UKC

My mate has not long left the forces after 22 years and decided to apply for a counter staff position at the local post office.

It's a small ish village and the PO has 3 staff. There were 5 applicants apparently and he didn't get the job. He asked for a bit of feedback as to why and the lady who stands in for the manager on a Saturday brazenly said "Your application wouldn't have been considered because we like to keep it an all women Post Office and the manager doesn't like working with men!" the woman actually said this in front of him, his wife and the other woman working this morning.

So he obviously intends to do something about it but no idea how to approach it. Any ideas?

In reply to Denni: I have no (useful) advice, but I hope he gets her job at the end of this.

In reply to Denni:

A clear cut case of gender discrimination - he could take it to an employment tribunal and properly screw her over.

If he really wants to hit them hard, tell him to speak to the Press...they love stuff like this, especially as he's an ex-squaddie.

Not nice when the boot is on the other foot, is it, lads?

In reply to Sarah G: Actually discrimination is horrible no matter what foot the boot is on.

In reply to Sarah G:

So you're saying gender discrimination is right when it's against men? Nice one. I thought society had realised that gender discrimination is wrong no matter who it's against, you obviously didn't get the memo.

Female misogynists piss me off more than male ones, because they're normally more vicious and personal about it.

And yes, my post would be the same if it was a woman being excluded from employment on the grounds that the potential employer was a narrow minded f*ckwit who doesn't play nicely with members of the opposite sex.

In reply to Denni:

If he wants to take it further it'd be through an employment tribunal, might be worth speaking to the CAB for help submitting a claim, it's important to get the ET1 form right.

In reply to Denni: I may be wrong and probably am so Its open house, but I thought that if a company had less than 6? staff of the same sexy they were allowed to recuit the same sex because of lack of separate washrooms etc.

Touched a nerve there, did I?

Good.

Sx

In reply to Denni:

Yes he could take issue with this or he could just put it down to experience and look for another job, its not just retired servicemen, folk get knocked back from jobs for all sorts of reasons, many of them just down to some persons rather odd view of life. My advice would be to forget about it and look for the next window of opportunity.

In reply to Sarah G:

Yeah - good troll. Now go make me a sandwich.

In reply to Sarah G: you come across as a nasty piece of work.

In reply to MountainsAreBetterThanOffices:


Having read the post, I can't see that written anywhere within it.

T.

In reply to johnj: Would you give the same advice to someone who was rejected because the employer was racist? Or is it just sexism you're cool with?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Probably yes, dude or dudette understands that he or she has to work above and beyond to get into a job where institutionalized racism, sexism, ponyisms (or insert your flavor of choice here)exists, where then they need to develop lets call it a certain charm, or just down the road there is a better position where all are accepted.

In reply to johnj: That's right, best to ignore racism and sexism, people should know their place. Have you got a sign saying no blacks, Irish or dogs on your door?

In reply to Denni:


CAB and ACAS (http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1410) would be the places to go for advice.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

It seems you're reading you're viewpoints into my words and trying to make them to be something that they are not.

No where have I advocated what you are trying to make out, all I am saying is these things exist, and if a person willingly tries to get involved in them well then the situation is what it is.

Changing perspectives and time held viewpoints whilst been the same subject is slightly out of context with the op, perhaps thread hijack is your bag?

In reply to Removed User:

certainly comes across as quite bitter!

In reply to skarabrae:

I can understand women getting p*ssed off with sexism, but making a dig just isn't nice

In reply to skarabrae:

Can't say I've ever noticed that at all! As a long term poster here, Sarah has always sounded a pleasant,well balanced and sensible individual...with a good sense of humour, something thats rare, for some of the UKC squatters.

In reply to dek:

Awww

In reply to dek:

Couldn't agree more "nasty bit of work" and "bitter" are far from the truth. Sarah comes across as a thoroughly nice person, and as you say humerous with it. She usually signs off with a kiss which is more than a lot of those posting deserve

In reply to Trangia:Nobody is perfect, but she strikes me as being inpressively dedicated to being a nurse.

I'm not flawless so I won't post about her less nice posts, some people post quite a lot more of those.

In reply to dek: i dont know her, i can only comment on the replies she`s posted on this thread & in my view they sound bitter, im not saying she is, she may well be a lovely person , she may have even posted them tongue in cheek? , but they dont come across like that.

im not going to reply further as i dont wiah this to snowball out of all proportions, as is the norm on ukc. ta ta for now

In reply to skarabrae: I had visions of a snowball too after posting. ()

In reply to Denni: I'd send the employer a letter quoting the Equality act to them and ask them to reconsider their choice or an apology. if they don't respond or respond not to his liking, then tell them he intends o sue their asses under the aforementioned act.

In reply to Denni:

I'd send a complaint to the Post Office and move on. Nothing to say he would have got the job anyway and not enough evidence to take it legal. There's probably also some satisfaction in a small village that if you tell people in the pub this story she and the manager stand to lose a lot of face

In reply to Denni:

The provision within the SDA excluding employers with 5 or less staff was repealed some years ago.

Contact CAB or get an ET 1 within 3 months of the discrimination. (Here's the web page www.employmentribunals.gov.uk )

You can also visit an Employment tribunal. The're are in most cities. However, to succeed you'll have to prove that you were discriminated against. Were there any witnesses?

In reply to trouserburp:

Or not. They may just want "locals"

In reply to Sarah G:

Rubbish. A lot of women get jobs despite not being the best person because of positive discrimination. I personally think a gender ballanced management team is better but a lot of women still get jobs through positive discrimination.
Equally I'm sure there are younger women who won't get positions because they've not yet had babies.

In reply to Denni:

I was speaking to an employment lawyer not that long back who said its relatively unusual for someone to bring a successful discrimination action for failing to get a job, because you don't actually know the qualifications of the other applicants.

Mostly discrimination actions are about promotion (or lack thereof)

Y.

In reply to Denni:

The person who said this was 'the lady who stands in for the manager' not the actual manager. There is no actual evidence of the decision making manager's thought process. The manager can say she decided based on some other criterion e.g. the person had sales experience, the person had lived in the village for many years and was friendly with lots of their customers.

The chances are they can make a case their decision was reasonable - it is not unlikely they found a woman with more relevant experience for work in a post office than someone who has been in the forces for 22 years.

In reply to Denni: I cannot see why anyone would want to work in an environment hostile to their own type, whether, sex/sexuality/colour/religion.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh: Sexist and racist people can usually justify their actions, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be challenged, or are you another who thinks that's the way it is so don't rock the boat?

In reply to MountainsAreBetterThanOffices:


Did no one else get the delicious irony here??!

In reply to Denni: I'd go back and torch the place.

That'll learn the f*ckers!

In reply to stroppygob:

Perhaps putting bread on the table comes first?

In reply to stroppygob: You can't understand women wanting to be doctors or engineers or enter any professions that used to be male preserves?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I don't think he meant that - I read his post as saying that in a tribunal, they could claim that they decided against the OP's mate on grounds other than gender, and that the assistant manager was mistaken. The point is that discrimination can often be covered up.

In reply to Cthulhu: Of course discrimination can be covered up, that doesn't mean it should be ignored as some posters seem to suggest.

In reply to Denni: Pity, it sounds like the PO could do with a first class mail

In reply to Denni: try www.acas.org.uk

they provide advice as to whether there have been breaches in law. Should be able to point you in right direction. They have helpful advisers on telephone helpline.

In reply to trouserburp:
+1

You have no idea how good the other applicants were, the 'evidence' seems to consist of the supposition of a third person, and although this woman clearly said something stupid, do you really want to live in a country where everyone goes legal the moment that somebody's a bit mean

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I cannot understand that sort of claptrap no. I cannot imagine why you would want to fantasise up such a situation.

I work under 2 two, (very good,) female consultant psychiatrists, 60-70% of the psychiatric registrars we have had work with us this year have been females. In my office we have 6 female psychologists, one male, six female nurses, two males, four female social workers, one male, one female OT one male.

Why people like you have to construct such absurd and laughable fantasies to try to justify your own prejudices is the only thing of wonder at work here.

In reply to Denni:

Post office is a franchise? Is it worth him contacting PO head office and saying Oi? I'll bet it breaches terms of franchise, and will have a more immediate effect on the local branch than a long and laborious process. Mind you, I'd be more inclined to think local free newspaper, after all, our servicemen are big news, and discrimination against our returnees will be an appalling bit of publicity for the PO. Again, quicker than ACAS.

In reply to Denni:

Tell him to ring all the Red tops, they'll have a field day.

In reply to Denni:
If it's a small village he might want to consider how much he needs to use the post office before he starts a battle with them. Presumably all his parcels/letters all go through there and it wouldn't be hard for them to make his life difficult in the future if they had an axe to grind. Also don't assume that everyone in the village will be on his side, the women at the post office might be quite popular with their customers so don't underestimate the local cliques that may like the way things are in the PO.

A quick run in the local paper would be satisfying I'm sure but I'd be more inclined to let word of mouth do the work and try to avoid a direct confrontation with the ladies at the PO.

MABTO - "Female misogynists piss me off more than male ones..."
The word you're looking for is misandrists, a female misogynist probably wouldn't get very far in life!

Ben

In reply to Denni:
Of course, if he takes it further he won't be the village favourite will he?

In reply to stroppygob: It's fascinating to know who you work with, how do you think women became able to fill those roles? When medicine was a male preserve I guess women must have meekly looked at the discrimination that existed and just accepted it, because apparently discrimination shouldn't be challenged.

In reply to Sir Chasm: More rot from you then. Where did I disagree that discrimination had to be challenged. Your evocation of situations long past to justify whatever rubbish point you were trying to make by setting males against females yet again, is just perpetuating the very thing you pretend to oppose.

In reply to stroppygob: Drivel, your first post was to say you couldn't understand why someone would work in an atmosphere that was hostile to them, stop in other words don't rock the boat.

In reply to Denni:

Recently made an inquiry for a position that I was qualified for - the recruitment agency said sorry they are looking for a female, I said why not put that in the advertisement - the reply "that would be illegal".

D

In reply to stroppygob: Oh, and because you seem to be hard of thinking, my point was that if discrimination isn't challenged then nothing changes.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Picture the scene 22 year squadie man wants a job in the post office (which he's totally unsuitable for) then someone i.e lady gets selected, squadie asks why and other lady drops slightly inappropriate comment, then when asking for general advice peeps say to move on, nothing more to see really. Or I could spell it out to you...


please sort these words into a short sentence

(life

a

get)

;+)

hth

In reply to Denni: sounds like they could have made his working life pretty miserable if he had got the job.

In reply to johnj: On what basis have you decided he's unsuitable?

In reply to Sir Chasm: Because he's worked 22 years for the MOD whilst Mrs Brady knows every single bit of stuff about post office counters. The MOD guy could become excellent at the job for sure, but the lady all the skills and then some. I have no idea why i keep answering your pointless questions, maybe i need some more practice at touch typing or somert.

In reply to johnj:

Wonder is the chap was Army Postal and Courier Services..?

I often wondered before now how the whole positive discrimination thing got so big. I can see from this thread how. Worrying that it's so accepted by some posting here...

In reply to johnj: Have you read the thread? The only reason we've been given is that he's a bloke, anything else is in your fevered imagination.
But I am glad you've moved on to MOD, much easier to spell than squaddie.

In reply to MountainsAreBetterThanOffices:

Maybe he was a posty, even so, the above points still stand, when you've done some service and you get outside, it means nothing, its not discrimination, just life, lots of fine men end up on the streets, many don't, just because you don't understand doesn't mean they do either.

You've just gotto take these knockbacks in your stride

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Yeah i've read the thread, trolls and all

In reply to Sir Chasm: maybe the he was even a she, point still stands

In reply to johnj: Ah, so just dim.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

at least you know your self

In reply to johnj: I can see you're having trouble so I'll try and make it simple, from what we've been told the chap lost out on the job because he's not a woman, there may be other reasons but we don't know that. So on the basis of what we've been told he has been discriminated against. So he can challenge that or move on. You've made it perfectly clear that discrimination is acceptable to you, but it isn't to everyone.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

We've been told somebodies viewpoint nothing more nothing less, you seem to think you can understand what people think from soundbites, well done

In reply to johnj:

Might I suggest you take some time out to read up on the equalities act and possibly some caselaw around it to help you construct a cogent argument.

In reply to johnj: And you have a fertile imagination, bravo.

In reply to Mooncat:

Hello Mr Mooncat, please don't patronize the thread, post the relevant content

thanks in advance :+)

In reply to Sir Chasm:

thank you

If I'd just done 22 years in the forces, went for a job in a post office, got refused because I wasn't female and took the case to an industrial tribunal I'd be f*cked - I couldn't possibly walk into my local pub again with my head held high.

Not worth it.

I better put a at the end just in case

E

In reply to Enty: Nobody said it was the Wrens.

In reply to johnj: You could start with the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, careful now, it's got some big words in it.

In reply to Sir Chasm: Go on then post the big words

In reply to johnj: Oh bless, you can't put that into google? That's Barnsley for you.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

eye get down on tarn easy init

In reply to Denni: oh straight to a solicitor that's sex discrimination with a cheque waiting at the end !!!

In reply to johnj: That's the most sense you've made so far.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

well you're more verbose that the usual and here was me thinkin' you were some kind of turing program

In reply to johnj: Well done, the occasional capital letter and a bit of punctuation and that would nearly be legible.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

yeS any fool can read it well donE

In reply to Sir Chasm:

So this is what you call a "hostile work environment"?

The majority of all doctors after 2017 will be women, which will have huge implications for NHS workforce planning, a report warns.

Trends show female GPs could outnumber male ones in under four years, says the Royal College of Physicians.

With women more likely to want flexible working to fit with having a family, the NHS faces challenges which could affect patient care, the college warns.

It says the profession would be failing patients if it ignored such concerns.

The discrimination which you alluded to in your reply to me, was addressed and dismantled thirty plus years ago, nowadays females are equally represented in the medical fields, and are a majority in some areas. Why do you want to resume that sort of disharmony between the sexes? Why do you use an old injustice to fuel your complaints?

In reply to johnj:

Just sniping at Chasm is a bit boring - if you read the first few posts we are told that the reason given, in front of witnesses, for him being refused a job was that he was a man. We can only discuss on the basis of information given, and in this case it seems to be a clear case of discrimination and, unusually, there are witnesses.

He has a case but whether he wants to go to the trouble of fighting it or will give in and drop it as most victims of discrimination do is a different question. It might be better to encourage him to fight discrimination rather than just give in, don't you think?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I totally agree with you Brucey, It felt like i was sleep typing and Sir Chasm and my communication was a little dull with the pointless tit for tat, I know I know i don't have to press the submit button.

if you read my relevant content it's easy to see i never said give in, just advice to look for something better. Yes he could fight this case, but if he has that kind of motivation he could fight for a much more suitable position. Where his skills gained would be used to a greater value.

In reply to Dauphin:

What is the job was for a wet nurse, would it still be illegal, there must be some jobs that it is not illegal to be gender specific in the ad? If not, the law is an ass.

Anyway, I would have thought, on security grounds, an ex-squaddie would have been an asset.

In reply to Denni: Getting back to my original point.

There are three staff at this PO. For some reason, possibly gender, the applicant was rejected. Would you press to work in a place with three other staff who have already rejected your application?

Why does it matter if you were rejected as they would prefer an all female environment? Would you want to work in a place where you would feel unwelcome and isolated from the three other staff?

Would getting a post there following your complaints to a sex discrimination body make for a happy and enjoyable workplace?

In reply to stroppygob: What if it were 3 white people who didn't want a black person working with them? Would you be as dumbly accepting?

In reply to stroppygob:


Probably not but winning a discrimination case would probably feel good and may result in some cash. There would be no requirement to then take the job.

In reply to Denni:

The information of relevance appears to be a third person's uninformed speculation.

I don't really see what your friend stands to gain by pursuing it, it appears he needs a job not an ongoing legal battle that's weak to begin with and will lead nowhere useful.

jk

In reply to Sir Chasm:

That's not socially acceptable discrimination...so it wouldn't be accepted.

In reply to MountainsAreBetterThanOffices:

Morning all,
thanks for the varied responses.

He contacted the regional Post Office HQ and they have asked to see him as soon as possible to discuss the matter. Not the first time it has happened with this particular Post Office so there may be more to it!

Hope you are all having a good day so far.

Den

In reply to Denni:

Do post an update when you have one. Interesting thread this.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Yes. If it was a micro-enterprise with only a couple of employees like a family owned shop. I think the state should let folk who want to have their own little business with a couple of friends get on with it.

I'm equally happy for my local asian corner shop to hire asians, a gay B&B to hire gays or a bible bashers bookstore to hire christians. I wouldn't be happy for a larger enterprise or government to discriminate on race or sex but family owned micro business should be cut some slack on all the employment and health and safety laws.

In reply to jkarran:
Most sensibe thing that I have read on this .

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


What a load of crap. How anyone can with any understanding of the last 100 years of civilization can be stupid enough to start condoning discrimination.

It's a ridiculous concept. A little bit of racism, a little bit of sexism. Would you be happy with a little bit of burglary, a little bit of murder? What about a little bit of fraud?

How small does a group have to be before they don't have to recognise someone's universal rights?

In reply to Philip: Smaller than the post office, so tiny really.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Agreed - well said.

E

In reply to Philip:

Tom's not condoning discrimination - he's condoning common sense. Hard concept on here sometimes.

E

In reply to Enty:

I don't think the concept of acceptable discrimination is common.

In reply to Enty:

And just for an example. If we were to agree that a corner shop of 5 male Asians were unable to work with a white female for example. Then what about a Tesco Local that might find itself with only 6 employees working during the early hours of the morning.

Should they be allowed to discriminate against hiring Asians in general to avoid the potential situation of a night shift of 5 Asian men and 1 white woman? Should they have a quoter for Asians?

You can substitute Asian for any other specific ethnicity or even the generality of male/female or sexuality.

In reply to Philip: I think discrimination in employment is rife but you can never uncover it because you can always bullshit that someone didn't make the cut for genuine reasons.

Large companies put in lots rules to try and get around this, but at the end of the day, if you are interviewing someone, you are more likely to hire them if you like them and we tend to like someone who is like ourself.

In reply to Philip:

Tom said micro enterprise - that's not Tesco.

E

In reply to EeeByGum:

Quite true. It is a culture thing that is slowly changing. You have a generation where it was acceptable, a generation where it was accepted, a generation where they knew it wasn't fair but it had been going on... eventually we're slowly getting to one where it doesn't exist. What we don't need is a backward step.

It's highly likely that an ex-forces bloke in his 40s won't have much in common with 3 elderly women running a post office. But equally they could all be grandparents and they might find it really useful to have some potentially strapping bloke around.

I don't think the OP's friend will get very far. But it would be more reassuring for him to think that that kind of attitude is rare.

In reply to Enty:

Did you read the whole post, or just see the word Tesco. How is the situation of 6 people working together any different if the store is owned by one person or a corporation? The reason for discrimination can still be the same - if 5 people can't work with a 6th why does it matter who owns the business?

In reply to jkarran:


see my thoughts were that this 3rd person (assistant manager type) was trolling

In reply to Sharp: are you saying there can be no such thing as a female misogynist?


I know loads of women that hate all other women.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

My question would be the same, woudl a black person want to work in a racist environment enough to complain, and get themselves instated?

In reply to MG:


Well that, at least, would make some sense.

In reply to Denni: Doesn't surprise me. I'm sure there are pleasant, helpful , broad minded and genetically diverse PO counter staff somewhere... but I've yet to meet them. Hope your mate takes them to the cleaners, and good luck with his job hunt.

In reply to iksander:

Well, he has had a meeting with the regional post master who has arranged to have another meeting with him, his wife (as a witness) and all 3 staff members.

He did say that he has already asked and had written statements from the 2 other members of staff and is still waiting for the managers response, he doesn't seem to be hanging around!

Apparently as I said earlier, this isn't the first instance and he has since learnt through village gossip that the manageress has already been put on a 3 month probation type thing for a bullying incident to a younger ex member of staff.

The plot thickens!

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

They can do all those things inside existing employment and health and safety laws.