Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

"focus on EDI has led to bloating non-jobs in HR"

28 replies

IwantToRetire · 25/02/2026 19:42

Countering the rise of EDI in the workplace

The number of people working in HR roles increased by 83% between
2011 and 2023.19 This growth significantly outpaced the overall growth of people in employment, which increased by only 13.5% over a similar period

‘This detailed new report by Policy Exchange demonstrates how a wide array of pressures - from government regulation, to activist groups, to staff networks - have been hijacked to undermine business autonomy and impose burdensome EDI obligations across whole sectors. It sets out with precision the legislative reforms that will be needed to curb the worst excesses of this burden and free up businesses to deliver growth.

https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/putting-business-back-in-the-driving-seat/

(Personally I don think there had been an organised move to undermine business autonomy, but do wonder how this aspect of employment has ballooned - see graph below)

"focus on EDI has led to bloating non-jobs in HR"
OP posts:
HildegardP · 25/02/2026 19:54

AFAICS, the chief result of EDI has been to accelerate the promotion of a lot of privately-schooled individuals who've been to Oxbridge & the upper echelons of the Russell Group, but who happen to be from minority ethnic groups.

It's only funny that the foreword of that report was penned by one of the incompetent ninnies who for 14 years allowed the Civil Service, NHS, & others to outsource core functions like training to external campaign groups & "consultants".

Igmum · 25/02/2026 22:16

Haven’t read the report yet but from the introduction it looks as though they’re conflating a number of things - some internal, some regulatory.

Interesting to see this massive growth. Suspect a decline is fast approaching. Unfortunately many of the things EDI was set up to achieve are still desperately needed (equal rights for women in work anyone?) but the whole agenda has been so thoroughly captured I can’t see it being rescued.

HildegardP · 25/02/2026 23:04

Igmum · 25/02/2026 22:16

Haven’t read the report yet but from the introduction it looks as though they’re conflating a number of things - some internal, some regulatory.

Interesting to see this massive growth. Suspect a decline is fast approaching. Unfortunately many of the things EDI was set up to achieve are still desperately needed (equal rights for women in work anyone?) but the whole agenda has been so thoroughly captured I can’t see it being rescued.

Do you follow Tonya de Grunwald's This Isn't Working podcast? The back catalogue of interviews is interesting & she prompted me to look a bit more at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, which appears to be in receipt of rather a lot of money in return for old rope. I wonder if we'd be in this mess if the CIPD hadn't let its head be turned by mere fashion.

ThatZanyFatball · 25/02/2026 23:09

Here in the US, I don't think DEI was intended to curb business autonomy. Quite the opposite in fact. I'll give you a (sorry, lengthy) example.

Back in, oh probably around 2018 (so right in the depths of DEI), my supervisor offered me the "opportunity" to spend a day at a "women's leadership retreat." Now, they didn't pay a penny for me to go to this it was being offered for free (more on that later) but they're "letting" me take the day off to attend this "valuable professional development opportunity" and since many other women from my company were attending as well, well let's just say I didn't feel had much choice in the matter.

So I dropped my kid off at daycare early (which cost me), made the over-an-hour drive in major traffic to this "retreat." And low and behold, the reason it was "free" was bc it was being facilitated by some new app company. I'm not even sure if they're still in business it was basically LinkedIn but specific to our industry. I sat thru the talks, participated in the group exercises, talked about the reading list that was filled with books like Lean In, and listened to all the other women bloviate about how they're so overwhelmed and so powerless, yet most of the were in a managerial position and never once recognized the power they had to set the tone of or speak up on behalf of their team.

Then the 2 keynote speakers ended the day. They were both women from "historically underprivileged backgrounds", one was the first-ever VP of DEI at a local university and the other was, I s**t you not, a MacArthur fellow. They gave their speeches about feminism and power and yada yada yada and, just they were finishing up I meekly raised my hand and asked, "if we're really talking about eliminating inequality, what are your thoughts on requiring employers to list salary ranges on job listings? We know that keeping salary ranges confidential is probably the #1 reason why salary inequity persists between the sexes. Wouldn't making that legally required simply eliminate the issue altogether?"

There was a slight pause, then the DEI VP went on to talk about how they don't want to lose any quality candidates by listing the salary range, "salary is just one part of an overall compensation package." And then the MacArthur Fellow, who literally was awarded a $1mil grant for all her work in "equity" quickly explained how women need to learn to be better advocates for themselves and, she literally said this exact phrase, "learn to negotiate like a man." My jaw literally hit the floor.

the hosts quickly ended things before I could prod further, so i made the traffic-riddled hour-long drive home, had a late dinner, went to work the next day, got side eye from my supervisor when I dared to submit my mileage for reimbursement bc "the day off and opportunity was so valuable in itself," then had to work thru lunch and several hours late to make up all the work I missed the day before - something my MALE counterparts didn't have to do.

Speaking of my male counterpart, years later I discovered that, even tho he was so incompetent he was eventually fired, he was making significantly more than me. And when he got fired, rather than fill his position they just spread his work out to others, self included, without a penny extra in wages.

DEI exists to maintain inequality, not eliminate it. Businesses literally use it as a smoke screen to make it look like they want to break down barriers when in reality they're building them even thicker in other ways. Just look at the rise in the wage gap between executives and entry/mid level workers. Does it matter that the people who are keeping you perpetually underpaid or underemployed are women, trans, or people of color? Bc that's literally all DEI is about, opening up opportunities for more types of people to become oppressive a holes and corporate shills.

UtopiaPlanitia · 25/02/2026 23:33

HR in the 00s was big on promoting the idea of cultivating the best organisational culture and I remember countless articles in the Harvard business magazine extolling the positive results of hiring people from diverse backgrounds because their experience would benefit your organisation’s culture, innovation and resilience.

They meant diversity of viewpoints resulting from candidates with a variety of life experiences but somehow the EDI consultancy machine ignored that aspect and just went for tick box superficial diversity instead and thus we were condemned to corporate groupthink but done in a united colours of Benetton way.

PrizedPickledPopcorn · 25/02/2026 23:44

It’s laughable. The aim is laudable and I agree with and approve of diversity- the broader the input, the more comprehensive and accurate the output.

However, somehow we have ended up with people employed to cheerlead- talk, publish, prance and wave flags about, rather than being productive.

matresense · 26/02/2026 00:08

I worked at a medium sized city organisation for a decade until recently. When I joined, the HR function was about 4 people and the lunchtime talks were about pensions/benefits etc and specific knowledge/development things. When I left, there was a team of at least 12 and there was all sorts of stuff going on all the time, some optional, some mandatory - I found it quite overwhelming and intrusive that my employer thought that I would want to go to some of these talks. One of them was about parenting trans kids - no one giving this talk was even remotely medically trained or qualified beyond activism, so it was a massive overreach beyond being a massive waste of work time. Do people want to go to talks about the menopause with their colleagues, or just have an accessible menopause policy that they can discuss with manager/HR if needed? Genuinely interested (I’m Peri and the idea of sitting in a room discussing this in a group situation fills me with dread!). When asked about the programme in my exit interview, I said I didn’t feel any of it was really aimed at me but if others found it helpful that is great, but I often wish I’d said what I really thought!

IwantToRetire · 26/02/2026 00:56

As I said in the OP I certainly dont think it is a plot to hamper business, but am really interested to know why so many businesses, universities and nhs, all seem to have allowed this growth.

On one way I would be more interested if there was research into whether the organisations themselves, and more importantly their employees experienced any benefits.

Having policies and some method of measuring to ensure that institutional and social biases (discrimination) dont influence a work place bear no relationship (IMO) with what seems to happen now.

And certainly didn't help women's equality when Stonewall ran unchecked through so many institutions helping implement anti woman policies.

OP posts:
hholiday · 26/02/2026 03:15

Is there an increased risk of companies facing discrimination-based legal action now? Is increasing HR a kind of defence mechanism against that? Just a guess, but we know there has been a sharp rise in disability prevalence in the UK, not to mention people claiming various identities, that might mean companies see HR as a means of protecting themselves against issues that might arise from that. As we know from various posters on this board, it doesn't always work.

GallantKumquat · 26/02/2026 06:38

IwantToRetire · 25/02/2026 19:42

Countering the rise of EDI in the workplace

The number of people working in HR roles increased by 83% between
2011 and 2023.19 This growth significantly outpaced the overall growth of people in employment, which increased by only 13.5% over a similar period

‘This detailed new report by Policy Exchange demonstrates how a wide array of pressures - from government regulation, to activist groups, to staff networks - have been hijacked to undermine business autonomy and impose burdensome EDI obligations across whole sectors. It sets out with precision the legislative reforms that will be needed to curb the worst excesses of this burden and free up businesses to deliver growth.

https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/putting-business-back-in-the-driving-seat/

(Personally I don think there had been an organised move to undermine business autonomy, but do wonder how this aspect of employment has ballooned - see graph below)

<On second thought, I probably don't have much useful to add to the conversation here. So, deleting my post>

Igmum · 26/02/2026 06:41

HildegardP · 25/02/2026 23:04

Do you follow Tonya de Grunwald's This Isn't Working podcast? The back catalogue of interviews is interesting & she prompted me to look a bit more at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, which appears to be in receipt of rather a lot of money in return for old rope. I wonder if we'd be in this mess if the CIPD hadn't let its head be turned by mere fashion.

Yes, I've listened to all of her podcasts and the CIPD is definitely an issue, even delivering legally incorrect training after the SC judgement. That may be a self-correcting problem since (quite separately to anything EDI) the CIPD is on its knees after an unsuccessful attempt to expand internationally (hot tip, if you want to do this, don't start with the expensive buildings). There were a fair few redundancies there last year and Peter Cheese is due to step down this summer. Don't know if that will make a difference or not. One of the trans trainers was certainly good friends with Peter Cheese, but I suspect the rot goes deep and the CIPD shrinking won't make much difference here.

Overtheatlantic · 26/02/2026 06:56

A couple of questions :1) Do those numbers have anything to do with the development of employment laws and the HR profession itself growing and developing as a result? 2) Was this thread created by a MAGA/Farage supporter, because it comes across as sneering at EDI efforts made by businesses.

Glamoureader · 26/02/2026 07:59

I work in an NHS hospital. We have an 'equalities manager '. When asked about access issues for patients with disabilities they said they couldn't help as their only remit was trans employees!!!

I asked them once how many trans employees were have, they said they didn't know 🙄 I have no idea what this person does for 37.5 hours per week.

AnonyLonnymouse · 26/02/2026 09:30

I work with a sector that is almost entirely staffed by low-paid female workers, often on part-time or zero hours contracts. Very few men want to go into this sector. One of the largest organisations recently appointed a director-level head of DEI, who was of course a gay man (he said so in his welcome interview). He obviously increases diversity, by being entirely un-representative of the vast majority of the workforce!

TwoLoonsAndASprout · 26/02/2026 09:48

Glamoureader · 26/02/2026 07:59

I work in an NHS hospital. We have an 'equalities manager '. When asked about access issues for patients with disabilities they said they couldn't help as their only remit was trans employees!!!

I asked them once how many trans employees were have, they said they didn't know 🙄 I have no idea what this person does for 37.5 hours per week.

Have you been in touch with SEEN in Health? I suspect they might like to hear about this.

Barrellturn · 26/02/2026 09:56

The problem isn't edi. We need edi because it does shed light on issues around equality and equity. The pay gap, women's career advancement, flexible working rights etc. Unfortunately the way some organisations have implemented edi has been very poor.

In fact one of the key issues is they aren't integrated into hr enough. Edi shouldn't be a separate function it should be embedded into every role. If you're in charge of recruitment you should be thinking about how disabled candidates can access the assessments for example, you shouldn't need a separate edi team to step in and try and alter your process retrospectively.

One challenge is that it isn't a recognized profession so any activist can decide to become and edi specialist when we really need people with a strong hr background and good knowledge of the equality act and employment law.

Glamoureader · 26/02/2026 10:34

TwoLoonsAndASprout · 26/02/2026 09:48

Have you been in touch with SEEN in Health? I suspect they might like to hear about this.

Thanks I hadn't thought about contacting SEEN in Health, am I a member so will do that x

Dragonasaurus · 26/02/2026 11:17

I think the negative impact on businesses (and maybe even the nhs and education) is a feature not a bug. Remember, ‘queering everything’ is essentially an anarchist agenda.

While recognising that this is straying into conspiracy-land, and would require more coordination than it is reasonable to assume, if eg the Russian state wanted to find a way to leverage the culture and permissiveness of the ‘bloated west’ against itself, this is (and has proved itself to be) a pretty good vehicle

Dragonasaurus · 26/02/2026 11:20

GallantKumquat · 26/02/2026 06:38

<On second thought, I probably don't have much useful to add to the conversation here. So, deleting my post>

Edited

I think you do have something useful to add - excellent post

CousinBette · 26/02/2026 11:25

@ThatZanyFatball great post, thank you

NotInMyyName · 26/02/2026 12:11

Ive posted this in another thread but here is a link to the latest podcast by senior HR leaders (I can also recommend Tayna De G). Ive not remembered all the points made but it was good to hear that there ARE critical voices on the DEI syllabus.

I’ve worked in public and private sector, including big multinationals and remember the days before enforced team building away days (I hated them) and unconscious bias training etc etc. I was happy to support LGB initiatives but was oblivious to the real trans agenda.

None of it made any difference in how I delivered my role or got on with my colleagues. And this podcast articulates this well. Its a bit long and one of the speakers has poor enunciation which I found v annoying but Im going to re listen. Its worth your time.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/this-isnt-working/id1733064272?i=1000751233294
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/this-isnt-working/id1733064272?i=1000751233294

NotInMyyName · 26/02/2026 12:12

thishttps://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/this-isnt-working/id1733064272?i=1000751233294

With a proper link …

My efforts to provide a link don't always work. Apologies.

ScholesPanda · 26/02/2026 12:26

I quickly read the summary link in the OP and the recommendations. Funnily enough the top recommendation isn't about DEI for LGBT or trans people. It does mention tightening the criteria around equal pay claims. Funnily enough Robert Kendrick alluded to similar in his recent speech as Reform's Treasury Spokesman.

I work with HR a lot, and this has definitely been a growth area- a lot of money is spent on job weighting and evaluation, there are whole companies specialising in this now, and selling their models and services. Ironically it has attracted more men into the profession, as it involves a lot of maths and computer modelling.

I suspect this will be the biggest proposed change, moving away from this model to one based more on direct comparison. So it will remain illegal to pay a female refuse collector less than a male refuse collector; but probably be easier to pay a care worker less than a refuse collector.

HildegardP · 26/02/2026 19:09

hholiday · 26/02/2026 03:15

Is there an increased risk of companies facing discrimination-based legal action now? Is increasing HR a kind of defence mechanism against that? Just a guess, but we know there has been a sharp rise in disability prevalence in the UK, not to mention people claiming various identities, that might mean companies see HR as a means of protecting themselves against issues that might arise from that. As we know from various posters on this board, it doesn't always work.

Not really, the bloat seems to have been driven more by bourgeois fashion than anything else. When you have EDI workers like Isla Bumba determining policy with no clue what the relevant laws might be, no apparent notion that such laws might exist, & relying on a combination of "let's ask Google" & "I wonder what other Trusts are up to?" in place of adequate knowledge or research, you are definitely not driven by the desire to avoid legal jeopardy.