Equality Bill

In response to an Editorial published by the Guardian Newspaper, entitled: “Equally ambitious”.

 

Harriet Harman is right in bringing forward measures in equalising pay for equal work, but there are complications in how the Bill might be implemented in practice.

In principle, it is correct to pay one person the same as the other for the same work, irrespective of sex, colour, age or religious affiliation. Such discrimination, where it can be proved, is, and should be given added clarity in being illegal.

Such an attitude towards equality at work, however, soon becomes vague when, for instance, one starts to consider the model of ‘equal representation’. Such a concept looks at the interests of group equality, as well as the interests of the individual. Equal-representation appears to run against the spirit by which this Bill is intended to deliver. For example, it could, quite clearly lead to an explosion of bureaucracy and cost, towards injustice and inequality because of how certain insurance policies might need to be removed altogether. The Bill has wider ramifications than just merely standardising pay in the workplace; it goes deep into the trenches in an attempt to remove gender and age discrimination, in quite broad terms.

If we look back at the Equal Pay Act of 1970 there is certainly room for improving a Bill that is so antiquated that one wonders why it has taken so long to amend that Bill given race and commissioning bodies already in place. Despite the 1970 Act there are still persistent and incontrovertible inequalities at work. Employment tribunals often expose and highlight gender differences in pay.

Underlying a great part of the new Bill is a presumption that will allow employers to discriminate in favour of women, ethnic minorities and disabled people against equally qualified ‘white men’. Institutionalised inequality against men could well have unintended consequences. The law as amended will force public sector employers to reveal what they pay people, to explain what they are doing in closing the gender gap and how opportunities will be afforded to ethnic minorities and disabled people. Employers will be free in taking such “positive action” in achieving a “better balance”.

What of the unexamined assumption that equality must be connected with representation? For example, if a certain percentage of policewomen are not Muslims, does that of itself imply they have been discriminated against? Why is there an assumption that because women might earn less over their lifetime or by being underrepresented in holding senior positions, that also amounts to being discriminated against? Clearly, it might not mean that at all.

Assumptions are an important facet within the new equality bill. But, they can be irrational. Women and men make different choices throughout the course of their careers, sometimes for altruistic reasons: women often choose to work less, emphasising the importance of a mother in balancing the life-work ethic. Many women would like less responsibilities than one would predict given their abilities or, as in many instances, many women have other priorities.

It is known that women move in and out of jobs more frequently than men. Women often devote time to their families, losing time at work in developing skills, experience and contacts. In many areas of society and work this makes them less valuable as employees, with the result that an in an equal market they might earn less.

Whilst equality of pay would likely work well within the unskilled and semi-skilled sectors, there is a general concern emerging that inequality for men might just become too institutionalised.

 

© Mark Dowe 2008: all rights protected

 

Reference:

 Guardian Editorial, 30 June 2008: “Equally ambitious”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/30/equality.gender