The company I work for engages in racial profiling

LegacyUser

I work for a company that offers a service to the general public, and in the course of my job, I have noticed that with startling regularity, minority groups (i.e. non-Irish people) have been subject to exceptionally harsh pre-requirements to qualify for the services we offer, when compared to Irish people requiring the same service.

To give an example, Im personally aware of 2 people who recently required the same service.

Person A is Unemployed, living with parents in Inner city Dublin
Person B is employed as a consultant in a health clinic in an affluent suburb, who owns his own home with a 'desirable' address.

For the service we provide:

Person A was approved immediately.
Person B was approved subject to a substantial 3 figure cash deposit.

The difference between the two was that person A provided an Irish Passport as their ID, and person B provided an Indian passport.

This is not an isolated incident. For every 1 white Irish person that requires a deposit, I personally encounter at least 5 Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshi's, Egyptians, Moroccans or Maltese who cannot avail of our service without first paying a substantial cash deposit. (if I had to generalise, this deposit equates to about 150% of the weekly top rate of unemployment assistance, or between 50 & 70% of the average weekly wage) This is a distinctly uneven average for what is a relatively low cost, disposable service.

To be honest, in my position as a staff member, it's very embarrassing for me to have to tell these people that they must effectively 'pre-pay' for the same service that unemployed Irish people get without question. Due to the data protection act, I obviously cannot divulge details, but it happens daily.

These people in almost every case are qualified, skilled professionals in fields such as Medicine, Accountancy and I.T.

I know that choice of career is no guarantee of integrity, but when these people are compared to some of the Irish folk who are granted service without question, it really has me scratching my head.

I've mentioned it to management, but I've only been in the position for 8 months or so, and as we're part of a chain, no one seems to particularly care, and no one wants to rock the boat.

My question is :

Am I over-reacting in thinking that this behaviour is inherently wrong, and if not, does anyone have any suggestions as to who's attention I could privately bring it to?

Thanks.

herya

I've no answers for you but maybe there are some policies in place unknown to you that justify it somehow? I.e.

- Is it possible that the company has some agreements with the welfare office to approve the unemployed without demanding cash deposits from them?
- If you have a high level professional with an Irish passport do they need to pay too?
- What if the person in question comes from India but is an Irish citizen?

Perhaps try and collect more data first to look for ir/regularities on a larger scale?

leeroybrown

Plenty of companies employ some form of racial profiling where they can get away with it. I'm reminded of a story someone told me about a training session they did while working for one of the bigger retail banks in Ireland. It had one section titled 'how to recognise a Nigerian' that went into detail about how to racially profile them as distinct from other Africans...

LegacyUser

It sounds more like they are differentiating between Irish citizens and non Irish citizens rather than racial profiling.

Irish/EU Citizenship versus non EU citizenship would have alot of legal differences so depoending on the service you are offering it could be legitimate

wmpdd3

If the service you are offering is basically a 12 month credit agreement, then the fact that some customers are using non irish passports as ID may show that the company needs further proof that they intend on staying in the country and completing the 12 month contract.

But I can't see how person a would get this service over person b unless they had a more favorable credit score

Mrs OBumble

Unregistered wrote: »

Am I over-reacting in thinking that this behaviour is inherently wrong, and if not, does anyone have any suggestions as to who's attention I could privately bring it to?

No, you're not over-reacting.

Unless your company has an agreement with Welfare (as suggested by another poster), then what they are doing is illegal.

They best approach to discussing it with managers inside your company is based on the risk of the behaviour exposed, eg "wouldn't we get into enormous trouble if XXX found out".

You could privately make some of the people who are discriminated against aware of what's going on, and encourage them to make formal human rights complaints (whatever the process is here). But this is a very high-risk game, and not something I'd advise unless you are pretty politically skilled.

You could use it to motivate you to get promoted high enough in the company that you can do something about the policy (long term plan though).

Or you could find another job (easier said than done, I know).

Maybe try talking to your union about whether they think you're being asked to do illegal things? (They may be able to suggest some other discrete routes for bringing it up.)

John Mason

All companies do this.

there is a well known new car finance company who will not give finance to people living in Finglas, Tallaght and Clondalkin.

they are told this in training but told not tell the customer why they have been refused just "computer says no"

Bren1609

This is what I like about business; cash doesnt lie, and this cuts through all the PC crap because ultimately a business is about its bootom line and bottom lines dont discriminate. If it was in the best interset of the company to provide a service to non nationals then they would. So take your bleeding heart somewhere else, we're all stocked up here.

Give us a hint on the car finance copmany.

MarkR

Any white foreigners to compare against? Not really a racial issue unless you can show that all else is equal. If these people haven't lived at their current address long, that could be a factor.

Mrs OBumble

Bren1609 wrote: »

This is what I like about business; cash doesnt lie, and this cuts through all the PC crap because ultimately a business is about its bootom line and bottom lines dont discriminate. If it was in the best interset of the company to provide a service to non nationals then they would. So take your bleeding heart somewhere else, we're all stocked up here.

An unemployed Irish k*****r is a better risk business than an employed-but-of-foreign-origin doctor etc?

Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

Mrs OBumble

pink fluffy bunny wrote: »

All companies do this.

there is a well known new car finance company who will not give finance to people living in Finglas, Tallaght and Clondalkin.

they are told this in training but told not tell the customer why they have been refused just "computer says no"

That is probably quite legal: it's ok to discriminate on place-of-residence, income level, eye-colour, weight (so long as it's not due to disability), music tastes, etc.

It's not legal to discriminate on "race or membership of the Travelling Community".

2fivers

Bren1609 wrote: »

this cuts through all the PC crap because ultimately a business is about its bootom line and bottom lines dont discriminate. If it was in the best interset of the company to provide a service to non nationals then they would. So take your bleeding heart somewhere else, we're all stocked up here.

Jesus wept. Honestly, I'm about as PC as Lemmy out of Motorhead, but your thinking frightens me on many levels.

kravmaga

Unregistered wrote: »

I work for a company that offers a service to the general public, and in the course of my job, I have noticed that with startling regularity, minority groups (i.e. non-Irish people) have been subject to exceptionally harsh pre-requirements to qualify for the services we offer, when compared to Irish people requiring the same service.

To give an example, Im personally aware of 2 people who recently required the same service.

Person A is Unemployed, living with parents in Inner city Dublin
Person B is employed as a consultant in a health clinic in an affluent suburb, who owns his own home with a 'desirable' address.

For the service we provide:

Person A was approved immediately.
Person B was approved subject to a substantial 3 figure cash deposit.

The difference between the two was that person A provided an Irish Passport as their ID, and person B provided an Indian passport.

This is not an isolated incident. For every 1 white Irish person that requires a deposit, I personally encounter at least 5 Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshi's, Egyptians, Moroccans or Maltese who cannot avail of our service without first paying a substantial cash deposit. (if I had to generalise, this deposit equates to about 150% of the weekly top rate of unemployment assistance, or between 50 & 70% of the average weekly wage) This is a distinctly uneven average for what is a relatively low cost, disposable service.

To be honest, in my position as a staff member, it's very embarrassing for me to have to tell these people that they must effectively 'pre-pay' for the same service that unemployed Irish people get without question. Due to the data protection act, I obviously cannot divulge details, but it happens daily.

These people in almost every case are qualified, skilled professionals in fields such as Medicine, Accountancy and I.T.

I know that choice of career is no guarantee of integrity, but when these people are compared to some of the Irish folk who are granted service without question, it really has me scratching my head.

I've mentioned it to management, but I've only been in the position for 8 months or so, and as we're part of a chain, no one seems to particularly care, and no one wants to rock the boat.

My question is :

Am I over-reacting in thinking that this behaviour is inherently wrong, and if not, does anyone have any suggestions as to who's attention I could privately bring it to?

Thanks.

Might be no harm in loking at the Employment Equality Acts of 2004 & 2008

Employer cannot discriminate based on:

Gender
Marital Status
Sexual Orientation
Religious Benefits
Family Status
Age
Disability
Race
Travelling Community

Is your company giving grounds for not providing the service to the non-nationals who are in professional employment??

Bren1609

blueeyedboy wrote: »

Might be no harm in loking at the Employment Equality Acts of 2004 & 2008

Employer cannot discriminate based on:

Gender
Marital Status
Sexual Orientation
Religious Benefits
Family Status
Age
Disability
Race
Travelling Community

Is your company giving grounds for not providing the service to the non-nationals who are in professional employment??

Thats employment law which is something completely different.

Bren1609

2fivers wrote: »

Jesus wept. Honestly, I'm about as PC as Lemmy out of Motorhead, but your thinking frightens me on many levels.

You should refer specifically to any points I've made when trying to make a rebuttal otherwise your post has no substance.

2fivers

Bren1609 wrote: »

2fivers wrote:

Jesus wept. Honestly, I'm about as PC as Lemmy out of Motorhead, but your thinking frightens me on many levels.

You should refer specifically to any points I've made when trying to make a rebuttal otherwise your post has no substance.

Naah, I shouldn't.

I'm ok with simply musing that the content of your post frightens me on many levels. I don't really need to select & highlight specific points from the quoted portion to hold that opinion. The whole thing kinda speaks for itself.

Thanks for the substance-related heads up, though. I'll certainly bear it in mind if I ever have point-specific rebuttal issues in future.

Bren1609

2fivers wrote: »

Thanks for the substance-related heads up, though. I'll certainly bear it in mind if I ever have point-specific rebuttal issues in future.

I won't hold my breath.

LegacyUser

JustMary wrote: »

No, you're not over-reacting.

Unless your company has an agreement with Welfare (as suggested by another poster), then what they are doing is illegal.

They best approach to discussing it with managers inside your company is based on the risk of the behaviour exposed, eg "wouldn't we get into enormous trouble if XXX found out".

You could privately make some of the people who are discriminated against aware of what's going on, and encourage them to make formal human rights complaints (whatever the process is here). But this is a very high-risk game, and not something I'd advise unless you are pretty politically skilled.

You could use it to motivate you to get promoted high enough in the company that you can do something about the policy (long term plan though).

Or you could find another job (easier said than done, I know).

Maybe try talking to your union about whether they think you're being asked to do illegal things? (They may be able to suggest some other discrete routes for bringing it up.)

That was helpful, thanks.

To be honest, Im no crusader, it's just that I enjoy my job, but this aspect of it is really getting me down.

It's disheartening for me to know before I even start the (time consuming) procedure with someone of Indian, Pakistani, or Bangladeshi etc descent, it's pretty much going to be a complete waste of both our time, as Im certainly going to have to ask for a hefty deposit at the end of it, and they are almost certainly going to decline the service because of this.

It's both annoying from a work point of view (commission based, so Time = Money), and becoming embarrassing from a personal point of view. Im starting to imagine that some people think I press a special "not irish!" button when Im submitting their application just to p**s them off.

Bren1609 wrote: »

This is what I like about business; cash doesnt lie, and this cuts through all the PC crap because ultimately a business is about its bootom line and bottom lines dont discriminate. If it was in the best interset of the company to provide a service to non nationals then they would. So take your bleeding heart somewhere else, we're all stocked up here.

This wasn't so helpful, to be honest. I just want to get on with my job without wasting my time unnecessarily on what I feel to be inexplicable practices which have not been explained rationally to me as a staff member, I dont want to heal the world.

While I appreciate that you took time to offer your opinion, I probably would have taken it on board more readily had you not thrown in the confrontational one-liner at the end. You sound like you've probably got some idea what you are on about, so there was really no reason to add an insult to the end of your comment for extra effect.

Anyway, thanks to all who offered advice & comment.

LegacyUser

Bren1609 wrote: »

This is what I like about business; cash doesnt lie, and this cuts through all the PC crap because ultimately a business is about its bootom line and bottom lines dont discriminate. If it was in the best interset of the company to provide a service to non nationals then they would. So take your bleeding heart somewhere else, we're all stocked up here.

Jesus your all heart dude........

Are you by any chance related to Marcus from BB10............

jhegarty

Are we talking about mobile phone (or similar) contracts here ?

Because then it would be prefects normal to assume someone from the India is more is a risk of running off then an Irish person.

2fivers

jhegarty wrote: »

Are we talking about mobile phone (or similar) contracts here ?

Because then it would be prefects normal to assume someone from the India is more is a risk of running off then an Irish person.

Really? You think it'd be more likely that a qualified surgeon who owns his own gaff in , say, Dalkey would be a greater default risk regarding a €400 mobile phone than an unemployed 18 year old living with his ma in, say for instance, Dublin 7, simply because of their nationalities?

Cos that's pretty much the example that was given in the OP :

Unregistered wrote: »

To give an example, Im personally aware of 2 people who recently required the same service.

Person A is Unemployed, living with parents in Inner city Dublin
Person B is employed as a consultant in a health clinic in an affluent suburb, who owns his own home with a 'desirable' address.

For the service we provide:

Person A was approved immediately.
Person B was approved subject to a substantial 3 figure cash deposit.

The difference between the two was that person A provided an Irish Passport as their ID, and person B provided an Indian passport.

Really, when all of the economic risk factors are taken into consideration, it's kinda difficult to imagine that in a straight choice between an unemployed inner city youth being supported by their parents and an employed qualified professional homeowner from the suburbs, that the latter would be the one more likely to default.

The only way anyone could come to that conclusion is if they simply stopped profiling these people once their nationality had been established, and based the deposit requirements on where they were born rather than their economic & social capacity to fulfil a long term contract.

Credit control departments in companies arent paid to be moral compasses, or to make judgemental decisions. They shouldn't be interested in Rich or poor, Irish or Foreign, or Asian or Caucasian; if companies go to the trouble of having an economic safeguard in place, it shouldn't stop profiling the second nationality is entered, it should be there to determine whether the subscriber has the capacity to fulfil their payment agreement.

From what the OP says, this doesn't appear to be the case.

ceannair06

Ooh you are all sensitive souls aren't you ?

It's NOT about race, creed, colour etc!

It doesn't mean that because someone is a doctor with a Bangladeshi passport living in D4 that they are a worse bet than some skanger from Cherry Orchard.

it's just that if it all goes tits up then they have some legal redress against said skanger who is likely to stop in the country rather than someonme who could bugger off.

Having said that, I got asked for E100 deposit with Vodafone as I'd only lived her 18 months and I have an Irish passport. What's up with that ???

herya

2fivers wrote: »

Really? You think it'd be more likely that a qualified surgeon who owns his own gaff in , say, Dalkey would be a greater default risk regarding a €400 mobile phone than an unemployed 18 year old living with his ma in, say for instance, Dublin 7, simply because of their nationalities?

Also I'd expect an unemployed youth to be much more mobile and capable of running from debt to say UK than a medical practitioner with an established practice so even the running away argument doesn't hold much water.

Bren1609

2fivers wrote: »

Really? You think it'd be more likely that a qualified surgeon who owns his own gaff in , say, Dalkey would be a greater default risk regarding a €400 mobile phone than an unemployed 18 year old living with his ma in, say for instance, Dublin 7, simply because of their nationalities?

Really, when all of the economic risk factors are taken into consideration, it's kinda difficult to imagine that in a straight choice between an unemployed inner city youth being supported by their parents and an employed qualified professional homeowner from the suburbs, that the latter would be the one more likely to default.

The only way anyone could come to that conclusion is if they simply stopped profiling these people once their nationality had been established, and based the deposit requirements on where they were born rather than their economic & social capacity to fulfil a long term contract.

You complain when people are profiled based on their nationality but then you go on to profile Irish people based on where they live i.e. "Dublin 7, Dalkey" and also their job description i.e "surgeon" and "unemployed"

On that basis, is it not fair to say that non nationals are paid less than their Irish irish colleagues and that means they have less disposable income, and that most non nationals that come to Ireland are transient workers who dont intend on settling in Ireland, and finally, is it not fair to say that people who emmigrate do so out of economic neccessity and therefore tend to come from lower socio economic backgound where stastically they tend to have more children and hence less disposable income???

2fivers

Bren1609 wrote: »

You complain when people are profiled based on their nationality but then you go on to profile Irish people based on where they live i.e. "Dublin 7, Dalkey" and also their job description i.e "surgeon" and "unemployed"

I have profiled no one.

What you have done when quoting me in your post is deliberately edit it to omit the portion where I state that my speculative comments were based on the real-life scenario as detailed in the opening post.

I obviously have no objection to your disagreeing with me, but if you must quote people to help prove your point, (whether it be an attempt at ridicule or a genuine contribution to the thread) then please quote them verbatim.

It retains an element of honesty, and you have a better chance of being taken seriously.

Thanks.

jhegarty

2fivers wrote: »

Really? You think it'd be more likely that a qualified surgeon who owns his own gaff in , say, Dalkey would be a greater default risk regarding a €400 mobile phone than an unemployed 18 year old living with his ma in, say for instance, Dublin 7, simply because of their nationalities?

A phone shop is very limited in what they can check. You address yes, but income , job , credit history.etc...etc.. they can't.

Yes a surgeon who owns his own house is not a risk , but how would they check ?

Bren1609

2fivers wrote: »

I have profiled no one.

What you have done when quoting me in your post is deliberately edit it to omit the portion where I state that my speculative comments were based on the real-life scenario as detailed in the opening post.

I obviously have no objection to your disagreeing with me, but if you must quote people to help prove your point, (whether it be an attempt at ridicule or a genuine contribution to the thread) then please quote them verbatim.

It retains an element of honesty, and you have a better chance of being taken seriously.

Thanks.

Funny you say that, I seem to remember asking you to do the same in a previous post and i got this smart reply.

2fivers wrote: »

Naah, I shouldn't.
I'm ok with simply musing that the content of your post frightens me on many levels. I don't really need to select & highlight specific points from the quoted portion to hold that opinion. The whole thing kinda speaks for itself.
Thanks for the substance-related heads up, though. I'll certainly bear it in mind if I ever have point-specific rebuttal issues in future.

Bren1609

2fivers wrote: »

What you have done when quoting me in your post is deliberately edit it to omit the portion where I state that my speculative comments were based on the real-life scenario as detailed in the opening post.

What does this even mean?

Bondvillain

jhegarty wrote: »

A phone shop is very limited in what they can check. You address yes, but income , job , credit history.etc...etc.. they can't.

Yes a surgeon who owns his own house is not a risk , but how would they check ?

A phone shop is not as limited as you seem to think.


One particular mobile operator that I'm familiar with requests :

Full Name
Age & Date of birth
Address status (tenant/owner/with parents etcetera) for the past 3 years,
Current county of residence (or Dublin postcode if applicable)
Employment history for past 3 years,
Verifiable Email address, and finally:
Nationality (If passport is provided, this is verified by the relevant numerical code printed therein)

All of this information is submitted electronically via the store PC to a credit control operator, and a credit score based on the above criteria is generated remotely and returned to the staff member. (i.e. deposit or no deposit).

You are correct in saying that the phone shop staff themselves have no ability to credit check someone, but the information they receive IS credit checked. As the OP has stated, no reasoning is ever given to staff as to what formula is used in general credit calculations, resulting in some pretty puzzling upfront payment decisions being issued to a hapless sales assistant who has to break the bad news to his expectant client.

Bondvillain

Bren1609 wrote: »

What does this even mean?

I've just re-read the posts in question, and I'm fairly sure that he means that when you quoted his post, you edited it, leaving out an important line, thereby adjusting the meaning :

2fivers wrote: »

Really? You think it'd be more likely that a qualified surgeon who owns his own gaff in , say, Dalkey would be a greater default risk regarding a €400 mobile phone than an unemployed 18 year old living with his ma in, say for instance, Dublin 7, simply because of their nationalities?

Cos that's pretty much the example that was given in the OP :

The line above in bold is the part of their post which attributed the descriptions to the opening poster, You failed to include this when you quoted it in your earlier post, making it look like the description was theirs and not the OP's. You put words in 2 Fiver's mouth that they clearly had pointed out were someone else's.

This thread is about work problems, not a place for you to try and prove how clever you are when you feel you''re losing an imaginary argument. Could you stop bringing the thread off topic please?

tbh

if the Pakistani guy, or whoever, was an Irish citizen and had an Irish passport, would they still have to pay the deposit?
If an American with an American passport wanted the service, would they have to pay the deposit?

The question really boils down to that. Are they "discriminating" based on the color of your skin, or the ability to produce documentation that shows their identity has been verified by the Irish state?