Response to job letter

To whom it may concern,

I am writing this letter in response to the job advertisement for the role of "digital video production producer" (what does this mean?). The reason for my writing is that I would like to point out a few concerns that I have with your proposal that I am sure other people have too.  Firstly, the job role that you are offering is too ambiguous, though what is asked of a "digital video production producer" is clearly laid out, the "benefits" stated at the top of the letter are not. Also, after one has applied and shown themselves as a viable employee, one should be given a fully written and clear contract including confidentiality and exclusivity clauses, that would signal to the employee that their job is secure. You have alluded to the exclusivity clause at the bottom of the advert - "Please note that if successful, you must not apply for other positions of this nature" - but it would be impossible to comply with your command as the job hours and salary are too unsettled to not be in worry of stability within one job.  

The Equality Act (2010) was created to compile already existing legislation into one rounded act. The act covers discrimination of race - "a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular racial group", gender, age -  "A reference to an age group is a reference to a group of persons defined by reference to age, whether by reference to a particular age or to a range of ages", disability, sexual orientation and religion or belief. The act ensures that any violation in relation to it's contents is illegal, and I believe that your job advert is in violation of this act in several instances. Firstly, your implementation of an age boundary - "Looking for: male/female (aged below 30)" - infringes upon this law as you are blocking anybody over a certain from applying for work. The next infringement is to do with the salary offered - "£15000 - £35000 per annum + benefits" - the gap between each number is too broad. This needs to be a much thinner gap because there needs to be a standardised payment for both male and female employees. - "The ‘equality of terms’ provisions in the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) entitle a woman doing equal work with a man in the same employment to equality in pay and other terms and conditions." The other infringement is that you have shown a want for only "Religious views: Christian" which is unacceptable as it discriminates all other religions (and the followers of these religions) by not allowing them to apply for the role of "digital video production producer".

Employers' liability and employees' rights are a huge part of any contract. Employers have not only the responsibility of the safety of their employees', but also responsibility over the well-being of them too. "It is an employer's duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of their employees and other people who might be affected by their business. Employers must do whatever is reasonably practicable to achieve this. This means making sure that workers and others are protected from anything that may cause harm, effectively." On your job advertisement you have not even mentioned any health and safety issues that may be confronted whilst working for your company, it is the right of the employee to be told everything about any kind of hazard, mentally or physically. Though, unfortunately, writing to you only as an applicant, I am not protected under the Employers' and Employees' section of Employment Legislation or any Health and Safety Legislation. Our trade union would be able to combat any unsafe environments with discussion and contact with each other to be able to think of ways to make the working area safer.

Going back to my point about equality, the presentation of some of the issues raising in your idea for the documentary are very unjust. You are portraying gender stereotypes very wrongly, with males taking the main brunt -  "female victims and male offenders" Your decision of wording is very wrong, with your suggestion that only females are victims and males are only offenders. "69,000 female, 9,000 male rape victims per year" (quote from http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/11/male-female-rape-statistics-graphic) there is proof that your choices of words is wrong and demeaning to any male victims. Not only is your view of gender off, your approach to dealing with teenage rape victims is utterly unethical. You have suggested for the applicant to "interview teenagers and other individuals who might be/have been affected by the topic, including female victims and male offenders who will talk candidly to the camera." I believe that it would be impossible to find anybody to "talk candidly to the camera" about such an issue because it is so personal and it would be very unfair for a 'digital video production producer', without any counselling experience, to make teenagers talk about such a sensitive issue like rape. Maybe it would be justifiable if you had said that any interview would be censored, but instead you are asking for 'candid' interviews.

I am very sure that you are aware that Ofcom (The Office of Communications) exists as a result of the Communications Act and Broadcasting Act, according to the codes in both of these acts, your job advert has other issues that need to be addressed, especially in connection to Protecting The Under 18's Code. This code says that "people under 18 must not be caused unnecessary distress or anxiety by their involvement in programmes", this shows that the teenagers that you want to be interviewed for your video must not be affected in any negative way, I think that if they were involved in this video then they would be affected negatively because of the points I raised earlier. I have to scrutinise your advertisement with the Violence, Dangerous Behaviour and Suicide Code in mind because your advert currently disobeys this code because of your want for "compliment[ing] the video with re-enactments and dramatisations". The code says that you "must not include material...condones or glamorises [violence]" and at the moment your advert would be glamorising because of the "popular music soundtrack" that you have asked to be placed within the video product.

According to the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification)  - "In order to protect children from unsuitable and even harmful content in films and videos and to give consumers information they might need about a particular film or video before deciding whether or not to view it, the BBFC examines and age rates films and videos before they are released." The video that you want to an applicant to make would be classified as a 15 because of the BBFC's allowing of descriptions of sexual violence to be presented. "There may be detailed verbal references to sexual violence (for example descriptions of rape or sexual assault in a courtroom scene or in victim testimony) but any portrayal depiction of sexual violence must be discreet and justified by context."  The "popular music soundtrack" that we have both mentioned would, if used, would infringe the copyright of the artists who made the music. Also, the name "No Means No" has already been used by the anti-rape campaign of the same name, so the applicant may run into trademark infringement also, and as I mentioned before, applicants are not protected under the Employers' and Employees' section of Employment Legislation.
 
After all this, you have only offered the applicant a re-compensation of "up to the value of £20" Which is far too cheap to be able to make anything!

Thank you for your time and I very much hope that you will re-think your job application and think more about the legal and ethical issues of employment before offering any.



Yours Sincerely,



Tom Scannell