First 'chat with HR'

[Iwasonlytryingtohelp]

I mentioned LGB Alliance in a conf call (HR director asked for input on which diversity and inclusion external groups to engage with). Someone stated it was a transphobic organisation, so I just said I was happy to discuss off line. Today I have been approached by my HR business partner 'to chat'.

What type of links are HR asking for/do you want to provide exactly? Is it simply ones that support LGBA? Or that critique Stonewall etc?

LGBA have a page themselves, which has various links : lgballiance.org.uk/myths/

I appreciate this may not be independent enough. Although one of the links is re sex being observed and recorded at birth. Not assigned.

www.nhs.uk/pregnancy/your-pregnancy-care/20-week-scan/

Some other links are included here, though I’ve not clicked through: www.essex.ac.uk/blog/posts/2021/05/17/review-of-two-events-with-external-speakers

Just evidence to back up my assertion that Stonewall have misrepresented the law. So the link to personnel today will do I think, and the charity commission one.

There is also the EHRC, but cant find a statement from them.

This is a BBC news story www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57219989 - but in lne with the Liz Truss value for money.

Well done by the way OP!

I think the Personnel Today article is the best btw for your purposes.

It sounds like you are being informally investigated. Do be sure to follow up the meeting with a summary of what was said and retrospectively ask for confirmation of the nature of the meeting.

There's a cracking article in the Times Law section today on Stonewall. There is a share token on a thread somewhere on here if you don't have a subscription.

Still feeling anxious. Email done. Majored on the business benefit and potential risks of taking advice from a biased lobbying organisation.

Here you go in case you need it

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3cd95f0a-c3ac-11eb-8601-6a2ece3e4634?shareToken=a20205efc4e9175855d4451d7162d1cb

@eurochick

There's a cracking article in the Times Law section today on Stonewall. There is a share token on a thread somewhere on here if you don't have a subscription.

Is this the piece you mean?

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/critics-call-for-law-firms-to-quit-stonewall-bq82xf69j?shareToken=68bcb8e9e1609ebbe91317228eb26408

Why does the company need to 'align itself' with anyone in the first place?

The other thing is the trustees of lgba. They have just announced 5 new trustees. They include Prof Robert wintermute, a human rights law academic. He was one of the signatories of the yogyakarta principles. Others are a labour peer, kathleen stock the philosophy Prof, and others from the media. OBE, Prof, Lord. They are respectable ppl in their fields. It sounds like you have covered everything already.

Thanks all. That might be the last I say on the subject at work. I am better suited to more private action I think, emailing MPs and the like. This is too stressful and I am kicking myself for raising my head above the parapet in that way.

@Iwasonlytryingtohelp

Thanks all. That might be the last I say on the subject at work. I am better suited to more private action I think, emailing MPs and the like. This is too stressful and I am kicking myself for raising my head above the parapet in that way.

I can understand how you feel. But, bugger me, I'm beyond incensed that once again, women have to feel terrified for speaking out.

Based on what you've written it sounds really well received? We can't ever assume HR are up to speed and you provided them with really valuable input and up to date information. Well done.

@Iwasonlytryingtohelp

Thanks all. That might be the last I say on the subject at work. I am better suited to more private action I think, emailing MPs and the like. This is too stressful and I am kicking myself for raising my head above the parapet in that way.

Don't kick yourself for it. Make a note in your journal of exactly what happened. Consider sending a note to HR letting them know that you are feeling uncomfortable for mentioning a sexual orientation organisation given that sexual orientation is a protected characteristic and that you were not clearly told why HR was asking to speak with you about this. You need an audit trail and you need to make absolutely sure that your concerns are raised in writing. Don't kick yourself, channel your anger to make sure you protect yourself. You can do this!

You did brilliantly OP, well done. You have inspired me to get on with writing to my HR people to ask them to amend their very muddled Equalities Policy Guidance which has Stonewall written all over it.

@Iwasonlytryingtohelp

Thanks all. That might be the last I say on the subject at work. I am better suited to more private action I think, emailing MPs and the like. This is too stressful and I am kicking myself for raising my head above the parapet in that way.

And yet by speaking up, you might have prevented reputational harm at some unknown point in the future.

Employers keep saying that they want the whole authentic employee to turn up at work and provide a diversity of perspectives - and then they behave in a way that actively prevents it.

Well done Op sounds like you handled it brilliantly

OP, you've done brilliantly and nothing you've said is even slightly wrong.

Perhaps it is worth making it clear that there are two completely different aspects to speech / free speech -

(1) The ability to have a sensible debate in meetings and when talking with HR about how the company should deal with the issues.

and

(2) Your commitment (I expect and presume) to treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect and in accordance with both the law and company policies.

The former cannot be allowed to be confused with the latter.

Also... good on you OP. From what you've said it sounds more like they want to learn and make good decisions, and less about investigating you.

Well done OP - I think you did brilliantly. The only thing that I would add is that one of things about general equality duty and the EA is to:
"Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not"
This is also highlighted as one of the issues in the Essex University case and in a wider sense to the issues relating to 'no debate' that seem to have infiltrated organisations. My interpretation is that all people should be able to share and question policies in a respectful and useful way without fear. This also leads onto another point made on the Essex report that people who hold GC views are far more likely to be women and if they are not able to air their views (albeit, in a respectable and polite way) then this can be construed as indirect discrimination.

LGB Alliance have just recently been granted charity status so have very recently been thoroughly scrutinised
Stonewall have recently: been reported as having given misleading advice - advising on what they'd like the law to be, rather than on what it is; been dropped by EHRC amongst others and the Equalities minister is calling for government departments to leave their Diversity Champion schemes

Suggesting LGB Alliance seems the more logical choice

As a long time poster here I just want to comment on the feminist attitude to women working in HR. HR is one of the most successful and influential professional services careers women have, we dominate the profession.

Without fail this board talks about women in HR with utter contempt and loathing.

Without fail this board talks about women in HR with utter contempt and loathing.

And why is that, I wonder?

Many women here have been utterly shafted by HR departments.