren’t exceptions.
In 2009 David R. Hekman, an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, and colleagues found that customers prefer white men over equally-well performing women and minority employees, which may help explain why white men continue to earn more than other types of employees.
Similarly, economist and social critic Thomas Sowell stated in the book, Civil Rights, marriage is the main variable driving the wage gap -- that married women make less than other types of workers.
Any disparity that exists between the wages earned by men and women can be accounted for by women's demand for flexibility, fewer hours, and less travel in their careers.
The truth is that the gender wage gap is a by-product of professional women who want it all. They have good educations and professional experience. However, they have other priorities besides making money. They want job flexibility and personal-life fulfilment more than men do. Men are more likely to measure their self worth based on money and their pay cheques. They are willing to spend more hours in the office and they are willing to do many physically demanding jobs that most women would never consider.
There will always be exceptions to the informal rules because there are always people who have different motivations. But the bottom line is that most people – men and women – fit into the traditional categories.
However, the women’s movement has made a place for itself in western society by never being satisfied. What opportunities don’t women have in the Western world? They can go to medical school, they can dig ditches, they can become police officers, they can stay at home. They can work full or part-time. But each choice they make comes with a financial price tag. Each decision has rewards and consequences. The wonderful thing about our society, is that each person can choose to work – and get paid -- according to their priorities. I suspect that individual freedom of choice in the western world has never been higher.
Kathy MacKeigan
Newcastle
If you have a woman cleaning your house or a man, do you pay them differently? I don’t. From my perspective, all that matters is that the house is cleaned. Who cleans it; the colour of their skin; the religion they observe; their sexual preference and so on, mean absolutely nothing. And frankly the same is true of office workers.
However, in the corporate world, there are other criteria that are factored into the pay formula. The number of hours worked; experience; time off for maternity and other leave; education; non-educational skills and more.
Female workers generally work less hours because they tend to be the primary home makers and child carers. This factor must be kept in mind when interpreting the wage ratio. And whether we like it or not, men are often freer to pursue their career goals unhindered by family obligations if they so choose.
That doesn’t mean that there aren’t exceptions.
In 2009 David R. Hekman, an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, and colleagues found that customers prefer white men over equally-well performing women and minority employees, which may help explain why white men continue to earn more than other types of employees.
Similarly, economist and social critic Thomas Sowell stated in the book, Civil Rights, marriage is the main variable driving the wage gap -- that married women make less than other types of workers.
Any disparity that exists between the wages earned by men and women can be accounted for by women's demand for flexibility, fewer hours, and less travel in their careers.
The truth is that the gender wage gap is a by-product of professional women who want it all. They have good educations and professional experience. However, they have other priorities besides making money. They want job flexibility and personal-life fulfilment more than men do. Men are more likely to measure their self worth based on money and their pay cheques. They are willing to spend more hours in the office and they are willing to do many physically demanding jobs that most women would never consider.
There will always be exceptions to the informal rules because there are always people who have different motivations. But the bottom line is that most people – men and women – fit into the traditional categories.
However, the women’s movement has made a place for itself in western society by never being satisfied. What opportunities don’t women have in the Western world? They can go to medical school, they can dig ditches, they can become police officers, they can stay at home. They can work full or part-time. But each choice they make comes with a financial price tag. Each decision has rewards and consequences. The wonderful thing about our society, is that each person can choose to work – and get paid -- according to their priorities. I suspect that individual freedom of choice in the western world has never been higher.
Kathy MacKeigan
Newcastle
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
What is the point of a diversity job board?
For immediate release
4 August 2010
(4 August 2010, London) -- I recently received a call from a potential advertiser who asked me: "What is the purpose of a diversity job board?" While I thought I knew the answer instinctively, I realized it deserved further consideration.
MyDiversity.com is a niche board. When it comes to job boards, volume isn't everything. Often a niche online board is much more cost effective and targeted than a larger, generalist board.
MyDiversity.com attracts a substantially higher concentration of qualified diversity job seekers than generalist job boards because it allows potential candidates to address their primary concern – competing for jobs where they believe they have a fair chance of being hired and accepted regardless of their sexual preference, age, religion, race, disability and gender.
I once heard the story of a woman seeking a job in her area of expertise. During the interview process she obligingly explained that she had to leave early on Fridays. The interviewers would nod and complete the interview. But not once did the woman hear back for anyone who had interviewed her.
It didn’t take her long to realize that there was no benefit in being honest and when she went to her next interview, she never mentioned the matter. It was only after she was hired for that job that she told her new employer that she had to leave early on Fridays. He was understandably upset and asked her why she hadn't mentioned this during the interview process?
“People don’t want to feel they have to hide who they are in order to get a job,” says Lisa Greenwald of MyDiversity.com. “Their qualifications and personality should speak for themselves.”
There are approximately 40,000 job boards on the Internet, yet many employers are only familiar with the big sites that do the most advertising. Although these sites have many merits, they are frequently not the most cost-effective.
Many employers are not aware of lower-cost alternatives such as niche boards. These niche boards tend to address a specific need in the market—in this case, diversity. And what advertisers presume to offer the best value may, in fact, not be the case.
In 2000 the EU introduced new directives explicitly protecting people from what have now become the key diversity groups – sexual preference, religion, and age, as well as updating the protection against disability, race and gender discrimination. It has not been an easy transition during the past 10 years. Between the EU passing directives, and the UK government implementing them, there have been many incidents where the government has failed to provide the required minimum level of protection.
As a result, in 2008 Harriet Harman first announced the plans for what would become The Equality Bill. The bill received Royal Assent this past April and is due to come into force in October 2010.
Everyone wants to work in an environment in which they feel like a valued contributor. As of 2000, human rights law has been incorporated into general UK employment law and applies to all employers. However, for those experiencing difficulty securing employment because they belong to a diverse population subgroups, the challenges remain.
As Lesley Price, Service Delivery Director at Equal Approach, MyDiversity’s newest partner, says, “Our whole ethos as a recruitment provider is to promote diversity and equality in the workplace, so we were looking for a job site which would support that. MyDiversity.com gives us access to the widest range of candidates and promoting our vacancies with them helps us to secure our reputation as a leader in diversity recruitment.”
That’s a worthy purpose.
MyDiversity.com is committed to attracting the best people for each and every employment opportunity in the UK through its full-service job-board. Increasing diversity in the labour market is now a business priority, which makes operational and financial sense. With MyDiversity.com, tomorrow's workforce is only a click away.
- 30 -
4 August 2010
(4 August 2010, London) -- I recently received a call from a potential advertiser who asked me: "What is the purpose of a diversity job board?" While I thought I knew the answer instinctively, I realized it deserved further consideration.
MyDiversity.com is a niche board. When it comes to job boards, volume isn't everything. Often a niche online board is much more cost effective and targeted than a larger, generalist board.
MyDiversity.com attracts a substantially higher concentration of qualified diversity job seekers than generalist job boards because it allows potential candidates to address their primary concern – competing for jobs where they believe they have a fair chance of being hired and accepted regardless of their sexual preference, age, religion, race, disability and gender.
I once heard the story of a woman seeking a job in her area of expertise. During the interview process she obligingly explained that she had to leave early on Fridays. The interviewers would nod and complete the interview. But not once did the woman hear back for anyone who had interviewed her.
It didn’t take her long to realize that there was no benefit in being honest and when she went to her next interview, she never mentioned the matter. It was only after she was hired for that job that she told her new employer that she had to leave early on Fridays. He was understandably upset and asked her why she hadn't mentioned this during the interview process?
“People don’t want to feel they have to hide who they are in order to get a job,” says Lisa Greenwald of MyDiversity.com. “Their qualifications and personality should speak for themselves.”
There are approximately 40,000 job boards on the Internet, yet many employers are only familiar with the big sites that do the most advertising. Although these sites have many merits, they are frequently not the most cost-effective.
Many employers are not aware of lower-cost alternatives such as niche boards. These niche boards tend to address a specific need in the market—in this case, diversity. And what advertisers presume to offer the best value may, in fact, not be the case.
In 2000 the EU introduced new directives explicitly protecting people from what have now become the key diversity groups – sexual preference, religion, and age, as well as updating the protection against disability, race and gender discrimination. It has not been an easy transition during the past 10 years. Between the EU passing directives, and the UK government implementing them, there have been many incidents where the government has failed to provide the required minimum level of protection.
As a result, in 2008 Harriet Harman first announced the plans for what would become The Equality Bill. The bill received Royal Assent this past April and is due to come into force in October 2010.
Everyone wants to work in an environment in which they feel like a valued contributor. As of 2000, human rights law has been incorporated into general UK employment law and applies to all employers. However, for those experiencing difficulty securing employment because they belong to a diverse population subgroups, the challenges remain.
As Lesley Price, Service Delivery Director at Equal Approach, MyDiversity’s newest partner, says, “Our whole ethos as a recruitment provider is to promote diversity and equality in the workplace, so we were looking for a job site which would support that. MyDiversity.com gives us access to the widest range of candidates and promoting our vacancies with them helps us to secure our reputation as a leader in diversity recruitment.”
That’s a worthy purpose.
MyDiversity.com is committed to attracting the best people for each and every employment opportunity in the UK through its full-service job-board. Increasing diversity in the labour market is now a business priority, which makes operational and financial sense. With MyDiversity.com, tomorrow's workforce is only a click away.
- 30 -
Monday, August 2, 2010
Welcoming Equal Approach to MyDiversity.com
Equal Approach, a leader in Diversity recruitment, has teamed up with MyDiversity.com to promote career opportunities to a diverse range of candidates.
Equal Approach, which recognises the abilities of a diverse workforce, and focuses on pure skills and experience in the recruitment of the highest skilled individuals, chose MyDiversity.com as it provides access to thousands of candidates across the six diversity strands. The website only features jobs advertised by employers who promote diversity in the workplace, so that jobseekers know they will be searching in a diversity-supported environment where they will be welcomed unconditionally.
Lesley Price, Service Delivery Director at Equal Approach says, “Our whole ethos as a recruitment provider is to promote diversity and equality in the workplace, so we were looking for a job site which would support that. MyDiversity.com gives us access to the widest range of candidates and promoting our vacancies with them helps us to secure our reputation as a leader in diversity recruitment.”
Equal Approach is looking forward to working with candidates who apply through MyDiversity.com and supporting them and their potential employers throughout the application process and beyond. For further details of Equal Approach visit www.equalapproach.com
Equal Approach, which recognises the abilities of a diverse workforce, and focuses on pure skills and experience in the recruitment of the highest skilled individuals, chose MyDiversity.com as it provides access to thousands of candidates across the six diversity strands. The website only features jobs advertised by employers who promote diversity in the workplace, so that jobseekers know they will be searching in a diversity-supported environment where they will be welcomed unconditionally.
Lesley Price, Service Delivery Director at Equal Approach says, “Our whole ethos as a recruitment provider is to promote diversity and equality in the workplace, so we were looking for a job site which would support that. MyDiversity.com gives us access to the widest range of candidates and promoting our vacancies with them helps us to secure our reputation as a leader in diversity recruitment.”
Equal Approach is looking forward to working with candidates who apply through MyDiversity.com and supporting them and their potential employers throughout the application process and beyond. For further details of Equal Approach visit www.equalapproach.com
Monday, July 19, 2010
Wearing a burqua to work IS un-British
Is it un-British to tell someone that they can’t cover their face at work? But on the other hand is really un-British to tell someone how they can or cannot observe their religious practices?
For some people the burqua is sign of oppression, while according to Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman it is a sign of liberation for the women who wear it. For Spelman, it is a woman’s right to wear a burqua if she wants to. But is it really something she wants to do? And do we have to tolerate the inability to see a co-workers face while we work side-by-side?
While I understand that people have strong religious beliefs which encourage them to dress modestly, I do not believe that women are empowered when their faces are covered. And I do not believe that they are more effective in the workplace wearing such garb.
There is a difference between tolerance and mutual respect versus accepted protocol in the working environments of western society. It is not acceptable to touch a co-worked against his or her will. It is not acceptable to make lewd comments directed at a co-worker. Breaking these rules does impact employees’ ability to work effectively. However, I can truly understand how difficult it would be to work with someone whose face was covered.
It is interesting to note that a YouGov survey found that 67 per cent of voters agreed that wearing a full-face veil should be banned. France has a similar ban and apparently other European countries are in the process of preparing similar bills.
One MP (Hollobone) put it best when he said: “This is Britain. We are not a Muslim country. Covering your face in public is strange, and to many people both intimidating and offensive.”
Business protocol in the Western world means that people have to be able to identify you – and that means being able to see one’s face. If people want to dress that way, then they should find jobs in places where it will not impact their co-workers or decide to wear religious dress only when they are not at work.
If you went to work in a bank with your face covered, that would be problematic.
Muslim women living in Britain should be treated fairly and equally to all other people living in Britain. If we went to visit or live in a Muslim country then we should expect to follow the rules of that country. However if you choose to live in Britain then you should come here fully prepared to live as a Briton – at least in public.
Martin David
For some people the burqua is sign of oppression, while according to Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman it is a sign of liberation for the women who wear it. For Spelman, it is a woman’s right to wear a burqua if she wants to. But is it really something she wants to do? And do we have to tolerate the inability to see a co-workers face while we work side-by-side?
While I understand that people have strong religious beliefs which encourage them to dress modestly, I do not believe that women are empowered when their faces are covered. And I do not believe that they are more effective in the workplace wearing such garb.
There is a difference between tolerance and mutual respect versus accepted protocol in the working environments of western society. It is not acceptable to touch a co-worked against his or her will. It is not acceptable to make lewd comments directed at a co-worker. Breaking these rules does impact employees’ ability to work effectively. However, I can truly understand how difficult it would be to work with someone whose face was covered.
It is interesting to note that a YouGov survey found that 67 per cent of voters agreed that wearing a full-face veil should be banned. France has a similar ban and apparently other European countries are in the process of preparing similar bills.
One MP (Hollobone) put it best when he said: “This is Britain. We are not a Muslim country. Covering your face in public is strange, and to many people both intimidating and offensive.”
Business protocol in the Western world means that people have to be able to identify you – and that means being able to see one’s face. If people want to dress that way, then they should find jobs in places where it will not impact their co-workers or decide to wear religious dress only when they are not at work.
If you went to work in a bank with your face covered, that would be problematic.
Muslim women living in Britain should be treated fairly and equally to all other people living in Britain. If we went to visit or live in a Muslim country then we should expect to follow the rules of that country. However if you choose to live in Britain then you should come here fully prepared to live as a Briton – at least in public.
Martin David
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Does a 2:1 degree really matter?
The recent news reports about employers ignoring graduate job applicants who did not receive at least a 2:1 has left me very frustrated.
I remember well the period of time after I completed university and was looking for my first professional position. It was also during a recession and getting a foot in the door was particularly challenging considering the numbers of laid-off employees seeking jobs.
I met with several potential employers and head hunters during that time. And the question which most commonly arose was: “Do you have any prior experience?” While I tried to put together a list of my volunteer experience and university work-placements, it sounded very hollow to my ear.
On one hand it was a lot less expensive to hire a keen new graduate but on the other hand, it was a lot more labour intensive to train one -- and in turn, more risky. I was an unknown commodity despite all my letters of recommendation and my excellent academic results.
Within a few months I did find a great job that gave me the lots of opportunities to use my head and develop new skills. But in truth, most of what I learned in university never really entered into the picture.
The graduates with the highest scores do not necessarily make the best employees. While they are well trained in reading the material and learning it, they do not necessarily have a “feel” for business or the ability to connect what at first glance seem to be many disconnected dots. While it never hurts to be a good student, the skills necessary for school learning are rarely the same as those needed to survive and succeed in the real world.
I once had a boss who said that there was nothing new under the sun. At the time I thought that was an incredibly cynical attitude. Today I understand that adage differently. There IS nothing new under the sun but there are always different ways to approach old problems. And yesterday’s solutions may not be the best responses today.
The most useful skills that I have learned over the past two decades are the ability to think outside the box, the ability to turn easily and head in a different direction that I thought I was going to take, and the ability to not get bogged down with the “that’s the way it’s done” approach. And all of those skills have nothing to do with school and in-house learning.
And at the end of the day, there is nothing like hard work to get ahead. There are no easy formulas for success. There is an old joke in MBA programs: A students will be senior managers, B students will be middle managers and C students will own the company!
Elizabeth Mead
Liverpool
I remember well the period of time after I completed university and was looking for my first professional position. It was also during a recession and getting a foot in the door was particularly challenging considering the numbers of laid-off employees seeking jobs.
I met with several potential employers and head hunters during that time. And the question which most commonly arose was: “Do you have any prior experience?” While I tried to put together a list of my volunteer experience and university work-placements, it sounded very hollow to my ear.
On one hand it was a lot less expensive to hire a keen new graduate but on the other hand, it was a lot more labour intensive to train one -- and in turn, more risky. I was an unknown commodity despite all my letters of recommendation and my excellent academic results.
Within a few months I did find a great job that gave me the lots of opportunities to use my head and develop new skills. But in truth, most of what I learned in university never really entered into the picture.
The graduates with the highest scores do not necessarily make the best employees. While they are well trained in reading the material and learning it, they do not necessarily have a “feel” for business or the ability to connect what at first glance seem to be many disconnected dots. While it never hurts to be a good student, the skills necessary for school learning are rarely the same as those needed to survive and succeed in the real world.
I once had a boss who said that there was nothing new under the sun. At the time I thought that was an incredibly cynical attitude. Today I understand that adage differently. There IS nothing new under the sun but there are always different ways to approach old problems. And yesterday’s solutions may not be the best responses today.
The most useful skills that I have learned over the past two decades are the ability to think outside the box, the ability to turn easily and head in a different direction that I thought I was going to take, and the ability to not get bogged down with the “that’s the way it’s done” approach. And all of those skills have nothing to do with school and in-house learning.
And at the end of the day, there is nothing like hard work to get ahead. There are no easy formulas for success. There is an old joke in MBA programs: A students will be senior managers, B students will be middle managers and C students will own the company!
Elizabeth Mead
Liverpool
Thursday, June 10, 2010
How can you be over the hill at 50?
Last week I bumped into an old friend's son. He just graduated from university and is looking for his first job. I asked him how it was going and he said something that reminded me of the time when I was looking for my first job 25 years ago. "It's the classic dilemma. No one wants to hire someone without on-the-job experience but there is no way to get that experience without some employer taking a chance on you."
And if you want you can take it a step further. Once you have had years of priceless experience, you are often past a desirable hiring age!
I started to think about it and then I started to get angry. While I don't clearly remember the effort involved in getting my first job more than two decades ago, I definitely know what it feels like today now that I am almost 50. In the employment world, I might as well be dead.
I don't look 50, even though I am not really sure what a 50-year-old should look like. And more important, I have gained a lifetime of valuable experience over the past quarter century. Why don't employers value that?
It is a sad statement on society. How often have I heard that older people, who have both the experience that is needed desperately and the qualifications, are being rejected on account of the fact that they are over 50? I know computers. I know social media. I know how to roll up my sleeves and get the job done at all costs. I am not restrained by young children at home. You would think that that would make me valuable. It doesn't.
This problem of “ageism" is happening throughout the Western world. In many places, such as the European Union, it is illegal but that does not mean that it doesn't continue to exist there.
There are good people out there who are looking for jobs, but they simply can't find them. They have strong skills. They have extensive experience. They have maturity. I think that one of the biggest concerns is that employers are worried that older employees won't "fit in" to their corporate culture. And I also think that they are worried that, at our age, we have less working years ahead of us than we have behind us. Ironically, I think you could fairly assume that an older employee is more likely to stay with the job longer than a younger employee who is still climbing the corporate ladder and looking for the next best thing.
I also believe that older employees have been stereotyped as being too set in their ways and less adaptable to news ways of doing business. Why anyone would think that is beyond me, but I do not doubt that many employers share that worry.
And finally I suspect that some employers worry that older job applicants will be over-qualified for the job that are seeking. I am sure that many younger managers worry about how they would deal with an older, qualified employee – rather than realizing what they could learn from that person.
So, what's the solution? Consulting work. Freelancing. Volunteering. Part-time work. Anything that gives you a chance to use your hard-earned skills with people who will appreciate them – even if it is only for the short-term life of a specific project. You won't get a long of job security going this route, but you will be able to keep working and contributing to society.
And if you want you can take it a step further. Once you have had years of priceless experience, you are often past a desirable hiring age!
I started to think about it and then I started to get angry. While I don't clearly remember the effort involved in getting my first job more than two decades ago, I definitely know what it feels like today now that I am almost 50. In the employment world, I might as well be dead.
I don't look 50, even though I am not really sure what a 50-year-old should look like. And more important, I have gained a lifetime of valuable experience over the past quarter century. Why don't employers value that?
It is a sad statement on society. How often have I heard that older people, who have both the experience that is needed desperately and the qualifications, are being rejected on account of the fact that they are over 50? I know computers. I know social media. I know how to roll up my sleeves and get the job done at all costs. I am not restrained by young children at home. You would think that that would make me valuable. It doesn't.
This problem of “ageism" is happening throughout the Western world. In many places, such as the European Union, it is illegal but that does not mean that it doesn't continue to exist there.
There are good people out there who are looking for jobs, but they simply can't find them. They have strong skills. They have extensive experience. They have maturity. I think that one of the biggest concerns is that employers are worried that older employees won't "fit in" to their corporate culture. And I also think that they are worried that, at our age, we have less working years ahead of us than we have behind us. Ironically, I think you could fairly assume that an older employee is more likely to stay with the job longer than a younger employee who is still climbing the corporate ladder and looking for the next best thing.
I also believe that older employees have been stereotyped as being too set in their ways and less adaptable to news ways of doing business. Why anyone would think that is beyond me, but I do not doubt that many employers share that worry.
And finally I suspect that some employers worry that older job applicants will be over-qualified for the job that are seeking. I am sure that many younger managers worry about how they would deal with an older, qualified employee – rather than realizing what they could learn from that person.
So, what's the solution? Consulting work. Freelancing. Volunteering. Part-time work. Anything that gives you a chance to use your hard-earned skills with people who will appreciate them – even if it is only for the short-term life of a specific project. You won't get a long of job security going this route, but you will be able to keep working and contributing to society.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Someone forgot to oversee the Equal Pay Act
Forty years later and women in the UK still earn an average of 16.4% less than men.
According to a recent inquiry by the Equality and Human Rights Commission the finance sector is one of the worst culprits. Women there, working full-time, earn up to 55% less annual average gross salary than their male colleagues.
The worst part is what the research suggests that there were reasons for the ongoing gap. Employers are still stereotyping women: women are caregivers first and foremost; their prime responsibilities lie outside the office; and so on.
How can the workplace in a so-called first world country like Britain, be so out of touch with reality? A study by the Women and Work Commission that shows that improving women’s participation in the labour force is worth between £15 billion and £23 billion to the British economy each year. If that’s not worth correcting such a blatant wrong, I don’t know what is.
A BBC news article from June 2009 stated that women are out-performing men in almost every aspect of university achievement: they get more of the places in top universities; they get higher grades: they get more placements in law and medical schools. Yet, once all that education is behind them, the grim realities of life set in.
The UK perceives men to be more valuable.
While the new government says that it will promote equal pay, frankly that is not enough. The changes have to be more drastic. If women do equal work – which they often do – then they should be paid equal wages. It isn’t rocket science. One’s gender – just as one’s religion, colour, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation -- should have no bearing on the pay schedule. If you can do the job then you should be paid the going rate.
While the media has been focusing on the lack of female representation in UK boardrooms, I think that the problem is more fundamental than strategically placing a few women in executive positions. The problem is systemic and the system has to change now. If women need more flexible work conditions ... so be it. As long as the same work is done the details should not influence pay rates.
Isn’t it ironic that on 7 June 1968, 850 women machinists working at Ford in Dagenham went on strike for equal pay after discovering they were being paid 15% less than men for doing the same work. Today, that would be an improvement in circumstances for many women.
New UK Cabinet Criticised for Lack of Diversity- Posted by Eve David (London)
It’s much worse than a glass ceiling
The old saying holds as true today as it did years ago: the more things change, the more they stay the same. And while the new coalition is the first of its kind in a generation, Prime Minister David Cameron has still managed to miss the mark.
While many women’s groups are already complaining that there are only four women in cabinet – and only two running government departments – the larger issue is the overall whiteness and upper class composition of the cabinet.
Yes, Britain now has its first Muslim woman sitting in Cabinet and that’s a step in the right direction. But the larger question here is why did Mr. Cameron choose so many of his cabinet members from Oxford and Cambridge backgrounds (16 out of 23)? And then he turned around and said it wouldn’t be an old boys club. How could it not be?
And why does Mr. Cameron believe that the only people qualified to run the country are public school graduates who probably have not experienced most of the problems experienced by the majority of the UK population today?
Unemployment. The need for flexible working conditions. Childcare. Economic downturns. Poverty. These are not the primary concerns of the upper-class. However, they are the concerns of an overwhelming majority of Britons.
It seems to me that Cameron has chosen to maintain the same elitist old boys club that has overseen the running of the country for the past several centuries. This newest round of ministers has virtually no minority representation, no knowledge of the immigrant experience, and definitely no worries about where their next meal will come from.
It is interesting to note that both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had more representative cabinets. And what about the fact that both the Indian and Pakistani communities represent a sizeable slice of UK society today?
The more things change, the more they stay the same. What a wasted opportunity.
http://www.mydiversity.com/news-and-links.aspx
The old saying holds as true today as it did years ago: the more things change, the more they stay the same. And while the new coalition is the first of its kind in a generation, Prime Minister David Cameron has still managed to miss the mark.
While many women’s groups are already complaining that there are only four women in cabinet – and only two running government departments – the larger issue is the overall whiteness and upper class composition of the cabinet.
Yes, Britain now has its first Muslim woman sitting in Cabinet and that’s a step in the right direction. But the larger question here is why did Mr. Cameron choose so many of his cabinet members from Oxford and Cambridge backgrounds (16 out of 23)? And then he turned around and said it wouldn’t be an old boys club. How could it not be?
And why does Mr. Cameron believe that the only people qualified to run the country are public school graduates who probably have not experienced most of the problems experienced by the majority of the UK population today?
Unemployment. The need for flexible working conditions. Childcare. Economic downturns. Poverty. These are not the primary concerns of the upper-class. However, they are the concerns of an overwhelming majority of Britons.
It seems to me that Cameron has chosen to maintain the same elitist old boys club that has overseen the running of the country for the past several centuries. This newest round of ministers has virtually no minority representation, no knowledge of the immigrant experience, and definitely no worries about where their next meal will come from.
It is interesting to note that both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had more representative cabinets. And what about the fact that both the Indian and Pakistani communities represent a sizeable slice of UK society today?
The more things change, the more they stay the same. What a wasted opportunity.
http://www.mydiversity.com/news-and-links.aspx