By saying "a more representative workforce is a good thing", you are judging an individual on their gender and/or race.
No, I am not.
As a result, you are sexist/racist.
No, I am not.
You simply see this as a positive kind of discrimination.
No, I do not.
Can I ask - did you read any of my posts in this thread?
To summarise:
- It's good that workforces should be
as representative as possible.
- It's not realistic or reasonable that all workforces will look the same, and some jobs are better suited to some types of people than others.
- It's good to encourage people who haven't thought about applying before to do so, if they meet the standards required.
- It's never good to actively select an individual above other individuals because of their race, gender or any other protected characteristic.
- We should be mindful about what the consequences are for the industry when recruiting large numbers of women into a grade which has a rigorous custom and practice culture, especially when it comes to shift working and child care responsibilities (most childcare falls to women), be realistic about what this might cost and what, if any, operational benefits or disbenefits this might lead to.
- We should be realistic about how many or few women really do want to be train drivers - we aren't going to get to 50%.
How far does this go though, do we then try to ensure all workforces have a good balance of political views, or eye colour, or hair colour or foot size? It's a meaningless ideology that has no end and adds very little to the progression of society, unless, these factors offer a proveable benefit to the relevant role. As I said, it just breeds more division. Judging on competency alone is the best we have and makes everyone feel they are getting an as fair crack at the whip as realistically possible.
But nobody - certainly not me - is suggesting we actively recruit a black person or a woman above a white man because of their race or gender.
What even is your theory that having more women or those of different skin colours as train drivers adds any benefit whatsoever to society or the success of the railways?
There is no theory. As I took pains to point out in earlier posts you seem not to have read, it's a good thing to expand the recruitment base to get as many people to apply as possible - this drives up the overall standard. There are certainly some good women train drivers and some from the BAME demographics that TOCs aren't currently getting applications from.
It's just diversity brownie points
Oops!
It's an insult to women or non-white individuals who will wonder whether they have been employed because of their gender/race, and it's an insult to men or white individuals who might think they didn't get the job because of their gender/race. Making them into bitter and twisted individuals who are more likely to blame society rather than self-improve.
Some irrelevant riffing on a theme that was never mentioned.
It goes without saying, everyone should have the same chance at being employed for a job, but it's going way further than that these days. Equality of opportunity is to be encouraged. Equality of outcome is not.
Nobody is arguing for equality of outcome. But, if you get more applications from BAME people and women, you will probably see more of them driving trains in the future.