You make very good points although I think closer scrutiny will show females working in many occupations, including those you mention, which were previously all male domains. Long may this continue to expand.Rita Sherry wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:25 pm Pete
Please permit me to disagree with your statement that this Company "broke the law" and your shock at seeing "this blatant gender bias". Reading the original advert whilst it is quite clear there was preference for a male applicant it nevertheless was qualified by the use of the words "but all applicants will be considered" thus making it arguable that there was any overt gender bias. Regarding the "Must be of EU origin" statement a poster has already given a possible explanation for this terminology and is correct in the assumption. Non EU workers have limits placed on the type of work, hours etc they are permitted to undertake under Employment Law and Immigration Law and woe betide any employer found employing someone who is not entitled to be so - he/she is looking at a very hefty fine (the employer that is not the employed).
I applaud your defence of us females but however strong (physically) they may be I have yet to see females building roads, working on building sites and, in the case of the UK and other industrialised nations I dont think there are many females working in the mining industry etc nor can I see any sensible female wishing to do so. We faught long and hard to stop women and children being sent down the mines and up chimneys. That having been said I did know of one female "Factory Inspector", as they were then called, who was most adapt at hoping up ladders on building sites etc and who put the fear of God into most managers and owners alike when she descended on their companies.
The Company under discussion is endeavouring to run a business which gives employment to others and service to the general populace and, for my part, I do feel they and others like them can well do without well meaning people scrutinising each and every word used in advertising etc in the event they may or may not be "breaking the law"
As any law student can tell you the underlying principle of good law is "Equity is a shield and not a sword"
Rita
If you review what I said in my posts you will see that I concluded the matter was closed when the Brewery apologised and rectified their mistake. This apology had nothing to do with this forum. I did not intend to comment further but felt that Lloyd's post could be expanded further just to make the point that the wording in the brewery retraction would have been better placed in the original ad.
I have no axe to grind against the Brewery, enjoy their products and have eaten there but they made a mistake in their advert and I felt it was worthy of posting on here and asked for discussion. The mistake in their advert for which I did not have to scrutinise every word, was rather outstanding and obvious not only to me but to others on the original Facebook post.
It seems that the Brewery have correctly acknowledged and dealt with the issue, I have expressed my satisfaction with their doing so and applaud this but others still want to perpetuate the discussion. Is there some sort of regret that an unpleasant argument did not ensue as so often happens on forums?
Pete