Equality Act causes logistics nightmare Public authorities are having to gamble on how to try to meet the impossible demands of new equalities legislation. Authorities will have to try to second-guess a consultation process if they are to have any chance of meeting an April deadline. Most of the Equality Act came into force earlier this month. One key part, though, …
Ok, stop panicking, breathe slowly --- in ----- out ----- in ------ out
>if organisations are not compliant from the moment that the Regulations take effect, this could cause them major problems
Don't be silly. No-one's going to get a massive fine or be thrown into jail on April the 5 just because of a new rule that comes into force on April 4th. So long as the people overseeing the process are happy that progress is being made they're not going to punish anyone. They will appreciate that it all takes time (esp. when the necessary information hasn't been made available in a timely fashion) and are flexible enough and not so daft as to act like a bunch of facists: counting down to midnight the day before, just so they can issue writs as the clock strikes. It will take time, but it will be sorted out. No-one will suffer unduly and any complaints treated with sympathy - on both side. So really there's no need to get your knickers in a twist - it's a non-story.
Oh, I forgot ---- in
"We expect equality groups, staff and trade unions to scrutinise compliance with the new obligations from the moment that the Regulations take effect."
should read
"We expect busybodies who shove their nose into other people's business to scrutinise compliance with the new obligations from the moment that the Regulations take effect."
Trade unions, staff, and "equality groups" should look at whether public bodies are treating staff "equally" (although since we have no idea what that word means until after the consultation process ends we cannot know until then), but the kind of people who check on the 2nd of April whether the University of Manchester (for example) is compliant without any thought as to whether it's even possible are not interested parties but rather busybodies and troublemakers.
If you are employing a Muslim in your church, they probably should be allowed to lay down their prayer mats at the appropriate hour. By the same token, disabled folk - regardless of origin - should get preferential treatment on busses. Boggles my mind that folk would complain about such things. I always thought these concepts would really boil down to “respecting other people.”
The more I read about things like this, the more I think I must be from the past. My beliefs seem to be quite out of order in today’s world. Respect for others, waving a work ethic, noone being ‘entitled’ to anything except the human rights to which we are /all/ entitled.
Seems everyone nowadays expects everyone to have to work for a living except themselves. If anyone gets a leg up or a special consideration because they legitimately got a bad roll of the dice its arm flailing and teeth gnashing time!
Just can’t deal with the “me, me, me” pace of society any more…
police forces and NHS trusts will do what they have done since this started - pay off complainants with out of court, "no publicity" settlements and make up some "real" figures that could possibly be within 0.01% accurate.
Police, NHS trusts and councils are using every dirty trick in the book to try and remove anyone with small kids who need a babysitter from a position with a decent salary.
This happens with just about every bit of legislation that comes out and the world hasn't ended yet.
Getting the SI regs doesn't help much usually as they are quite often ambiguous or even contradictory. Govt shold really try to employ some literate people to write these things.
As for the inevitable "guidance" papers - these seem to be produced by some process involving randomly ordered words.
There still won't be any clarity on most of this stuff until at least 10 years down the line when one bunch of lawyers have made loadsamoney doing what another bunch of lawyers should have done right in the first place.
Once upon a time you got hired because you could do <insert capability> and the company needed somebody who could do that.
Now you are to be hired because you are <insert minority> and the company needs to balance its quota? This backed up by a lot of interfering nobodies who will want to examine exactly how many people are in such quota group, plus a scared mentality that is afraid to give anybody a promotion or pay rise in case that is taken as "offensive" by everybody else.
Way to go.
It's things like this that make honestly and earnestly wish i hadn't been born a white male. I didn't ask to be; knowing what I know now, had I been given the choice i would have chosen /anything/ but! There are still places, people and corporations in this world that discriminate. I don’t even disagree that the majority of that discrimination is probably by white males against non-white-males.
As a response however, we seem to be prepared to discriminate against all white males on the off chance that there might be some discrimination occurring against non-white-males. I believe wholeheartedly in equality for all individuals regardless of /any/ (rather than a selected list) of distinguishing characteristics. I believe that discrimination should be discrimination – even if it’s against a white male.
My father is a nurse. Quite in opposition to being someone who discriminates against anyone he has received his share of heckling for devoting his life to a profession that is traditionally female dominated. His father before him was an immigrant, descendant of a bunch of Dutch farmers who moved to Canada after the war. As far back as I know they are all poor farmers and labourers who never really had much of a chance to be in a position to discriminate against anyone.
Yet it is okay to discriminate against me. I am told in may cases that this is “revenge.” It’s to “make white males understand what it’s like to be discriminated against.” I don’t think that’s right – the sins I am supposedly to pay for aren’t even the sins of my forefathers. They are the sins of someone else’s. That’s not even getting into how unbelievably morally and ethically bankrupt holding someone to task for the sins of their ancestors is.
Totally apart from that argument…what have I ever done to deserve such discrimination? I work hard, I do my best to view everyone equally. I admit that I have a hard time being tolerant of intolerant people…but even that weakness is something I am actively working to overcome. So why is it that I cannot have a “boys only club,” yet a “women’s only club” is sacred?
Why is it that when employment quotas need to be balanced, it is the white males who are for the chop? Should the regular Joes just trying to work and do their jobs be punished if some HR drone is prejudiced? Shouldn’t the HR drone – and possibly those who hired them – be the ones up for the chop? In what universe is it right to hire candidate A over candidate B simply to fill a quota? If they are both equally qualified with equally compatible personalities and other such characteristics, shouldn’t the selection process essentially be randomised?
I don’t get it and noone has ever been able to satisfactorily explain it to me. Why should I not have the same rights and freedoms, the same chances of employment and the same likelihood of job security as someone who exhibits different identifiable characteristics than me? Why am I being penalised for how I was born – characteristics I can not control and in which I have no say?
And yes: being turned down for employment because you don’t help a company fill a quota is being penalised. I just don’t get it…
If they aren't careful they'll create the situation where anyone who is in one minority group will always lose out to someone who is in two. So black males will lose out to black females, gays will lose out to disabled gays, and so on. Not so much out of prejudice, but because few organisations have anyone working in HR who understands how to do multivariate statistics properly!
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
In the US. 1 person, 2 minority boxes ticked.
Of course then there are the "Threefers" and
I call your disabled black man and raise you a disabled black lesbian muslim.
Minority bridge might take over from Strategy Boutique Bingo as this seasons must play corporate game.
I should start to state on my CV that I'm a third-generation north-african migrant and disabled (I'm half def).
As i'm a bachelor, I can even says I'm gay just for the lulz. No employer can prove otherwise, and the simple fact of trying to prove I'm not gay is an outrage to my privacy leading to a nice and hefty out-of-court settlement....
Welcome to the asylum.
Mine is the one with the toothpick reference manual for dummies in the pocket.
Discrimination in any form should be abhored by all, whether it is race, gender, sexuality, disability, Leicester City supporter, political etc. That also goes for positive discrimination because being a white, hetrosexual, British, atheist man, if I don't get a job because of it, then I too am being discriminated against. The only way to end discrimination, IMHO, is to appoint the person best qualified for the position, irrespective of any Government edict.
@ John I'm only dancing; Here, Here!! Could not agree with you more.
Shame there is no other way of picking up the minority of organisations who are being discriminatory.
Before the credit crunch, I would have said to anybody who felt they had been discriminated against to find another job obviously, you are not valued where you are, so go to somebody who will value you.
Even if you love the team you work in, the partners you interface with each day, the brand you work for and of course your customers, if you are being passed over, and you have the talent ,all the positives are worthless if your not on the path you desire.
Now I would say stay put till you find another job, and in the mean time what can your friendly HR team do for you?
That being said sometimes people are not as good as they think they are, even if you tick all the non job related boxes you may still be passed over, you just don't want to hear the fact your crap at your job despite being told in your annual review or not as the case may be....
I have heard of organisations who have named dedicated groups for minorities in the work place e.g. Red Squirrels working in English forests*. Which you can join even if you are not a member of said minority (I can only assume to stop being discriminatory, kind of defeats the object really, unless I missed the point)
* Group open to Grey Squirrels
How nice that the Councils are worrying how to spend load of (my) money proving their non-discrimination policies are still being non-discriminatory. As I pay by tax bill, I can bask in the warm glow that all the employees are each going about their business in a non-discriminatory way and it can be proven by all those employed activley monitoring against any possibilty of discrimination.
Pity there will be no money left to pay anyone who actually works for their wages by providing a real service.
Every human being deserves a degree of respect, and that degree of respect should be based on who they are, not what they are.
The example of a Muslim and a Church, or any inter-faith combination is perhaps an example of how misunderstood mainstream religion actually is. The vast majority of us aren't at each others throats, and we would make provision for other faiths, churches often change use between religions, there are examples of churches that have become temples and synagogues, mosques with the blessing of the previous faith. Yes, there are people who don't like other faiths, or aspects of them, even hate, but not that many, but they are news, being nice and considerate isn't.
Where we have to be careful is that we don't put ourselves in the position of making respect for some a reason to stop the enjoyment of others. the promotion of rights for one group, curtailing the rights of another. A question that a lot of minority campaigners should ask themselves before they act, if I do this what will I take away from everybody.
What will happen when the new legislation comes into force is that minority campaigners will look for some high profile targets to attack, with the aim of promoting their cause, raise more support and money, and making life "better" for their group, and probably worse for the rest of use, in other minorities. What they won't do is say, well that's unreasonable to do just now and we'll help that organisation to comply over time, manly because campaigners don't see other peoples point of view, and don't values the opinions, belief, pastimes etc. of others, and who is going to expose themselves to the vitriol levelled if they dare to say, no that's not reasonable.
So is it reasonable not to do something because you can't do it for everybody, and remember can't is different to won't.
The real problem with this legislation is that it makes it virtually impossible to be an employer, while retaining any sense of what the relationship between employer and employee is supposed to be.
When you employ someone, you are in effect taking them on as almost a dependant; not quite a master - servant, lord - vassal or patron - client relationship, but certainly the employer has solemn obligations to the employee and vice versa. It is hard to maintain this if the employer can't decline to enter into such a relationship with someone who holds views with which he fundamentally disagrees, or who he doesn't really think is suitable for the job, as can easily happen under this legislation.
At least from the employee's point of view, we can still refuse to accept employment without any such restrictions, but for how long?
Not me. At present a sole trader, was on the verge of planning expansion so as to be able to employ another. Would always have been difficult due to previous employment legislation, but this clarifies the situation beyond any doubt.
Don't do it! Don't employ anyone! Ever!
While all these public bodies will tax us even harder to be able to certify that they comply with this stupidity, at least their workers will have a job. Private sector companies will increasingly rely on freelance workers instead. Did they really set out to make working for a living even less secure for the majority? This is definitely another of the laws of unintended consequences.
The article concluded with the assertion that "one of the most important requirements of any new law [is] that it gives organisations affected by it enough clarity and time to make sure that they can comply with it before it comes into force"
Have you not noticed how our Masters in Brussels do things? How all direct acting EU Regulations come into effect the moment the horse-trading is done, and without any official guidance? And that educated opinions about how to comply with it change several times over the next year before the new Agency has employed enough staff to be able to make its own pronouncements? And that those pronouncements are always in conflict with the previous "educated opinion"?
This is the new way of doing things. Rather like the Alice in Wonderland trial organised by the Queen of Hearts, in which the sentence came first, and the evidence last.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
