HARMAN'S EQUALITIES BILL MEANS OPEN SEASON ON MEN AND THEIR LIVELIHOODS

Harriet Harman introduced the Equalities Bill (link, link, briefing) into the UK's House of Commons today.

The main areas of concern and ones raised on this site a number of times is around the gender pay gap (employment section) and the positive action (link) proposals (no such thing as positive action as it means negative action for someone else).

With male unemployment higher than female unemployment (link, link) pressure on businesses and a willful abuse of the gender pay gap statistics, what in reality Harman has done is declare an employment war on men.

Her intentions are clear.

Companies will be forced to publish their gender pay statistics and this is with the sole intention of shaming employers, no matter what rational explanation.

British Aerospace (BAE) for example, said at the weekend that they have a large gender pay gap because their highest paid employees are engineers who are predominately male. They have female engineers but fewer of them so their gender pay gap will be large but this is not down to discrimination especially when they want more female engineers. BAE, according to Harman and her acolytes though, want to place BAE in the stocks and put them through some grotesque Stalinesque show trial.

She said "You have got to believe that either women are 20 per cent less intelligent, less hard-working, less committed to their job, less experienced, less qualified, or you have got to believe that there is structural pay discrimination. We believe there is structural pay discrimination."

 No one as ever said this, it is down to lifestyle choices and career decisions. 

The other issue is that the positive action issues are clearly designed to discriminate against men. The legislation will be gender neutral but its interpretation by the courts, lawyers and HR staff will not be. The intention of the bill is clear - it is discriminate against men.

The bill says that companies can choose one person above another because of their gender when the two candidates are equally qualified. Quota's will also be introduced for companies bidding for public sector wo.

Firstly, it is virtually impossible for two candidates to be equally qualified especially after interview and any other testing. It is mischievous to suggest differently.

Secondly, in the current climate with more men on the dole queue they could be denied a job solely on the basis of their gender. This is discrimination.

Lastly, if a man is discriminated against (and could be from a working class background and studiously made his way up the ladder), it will not just be him who loses out, it could be his daughter, his wife/girlfriend and mother. That will go down well as those women will be equally discriminated against but it is being done in their name.

The Bill, if it passes, and it is likely to, is open season on men and will enshrine discrimination in law against them. Don't anyone think differently

It is the culmination of three decades of anti-male propaganda and male bashing. The nightmare is coming true.

Media Coverage so far (Daily Mail 1 plus debate, Melanie Phillips, BBC, Metro, Telegraph) and more will emerge over the week.

Comments

[Groanl]

The pay audits will be largely ineffective because the pay differentials relate to job choices and "career breaks". The old EOC did a series of research reports on this and their final policy direction concentrated on flexible working and child care.So the EOC research would judge them expensive white elephants.
The media hooha!about social class is completely misplaced as the Bill's provisions are little more than confirmation that health and social care consider deprivation in planning services. this has been the case since the creation of the NHS and actually been a requirement since 1993.
I suspect the noise made about this is to:Make Harriet seem like a potential leader of the "left" or old labour and distract attention from the truly innovative clauses. These actually circumvent the protection from discrimination in the Human Rights Act! Some clever drafting to make it possible to directly and openly discriminate.
For many years public services have had "targets"(in effect quotas to reach) and have taken "positive action" with varying degrees of success. The ability to leave off tactics of persuasion,encouragement and a bit of subtle sharp practice in favour of open discrimination will make those quotas(oops!I mean targets) a darn sight easier to fill.

[Mike]

I recently sent an politely-word email to the EOC raising some pretty hard-hitting questions. I got no reply.

Now to the point about Harman's Equalities Bill. Has anyone ever done a Freedom of Information request regarding gender pay gaps at the EOC? I suspect the EOC might have a policy of "positive discrimination", and the figures might show women getting paid more for shorter hours, less experience, more "flexibility" etc etc (ie a foretaste of what Harman's "equality thinking" looks like in the workplace).

[Groan]

Yes and the Gender Pay Gap in the EHRC is in favour of their women employees. Though just by a few percentage points.