Blatant discrimination thwarted in UK

[macgulley]

Discriminating Job Ad Rejected - For Seeking "Reliable Workers"
Jan 29th 2010 2:30PM
By Ed Orum

Apparently asking for "reliable workers" might be just a bit too discriminating in today's uber-sensitive society. At least that's one recruiter's experience after a government-run employment office refused to run her ad seeking a housekeeper because it might be found offensive by some.
So what did the ad say to inspire such ire? Something companies have long sought: applicants that "must be very reliable and hard-working."

"Ridiculous." That's how 48 year-old Nicole Mamo, who placed the ad, described the situation to the Telegraph, a U.K. paper. The British woman runs a staffing agency, and was simply looking for a housekeeper willing to work for about $9 dollars an hour.

When Mamo called the job center to find out why her ad wasn't posted, an employee told her they could be sued for discriminating against unreliable workers.

While the situation might seem silly, it could be a case of a government agency being extra cautious not to ruffle any feathers, or just a lack of common sense. I'd love to see the judge that allows a case in his courtroom where a job seeker is suing a job poster because they were seeking hard workers.

Then again, it could be something getting lost in translation. Seems U.S. businesses have no problem seeking "reliable and hard-working" job candidates. A quick search on Careerbuilder turns up 736 opportunities for folks willing to show up on time and do a good job.

A government spokesperson won't say why Mamo's ad was rejected, but did acknowledge that "reliability is important to employers." At least we're all clear on that.

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2010/01/29/discriminating-job-ad-rejected-for-seeking-reliable-workers/

[MacUser]

Wow.