Quotas for race, gender, disability: are they all cancelling each other out? Should they be removed?

In the UK there are many quotas which exist to move certain groups into careers and positions of power that they otherwise would not possess: much of this comes from rules from the european union. However there are many quotas:
1. Quotas for non european races
2. Quotas for women
3. Quotas for physically disabled
4. Quotas for mentall ill
5. Quotas for slow.

However from the above it can be seen that these quotas are so large in number that they are simply an expensive way of acheiving nothing because they are so huge in number that they simply cancel each other out.
I have not problem with 3,4 and 5 as long as they can do the jobs and hold the positions with obvious limitations for 5. But there really is no point is having quotas for almost everyone because then they have no effect, and also it allows people to choose which quota they can abide by in smaller organisations. But do we really need a quota for non european races: how is race a handicap, how can you have racism as a major force in a multicultural society, and also the rules mean that if I a white british individual move to spain I cannot use racial quotas which is obviously pretty stupid is quotas exist. Also quotas for females, is it really appropriate to have a quota for 50% of the population.

So should the number of quotas be reduced?

reply to post by werewolf99


Yes.

reply to post by werewolf99


That's the power politicians hold over our heads no matter what part of the planet we live on!

Quite simply, if we would just all treat each other as human beings, would we not be able to defeat those whom use our skin colors, our religious beliefs and our social class against us?

What really makes us different?

reply to post by seeker1963


If you look at just the first two quotas.
1. Non european races % exact figure unknown but in multicultural country probably high( some say not much less than 50%)
2. Women 50% of population

Therefore quotas applied to over 50%. Probably quite a bit over 50% probably nearer 75%
Quotas for that many people makes no sense at all.

Oh! That really annoys me. I had a long post going and hit the wrong key and scrubbed the whole thing.

My point was that quotas are bad and based on someone's kumbaya conception of people as simply interchangeable cogs without cultural and gender-based differences and biases that come to us naturally.

reply to post by ketsuko


Off-topic comment: That annoys the [bleep] out of me, too. Carry on.

werewolf99
reply to post by seeker1963

 

If you look at just the first two quotas.
1. Non european races % exact figure unknown but in multicultural country probably high( some say not much less than 50%)
2. Women 50% of population

Therefore quotas applied to over 50%. Probably quite a bit over 50% probably nearer 75%
Quotas for that many people makes no sense at all.

Treating human beings as equals solves the whole problem! The fact that politicians use these things to create a "feel good" condition is a farce in itself!

No need for quota's! Just treat everyone equally. Problem solved!

reply to post by seeker1963

Even if people are not all treat equally quotas aren't the answer because it makes no sense to give everyone a quota. lso quotas take away the sense of responsibility that an individual has: they can blame their mistakes on others. To me the fact that some races commit crimes at much higher % than others means that they are at fault and need to change but quotas give the impression that it is someone elses fault: societies. Quotas remove personal responsibiity in all cases except those with disabilities who actually do have a disadvantage: also the money saved from enforcing and utilising these quotas could be used for wheelchair ramps, healthcare, education... where it would then solve any real underlying problems.

Being disabled myself, my employment advisor explained to me:

Companies employing less than 5 people are left alone, and do not have to employ a disabled person if they don't wish, but if they do, the government will subsidise any reasonable adaptations to the workplace that they require.

Companies exceeding 5 persons but less than 20, are strongly suggested to employ at least one disabled person, but again, theres no actual obligation to do so.

Over 20 and below 100, they are required to employ at least one disabled person, unless they can demonstrate a valid reason why not.

Over 100, they are required to employ at least 1 disabled person per 100 able bodied, again, unless they can demonstrate a valid reason why not.

These quotas were brought into force, simply because employers were refusing to employ the disabled, even though the disabled were capable of performing the work they were applying for. I don't think a 1% quota for firms employing over 100 people is too onerous on them, personally. Many actually exceed that quota voluntarily now-a-days anyway.

I don't know if the above is true, but thats just how it was explained to me.

reply to post by BMorris


I think quotas for the disabled are great and valid and needed. However why would a person without a disability require a quota? Is being a non european race or a woman really the same as being disabled? I would say no and the other quotas only seek to cancel out the valid disabled quotas.

werewolf99
reply to post by seeker1963

 

To me the fact that some races commit crimes at much higher % than others means that they are at fault and need to change but quotas give the impression that it is someone elses fault: societies.

Annnnnd this is why the quotas exist, so that someone in power doesn't look at an minority applicant and think "crime," factor that into the decision to hire, and disregard an otherwise qualified applicant.

reply to post by acmpnsfal


You could say the same for people who are short: tall people tend to get promoted more than shorter people, even when the shorter person is better qualified. Should there be a short quota? It is silly to think that there needs to be a quota for everything, some things in life you need to just sort out yourself. Also quotas being what they are they need to be for groups with the same disadvantage or they dilute the help they give to groups in real need: the disabled.

Also do you not think it just as likely that a quota for a non disabled person may keep the best candidate out: no I do not class race as being a disadvantage. Also if a race commits more crimes then surely people of that race would change this? They could quite easily send those criminal to jail and stop then pulling other people into crime, and if they don't and they know of a crime then they are accomplices and so criminals anyway.