Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > General Actuarial
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions


Fill in a brief DW Simpson Registration Form
to be contacted when new jobs meet your criteria.


General Actuarial Non-Specific Actuarial Topics - Before posting a thread, please browse over our other sections to see if there is a better fit, such as Careers - Employment, Actuarial Science Universities Forum or any of our other 100+ forums.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 06-17-2018, 10:58 PM
CuriousGeorge CuriousGeorge is offline
Member
CAS SOA
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,207
Default

What does it mean to be subjected to victimisation, exactly?
  #22  
Old 06-18-2018, 01:38 AM
GargoyleWaiting's Avatar
GargoyleWaiting GargoyleWaiting is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Favorite beer: the closest one
Posts: 6,702
Default

Summary so far:
- in 2012, the IFoA is offering reduced fees for people living in poor countries
- someone reports this to the UK equality regulator
- letters are sent
- ???
- the IFoA changes it's rule to now offer reduced fees for members earning under 7k pa
- ???

Somewhere in those ???s there's something interesting. Because the allegation as it stands is that the IFoA has decided to go after one of it's own members for forcing a change to their admin process.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by UFActuary View Post
But the mosquitoes in New Brunswick Bay of Fundy did mess with my understanding of some limited loss functions
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the North View Post
Excel gave me #VALUE.

Edit: Nevermind, I was linking a sumif and didn't open the linked spreadsheet. It is now giving me #N/A.
  #23  
Old 06-18-2018, 02:28 AM
GargoyleWaiting's Avatar
GargoyleWaiting GargoyleWaiting is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Favorite beer: the closest one
Posts: 6,702
Default

And, for what it's worth, the "racism" is definitely overplaying it from what's provided. It may technically be against the EU definition of equality, but without a deliberate, discriminatory motive or policy then calling it "racism" is way too strong.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by UFActuary View Post
But the mosquitoes in New Brunswick Bay of Fundy did mess with my understanding of some limited loss functions
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the North View Post
Excel gave me #VALUE.

Edit: Nevermind, I was linking a sumif and didn't open the linked spreadsheet. It is now giving me #N/A.
  #24  
Old 06-18-2018, 06:34 PM
whoanonstop's Avatar
whoanonstop whoanonstop is offline
Member
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Studying for Spark / Scala
College: College of William and Mary
Favorite beer: Orange Juice
Posts: 5,838
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyo View Post
wow, is there history between you two? did not expect something like this from you in the professional forums
I was surprised by the message as well. While there are times where we aren't aligned 100%, I was never under the impression that there were bad vibes between us. I think sometimes I contribute to the site in a way that is perceived as harsh or arrogant.

People have bad days though and maybe my snark was poorly placed or a bit too much on this post. Such is life.

-Riley
__________________
  #25  
Old 06-20-2018, 09:01 AM
diputz42 diputz42 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Studying for ever
Posts: 309
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GargoyleWaiting View Post
And, for what it's worth, the "racism" is definitely overplaying it from what's provided. It may technically be against the EU definition of equality, but without a deliberate, discriminatory motive or policy then calling it "racism" is way too strong.


The original 2012 complaint conflates racism and nationality. But these are totally separate. Plus, you could be the whitest British national who happens to be living and working in India, and you would have gotten the same fee reduction. Nothing to do with race or nationality. Sounds like some brexiteer was just ticked off he got passed over for exams and jobs by an "outsider".
  #26  
Old 06-20-2018, 11:49 AM
muppet muppet is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 14
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GargoyleWaiting View Post
And, for what it's worth, the "racism" is definitely overplaying it from what's provided. It may technically be against the EU definition of equality, but without a deliberate, discriminatory motive or policy then calling it "racism" is way too strong.
Completely agree. Given nothing happened between 2012 and 2016 then this probably implies the original policy didn't break any laws, but it was decided the new policy would be better.

I'm just speculating, but if you read the whole letter and not just a few half sentences, you get a fuller picture.

Like others, I await the more interesting posts.
  #27  
Old 06-20-2018, 06:44 PM
almost_there almost_there is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 115
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diputz42 View Post


The original 2012 complaint conflates racism and nationality. But these are totally separate. Plus, you could be the whitest British national who happens to be living and working in India, and you would have gotten the same fee reduction. Nothing to do with race or nationality. Sounds like some brexiteer was just ticked off he got passed over for exams and jobs by an "outsider".
You show a serious lack of understanding of the Equality Act:
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...discrimination
Quote:
The Equality Act 2010 says you must not be discriminated against because of your race.

In the Equality Act, race can mean your colour, or your nationality (including your citizenship). It can also mean your ethnic or national origins, which may not be the same as your current nationality. For example, you may have Chinese national origins and be living in Britain with a British passport.

Race also covers ethnic and racial groups. This means a group of people who all share the same protected characteristic of ethnicity or race.

A racial group can be made up of two or more distinct racial groups, for example black Britons, British Asians, British Sikhs, British Jews, Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers.

You may be discriminated against because of one or more aspects of your race, for example people born in Britain to Jamaican parents could be discriminated against because they are British citizens, or because of their Jamaican national origins.

Last edited by almost_there; 06-20-2018 at 07:00 PM..
  #28  
Old 06-20-2018, 06:46 PM
almost_there almost_there is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 115
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppet View Post
Completely agree. Given nothing happened between 2012 and 2016 then this probably implies the original policy didn't break any laws
Was it challenged in Court? Do you think the EHRC would have deployed resources to investigate this unless they thought there was a case to be answered?

Last edited by almost_there; 06-20-2018 at 08:30 PM..
  #29  
Old 06-20-2018, 08:46 PM
almost_there almost_there is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 115
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diputz42 View Post
Plus, you could be the whitest British national who happens to be living and working in India, and you would have gotten the same fee reduction. Nothing to do with race or nationality.
The nationality/race profile is different. One-off examples don't provide an adequate legal defence against the discriminatory nature of the policy.
  #30  
Old 06-21-2018, 03:12 AM
GargoyleWaiting's Avatar
GargoyleWaiting GargoyleWaiting is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Favorite beer: the closest one
Posts: 6,702
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by almost_there View Post
Was it challenged in Court? Do you think the EHRC would have deployed resources to investigate this unless they thought there was a case to be answered?
So far, all that has been shown is that the EHRC wrote a letter and maybe had a meeting. That's not a lot of resource, and there's nothing about it going to court.

In my experience, if you found you had a policy that was potentially not in line with European equality law, it would be much less hassle to just change it to something that clearly was - rather than take on a fight for something tangential to your actual business.
EU law is based on principles which are then settled in court on specific examples, it's expensive to fight them, so you only fight the ones that matter. Changing your approach - or even being found to not meet the equality provisions - doesn't prove the original stance was discriminatory by the usual definition. I still don't believe the industry was charging men and women different premiums because it was sexist.

But, anyway, that's not what this thread is about. This is about how the IFoA treated the whistleblower.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by UFActuary View Post
But the mosquitoes in New Brunswick Bay of Fundy did mess with my understanding of some limited loss functions
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the North View Post
Excel gave me #VALUE.

Edit: Nevermind, I was linking a sumif and didn't open the linked spreadsheet. It is now giving me #N/A.

Last edited by GargoyleWaiting; 06-21-2018 at 04:45 AM..
Closed Thread

Tags
acted, britain, ehrc, ifoa, racism, victimisation

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.45427 seconds with 9 queries