Of course, whether it's "good enough" for RNID to employ 10% deaf/hard of hearing staff is a moral judgement and not something that can be answered with statistics.

Without wanting to wade into this debate too heavily, I'd point out that the one-in-seven figure represents the entire population, including elderly people in whom hearing problems are much more common. If you limit it to working-age people, the figure is more like one-in-fourteen, or 7%.

They don't have 'many' deaf staff. Only 10% of their staff are deaf - that's less than the one-in-seven of the general population. None of their senior management team are deaf.

 I use the term 'deaf' to include all of the people that the charity represent - including hard of hearing people. Just because RNID represent a wide range of people does not mean they can just ignore the concerns of any particular group or person.

As soon as RNID stop collecting money in my name, then I'll stop taking them to task.

I don't agree with any of your arguments re: trustees. 

And finally, even RNID agree with me. Former CEO, John Low said on Ceefax Read Hear that it was one of his 'biggest disappointments' that he had no deaf people on his senior management team. Current CEO, Jackie Ballard, agreed that there should be more deaf people on her senior management team.

So the arrgument has been won - all that is left is for RNID to practise what they preach.

So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm going to continue this campaign.

Quite a difference between what you can do about accepting volunteers you recruit for the skills, ability or whatever. And staff, who have employment law.

Not uncommon for charities to want trustees with experience of the issue the charity exists for. None I can think of specify that trustees must have suffered from whatever issue the charity is for.
Very useful to have experience. Sibling, child or parents having that problem can give you some experience of the issue without having direct personal experience.

Back to RNID - and a quote from their website 'about RNID section.
"RNID is the largest charity working to change the world for the UK’s 9 million deaf and hard of hearing people."

I'd have to wonder, why have so many deaf staff when they don't just deal with deaf.
Many of us aren't classed by anyone (including ourselves) as deaf, merely hard of hearing.
I'm wearing hearing aids now, been hard of hearing 34 years without them but I'm not deaf.
RNID exists to help such as me too.

I'll leave you with this from the RNID website:

Champions the cause – remembers at all times that RNID strives to create a world where deafness or hearing loss do not limit or determine opportunity and where people value their hearing.

Actually, i was quite careful not to imply that they should get the job "just because of the disability". In fact it was Martin who seemed to think that a disabled person in the post would only get the job on these grounds.

Please point out where anybody suggested that somebody should get the job just because they are deaf  -- that is the straw man.

My point about medical qualifications was an analogy, not a straw man.

You said: " I seriously doubt that any charity could argue that having a specific disability - no ESSENTIAL requirement for working for the charity."

Well actually, the RNID themselves demand personal experience of deafness as an ESSENTIAL requirement for people to become trustees. So how come they exempt themselves from their own principle for paid staff?

You say, 'I do agree with you that a role should be filled with the person most suitable, but that should include experience as well as formal qualifications. You seem to be suggesting that a disabled person would a priori be the second-best, and getting the job "just because of a disability"'

No - what we're saying is that they should not get the job purely on the basis of their disability, which is what you seemed to be suggesting. That's why Martin said, 'I'd much prefer they get the best people for the job advertised, rather than someone second best who happens to have a particular disability.' And, 'Quite a difference between better employment of deaf people and giving them jobs merely because they are deaf.'

We are not arguing that being deaf is not relevant experience - of course it is. We are arguing that it should not be the main deciding factor above or beyond any other qualification or experience necessary to perform the job in question.

I was simply answering your general question. people do not complain, for example, that the WI only have a couple of men on their board of trustees. I would argue, actually that if the WI only had a 10% representation of women in their senior staff, there would be uproar.

Similarly, officers for students with disabilities in universities across the UK require the representative to have a disability. You cannot claim to be representative without sharing the experiences of the people you are representing.

As I said, it's not about discrimination, it is common sense. It may not be essential, but to run effectively charity MUST represent its beneficiaries, and therefore should know first-hand what is required.

I do agree with you that a role should be filled with the person most suitable, but that should include experience as well as formal qualifications. You seem to be suggesting that a disabled person would a priori be the second-best, and getting the job "just because of a disability".

A woman's officer could be argued that a woman is needed. An essential requirement for the job.
What job is having a particular limitation or disability essential for?

"So would people complain if another organisation discriminated in favour of whites? Or in favour of females? Or in favour of a young person over an older person?
So when organisations say they don't discriminate they should add 'except when it suits us'?"

you can't be a "woman's officer" for a student-or-other union if you are not a woman, because you cannot represent women if you have no experience of being one! it's not discrimination, it's common sense. being totally impartial in selecting job applicants, or going for qualifications rather than experience can be detrimental to the role.
so in answer to "whatever happened to getting the job on merit?" : experience deserves merit.

In my last post, the last sentence should read:

I seriously doubt that any charity could argue that having a specific disability - no matter how relevant it it to the charity's work - is an ESSENTIAL requirement for working for the charity.

... but it's not Martin's, it is yours. You said:

"If you pick somebody with medical qualifications as a doctor, you are "discriminating" against those without medical qualifications, but that's not considered unfair."

But that is because medical qualifications are an ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT for being a doctor. I seriously doubt that any charity could argue that having a specific disability - no ESSENTIAL requirement for working for the charity.

Quite a difference between better employment of deaf people and giving them jobs merely because they are deaf.

Where something is a requirement of the job I accept its not discrimination to limit it to those who meet that requirement.
Such as leader of a church belonging to that religion, doctor having medical qualifications etc.
But what job requires someone to be deaf?

Seems to me that people just want RNID to discriminate in favour of deaf people in their own posts when there is no requirement of the job to be deaf.
Discrimination, getting someone who perhaps isn't the best candidate for the job and giving jobs just because of what someone was born with or had happen to them.

Whatever happened to getting a job on merit?
Must ask RNID for their official stance on this sometime.

Martin

Yes, discrimination is OK on grounds of suitability for the job. It's standard and accepted practice.

It's no good creating 'straw man' arguments, you need to challenge what people actually state.

RNID were set up for stated objects which include the 'better employment' of deaf people, it's what they exist for.

"Discrimination" is a word which is often trotted out as a lazy trump card. If you pick somebody with medical qualifications as a doctor, you are "discriminating" against those without medical qualifications, but that's not considered unfair.

So is discrimination now OK so long as its for some group?

So would people complain if another organisation discriminated in favour of whites? Or in favour of females? Or in favour of a young person over an older person?

So when organisations say they don't discriminate they should add 'except when it suits us'?

RNID is supposed to discriminate in favour of deaf people, that's what they exist for. Nobody is arguing that people should be given a job just because they are deaf, but personal knowledge of deafness is a good 'qualification' for working for a deaf organisation. There are also the isuues of representation and empowerment.

Would you be happy being discriminated against because of being deaf?
And is there any difference between that and positive discrimination - getting a job because you are deaf, not because of anything you have done, achieved, experience etc.

By all means let the RNID employ more deaf people. But where's the equality, diversity, lack of discrimination in taking someone on because of a particular type of disability?
Yes, we don't all have the same educational, training or experience background. Depending on location, even hearing people can have poor education. Training does depend largely on availability in places - or on what an employer will pay for. That affects Hearing and Deaf equally.

Maybe people think the RNID should discriminate against certain groups. Maybe some think that their particular disability entitles them to a job ahead of others.
Is that what disability groups have been campaigning for over the course of decades?
I'd hope not.

Martin, the idea of the best person for the job, carries a lot of assumptions. Namely, that it assumes that we all have equal access to education and training. And many Deaf and disabled people, will tell you otherwise. We don't have equal access to education and training. So already, we are stymied compared to Hearing and able bodied people.

There is also the remit, that charities that work for Deaf and disabled people, should work for their empowerment. So, part of that remit is to create a space where Deaf and disabled people can acquire the necessary skills to be able to lead their own organisations.

It is all about self empowerment and self representation. To that end, charities are working against us, and to that end RNID is no different.

Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

I can suggest a few reasons why RNID should have a better record on employing deaf people:

They exist specifically to help deaf people, and their own stated objects declare that they work for the ‘better training and employment’ of deaf people.

Having knowledge of deafness is directly relevant to working for a deaf organisation.

Self-Representation – deaf people should be able to speak and act for themselves. If, for example, it is considered reasonable for women to be better represented in Parliament, then it is reasonable for deaf people to be better represented at their own organisation.

And of course deaf people should have a proper say at their own organisation.

I learnt from some Deaf friends that RNID stands for 'Really Not Interested in Deaf'.
They cover a wide remit, there are a lot of hard of hearing people who wouldn't be classed as deaf or Deaf. Us hard of hearing people benefit from RNID too - I've been using their services for several years now.
I wasn't aware that they should employ deaf people over hearing people. Is this some sort of requirement in a charity?
I'd much prefer they get the best people for the job advertised, rather than someone second best who happens to have a particular disability.
I'm disabled myself (mobility problem) but I loathe the discrimination in giving jobs just because of disability. Its as bad as not giving jobs solely due to disability.

Not sure about general forum or e-surgeries, can't recall any other charity having them offhand so why would we expect RNID to be different?

They do everything about us with us for many of us hard of hearing. I've talked to their staff at meetings, I've emailed them many times, I've used their shop for purchases of equipment (but buy elsewhere if someone else offers the same cheaper).
To me they are a useful charity. But not the only organisation out there to be used.

Martin

Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

IG seems to give quite a flattering profile for RNID. However, there are many deaf people, including myself, who are not happy with this charity. We have two main grievances:

 They do not employ many deaf people – only 10% of their staff are deaf. None of their senior management team are deaf.

They do not consult with deaf people very well – they have snubbed requests to have a general forum on their website and to hold e-surgeries with trustees.

They do ‘everything about us, without us.’