5 Likes
Exactly. The government and its assorted propaganda vehicles are trying to make what is really just politeness and consideration for others’ feelings into a political crime. Don’t fall for it.
1 Like
Isn’t technology a significant enabler of equality as far as delivery people go?
I remember one of my uncles, a lorry driver, wrestling the steering wheel round, and challenging me as a little boy to turn it - I couldn’t. Power-steering changed all that. We rarely get heavy deliveries - but when we do the drivers always seem to have equipment to help them.
Yes, generally speaking men are stronger than women - but does it matter much nowadays?
2 Likes
Quite.
I was speaking with a lady taxi driver who does the medical runs (VSL) for a local company. She needs a certificate to do this job which includes being able to carry 25kg (iirc). That’s quite a weight to be able to take but quite normal when manoevering patients in and out of the taxi or wheelchairs etc.
When I was a young man I used to carry 50kg sacks of rice etc off the back of lorries into our shops.
Nowadays the 25kg bags of salt for our pool are enough for me.
Maybe the accurate term is ‘delivery young people’ ?
1 Like
Yes, me too.
The thing about handling people is technique. There is a right way and many wrong ways to help people in and out of a chair for example.
1 Like
It proves the point (that it’s performative, “Look at how modern we are”), doesn’t it? We know that a two-man delivery is a three-woman one, at least once you go beyond 32kg, and at 50kg it will take four women to do the work two men could achieve safely. Are they going to say “Two man/three woman delivery” in their publicity about a 40kg item? Of course not! Yet that would be at least as useful, in terms of reminding everyone of the benefits of H&S Regs originating in the EU.
So, while Argos advertises - and it’s all about advertising, isn’t it? - that it has changed a single word, presumably hoping that the hard of thinking will go and buy their tat in preference to somewhere else, in real terms they’ve achieved nothing.
I would say very clearly - though perhaps more obviously in the second example than the first - that it’s political, though perhaps not exclusively Right vs. Left. It is, perhaps, one of the benefits of being in neither Left nor Right tribe (or, perhaps, having been made to watch Yes Prime Minister): it’s easier to see how people choose language to persuade.
If your priority is making money (you might call it “creating wealth”), then you might describe the Manual Handling Regulations as “EU red tape”. If your priority is the protection of people’s backs as widely as possible and you predicate that on the idea that 50kg weaklings like me should to be able to be a delivery driver just as easily as a unit like billybutcher portrays himself in his profile picture, then it’s “EU standards protections”.
1 Like
Careful, someone will call you ageist if you carry on posting things like that.
Remember, common sense is now so rare, I’m surprised Marvel/DC haven’t created a character who has common sense as their superpower.
3 Likes
You make the centrists’ mistake of thinking that if you are not conscious of your political commitment you somehow stand outside ideology. The opposite is the truth: the centrist perspective is very obviously the most ideological of all, because it broadly accepts the status quo of your current locale - it is the belief that your own peculiar ‘common sense’ is not biased but objective. But if you read history, or other cultures, you find that centrists at one time felt slavery was perfectly acceptable, or in other cultures now that women shouldn’t have access to secondary education.
There are many routes to truth, through the methodological disciplines of different types of enquiry - but not seeing beyond the norms of the social situation you happen to find yourself in is not one of them.
See my previous comment!
Actually, I’m not a centrist either. Sorry: that’s another Leftist assumption, and you know what assumptions make 
But I do agree that it’s vital to continuously question what you believe, and to change your mind not only when the facts change, but even when you realise you’ve been wrong!
1 Like
Tell me about it, I dislocated my wife’s shoulder by lifting her to her feet under her armpits. This is permanent, inoperable, damage. I then took to clasping my arms around her back but worry that I might break a rib doing it. Now I try my best within the limit of my patience to hold her hands and encourage her to use her leg muscles to rise, not always possible.
She only weighs 34 kg but of course I am not lifting her totally free of the ground so most of her weight is concentrated through her legs.
I don’t think she cares whether I call myself a lifter or a liftress, if I can get her to her feet by calling myself a fairy godmother I would be happy, but best of all would be to have a mister or a mistress to help me. 
5 Likes
Would a mistress be quite the right sort of help? 
Moving back to “PC nonsense” - my own view (as above) is that “delivery man → delivery person” is harmless and might provide benefit. I think we are probably agree that use of language is relevant and important but needs to be backed up by more positive action to ensure equality.
Occasionally one hears stories that seem to go a bit too far - there is a collection here - I haven’t followed through the links to work out if these are simply cases of well meaning individuals taking it a bit too far or genuine “PC nonsense”.
But, ask yourself, given the right wing attacks on “woke” culture - i.e much that is right and decent in society, do you really want to stick your oar in and criticise attempts to improve equality, lest you get tarred with the brush (and raw sewage) that also marks the Tories?
Yes Dave, I had that with my late missus for a few years. She spent a lot of time in a wheelchair due to an accident even though she did have some mobility. When the cancer struck the chemo/ops/radiotherapy made her tired. She weighed about 65 kgs which made it ‘challenging’ getting in and out of bed sometimes. The car was tricky tho the 308 being quite high helped a lot.
In my view ‘minorities’ should be selected / excluded on exactly the same basis as others.
1 Like
In a perfect world, yes, everybody should be treated equally, sadly they are not and it requires effort to prevent discrimination.
Sadly progress on this front is being turned around by the Tories.
I agree entirely Nigel, ‘positive’ discrimination is still discrimination, and therefore not compatible with equality.
As far as I know it has never happened but if I was passed over for a job and told by someone on the selection panel that I was the best qualified but sadly they had to give the job to a less qualified woman, I would be somewhat miffed to put it mildly.
@billybutcher You don’t make a perfect world by doing something imperfect.
3 Likes
Is it not the case that if both candidates were identically qualified then the position would be given to someone under represented in the organisation.
1 Like
The problem is when a less qualified man is chosen over a more qualified woman.
Or, as one of the papers I linked above suggests, when a male-gendered job description dissuades women from even applying in the first place.
No, but we don’t live in a perfect world, do we?
Historic imbalances can, and should be, addressed.
1 Like
It’s important not to over-simplify positive discrimination. There are situations in which it can be the fairest approach.
University entrance, for example. It’s consistently found that state-school kids admitted with lower A-Level results than private school kids actually achieve better degree results in the end.
The explanation is simple: private school kids are likely to have had many advantages both at school (smaller classes, etc) and at their privileged homes, so can more easily achieve good A-Levels; but at university the state and private school kids find themselves in broadly similar circumstances - so the higher ability of the state school kids is revealed.
So it would in fact be fairer - and ultimately better for the economy - to have lower grade requirements for state-school applicants. Otherwise we select the privileged, not the most able.
1 Like