JOB applicants for Metro Trains Melbourne have been asked to provide explicit details of their sexual orientation — including whether they are “lesbian, gay, bisexual, heterosexual, transgender or intersex”.
I'm missing something here. How is having/not having/wishing you had/wishing you didn't have a penis/vagina/whatever relevant to driving a train?But if you have boobs you can ask Metro to buy you a sports bra.
Me too. By my understanding of the law. Metro should have recalled all the job adverts, made multiple public applogies and re invited anyone interested or who applied to apply again and finally sacked a few managers in HR and begged the anti-discrimination for forgiveness and reduced fine.I'm missing something here. How is having/not having/wishing you had/wishing you didn't have a penis/vagina/whatever relevant to driving a train?But if you have boobs you can ask Metro to buy you a sports bra.
I thought that all this sort of discriminatory thing was illegal.
The only part which has any relevance as far as I can see is Disability which may render a person unfit to drive a train. Of the rest; gender and sexuality enquiries sound like institutionalized perving.I'm not sure if it's actually connected but I can't help but wonder if they're hyper-vigilant about the people they're employing following that (yet to be proven in a court of law) incident recently with the arson and vandalism actions of a staff member?
Perfectly legal and recall that artc got permission to target female candidates in a recent campaign.Perfectly legal to engage in positive discrimination to balance gender equality caused by previous discrimination but the various laws regarding discrimination on the basis of gender etc otherwise still apply.
The only part which has any relevance as far as I can see is Disability which may render a person unfit to drive a train. Of the rest; gender and sexuality enquiries sound like institutionalized perving.It depends on how they ask this question. If they ask it in the form of "Do you have a disability that may impact your ability to safely control a train in normal operation, such as blindness, being a quadriplegic etc etc etc" then Id say that's valid. Its going to be pretty clear when you turn up to an interview so I cant see the harm in filtering at that stage. If its just a question of "Are you disabled" then that's discriminatory, (in my non legal view anyway)
@Lockspike, can you point me to that section? Id like to know how it works. Eg, if Metro currently has, say 2% of drivers of a given minority, but the proportion of such a minority in the population is say 0.5%, then is positive discrimination not legal in this case?James,
It doesn't matter how they try to explain it away. There is no possible justification for this question other than trying to exclude or include certain applicants.Exactly what I was thinking.
An organisation can appear to be anti-discriminatory in its job adverts, but the person hiring and firing can have a secret agenda..if it is decided to hire women only, then that's what the HR department will do, giving false rejection reasons to the unsuccessful.There's not much anyone can do about that once it gets to the interview process, but by asking up front what your sexual orientation is they are saying it is actually important to the application.
Yeah and White Straight males are really hard done by!!! I do not think many are understanding as to why agencies such as Metro Trains, Police etc are targeting groups. Because they are flaming underrepresented that is why. The vast majority of drivers are white straight males. Women are really underrepresented and Metro seeks to address this. That is why there are special cases to address this. They want to encourage diversity in the workforce. Women and minorities have been discriminated against and because Metro seeks to address this, some posters cry discrimination and get their knickers in a twist and I would find at absolutely laughable, if they werent so damn serious.It doesn't matter how they try to explain it away. There is no possible justification for this question other than trying to exclude or include certain applicants.Exactly what I was thinking.
So, if you identify as a white, straight male are you automatically excluded in this "Diverse" workforce?
No it isn't and WASP males run most things in Australian society so I hardly think that they are being discriminated againstNor is it lawful to discriminate on a range of other grounds as well. But there can be a "dispensation" of these laws if one is specifically targeting an "under represented", "marginalised", or some other politically correct criteria, so as to improve "inclusivity" within the working environment. Of course this is a form of discrimination. A "WASP" (white Anglo-Saxon protestant), especially male, who practices their religion would never see any "inclusivity" in today's political environment.....
It is I believe illegal to discriminate on the basis of Sex.