Survey at work

[IamAporcupine]

We've been asked at work to fill in a survey aiming to evaluate how well hybrid working has worked and to see if it will be continued.

The first few questions were, as you'd expect, 'do you WFH/office/hybrid', 'how many days each', then something like 'how does your working pattern affect your productivity/environment/communication/inclusion (?)/ management/wellbeing/overall 'satisfaction'. Do you work full-time/part-time, type of job and and grade. All fine.

One question re caring/parental responsabilities.
One question re disability (phrased as 'do you identify as disabled?')

Then:
sex (3 options, including prefer not to say)
gender identity (5 options, including prefer not to say)
sexuality (9 options, including prefer not to say)
religion (if yes, 8 options)
ethnicity (19 options, including prefer not to say)

and...
"Are you trans or have a history of trans?"
(3 options, including prefer not to say)
(what does 'history of trans' even mean? I doubt they mean detransitioners....)

Why, oh why?
It is irrelevant and a waste of time for everyone involved.
How are they planning to analyse the results? "Black homosexuals work better from home but non-binary Christians with a history of trans prefer to come to the office'?

Also, what is wrong with 'do you have a disability'?
And, why am I asked if I have a religion, but I am assumed to have a gender identity?

It really irritates me.
Was tempted to post in AIBU

People with disability/disabilities are always entitled to workplace accommodations for their disability/disabilities. They don’t have to identify themselves as being “disabled” to be entitled.

People with disability/disabilities may also be entitled to certain disability benefits, depending on how the disability/disabilities affect their day to day living. They dont have to identify as “disabled” to be entitled.

Do you think that people who do identify as disabled but aren't should get benefits for disabled people? Benefits are linked to how the persons disability/disabilities affect their day to day living. They aren’t linked to whether or not they consider themself to be disabled.

Should companies be forced to ake adjustments for healthy-bodied people as if they had the disability that they claim to have? There’s no adjustment for an abled person that identifies themselves as “disabled” because adjustments are linked to disabilities. If a person claims to have a disability, once they have been referred by a GP for assessment at that point they are entitled to adjustments even if they do not yet have an official diagnosis.

A better question on disabilities would be: do you consider yourself to have a disability according to the disability discrimination act?

I am hard-of-hearing. I don't "identify as disabled", but I my disability does fall under the DDA, so I would answer "yes" to that question. It can be followed by a question about the disability, if someone wants to answer.

"Identify as", the more I think about it, is a strange turn of phrase. Perhaps I am stating the obvious, but historically "identity" has meant more about how a person is recognised by others. "He's the tall blonde one on reception; she's the lady at number 38; he's called John Smith; she belongs to the same religion as us; the burglar's identity is unknown". It feels like the meaning has been inverted to mean the way a person would like to see themselves, whether or not anyone else sees it or needs to know it. "Without identity, you're just a corpse", if you will.

Why not "I see myself as"? That way people can express themselves without the implication that this should override the perceptions of others or objective facts.

Anyway, to answer the actual question, those questions do all feel like overkill. If your company has no plan for how they will use the data (beyond just mulling it over), they are on thin ice really, since there is special category data in there which could be linked to an individual even when summarised (e.g. the black lesbian who only WFH on Thursdays).

Sounds suspiciously similar to a survey I did at my work.
Either we work for for same company. Or the HR departments have been infiltrated and brainwashed/ briefed on what to put in these questionnaires.

I think the young women working in HR genuinely think they are being nice and kind with all this.

Engage your brain though and you see through the utter bullshit.

How are they planning to analyse the results? "Black homosexuals work better from home but non-binary Christians with a history of trans prefer to come to the office'?

😂😂😂

@NoToLandfill
Sounds suspiciously similar to a survey I did at my work.
Either we work for for same company. Or the HR departments have been infiltrated and brainwashed/ briefed on what to put in these questionnaires.

Oh that's interesting - academia?

Hi definitely not academia. Wonder if it's stonewall recommended language. My company is definitely stonewalled

My work is too, but I had not seen it in action until recently (or I didn't realise...)

OP read the organisation maternity policy. If the word mother has been replaced repeatedly by the phrase 'birthing partner' then that's a cast iron guarantee you've been stonewalled.

Clearly as a pressure group they are very successful. What I don't understand is why they have been so successful. How come the Fawcett Society isn't listened to, when they represent half the entire population.

Thanks, I've just checked this and the word mother is still there!

That is a really interesting angle @SpringBadger