Christine: No, sorry.... it's a cop out to say that discrimination, like the poor, is always with us, and then assume we can do nothing about it. And it's wrong to say the law can't change things in this area. Pause and think about black voting rights in the US up till the 1960s (actually, till LBJ -- which surprises many people). Then ask yourself who POTUS is right now, and how that came about. It wasn't magic.... enforcement of rights under the law is a large part of what it was all about -- black people were allowed to register and vote, once the law was strengthened and enforced. Of course we're not going to get rid of discrimination everywhere. But we don't have to meekly accept it as a "standard" and keep going back to the seats in the back of the bus. And that's a very relevant comparison. What is important at present is a combination of several factors: economics, education in basic morality, and a touch of sensible law enforcement. The economic imperative is with us already. If governments and economists and employers etc want to whinge about how the aged, the disadvantaged, the black, women and single parents etc etc are a drag on our society which they can't afford, they have to know what to do: stop turning the blind eye when job discrimination continues to prevent people in these categories getting work and off their books for financial assistance. On the information front, there's lip service already paid to the principles of anti-discrimination throughout the community, and attitudes I think are already changing here.... that is, attitudes to the principles.... not necessarily the practice. My view is this process is always going to be very slow, although most effective: it seems to work only through waves of generational change. So enforcement (or the threat of it) is a key area. And it doesn't have to be perfect enforcement. One might say drinking and driving is a practice that is always going to be with us. And law enforcement hasn't brought the problem to a dead halt. But the threat of detection via random RBT has had a huge effect in this area. If you convince people that they might be caught out in breaking the law, you probably do as much to bring about change as actually penalising them for breaches. The irony is that what we need is the basis of real facts. What we need is for people who apply for work to be able to separately (and only once) state their age, sex, marital status, "racial" origin etc and for those figures to be available for analysis, and to know that when those (confidential) application details are collected, they can indicate problem areas which may then merit enforcement inquiries. Something of this kind needs to start with government bodies and the agents they engage: it's probably too much to expect immediately that private employers are going to come into line with something like that. I notice, however, that for example, some US employers actually do just this when you apply for work with them. Google is very polite about it. Those who've worked for government already know that there are already areas where a deal of confidential data is already collected for new employees: they're called police checks, integrity checks, security checks, superannuation qualifications, health checks etc etc In government work, you have to assume that these details are kept confidential... so what's new ? I think it could be done. But saying discrimination is "always going to happen" amounts to a cop out. -Peter M ************************************************** To view the austechwriter archives, go to www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes). To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION modes) go to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter To contact the list administrator, send a message to austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx **************************************************