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

DW Simpson Global Actuarial & Analytics Recruitment
Download our 2017 Actuarial Salary Survey
now with state-by-state salary information!


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
  #341  
Old 06-25-2018, 03:16 PM
actuaryleaks101 actuaryleaks101 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
College: Imperial
Posts: 68
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GargoyleWaiting View Post
I don't think anyone is arguing that point. Yes, basing it on earnings is fairer. I think the only point of difference is whether the previous position was horribly wrong or not. Personally, I don't think it was deliberately discriminatory, it just wasn't implemented as well as it could have been. It was judged to be unlikely to pass the EU equality test, so it was changed.
I am not going off at a tangent or making accusations, but I do want to state the following.
Motive is not necessary to prove discrimination unless you need to prove a hate crime it does help though. It wasnt so much the EU equality law that comes in to play. EU legislation protects many charatoristics but not nationality. The British Parliament added nationality in to the Race relations act and then the Equality Act. It is in effect a British "equality test".
  #342  
Old 06-25-2018, 03:20 PM
JMO's Avatar
JMO JMO is offline
Carol Marler
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Back home again in Indiana
Studying for Nothing actuarial.
Posts: 37,655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by actuaryleaks101 View Post
Motive is not necessary to prove discrimination.
That's not the case in the US. Not sure about Canada. But maybe that helps explain why the people here have a different view of the situation.
__________________
Carol Marler, "Just My Opinion"

Pluto is no longer a planet and I am no longer an actuary. Please take my opinions as non-actuarial.


My latest favorite quotes, updated Nov. 20, 2018.

Spoiler:
I should keep these four permanently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rekrap View Post
JMO is right
Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
I agree with JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westley View Post
And def agree w/ JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MG View Post
This. And everything else JMO wrote.
And this all purpose permanent quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan View Post
Yup, it is always someone else's fault.
MORE:
All purpose response for careers forum:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorNo View Post
Depends upon the employer and the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Actuario View Post
Therapists should ask the right questions, not give the right answers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sredni Vashtar View Post
I feel like ERM is 90% buzzwords, and that the underlying agenda is to make sure at least one of your Corporate Officers is not dumb.
  #343  
Old 06-25-2018, 03:22 PM
actuaryleaks101 actuaryleaks101 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
College: Imperial
Posts: 68
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twig93 View Post
May I respectfully suggest that you read the book How To Win Friends And Influence People ? I think you will find it tremendously helpful in both your personal and professional life.

(Hint: Gargoyle Waiting is most assuredly NOT a troll and you do yourself a huge disservice by continually insulting respected members of this forum.)
May I respectfully request that you watch the peoples temple. It might red pill you in life.

"Gargoyle Waiting is most assuredly NOT a troll and you do yourself a huge disservice by continually insulting respected members of this forum."

So to accuse me of disingenuous bullshit is ok, but for me to call him a troll isinsulting
  #344  
Old 06-25-2018, 03:28 PM
actuaryleaks101 actuaryleaks101 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
College: Imperial
Posts: 68
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMO View Post
That's not the case in the US. Not sure about Canada. But maybe that helps explain why the people here have a different view of the situation.
Hi JMO, I think motive is likely to be irreverent when it comes to what is called indirect discrimination
(https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supre...t/401/424.html)
In the above case (one of the first of its kind) it was sufficient to show a neutral rule or practice that puts a group of employees at a disadvantage.

Even for direct discrimination, it is not necessary. For example If we let pensioners swim for free at the local swimming pool, that would be directly discriminatory against men (they retire at 65. Women retire at 60). Even though there is no malice or motive, the House of Lords in the UK agreed that it was direct sex discrimination.
I think the case is James against Eastleigh Borough council.. (if you want the link, I will dig it out)
  #345  
Old 06-25-2018, 03:30 PM
twig93's Avatar
twig93 twig93 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 30,207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by almost_there View Post
Let's consider the preparation materials as an easy example. Produced in the UK. Exam notes used to be sent in a box through the post. Post something abroad it costs more, not less, yet they were charging half the price for it. Was each box sold to say China at a profit or a loss? If at a profit, then UK students were being clearly ripped off. If at a loss, then UK students were subsidising the training of actuaries in China, while UK students were not eligible for such discounts in hard times.
You act as though subsidies are a bad thing. Possibly they are , but they are totally common. Getting hung up on this particular subsidy seems odd.

And to answer the bolded question, my guess is that it the China price is higher than the marginal cost of photocopying the pre-existing materials and mailing them... such that they are more profitable selling to the Chinese customer than not.

But the UK customer was covering a much greater share of the development cost than the Chinese customer.

Being American, I can assure you that we Americans are hugely subsidizing the R&D costs for almost any medication / medical procedure for the rest of the world (not just poor countries... rich countries like UK too) and we mostly accept it. So you're not especially likely to find sympathy that the IFOA used to subsidize Chinese & Indian actuarial students.

Actually, after hearing about the low pass rates for IAI exams, it makes me think that the EU should probably grant an exception to IFOA and let them go back to the old way of doing things.
__________________
Originally Posted by Gandalf
The thing that is clearest is twig's advice
  #346  
Old 06-25-2018, 03:33 PM
almost_there almost_there is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 115
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twig93 View Post
You keep pointing out that #2 wouldn't have gotten a discount until they changed it. She knows this and is OK with it. You're not.
Her reasoning was quite odd that a UK person struggling could beg, borrow or steal in order to make up for lack of discounts. I really doubt that IFoA would ever use such a justification.
  #347  
Old 06-25-2018, 03:33 PM
twig93's Avatar
twig93 twig93 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 30,207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GargoyleWaiting View Post
I don't think anyone is arguing that point. Yes, basing it on earnings is fairer. I think the only point of difference is whether the previous position was horribly wrong or not. Personally, I don't think it was deliberately discriminatory, it just wasn't implemented as well as it could have been. It was judged to be unlikely to pass the EU equality test, so it was changed.
To be fair to almost_there, I think PP and I basically are.

We're saying "meh, not a big deal either way, but on balance probably the old way was better... too bad they had to change it to get in compliance with the law. Oh well."
__________________
Originally Posted by Gandalf
The thing that is clearest is twig's advice
  #348  
Old 06-25-2018, 03:34 PM
twig93's Avatar
twig93 twig93 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 30,207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by actuaryleaks101 View Post
So to accuse me of disingenuous bullshit is ok, but for me to call him a troll isinsulting
I'm sorry if the truth offends.
__________________
Originally Posted by Gandalf
The thing that is clearest is twig's advice
  #349  
Old 06-25-2018, 03:40 PM
actuaryleaks101 actuaryleaks101 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
College: Imperial
Posts: 68
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twig93 View Post
I'm sorry if the truth offends.
Well if that is the case, then why do you have the following as one of your smilies??
  #350  
Old 06-25-2018, 03:41 PM
Westley Westley is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 27,724
Default

I want to look away, but I just can't.
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 02:17 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 0.24756 seconds with 9 queries