# "employer has claimed an exception under the Equality Act 2010"



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 20, 2014)

Really?  What the fuck is that about? Was appended to an advert on Universal Jobmatch.


----------



## fishfinger (Mar 20, 2014)

It depends on what sort of job it is.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 20, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Really?  What the fuck is that about? Was appended to an advert on Universal Jobmatch.


It means they are advertising a job where they are allowed to discriminate. It will more than likely be healthcare or social care. 

Stuff that gets exempt includes "elderly, non-English speaking outreach" and emergency women's refuges.


----------



## Athos (Mar 20, 2014)

Employers can be exempted from certain requirements of the act, in certain (narrowly defined) situations.  Without knowing more detail, it's be impossible to tell you much else.


----------



## fishfinger (Mar 20, 2014)

This is from wiki:



> Certain employment is exempted from the act, including:
> Priests, monks, nuns, rabbis and ministers of religion.
> Actresses, actors and models in the film, television and fashion industries (they may need a British Chinese actress for a specific role, for instance).
> Special employment training programmes aimed at ethnic minorities, ex-offenders, young adults, the long term unemployed, or people with physical or learning disabilities.
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_2010


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 20, 2014)

It's bar staff at an Indian restaurant. I can understand exemptions for things such as rabbis or domestic violence counselors, but surely they can't do this at a bloomin restaurant that sells alcohol. Anyway, I've applied for the job, and when they reject my application I will demand a reason for this and will take it up with my MP. Fuck em, the cunts.


----------



## fishfinger (Mar 20, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> It's bar staff at an Indian restaurant. I can understand exemptions for things such as rabbis or domestic violence counselors, but surely they can't do this at a bloomin restaurant that sells alcohol. Anyway, I've applied for the job, and when they reject my application I will demand a reason for this and will take it up with my MP. Fuck em, the cunts.


That might be an age related exemption, as under 18s can't serve alcohol.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 20, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> That might be an age related exemption, as under 18s can't serve alcohol.


 
Surely they wouldn't have to actively request an exemption where something is a legal requirement?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 20, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> That might be an age related exemption, as under 18s can't serve alcohol.



We'll have to see I guess. Never seen that sort of statement at the end of a job for a bar person anywhere else. It should be pretty obvious that under 18's can't serve booze. Not the sort of thing that usually needs to be said.


----------



## fishfinger (Mar 20, 2014)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Surely they wouldn't have to actively request an exemption where something is a legal requirement?





cynicaleconomy said:


> We'll have to see I guess. Never seen that sort of statement at the end of a job for a bar person anywhere else. It should be pretty obvious that under 18's can't serve booze. Not the sort of thing that usually needs to be said.



Don't know, it was just a guess.


----------



## Manter (Mar 20, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> We'll have to see I guess. Never seen that sort of statement at the end of a job for a bar person anywhere else. It should be pretty obvious that under 18's can't serve booze. Not the sort of thing that usually needs to be said.


Could be language. If the business operating language is not English?

Though I believe they'd have to list that under skills required or some such.... Dunno

cesare may know more


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 20, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Don't know, it was just a guess.



Fair enough. Either way it's gotten my blood boiling.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 20, 2014)

Manter said:


> Could be language. If the business operating language is not English?
> 
> Though I believe they'd have to list that under skills required or some such.... Dunno
> 
> cesare may know more



Don't think so. It's a posh place aimed at middle class people in an area that is 98% white (all that 'fusion cuisine' bollocks). Went there for a birthday a year or two back and the food was really good. A shame if it turns out to be something dodgy as I'll have to be boycotting the place from now on.


----------



## Manter (Mar 20, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Don't think so. It's a posh place aimed at middle class people in an area that is 98% white (all that 'fusion cuisine' bollocks). Went there for a birthday a year or two back and the food was really good. A shame if it turns out to be something dodgy as I'll have to be boycotting the place from now on.


Can still imagine chefs that take orders in a regional language or something?

I thought they had to say why they were claiming an exemption too.


----------



## Onket (Mar 20, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Fair enough. Either way it's gotten my blood boiling.


Best of luck with the application, let us know what happens.

Try not to use 'gotten' though, to keep the blood temp down.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 20, 2014)

Manter said:


> Can still imagine chefs that take orders in a regional language or something?
> 
> I thought they had to say why they were claiming an exemption too.



Maybe they will provide me more detail in a reply to my application. I'm hoping that it's something along the lines of them running a scheme for employing kids with a criminal record or something. Would be nice if that's the case. Not sure about the chef thing. The names of dishes can be learnt by any ethnicity, and a chef should really learn to communicate in English. Otherwise it kind of makes a mockery of the genuinely needed exemptions for jobs such as those mentioned above.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 20, 2014)

Onket said:


> Best of luck with the application, let us know what happens.
> 
> Try not to use 'gotten' though, to keep the blood temp down.



Thanks . Sorry about the 'gotten'. It's the brummy in me escaping.


----------



## Onket (Mar 20, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Thanks . Sorry about the 'gotten'. It's the brummy in me escaping.


If it's Brummie, that's acceptable. 

I thought it was an Americanism.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 20, 2014)

Manter said:


> Can still imagine chefs that take orders in a regional language or something?
> 
> I thought they had to say why they were claiming an exemption too.



Ethnic restaurants get away with employing people of appropriate ethnic background purely because some twats think food isn't authentic if all the staff aren't from that ethnicity. This can affect sales and so was included as an exemption in the act. 

It's stupid of the customers as Indian food in Britain, for example, is rarely authentic indian food but instead what the British taste has created as the Indian cuisine.


----------



## RedDragon (Mar 20, 2014)

I've always thought it was just co-incidence that all the staff in my local Japanese restaurant were, well, Japanese.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 20, 2014)

Gromit said:


> Ethnic restaurants get away with employing people of appropriate ethnic background purely because some twats think food isn't authentic if all the staff aren't from that ethnicity. This can affect sales and so was included as an exemption in the act.
> 
> It's stupid of the customers as Indian food in Britain, for example, is rarely authentic indian food but instead what the British taste has created as the Indian cuisine.



It certainly can effect sales if this is the case. Mainly because I won't be going there again.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 20, 2014)

Gromit said:


> Ethnic restaurants get away with employing people of appropriate ethnic background purely because some twats think food isn't authentic if all the staff aren't from that ethnicity. This can affect sales and so was included as an exemption in the act.
> 
> It's stupid of the customers as Indian food in Britain, for example, is rarely authentic indian food but instead what the British taste has created as the Indian cuisine.



Also, I wonder what would be said if a fish and chip shop refused to employ black people in order to maintain an 'authentic' English experience. There would be outrage, and rightly so.


----------



## porno thieving gypsy (Mar 20, 2014)

You wont get anywhere with complaining - as Gromit says they are allowed to do it.


----------



## porno thieving gypsy (Mar 20, 2014)

Before the latest Act this was the list of reasons you could discriminate - now however its down to the employer to prove its reasonable.


Physiology or authenticity (for example, in choosing actors to play a role),
Privacy and decency of people the employee would be dealing with (for example, staff in a care home),
Private household's integrity (for example, professional carers for an individual, but not normally nannies),
Single-sex accommodation, when it is unreasonable to expect the employer to provide additional accommodation,
Single-sex establishments, for example special prisons and refuges,
Personal welfare and counselling, when sex is directly relevant to the welfare or counselling provided,
Jobs in foreign countries with specifically relevant laws or customs,
When a pair of jobs are advertised specifically for a married couple.
The job of stripper in a Strip-club.


----------



## porno thieving gypsy (Mar 20, 2014)

So I don't think you could _"reasonably"_ argue that you need white only staff for a fish and chip shop...


----------



## sim667 (Mar 20, 2014)

porno thieving gypsy said:


> So I don't think you could _"reasonably"_ argue that you need white only staff for a fish and chip shop...


 
All the chippies near me are run by strictly christian chinese people.

I've never understood that


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 20, 2014)

Onket said:


> If it's Brummie, that's acceptable.
> 
> I thought it was an Americanism.


It's German and Old English, like lots of American usage. Go ahead and use it. I have *forgotten* the number of times I have seen that word.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 20, 2014)

porno thieving gypsy said:


> So I don't think you could _"reasonably"_ argue that you need white only staff for a fish and chip shop...


----------



## porno thieving gypsy (Mar 20, 2014)




----------



## Onket (Mar 20, 2014)

Hocus Eye said:


> It's German and Old English, like lots of American usage. Go ahead and use it. I *forgotten* the number of times I have seen that word.


I will never use it. Never.


----------



## Manter (Mar 20, 2014)

RedDragon said:


> I've always thought it was just co-incidence that all the staff in my local Japanese restaurant were, well, Japanese.


The two Japanese restaurants near me are staffed by Peruvians and Poles


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 20, 2014)

Onket said:


> I will never use it. Never.


Dammit you quoted my post before I saw the typo. I have now edited and entered the word "have".


----------



## fucthest8 (Mar 20, 2014)

Onket said:


> I will never use it. Never.



Not even to say "ill-gotten gains"?

Bottom line is that whilst there's a lot of whining about it being an Americanism it is, in fact, more grammatically correct than the crap most English people come out with - it's the correct past participle of get.


----------



## Onket (Mar 20, 2014)

fucthest8 said:


> Not even to say "ill-gotten gains"?
> 
> Bottom line is that whilst there's a lot of whining about it being an Americanism it is, in fact, more grammatically correct than the crap most English people come out with - it's the correct past participle of get.


Fuck you.


----------



## RedDragon (Mar 20, 2014)

Manter said:


> The two Japanese restaurants near me are staffed by Peruvians and Poles


Obviously we frequent different establishments.


----------



## fucthest8 (Mar 20, 2014)

Onket said:


> Fuck you.



You'll have gotten over it by tomorrow.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Mar 20, 2014)

fucthest8 said:


> You'll have gotten over it by tomorrow.


You'll start him off ranting now.


----------



## Onket (Mar 20, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:


> You'll start him off ranting now.


You can f off an all.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Mar 20, 2014)

Onket said:


> You can f off an all.


Have you gotten all upset and thrown a tantrum?


----------



## Onket (Mar 20, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Have you gotten all upset and thrown a tantrum?


What is the correct answer to this?


----------



## kabbes (Mar 20, 2014)

"Gotten" is correct in the context it was used.


----------



## Onket (Mar 20, 2014)

That wasn't the question I was asking.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Mar 20, 2014)

kabbes said:


> "Gotten" is correct in the context it was used.



Don't worry, Onket is off on one as the use of the word has gotten under his skin.


----------



## tim (Mar 20, 2014)

Bottom line is that whilst there's a lot of whining about it being an Americanism it is, in fact, more grammatically correct than the crap most English people come out with - it's the correct past participle of get.[/QUOTE]


Well it's a past participle of get" as is "got". Although t's perhaps relevant to note that in most North American dialects there are situations where "have Got " is the form used


Gotten is probably the most distinctive of all the AmE/BrE grammatical differences, but British people who try to use it often get it wrong.

It is not simply an alternative for have got. Gotten is used in such contexts as

•They've gotten a new boat. (= obtain)


•They've gotten interested. (= become)


•He's gotten off the chair. (= moved)

But it is not used in the sense of possession (= have). AmE does not allow


•*I've gotten the answer.


•*I've gotten plenty.


but uses I've got as in informal BrE. The availability of gotten does however mean that AmE can make such distinctions as the following:

•They've got to leave (they must leave)



from http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/5531/difference-between-i-have-got-and-i-have-gotten


•They've gotten to leave (they've managed to leave).


As to grammatical correctness you have a  reactionary prescriptive approach to language. You need come to terms with descriptive linguistics and the whole gamut of kinky dialects and idiolects that are out there.


----------



## Onket (Mar 20, 2014)

The 'gotten' issue was dealt with in full on the last page, tbf. The only whining going on, is by those who continue to post about it.


----------



## Onket (Mar 20, 2014)

Except for my post above, obviously.


----------



## StoneRoad (Mar 20, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> It's bar staff at an Indian restaurant. I can understand exemptions for things such as rabbis or domestic violence counselors, but surely they can't do this at a bloomin restaurant that sells alcohol. Anyway, I've applied for the job, and when they reject my application I will demand a reason for this and will take it up with my MP. Fuck em, the cunts.



The other possible reason is that as it is "bar staff" they don't want to employ someone from an ethnic/religious background that can't touch alcohol, (wasn't there a case of this nature in a shop recently ?)


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 20, 2014)

StoneRoad said:


> The other possible reason is that as it is "bar staff" they don't want to employ someone from an ethnic/religious background that can't touch alcohol, (wasn't there a case of this nature in a shop recently ?)



Surely a religious person who objected to handling alcohol wouldn't apply for such a position in the first place.


----------



## likesfish (Mar 21, 2014)

You'd be suprised or it might be an indian sub continent racist thing and you cant play unless your indian,pakistan  or from banglerdesh
  The BJP could teach the edl and the bnp all about being islamaphobic but hopefully wont
  Seems abit weird a restuarent got away with it usally its single sex care estabilshments etc.


----------

