Scotland's ex-period dignity officer's employment tribunal

[C5_Steve]

I remember reading about this when the guy was appointed and thinking how incredibly short-sighted his appointment was. It was perhaps one of the most extreme examples of sticking by the concept of "hiring the person with the most experience" but totally ignoring one of the key qualifying criteria that should have been in place for the role.

Well, now he's taking everyone to tribunal after his role was binned and it appears it was binned off publically before he was told.

Not sure how I feel about it, on the one hand I'm on his side as they appointed him eyes wide open and they caved to a backlash that wasn't his doing. On the other, why did he apply for the role in the first place? He must have known the controversy it would cause. It's going to be a hugely expensive case.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-cen...

• edited for the correct link.

Edited by C5_Steve on Thursday 24th August 10:10

[Biggy Stardust]

C5_Steve said:

I remember reading about this when the guy was appointed and thinking how incredibly short-sighted his appointment was. It was perhaps one of the most extreme examples of sticking by the concept of "hiring the person with the most experience" but totally ignoring one of the key qualifying criteria that should have been in place for the role.

Maybe they decided that people should be hired on ability rather than being discriminated against due to their gender.

[Randy Winkman]

Biggy Stardust said:

C5_Steve said:

I remember reading about this when the guy was appointed and thinking how incredibly short-sighted his appointment was. It was perhaps one of the most extreme examples of sticking by the concept of "hiring the person with the most experience" but totally ignoring one of the key qualifying criteria that should have been in place for the role.

Maybe they decided that people should be hired on ability rather than being discriminated against due to their gender.

As a general rule I'd suggest capability rather than ability is what counts in suitability for a job. But even then we get into semantics. What I mean is not about qualifications or potential, but a judgement of what the person is likely to produce.

[Biggy Stardust]

Randy Winkman said:

As a general rule I'd suggest capability rather than ability is what counts in suitability for a job. But even then we get into semantics. What I mean is not about qualifications or potential, but a judgement of what the person is likely to produce.

I agree completely (including semantics). That is very different from sacking someone due purely to gender, which appears to be the case here.

[Randy Winkman]

Biggy Stardust said:

Randy Winkman said:

As a general rule I'd suggest capability rather than ability is what counts in suitability for a job. But even then we get into semantics. What I mean is not about qualifications or potential, but a judgement of what the person is likely to produce.

I agree completely (including semantics). That is very different from sacking someone due purely to gender, which appears to be the case here.

Perhaps we will find out when the tribunal takes place next March? Either way, I think this was the link that was supposed to be in the opening post because it's about the tribunal rather than the appointment.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-cen...

[C5_Steve]

Randy Winkman said:

Perhaps we will find out when the tribunal takes place next March? Either way, I think this was the link that was supposed to be in the opening post because it's about the tribunal rather than the appointment.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-cen...

Yes apologies, I was going back through and reading up and clipped the wrong link.

I would completely agree with the mentality of hiring the most qualified person for the role argument......except in this case regardless of this guy's experience with other campaigns, shouldn't someone have raised this issue with a person who's never had a period driving a campaign around period dignity? Previous experience doesn't guarantee future performance and in this specific role, someone should have identified the person isn't qualified to speak on it surely. They didn't have to hire him, if he was the most qualified out of those they interviewed they could have declined him and re-advertised.

I'm trying to think of an example the other way around where it's not a purely medical approach and requires some life experience. Let's say there's a position to raise awareness of being kicked in the gonads. Now you may have a woman apply who has lot's of experience with other social awareness campaigns, but is she really the best person to raise awareness of the pain caused by being kicked in the gonads? Should someone not pause for a moment and say "Hang on a minute......" (period dignity is a far more serious issue of course but you get my point hopefully).

As I said, I'm on the guy's side as he's applied for a role, been given it and then had it taken away apparently for being the wrong gender. He's done nothing wrong really. It's the advertisement and appointment and subsequent miss handling of his dismissal from the councils that's the issue.

[Biggy Stardust]

C5_Steve said:

They didn't have to hire him, if he was the most qualified out of those they interviewed they could have declined him and re-advertised.

Keep advertising/interviewing until a woman becomes available? That is discrimination based on gender & is both illegal & unacceptable. I'm sorry but I can't support this bigotry.

Would you push for all male gynaecologists to be sacked in favour of women? To use your logic, they can have no experience of pregnancy, childbirth or ownership of 'lady parts'.

[C5_Steve]

Biggy Stardust said:

Keep advertising/interviewing until a woman becomes available? That is discrimination based on gender & is both illegal & unacceptable. I'm sorry but I can't support this bigotry.

Would you push for all male gynaecologists to be sacked in favour of women? To use your logic, they can have no experience of pregnancy, childbirth or ownership of 'lady parts'.

I think you missed in my post where I said I was trying to think of an example that wasn't medical, because being able to study medicine isn't gender specific. Anyone can learn about anatomy and biology.

My point, and I want to stress it's more a point for discussion than my firmly held view, is in this specific example, a man is never going to have experienced the specific issue that the role aimed to bring awareness to and therefore surely wasn't qualified for the role. Hence the uproar. As I said I am firmly all for the best people for the job approach. But isn't this very specific role an exception to that rule?

Perhaps they should have thought better of creating the role in the first place given the constraints they would be working with would be the only solution.

[rpguk]

I was going to say that the Partnership mucked up twice here, first in hiring him and then in firing him. Then looking at it more there are so many missteps it's astounding.

Common sense would have said to hire a woman for the job. If they really couldn't find a woman up to the job (I'd be surprised) than hold off hiring.

If this guy really was the only choice and they were happy with him then stick with the decision. Had they done so it'd have been a small story forgotten by the end of the week. If you really must get rid of him, do it properly.

Having got to this point and made such a dogs dinner of it they'd have probably been better off settling privately. Having been through a handful of employment tribunals over the years, they can get expensive and drawn out. Even then I'm surprised at the 10 week estimate. Is the potential pay-out really going to exceed the legal costs of a 10 week case? It was only a £33k pa role. Never mind the extended bad publicity.

I suspect the fact it was a partnership has meant that there was little leadership and lots of pulling in different directions resulting in these stupid decisions.

A small initiative that might have done some good has succeeded in pissing off just about every group you can imagine! Quite a feat.

[FourWheelDrift]

It might come as a shock to the women who complained about this but period products have been designed, manufactured and sold by men for decades.

[DanL]

Looking beyond the headline, the article says; “Mr Grant's role was created to ensure the legal right to free period products in public places.”

You don’t need to be a woman or have experienced having a period to do that.

[Collectingbrass]

FourWheelDrift said:

It might come as a shock to the women who complained about this but period products have been designed, manufactured and sold by men for decades.

Indeed. And tested about as usefully as the MOT tests a car's roadworthiness https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/08/me...

[C5_Steve]

rpguk said:

I was going to say that the Partnership mucked up twice here, first in hiring him and then in firing him. Then looking at it more there are so many missteps it's astounding.

Common sense would have said to hire a woman for the job. If they really couldn't find a woman up to the job (I'd be surprised) than hold off hiring.

If this guy really was the only choice and they were happy with him then stick with the decision. Had they done so it'd have been a small story forgotten by the end of the week. If you really must get rid of him, do it properly.

Having got to this point and made such a dogs dinner of it they'd have probably been better off settling privately. Having been through a handful of employment tribunals over the years, they can get expensive and drawn out. Even then I'm surprised at the 10 week estimate. Is the potential pay-out really going to exceed the legal costs of a 10 week case? It was only a £33k pa role. Never mind the extended bad publicity.

I suspect the fact it was a partnership has meant that there was little leadership and lots of pulling in different directions resulting in these stupid decisions.

A small initiative that might have done some good has succeeded in pissing off just about every group you can imagine! Quite a feat.

I suspect the reason it hasn't been settled yet is they tried to say it was only one party of the body that had sole responsibility, however, the judge has allowed all members to be dragged into the case. I reckon you're right in that it'll be settled before heading to court as there's very little good that can come out of it.

[Biggy Stardust]

rpguk said:

Common sense would have said to hire a woman for the job.

As per my previous comment, does "common sense" (aka prejudice) means that only women should be gynaecologists?

Your prejudice is not a good look.

[C5_Steve]

Biggy Stardust said:

As per my previous comment, does "common sense" (aka prejudice) means that only women should be gynaecologists?

Your prejudice is not a good look.

I think you're being a little extreme calling people prejudiced for believing a woman would be able to do a better job in this role than a man, but I get your sentiment around not favouring one gender over another in the hiring process.

I just find it hard to believe there wasn't a female applicant who wasn't more qualified, and that their lived experience wouldn't be part of what qualified them for the role.

[DaveTheRave87]

Don't see what the issue was in the 1st place, haven't the left spent the last few years saying that men can have periods?

[Biggy Stardust]

C5_Steve said:

I think you're being a little extreme calling people prejudiced for believing a woman would be able to do a better job in this role than a man

It's the very definition of prejudice & discrimination.

C5_Steve said:

but I get your sentiment around not favouring one gender over another in the hiring process.

I appreciate your civility when replying.

C5_Steve said:

I just find it hard to believe there wasn't a female applicant who wasn't more qualified, and that their lived experience wouldn't be part of what qualified them for the role.

'Twould appear to be the case based on events.

Would you think that only an ex cancer sufferer could lead a cancer charity, for example?

[JuanCarlosFandango]

It might be easier to work out what are and are not reasonable requirements if it wasn't such a ludicrous job in the first place.

[C5_Steve]

Biggy Stardust said:

Would you think that only an ex-cancer sufferer could lead a cancer charity, for example?

Yeah, I don't think that's a comparable situation at all and I think that's the issue. In creating this role I feel with the best intentions the body set itself up for failure.

It'll certainly be interesting to see the outcome, I didn't realise the hearing was set for March when originally posting so that's quite a while to wait!

[768]

rpguk said:

I was going to say that the Partnership mucked up twice here, first in hiring him and then in firing him. Then looking at it more there are so many missteps it's astounding.

On top of the mistake of creating the role in the first place.

C5_Steve said:

I just find it hard to believe there wasn't a female applicant who wasn't more qualified, and that their lived experience wouldn't be part of what qualified them for the role.

Maybe he'd been caring for a disabled sister for all I know. I've no idea why he or anyone else thought him suitable for the role. But clearly they did. And then, rather than stick by or even justify their hiring decisions, they seem to have binned him off not for his lived experience but for being a man.