To whom it may concern,
I am writing this letter in reference to your job
advertisements. Although I was initially interested in the job, I noticed that
some of the content in the letter was vague, unethical and lawfully incorrect. Firstly,
the job description at the top of the letter has some questionable statements.
For example, the hours stated are 10-45 hours per week which are variable, what
I would like to know is the terms of these hours and if I as an employee will
be guaranteed a specific amount of hours a week. The salary specified furthers
my confusion as you have given broad figures ranging between £15,000 to £35,000
per annum but there is no description on the salary given conditional to the
hours. This was uncertain and puzzling and immediately made the job unappealing
to me.
Another thing that stood out to me was the way you have
specified that you are looking for a male or female could be seen as
discrimination against transgender people. Understandably this may not be the
case however It is not necessary to stipulate the need for a male or female
employee as these are not the only genders. It is only acceptable to limit a
job to members of a particular gender if it is a professional qualification needed
for the job at hand however these conditions are very limited. In this
particular case it is not essential that the applicant must be either male or
female therefore I feel this should not be included in the job description as
it’s off putting to interviewees such as myself.
The requirement for someone who is aged below 30 also seems
unethical and against the law as the law states that it is not acceptable to
discriminate against people according to their age, gender, sexuality, race or
disability. Like the issue of gender that I mentioned above, it is only
acceptable when there is a specific requirement for the job. In this case I
don’t see why below 30 years of age can make you any more suitable for this
job. Also the fact that you have to uphold Christian beliefs (which I do not)
to apply for this job seems absurd! I understand that you are a Christian
organisation but to religion doesn’t seem to have much association with become
a digital video producer and therefore it is unfair to discriminate against
people of other faiths.
In light of the above issues I have brought to light I would
like to highlight a key piece of legislation that you may wish to consider when
advertising a job next time. ‘The Equality Act 2010 legally protects people
from discrimination in the workplace and in wider society.’ This act replace
all the anti-discrimination acts made previously and made one act that is
easier to understand and identifies the different ways it’s illegal to
discriminate against people. The equal opportunities legislation expanded on
this and focused on equality within the workplace stating that discrimination
on age, disability, gender, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and
maternity, race and religion is prohibited. Trade unions have been popular
since the 1970’s, protecting the rights of people belonging to a particular
trade.
As an employer you should be offering a code of practice and
policies to follow as the applicant would not be an employee at this point and
therefore they would not yet be protected by your company if anything should go
wrong. The applicants have been asked to make a video and the brief mentions
the use of school children to promote the No Means No date rape campaign. However,
as I’m sure you will know school children are no more than 16 years old and are
therefore unable to give consent to being filmed. There is also the issue of
discussing rape with young people who have been victims as this brings up
concern of ethics and protection from harm. It is certainly not appropriate to
then ask a child who has been through such trauma to then re-enact the events.
This would all be unlawful and unethical and therefore should not be a
requirement within the brief. Also the representation on men typically being
the offender creates social panic and is morally incorrect. The portrayal of
women stereotypically being the victim of rape is also inappropriate as we know
that it is not just females who are victims of this.
In reference to the points I made above about protecting
children I would like to bring to light the current laws outlined by Ofcom in
order to protect people who are under 18 years of age. Ofcom exists due to the Communication act that
passed in 2003 as well as the Broadcasting Act passed in 1990. Ofcom is
responsible for regulating television by setting out rules for broadcasters to
follow. The code stating ‘Where statutory or other legal restrictions apply
preventing personal identification, broadcasters should also be particularly
careful not to provide clues which may lead to the identification of those who
are not yet adult’ in particular stood out when reading your job advertisement.
As it clearly says ‘you should interview teenagers… who might be/ have been
affected by the topic.’ Another code that sprung to mind was ‘material that
might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of people
under eighteen must not be broadcast.’ This is a code you have clearly broken
when telling applicants that they must ‘produce a short documentary that can be
shown to children’ discussing rape.
To expand on this violation, the Obscene
Publications Act passed in 1959 and later amended in 1964 says it’s an offence
to publish any content whose effect will tend to "deprave and
corrupt" those who will see or hear it. Also the BBFC ensures that
children and adults are protected from harmful content by regulating all the
certifications. This documentary if made would have to have an adult rating due
to the fact there will be re-enactments of rape scenes and sexual content which
would not be fit for the viewing of school children. Finally, it states that
you would want a popular music soundtrack but in the small print indicates that
applicants would only receive a budget of £20. This would certainly not cover
the costs of the production on top of the cost of paying for the copyright of
the soundtrack. This encourages applicants to break the law by not paying for
the soundtrack.
No comments:
Post a Comment