carcajou

Again: Equal opportunity and equal outcomes are two entirely different things.

BristolUK

But that doesn't mean that equal opportunity exists.

Or do you mean that an unequal outcome of, say, a job application was the process of unequal opportunity?

carcajou

I don't follow your logic.

An unsuccessful job application is not evidence that someone is denied equal opportunity.

In a capitalist democracy, anyone can save up a little money, go into business, go into the stock market.

University entrance is virtually guaranteed to anyone who applies themselves in school and gets decent marks. There are tuition fees - but it is not back-breaking.

They can train to be in whatever profession they want, whether that is doctor or rubbish collector. Whether that training is successful or not is an outcome, not a denial of opportunity.

None of these things are possible in places like, say, Egypt or Vietnam. Even in some EU countries the possibility to re-enter university and re-train for a different profession at a later stage in life is a virtual impossibility.

Not everyone does this, for a variety of reasons, some of which is their fault, some not their fault, some the byproduct of decisions made earlier, some the byproduct of decisions to made to jiggle life priorities and not go that route.

All of which is fine.

To say that not everyone has an equal opportunity because not everyone has the same thing and not everyone is wealthy, is inaccurate.

Or to say someone is denied opportunity because an HR panel hires someone with a slightly worse CV because they got a recommendation from a reliable colleague that they knew - that is not "nepotism" but something sensible and used to be called a "reference check."

Reeders

BristolUK, define how you perceive 'equal opportunity' for me.

My definition is the same as this one: What is equal opportunity? definition and meaning - BusinessDictionary.com

The last 6 words there are where we probably differ in our thinking of what it means.

"unrelated to ability, performance, and qualification."

I wrote I am not in favour of a level playing field, you are correct about that. I do not want everyone to have as much ability or be able to perform as well as I can. If they did, I would not have been able to outperform them and so gain more rewards than they did. It has nothing to do with equal opportunity. I have no problem with others having the same opportunity, I just want to do better than they do. What's wrong with that?

Carcajou is correct in saying equal opportunity exists but not equal outcomes. That is because we are NOT all equal in every way. If a job opening exists, we are all able to apply for it. The equal opportunity exists. But not all of us will get the job will we. The one who figures out how to get the employer to pick their resume out of 200 to make the short list for an interview and then figures out how to get picked from the 5 who are interviewed, is the one who will get the job. That happens to you when you are not the 'equal' of the others who are interviewed. It happens when you are superior in some way to the others.

I do think people really don't always understand what 'equal opportunity' refers to and carcajou is correct in suggesting that some think it equates to 'equal outcome'. But I also think that anyone of even average intelligence should be able to figure out they are not one and the same if you just think about it for a minute.

When I was one of 126 salespeople in a company and an opening came up for a Branch Manager's position, all 126 were free to throw their hat in the ring. But what do you think actually happened?

Some didn't even throw their hat in the ring because they didn't want the added responsibility and were happy as they were, earning a decent living and spending evenings and weekends with their family. They didn't want to have to leave on a Sunday night to fly to some city and then not return home until Friday night.

Some threw their hat in the ring because they were too dumb to realize that their mediocre performance levels meant they have no hope of being picked for the job. I have no doubt some of them later said 'they weren't treated equally'. It's amazing how many people can't actually see themselves as they are.

A few did have a chance based on their performance but for one reason or another, did not make the cut. Only ONE could make the cut obviously. That ONE had to be superior in some way. I was that one and later I was the one that became the National Sales Manager. In a way, some people seem to be suggesting that I didn't get there by being better, I got there because the contest wasn't equal. Are you kidding me?

As carcajou wrote, "for a variety of reasons, some of which is their fault, some not their fault," and I agree with that but I also think we need to be realistic and tell it like it is. If someone's performance is mediocre and they are doing the best they can do, they won't get the job even though it isn't their fault, they're doing the best they can, but someone else is able to do better. The opportunity was equal, the outcome will never be equal.

Life is not fair we hear people often saying but it's always about it not being fair to them. We live in the real world, so we have to deal with that world as it is. I knew a company President who passed over a perfectly competent and qualified candidate for a management position because the guy tended to wear sports jackets and slacks rather than suits. That isn't about being treated 'unequally', that is about being too dumb to notice that every manager wears a suit every day in that company. Have you heard the saying, 'dress for the job you want, not the job you have.'
Should you still 'dress for the job you want'? | Fortune.com

The guy who was doing his best but didn't get the job because someone was better, has no reason to beat himself up about that. We all have our limits. But the guy who didn't get the promotion because he dressed too casually should have realized that and does have a reason to beat himself up a bit. Hopefully, he learns for the next time if he ever finds out why he didn't get the job. Something by the way that is hard to find out.

I once worked with a company who for the second interview would invite the candidate to lunch. They watched his table manners and comfort level in a higher end restaurant as well as how many drinks they could push and get him to accept. It indicated to them how they could expect the candidate to perform when out with a customer. And in case anyone is wondering, one drink, that's it. If the person wasn't comfortable in the setting or didn't know how to graciously turn down a second drink, that was enough to eliminate them, regardless of their qualifications in any other way and yes, someone less qualified could end up getting the job because they were perfectly comfortable in the situation. That's what they were better at.

BristolUK

Who said it was? You've never heard of postcode discrimination? Name discrimination? People being favoured on the grounds of what school they went to? First nations background?
Factors that get people discounted very early even though they meet the qualification/experience requirements.
And never in my life have I heard anyone suggest that. I've not said it, yet you appear to think I have. Or you have jumped to that conclusion because you can't or won't believe discrimination exists and that there are innocent, logical reasons for outcomes.
A reference check is one thing but the expression "jobs for the boys" came about for very obvious reasons.

BristolUK

It seems a fair definition but either I misunderstand what you say or you misunderstand its meaning.


Those various distinctions or differences are separate to the unrelated differences of ability, performance, and qualification, because those are differences that are acceptable to be used.

That definition isn't saying that everyone should have the same ability. It's saying that they shouldn't be excluded from opportunities before one gets to ability, performance, and qualification.

Of course not.
The equal opportunity to apply exists. But that's not the same as an equal opportunity for equally qualified to be offered that job.

Are you seriously saying that women will always get the same opportunity as men? Or that Mohamed is just as likely to make the short list as Brian? Or that the company whose board consists of Harvard and Yale educated people won't want others from similar Unis in preference to the less well know ones, even though their degrees are the same?

I can agree that not all apparent 'discrepancies' of outcomes are down to discrimination.

One that crops up regularly is the lack of black football managers/coaches in the UK. "Racist football" some people say and, of course, there is some. But contrasting the proportion of black players currently playing with the lack of black managers/coaches is too simplistic.

It disregards the fact that almost exclusively managers and coaches are former professional players and it's only in the last decade or so that there's been a significant increase in the number of black players in the game.

One assumes that, in time, the increasing percentage of retiring footballers that are black will lead to more black managers/coaches.

Incidentally, a level playing field...
From wiki
The better team will usually win on a level playing field. In days gone by, in football's FA Cup we used to see upsets when small clubs, playing at home, beat bigger clubs. That was usually because the poor state of the playing surface was considered a "leveller" meaning it hampered the better team who needed the better surface for their more technical style.

A non level playing field helped the lesser players whereas the better players excelled on a level playing field.

If the playing field is level, then everyone plays by the same rules and no external interference affects the ability of the players to compete fairly with the likely outcome that the better ones succeed.

Are you sure you don't want a level playing field? If you are better than the competition, the level playing field will allow you to show that

Reeders

Well for starters, I am not interested in any comments that refer to the UK. This is not the UK, this is Canada.

Equal opportunity exists for every immigrant who arrives here. What they make out of those opportunities is up to them.

Discrimination does of course exist but it is not prevalent in this country and not all discrimination that is not racial, ethnic, etc. is necessarily a terrible thing.

We all discriminate every day in various ways. Discriminate basically means differentiate. It does not just refer to race, religion, etc. If I want to hire only Harvard grads, why shouldn't I be able to do so? A degree from Podunk University is not the same as a degree from Harvard. No one thinks it is except the person from PU who didn't get the job because s/he wasn't able to convince the employer that s/he was a better fit for the job than a Harvard grad was and cries discrimination as an excuse for not getting the job. Simple as that.

I once was interviewed by a company for a sales position who only hired Engineering grads for 'Sales Technician' positions. No person had ever been hired for that position who was not a P. Eng. I was not an Engineer, I wasn't even a university grad. I got the job. How did that happen? How did their history of 'discrimination' against non-engineers get overcome?

The only reason I even got the interview was because the head hunter the company used and trusted, urged them to interview me. An example of carcajou's comment re a reference overcoming a qualification. As part of the interview, I was asked to do a Mechanical Aptitude test. No doubt as a way to eliminate me and still say to their head hunter that they had given me a shot. Was I being asked to play on a level playing field? Hell no, I was most definitely being asked to play uphill against the competition.
How to prepare for your mechanical aptitude test or mechanical reasoning test

After the test, the interviewer told me that they had never hired a non-engineering grad. He was upfront about it because he also admitted that I had scored better on the test than most of the engineers in the company had. When I pressed him a bit, he admitted I had a perfect score. So he had a problem. Here I was with a perfect score in a test he expected to eliminate me, but I was not an engineer. What to do?

Salesmen solve problems. That's all sales is. So I told him that I had spent the last 10 years studying selling and I asked him how many years an engineer spent studying selling. Then I asked him if they wanted to hire someone to engineer something or to sell something?

Now here's the kicker. He said to hell with it and hired me. He was the National Sales Manager and had the authority to do so. But a week after I started, I was invited out to lunch by the President who told me that if he had been in town (he was away at some conference somewhere), I would have had to also be interviewed by him. He made a practice of interviewing all Engineers before they were hired. He told me he would never have agreed to my being hired. He flat out told me that.

My response was, 'Lawton (we use first names for everyone here in Canada, eh), if you are ever disappointed in my performance all you have to do is ask me to leave and I'll be gone at the end of that day without any fuss. All I ask is that you give me 3 months to prove what I can do.' He just nodded his head. That was my interview with him.

I will admit that I was pretty nervous when it got near to the end of those first 3 months. He never mentioned it again in the 7 years I worked with him and in fact when I did eventually tell him I planned to move on, he asked me for a year's notice. I was the National Sales Manager by that time.

I don't want a level playing field BristolUK, I want to be on the uphill side playing with the advantage but if I end up on the downhill side, I'll play uphill if I have to and I will expect to win.

For every example you can find of someone who lost out based on some kind of discrimination, there is an example of someone who won regardless of any kind of discrimination that had to be overcome. Canada is full of people who arrived as immigrants and became successful Canadians but I doubt that any of them ever complained about not getting 5 weeks vacation.

I am the son of a coal miner and my two sons are both in top management in the financial sector of business today. That's what Canada offers any immigrant.

Novocastrian

FFS are you a total prat or just stupid enough to think that all that shit matters. Do you have any respect for yourself at all?

Reeders

Well Novocastrian, the proof is in the pudding as they say. So other than calling me a prat and stupid, do you care to put up your accomplishments against mine to show the readers how you know better than I do what matters?

I came to Canada as an immigrant and retired in my early 40s. How are you doing Novocastrian?

BristolUK

The level playing field, team games, slopes....don't they have team games on such surfaces in Canada then? Strewth.

I gave UK examples of the idea because being British they're more easily recognised especially by Brits.

That aside, there's still the issue of you misunderstanding that part of the definition that you agree with that separates "ability, performance, and qualification" from the other factors rather than including it.

Oh well...

Novocastrian

You really don't want me to answer that baby.

Reeders

Sure I do Novocastrian, just don't lie.

I really can't be bothered with people who have to resort to personal insults when they are incapable of mounting a rebuttal of something. And I really can't be bothered with playing the 'parent, adult, child' model of Transactional Analysis. So if you want to argue a point, go ahead and argue it as an adult.

Sorry BristolUK, if I am missing your point re the 'ability, performance and qualification'. Equal opportunity does not include those according to the definition I linked. It is all before that which is included. Is that how you understand it?

Ability, performance and qualification differ by individual and so anyone who is eliminated as say a job candidate because of those has not been deprived of equal opportunity. Are we in agreement on that?

As for my comment re not being interested in comments referring to the UK, I simply meant, I prefer to use Canadian examples. Level playing field is equally as common a term here with no shortage of sport examples such as baseball or hockey. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. You're in Canada right?

Novocastrian

Oh FFS, just ask around.

Siouxie

According to your post here

You emigrated as a small child, were educated in Canada (presumably) and became 'as if Canadian'.. you didn't emigrate as an adult with previous work experience in another country and try to find an 'equal opportunity' in Canada. Sorry, whilst I admire your tenacity in obtaining a position that needed you to push the boundaries, comparing yourself to someone who has come over as an adult, educated overseas and with overseas work experience isn't really cutting it.

Reeders

I'll give your comments the attention they are obviously worth Novocastrian.

Can anyone tell me if there an ignore function in this forum?