FCA Diversity consultation

[Nojobforoldmums]

Not sure if anyone has seen this
www.fca.org.uk/publications/consultation-papers/cp21-24-diversity-inclusion-company-boards-executive-committees

References to gender, may or may not be intended to mean sex. Is this on the radar of the usual groups to ensure monitoring sex doesn't get dropped in favour of gender identity?

Apologies for a plop and run thread.

Yes I can imagine. There's a reason that this is the focus of most diversity activity at the moment. It's easy, lazy, box ticking.

Have you read the research the FCA and partners have published? It's linked in the opening post.

I don't think it's reasonable to dismiss that work as an output of lazy box ticking.

Watch those goalposts move! Quick! Move from evidence of sex discrimination on boards generally to 'give me details of a specific individual's case against the FCA...'

@Tibtom

Watch those goalposts move! Quick! Move from evidence of sex discrimination on boards generally to 'give me details of a specific individual's case against the FCA...'

Haha. The thread is about the FCA consultation! To clarify I'm asking for the specific claim against the FCA proposal.

Come on @Tibtom

You have told everyone how embarrassing I am for not knowing, so we can assume you have read all the FCA analysis and Equality Impact Analysis and have a crystal clear explanation ready for everyone to read......

@Pretaxanger

Is that an explanation of how an employee record prevents cancer deaths?

Walk us through the steps, or it's another far fetched claim.

Erm!

Sorry mate, but that's unhinged!

As I said, in the same post as the little bit you quoted, look out beyond your navel.

Why is it unhinged?

This thread is about the FCA consultation, I've talked about employee records and how the FCA regulation is simply reflective of the organisations in scope for the monitoring.

I haven't once extrapolated that to be an identical need or scenario in patient records.

I understand that data collection is different in different circumstances, and this is something that I'm pointing out here.

An Equality Impact Analysis is not identical for every policy for every sector.

Your post was the equivalent of "people will die", which is obviously not the case in the monitoring proposal from the FCA.

Wider context.

You don't control the thread

Wider context.

Post was about a real headline, a real person.

Wider context

Is that an explanation of how an employee record prevents cancer deaths? is ludicrous

Wider context

If you are expecting the "wider context" to dictate that any equality impact assessment should conclude that trans people are always obligated to be referred in a certain way you are on a hiding to nothing.

My interest is where it does matter.

The goal of increasing women's exec committee and board representation by 20% of 10,000 people, so from 2,000 to 4,000 might end up counting 100 people who are non binary and 100 people who have changed their ID. That's likely a huge overestimate.

Are you really so sure that they must be disallowed their existing employee data classification? Is that proportionate?

My interest is where it does matter. As is mine.

And I see this from the FCA as a small part of a wider issue.

I won't be distracted, forced into a pigeonhole by a single poster who seems to think other posters here lack intellect.

That 'hiding to nothing' is the dismantling of the EA2010,; SW et al 'getting ahead of the law' and managing to do via SM and lobbying what has not been done in law - the removal of sex as a protected characteristic, focussing on the removal of all single sex provisions.

I don't particularly care that you don't see it. I suspect you have no skin in this 'game'!

I do have skin in the game, I am a RemCo board advisor in Financial Services. I'm the employee you expect to re-categorise people against their wishes in the reporting submissions that go to boards for approval before submissions. I'm in the board meetings with them. I won't do it and the FCA won't tell us too.

And I see this from the FCA as a small part of a wider issue.

I won't be distracted, forced into a pigeonhole by a single poster who seems to think other posters here lack intellect.

That 'hiding to nothing' is the dismantling of the EA2010,; SW et al 'getting ahead of the law' and managing to do via SM and lobbying what has not been done in law - the removal of sex as a protected characteristic, focussing on the removal of all single sex provisions.

I don't particularly care that you don't see it.

Indeed. This Stonewall ideological capture is far wider than the FCA. The FCA is merely a government quango and they will have to do what they are told by a court or central government if there was a legal issue such as the situation with the ONS.

@Pretaxanger

I do have skin in the game, I am a RemCo board advisor in Financial Services. I'm the employee you expect to re-categorise people against their wishes in the reporting submissions that go to boards for approval before submissions. I'm in the board meetings with them. I won't do it and the FCA won't tell us too.

Recategorise people against their wishes?

Do mean record their sex accurately?

What other factual information do you think people should be able to change without limit?

*Do you mean…

This is an interesting thread from Rebecca Bull, one of the lawyers from Legal Feminist:

https://twitter.com/RebeccaMKBull/status/1234832700781088769?s=20

Another employment solicitor also makes the same point as below:

I’ve told people about this section before. It drives a coach and horses through gender pay gap reporting as it allows well paid men to self ID as women to warp the figures.

https://twitter.com/simonajrobinson/status/1236206615147286530?s=20

What other factual information do you think people should be able to change without limit?

I asked this poster that, but just got special pleading in response. Oh the poor trans people being "recategorised" against their will! It truly is the civil rights issue of our time.

I'm the employee you expect to re-categorise people against their wishes

Does this work in tax generally? Do you have to obey people's wishes for tax categorisation? If someone says something is a valid business expense, you have to accept it?

Submitting false reports in order to protect the feelings of men.

Can't see an issue with this at all...

I know what Rebecca says. She's a solicitor working in equality, she doesn't do gender pay gap reporting and she doesn't understand how unwarped the figures are. The calculation is based on the median employees not the average of all salaries.

She's wrong.

People can request their non binary salary is not included. Their shout.

Thanks for your opinion, but I'll make my own mind up. She's an equality solicitor so the EA is her speciality, unlike other people. And the male employment solicitor, Simon, made a similar point.

@NecessaryScene

I'm the employee you expect to re-categorise people against their wishes

Does this work in tax generally? Do you have to obey people's wishes for tax categorisation? If someone says something is a valid business expense, you have to accept it?

Haha.

So, when am I going to see the legal argument for a claim of "inadvertently discriminating" (quoting a pp) in the FCA proposals?

@Tibtom

Submitting false reports in order to protect the feelings of men.

Can't see an issue with this at all...

Neither can the FCA.

They are both wrong. Neither of them have ever submitted a pay gap report.

It's a valid question. Do we think just saying what we personally want about stuff should be a general principle in all areas of life? It sounds like the FCA has been thoroughly Stonewalled.

Neither of them have ever submitted a pay gap report.

And you don't appear to be a legal expert on the Equality Act and the legality and impact of creating a supposed E&D category which doesn't map to it. So there we go.