[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

I think the OP that you refer to, used two quotes from the same source, but as the second quote started 'In effect', it gave the appearance(well, to those too prejudiced) of linking the two paragraphs.

No, just checked. It is the same paragraph on the original statement on their website. There is no difference in the way it has been quoted by the OP. The article seems to equate "gender" with "colour."

IIRC a TV news item showed in the US where a racial 'equality' policy was brought in, firms that were only slightly under the required percentages of racial groups of employees didn't get government contracts.

I don't get why you raised the US bill and equated it to the one here. They are two completely different laws, in two completely different countries.

Experience means that you know the potential problems that can occur and how to solve them. There comes a point where further years of experience make little difference, but that point is not one month.

Nonsense. I have met people who have been in their jobs for decades and still don't know their arse from their elbows, whereas some young fresh employee runs rings around them. I am sure you have met some as well.

The Formula 1 analogy is a bit silly as it depends on the car that they are driving, experience gained in other driving categories, and whether you are 'allowed' to pass someone(Heidfeld?) on the final lap of the final race so that you can win the championship.

There is nothing wrong with the analogy. Frentzen has had many opportunities but didn't take them. That said, an analogy is not supposed to be a direct comparison, that is why they are called analogies and not direct comparisons. But it if it makes it easier, try Alonso and Hamilton, or Coulthard and Vettel, or Alonso and Schumacher.

All previous mentions of this type of policy over the decades has involved comparing women's wages against men's wages, not the other way around.

That is because women's incomes have forever, been woefully behind those of men's, or am I wrong?

But there is nothing in the legislation that says:

The comparison will only be made to raise female wages to meet male wages, but not to raise male wages to meet female wages

Male refuse collectors in Leeds have had to go on strike because they are going to have their pay cut in order to match that of women who do different jobs. If the jobs are the same, why do so few(if any) women, do the refuse collecting jobs. As it can't be because they are not capable(after all, they are equal), it must be that they are too lazy.

This is about the local authority finding an excuse to save a shed load of money and nothing to with equality at all.