This week saw the implementation of the Equalities Act which essentially merges all of the myriad pieces of equalities legalisation in the UK (including the Sexual Discrimination Act) plus add a few more issues. This was a Labour Government Act of Parliament, not a Coalition Government one.
Two of the most pernicious anti-male parts of the Act were that companies with more than 250 employees would have to publish the gap between average pay for male and female employees, and, companies would be allowed to 'positively' discriminate against employees or potential employees if one group was supposedly under-represented.
Gender Pay Gap
The gender pay gap issue is one of the most Orwellian examples of the misuse of statistics in the Western World as oft explained on the site as the statistics are spun to suggest women get paid less than men for doing the same job. That is a lie and people like Ceri Goddard, Chief Executive of our friends at the Fawcett Society (misleadingly described by the BBC as an organisation campaigning for gender equality) who said that "rowing back on the requirement for big business to take action on any differences between the pay of men and women employees is tantamount to endorising the shocking pay gap". The BBC published this but had no one telling her she is talking nonsense. However, the Government has said it will force companies to implement this in 2013.
The problem is the gender pay gap is another weapon for people like Goddard, Harman and all the anti-male people who infest our country who just want to attack men and beat us up. The gender pay gap is a myth.
'Positive' Discrimination
The Labour Government had brought in clauses to the Equalities Act that would allow companies to discriminate in favour of someone's protected group (race, gender, disability etc) were under-represented at that company. For example, a company with more male employees could give a job to a female if a man and a woman applying were equally qualified. The Conservatives, when in opposition, opposed the wide ranging definition and to be honest opposed the whole concept. This has been well covered on the site.
It was confirmed by the BBC that this had not been implemented and was not going to be the now Conservative/Liberal Democrat Government.
That is really good news as the intention behind the Act was always to give more employment opportunities to women at the cost of opportunities to men, even though more men are unemployed.
Opportunities
It is not all doom and gloom though. There remains opportunities for men who are dicriminated against. All public authorities currently have to comply with the gender equality duty to ensure that their services meet the needs of both men and women. This is wrapped up now into a Single Equality Duty (comes into force in April 2011). Whenever a man is not being served by his council, police force, Government, NHS or any other statutory body on the basis of him being a man, that body is breaking the Act.
Summary
It is good news overall that the Coalition Government has put the brakes on the most offending pieces of legalisation but it is worth keeping a keen eye on it. In fact, it would have been better if parts the Act had been repealed because if a Labour Government ever got elected again, they would bring the clauses in the Act straight back in (it would literally be at a stroke of a pen). I can hear Harman making a note in her diary right now.
Posted by Skimmington
What happens if two workers of the same sex who have equal qualifications, experience and who do equal work are being paid different salaries by the same employer for doing the same job?
Shouldn't an 'Equality Act' deal with that scenario, too? Yes, this does happen quite a lot in the real world, but apparently it never comes up as an issue for 'equalites' legislators.
Another further indication, therefore, that the above is somewhat of a misnomer - as they're not really interested in *equality*, then are they? They're interested in the furtherance of something else entirely.
Posted by: Sick of Lies | Sunday, 03 October 2010 at 09:32
Were the Government (of any shade of Puce) really intent on 'equality' of pay as an issue, then there would have been many, many prosecutions of companies in breach of the previous laws. But there were no such prosecutions. It has been left to civil groups bringing civil actions where evidence is not subjected to the same scrutiny as criminal cases.
What is needed is for men's groups to now bring civil procedings against those organisations that deliberately exclude white males behind a veil of 'diversity'. This Act surely opens some possibility.
Posted by: amfortas | Monday, 04 October 2010 at 03:42
Sadly this was premature. The Coalition will enact the EA provisions on positive action(aka positive discrimination) afeter all. These will be particularly helpful to get women "leapfroging" male colleagues in promotions. No doubt to achieve more women executives and Board members.
http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_act_2010.aspx
Posted by: Groan | Friday, 03 December 2010 at 21:52
Groan - to be fair they did slightly alter the language to "equally qualified" rather than the intentionally ambiguous New Labour "as qualified" terminology which would be even more open to abuse.
yes it's a very sexist law, but slightly less so than the one Harman and co wanted.
Posted by: John Kmble | Monday, 06 December 2010 at 06:23