My union: is there any point?

[teawamutu]

AGM of my branch coming up. They're pretty demented (collectively; pretty decent individually although captured by Be Kind) so I've never really done more than pay my dues.

But there's a motion to vote on at the AGM about supporting trans colleagues to use the facilities of their choice without any need for id documents or reference to birth sex.

I'd bet my mortgage that it will pass and I wouldn't trust them not to make me a target if I openly voted against - but with the backdrop of the Peggie tribunal and the EHRC intervention, this seems like they're actually going against the law as well as selling 50% of their members down the river.

Just for once I don't want to roll my eyes and back away slowly. But neither do I want to become another Sandie Peggie. I'm not brave enough.

Any ideas?

I think there's every point personally. Although I can completely understand why you feel trepidation about it. I'd be very surprised if you were the only person feeling the way you do, few are brave enough to voice it. I suspect if you did others would follow suit.

At the end of the day, allowing trans women into women's toilets and changing facilities in the workplace is in direct contravention of the law on workplace regulations. It's also deeply insensitive to women who cannot share facilities with men due to cultural or religious reasons. People need to voice their dissent. But then I'm now the age where being liked or popular isn't a priority for me anymore

Totally understand your concern. However could you turn it around. Due to NHS Fife 2 (probably more) employees are facing a very public ET. Does the union want their trans colleagues or any of their other members to end up in the same situation because of the decisions they make now? Would it not be humiliating for their trans colleagues (and other members) to have their private lives aired in public over this again? Not sure if you could put some sort of anonymous letter to someone raising your concerns.

These are both very good angles and I hadn't considered anonymous letters. I'll look into that.

Could you approach it from the angle that in light of the peggie case and statements from the echr, it would be prudent to delay the motion until the peggie case is concluded or legal advice has been sought.
So as not to put members in a potentially difficult situation?

Women silenced & living in fear that they will be castigated by saying how they feel. Exactly what the MRAs dreamed of.

I would suggest in your anonymous letter that you could ask if an impact assessment/risk assessment of removing single sex provision has been done - I believe a lack of one came up in the Fife case.

Yep i'd go in with the "oh but if Fife lose, this will be a minefield" and "due to the Fife thing people are noticing this kind of thing more and more, we need a 3rd space" angle.

Good luck!

I wouldn't trust them not to make me a target if I openly voted against

So this is a show of hands vote rather than an anonymous vote?

I'd be questioning that process too, given that it's such a controversial issue. I bet more people would vote against if it was anonymous. These organisations rely on people following the crowd.

Another VG point I will raise.

I feel you could say something about personal privacy concerns and the process being 'outing' in some way (I haven't thought that through entirely yet, but there must be something there)

I think there's a lot to be said for letters that aren't anonymous but also aren't public. We seem to have got in a position where people feel obliged to broadcast all their comms. That isn't always necessary.

A reasonable, measured letter shouldn't be something that is concerning to send. And one would assume that contents are unlikely to be shared beyond the recipients.

I would join Affinity Union and Free Speech Union before I did or said anything.

You want a Union which will actually do what Unions are meant to do and have your back.

Is there a mechanism for proposing amendments?

Could you propose an amendment which amends the motion to instruct your branch committee to call on your employer to review its policy on provision of, and access to, single sex and mixed sex toilet facilities, and undertake an Equality Impact Assessment which addresses the protected characteristics of age, disability, pregnancy and maternity, religion or belief and sex, to ensure the policy is both fully compliant with the relevant workplace H&S regulations relating to provision of toilet facilities for women and men and recognises the different lived experience and needs of various groups of staff and individuals.

I was going to make the same points as @LoobiJee. The EqIA is potentially a useful tool provided it is undertaken properly and not a box ticking exercise.

Haven't had time to find a more specific (ie toilets) but this letter to NHS Fife from the EHRC reminds them that equality isn't about putting one protected characteristic above another. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/equality-regulator-engages-scottish-government-and-nhs-fife-regarding-staff

ie because a TW wants to use the female (biological) toilets doesn't mean that women (protected characteristic of sex) can equally say they dont like it.

As a Union they shouldn't be prioritising one group over the other.

The should be ensuring that employers do proper consultation and come up with a solution that meets different needs ie single sex toilets and gender neutral toilets.

This shouldn't even be coming up as a demand any longer because the law has made it clear that employers have to give both set of "beliefs" equal value.

ie why is a union proposing a motion that is discrimonatory against women who want single sex toilets.

I wrote to a union about the changes that would be made if all the toilets went mixed sex. Namely their members with conditions like epilepsy, diabetes and heart conditions for which changing the standard work toilets I was used to with door gaps, to fully private cubicles (which follows from making them mixed sex) actually puts the workers more at risk and possibly breaks all sorts of health and safety rules. I also said it is awful for the working conditions of the poor cleaners who can’t now swill bleach and water round and put a mop into the cubicle without entering it. Particularly with norovirus bugs etc. as now the partitions and doors are down to the floor. And obviously the issue with women’s safety in an unseen private cubicle.

They didn’t reply. However I think it’s good if you can raise this to show how these changes affect everyone practically in the workplace. Most people will know someone with a heart condition or has had a stroke. If you relate it back to the individual people start to realise how these changes that they didn’t think affected them could actually be serious.
Door gaps are a bit like seat belts. Better to have them. Mixed sex toilet designs don’t.