Equality and equal opportunities - Aibu?

[Tedp]

Perhaps a contentious issue, but for a change it doesn't feature Brexit or Boris. 🙈😂

Overnight I received an email from an organisation I'm a member of, advertising the next meeting and including both the proposed agenda and also details of elected office roles within the group which are currently vacant, inviting nominations.

What surprised me was that the vacancies are only open to those who identify as women. I must stress, I personally have no interest in being nominated for or elected to any of these offices, however I do strongly believe in equality and equal opportunities for all.

To my mind, a person's suitability for a role should be based on their competence, not on their gender. Surely we want the best person for the job, regardless of their gender, their religious beliefs, the colour of their skin or any other characteristic.

Can you imagine the uproar if an employer advertised job vacancies with the byline 'Women need not apply', or 'No people of colour'? This clearly wouldn't be acceptable, as all people have the same right to be considered for the same opportunities, and selection would of course be based on their experience, qualifications and performance at interview or assessment. So why should this not be true where other genders are excluded?

Positive discrimination can be just as dangerous as negative, and sets an unacceptable precedent that all people are not equal.

I will of course raise this at the meeting, and look forward to some robust debate on the matter. Just wanted to get it off my chest.

Don't worry, normal Brexit service and Boris Bashing will resume shortly. 😉

"Yup. When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like discrimination."

I think you need to look up equality in the dictionary. Any kind of discrimination is wrong. I would feel shitty if I got my job because of my genitals, not being the best person for the job.

The wording was that nominations for the 5 officer vacancies would only be accepted from individuals who self-identify as women.

This sort of weaselly bullshit makes me think it has to be Labour, Greens or the Libdrms.

Their deliberately chosen turn of phrase means they can hire a man for the job, but if he ticks the right "identity" box, BOOM, equality quotas are sorted.

One of the above (LD I think? Or was it Greens?) has openly said they will consider a team made up of 50% men and 50%transwomen to be equal men/women.

Positive discrimination is incredibly patronising.

Is it the Women's Equality Party?

It is lawful to only employ people with a specific protected characteristic where this is a genuine occupational requirement and where it is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim.

None of these sound like there is a genuine occupational requirement. Also, unless they are paid posts I'm not sure that exception applies anyway.

Most of the EA relevant to political parties falls under the rules for Associations - it is lawful to restrict membership of an association to people with a particular characteristic but it is not lawful to treat existing members differently.

There is a specific exception which allows political parties to have all women shortlists but this only applies to election candidates, not internal post filling.

So this doesn't sound legal to me. They could say something like, 'as women are underrepresented in our organisation we are particularly keen to encourage female applicants' but I don't think they can refuse male applicants if they are a mixed sex organisation.

(I am not even a pretend lawyer though)

Anyway the whole thing is BS because of the 'identify as' thing.

Go for it - tell them you're a woman and apply for everything

Ok, with that context it sounds like specifying all those nominations must be 'individuals who self-identify as women' is wrong.

I think you need to look up equality in the dictionary.

Not really, but just to humour you:

equality: 'the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.'

Well, in the U.K. women may now have equal rights in law, but if you believe that women have yet achieved equality in status and opportunities you need to look up some statistics. (Hopefully you can avoid being a worked example in 'When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like discrimination', which is quite often what happens when men weigh in on this.

Leigh Day, solicitors, are advertising for 6 black potential solicitors who did A levels in London and have good grades. That is another example. There has been debate in the legal press about whether that is lawful or not. I presume they would not let someone who self identified as black apply however.

Positive discrimination is generally unlawful, with specific exceptions (but then a function of characteristic necessary for a role rather than in the interests of equality, I think?). This seems to put it quite clearly

www.personneltoday.com/equality-diversity/discrimination/positive-discrimination-discrimination/

Positive action is legal:

www.xperthr.co.uk/faq/what-positive-action-is-permitted-under-discrimination-legislation/103008/

I'm absolutely not an expert in this field but it seems as though the appropriate approach might to be for nominations to be open to all, but with a statement that women are encouraged to apply. And in selection, merit should be used but if there are equally able candidates then it's ok to select the women over the men. (Or whatever protected characteristic has previously been underrepresented).
Does that sound about right?

Leigh Day, solicitors, are advertising for 6 black potential solicitors who did A levels in London and have good grades. That is another example. There has been debate in the legal press about whether that is lawful or not.

That's interesting, do you have a link? Are Leigh Day funding these roles themselves? It sounds like it might be a scheme funded by a charity or something.

I presume they would not let someone who self identified as black apply however.

I would no longer presume that. How is the ad worded?

Does that sound about right?

That's my understanding Errol. I'm not sure if that bit of the EA applies here though, because the post holders won't be employees they'll be (presumably unpaid) party officials.

I would be wholeheartedly behind you if the supposed policy of best person for the post, regardless, had ever worked in the past. We didn't exactly get to this point appointing people on merit, did we?

Without positive discrimination or requirements for balance it looks likely another century would have to pass before equality was achieved.

If only women are eligible to apply for posts this time, it's probably because only men have been appointed to the last umpteen posts. Time for the men to hold back, stop picking clones of themselves and be forced to look at the so far untapped pool of talent.

If they'd been fair in the past this wouldn't now be necessary, would it?

I would be wholeheartedly behind you if the supposed policy of best person for the post, regardless, had ever worked in the past. We didn't exactly get to this point appointing people on merit, did we?

The old maxim that a woman has to work twice as hard to be considered half as good...

Having applications only accepted from a group currently underrepresented is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim. Without such measures most apparently open-to-all opportunities just happen to go to white men. We need the scales to be balanced forcibly just for a couple of decades. Once the incumbent post holders have been properly balanced for a generation, it should start being self sustaining and such measures will no longer be needed.

If these posts are open to those who identify as women then men can apply anyway.

As a woman, as in adult human, I couldn’t apply as I am a woman. I do not identify as one.

On Leigh Day www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/firm-advertises-for-black-applicants-to-fill-demographic-gap/5101463.article Some of the comments below that article go into whether it is legal or not.

Thanks Xenia.

So these are apprenticeships and from glancing through the comments, it hinges on whether an apprenticeship should be considered training or recruitment - i.e. it's lawful to reserve training places for people with a particular protected characteristic but not to recruit only people with a particular PC (unless there's a genuine occupational requirement).

A test case would be useful to establish how apprenticeships should be treated under the EA.

• To add a little context now, the organisation in question is the local branch of a political party. The vacant positions are -

Treasurer
Youth Officer (x2)
Disability Officer
Older Persons Officer*

I suspect that means that all the other officers are men.

(Most likely the Labour Party which has a quota for 50% positions to be women. They will be vacant with a lack of women coming forward. The party has lost most of its activists due to them being driven out.)

Oops tangent.

Pencils, that is correct. It is an apprenticeship which over 5 years allows you to qualify as a solicitor ( if you pass all the exams). So as you say it may be lawful on those grounds. I did see someone posting there that was are all African which is true - we all came from there - so it is probably quite hard to work out who qualifies and who doesn't.

If an apprenticeship is training then presumably graduates taking on "training contracts" (wher eyou are paid for 2 years and work) or barristers pupillage under the current training regime could also come under the exception. I certainly remember years ago trainee solicitors were not employees inthe usual sense. In fact I still think you cannot sack them as easily as ordinary staff....looked it up - yes you need permission from the regulator to sack them - www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/firm-to-pay-price-of-trainee-sacking-/49072.article