It's routine these days for UK employees to be quizzed on very personal details when filling in employment application forms. They are asked about their sexual inclinations, their birth gender and their religious beliefs. It's claimed the purpose of such questions is for equal opportunities monitoring. But in my opinion this is just hypocracy. The truth is people are discriminated against in the work place in the UK routinely. For example employees are regularly discriminated against based upon their political beliefs. "Conservative" managers will disfavour anyone they consider too liberal. People are also discriminated against based upon their personality type. If you don't "fit in" because you have an unusual personality type or are too individualistic, you can lose your job. Also if you are considered too "proud" and not subservient enough, you can quickly get on the wrong side of a bullying manager and can be fired. The UK workplace is incredibly discriminatory and you have very few rights to properly address the matter thanks to the Conservative Party.
If you are a white male over 35 in England, you may struggle to find employment. You may feel discriminated against, but officially that's not happening. Instead, everyone else may be benefiting from positive discrimination, so that's completely different. As I understand it, the rules are that employers (companies larger than 15) discriminate in favor of everyone who is not white, not male, or under 35 until the numbers are representative of the population as a whole. In many cases, one of those categories will be under-represented, so you should not expect to be hired until the balance is corrected or over-corrected. The same discrimination exists here in the US, but it doesn't matter as much because there are more jobs.
But it's not just a question of discrimination against finding employment, there is often the case of discrimination actually within the workplace as well. I am convinced people are discriminated against based upon their personality type. In group situations there is a pressure to conform and anyone considered too individualistic and who holds their own opinion, are often labelled as having a "bad attitude". Within the UK employment blacklists are illegal, as is giving a poor reference, but it makes you wonder how often it happens anyway that employers share information on how "good" or "bad" an employee is. It's against the rules to discriminate against anyone who is gay, from an ethnic minority or who has a mental or physical disability, and yet employers can quite legally discriminate and weed out personality types considered not compatible with the general group think.
I think the gung ho 'I can do it' attitude is welcome over here in the US in some circumstances, particularly for the lower-paid positions. But it is less likely to be appreciated in Britain, where 'modesty' is considered a virtue. And in Britain, even for low-skilled work, you may be expected to communicate your confidence with a level of subtlety. An employee with a 'bad attitude' will often reveal themselves in an interview situation in reply to a basic question like: 'why did you leave your last job.' The backdrop behind this protective attitude is the poor employment situation in Britain, so people who have good jobs with good hours and perks and not much work, other than carrying a mug of coffee around or to meetings, are very protective of those jobs. Anyone who appears to be a threat will be kept out or eliminated.
What I had intended to say is that arbitrarily labelling people as having a "bad attitude" is unfair and discriminatory. If your own line manager at work started to bully and treat you unfairly, and at the first sign of complaint from yourself about this you were labelled as having a "bad attitude", you'd be the first to complain that this was completely illegal. What I'm saying is that despite all the claims that the workplace is fair and that there are equal opportunities, in actual fact bullying and discrimination is rampant. And the UK Conservative Party have left the employee with little legal power to take any action against this.
I also believe the way UK application forms are worded is discriminatory against non-religious persons. The application forms asks, for example, whether you are a "Christian" or an "atheist". However I prefer to call myself an agnostic Christian, in that although I identify with the Church of England, I don't have any literal belief in the scriptures and am completely non-practicing. The term "atheist" is not good enough in that it doesn't specify whether you are a Buddhist, Hindu or Christian agnostic. Having the option of "atheist" on the application form discourages people from ticking it if they are non-religious and instead puts pressure on them to tick the "Christian" box instead. I feel this is discriminatory against non-religious persons.
It would seem strange for a country famous for its agnostics to require a choice between Christian and Atheist. Is there no chance to leave both boxes blank? I heard someone state, 'I'm not religious; I'm Church of England.' People of any religion or none have a right to be married in their parish church because the Church of England is the established church. But all that is easy to say from over here.
The C of E is a liberal church and everyone is welcome, agnostics as well. Yes, you can select the "prefer not to say" box, which is what I do myself. However you still get the lingering feeling that this may raise a question mark against your name with the employer, and again, in this regard it makes it sound discriminatory.
'Prefer not to say' is the best pick of those 3. To pick 'atheist' might sound a bit rebellious. 'Christian' was the tag I used as it sounded like I don't do denominational squabbling, but to most Muslims, it sounds like I'm 'anti-Muslim.' So I would also pick 'prefer not to say.' After all, you are there to work, not to evangelise, unless you are a self-employed tent maker.
Another problem with corporations these days is a "gang culture". This may sound surprising to some but gang members can actively apply to become recruited by targeted companies. Not all employers do a criminal background check, and then there is also the situation that newly recruited gang members that may not even have a criminal record. Fake degrees are also a problem and not all employers spot them. It only takes one fake line manger and this can then open up the flood gates to other gang members joining the company. Gangs can also work as a team and they can team up against a fellow employee telling lies about them to destroy their job and career. They can also do this to get rid of anyone they consider are getting in their way. Everyone knows there are street gangs out there and they don't just hang around street corners in your town centre selling drugs. They can target individuals and businesses. You don't want to work in a company where stuff like this is going on and but unfortunately it's frighteningly common. Here's a quote from the Wiki page Protection racket:
In the U.S., this was referred to as "opportunity hoarding". It's still not uncommon, when different immigrant ethnicities are fighting for limited opportunities, they will offer prefer their own. It ends up establishing a sort of monopoly. For example, Middle Easterners often have a monopoly in the mobile phone business. In many parts of the U.S., Mexican Hispanics have a monopoly on yard maintenance services. Vietnamese control nail parlors. Language issues can also reinforce these barriers. That is called extortion, or in Italy, "protection services". It's not uncommon in areas where there are many poor people and unemployment is chronically high.
You can read about a story here where a doctor named Timothy Ryan was fired after several of the other doctors ganged up against him with false accusations to try to ruin his career. They were involved in an ongoing unethical scheme and wanted to get him out of there. The doctor had complained to the hospital administration that the other doctors had performed an unnecessary procedure that caused the patient to suffer a stroke with life-debilitating complications. Fired Physician Wins $2.1 Million in Retaliation Suit Against LA County | KFI AM 640 (iheart.com)
Years ago, when I was working for other people, an interviewer asked me an illegal question. I politely said "You can't ask me that" and she said "I'm asking anyway.". Therefore, since then, I've advised my clients to thoroughly research the companies they want to send resumes and tell them what they want to hear. The reality is the game is discriminatory but there are too many at the top, with decision power, that can make or break somebody with a few phone calls. It's not right, legal or fair but it happens every damn day. eta: That was the only company that did NOT make me an offer.
The only real discrimination I have seen in the UK is against white people. They literally have ads which say white men need not apply. It is just the racism of the left as always.
