Is being a member of a political party like the BNP compatible with the role of an HR professional? That, essentially, is the question the HR community is grappling with after it emerged a CIPD member was named as a British National Party activist "keen to help with resource management", on a leaked list.
Several HR directors contacted by Personnel Today insist the answer to the question is 'no' - and the institute must toughen up and be prepared to take action against members who hold such extreme views.
But others we spoke to stopped short of calling for the individual to be expelled as a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, and that freedom of political choice should not be curtailed.
We find ourselves right at the centre of a moral maze. While the overwhelming majority of people in this country abhor the BNP and its views, the fact remains it is a legitimate political party of which membership is not illegal.
Employers can't sack someone just for being a member (unless they are police or prison officer), and other public sector employees can only be disciplined if their affiliation interferes with their day-to-day job.
So apply these regulations to the HR profession and as long as the individual in question leaves their personal views at home - or outside the workplace - then there should not be a problem, right?
If only it were that simple. It's difficult to see how an activity like human resources can be properly and successfully carried out by someone whose views on the world are rooted in inequality and prejudice. As one HR director puts it: "Surely successful HR relies on objectivity and transparency in its processes, an informed understanding of the root causes of inequality and a commitment to redressing the balance?"
The answer is that there is no clear answer. Please email us your views at personneltoday@rbi.co.uk
Comments (3)
It isn't the membership that is an issue and it certainly should not be an issue. However I do think that it is not unreasonable to expect an HR professional to have to actively demonstrate that his/her affiliation with such an extremist though admittedly legitimate political party will not impact on his/her professionalism.
Posted by Miriam Binder | November 21, 2008 6:59 PM
Posted on November 21, 2008 18:59
Prejudice isn't confined to the BNP. You could make the same argument against Sinn Fein (prejudice against protestants) extreme Muslim groups (prejudice against non-Muslims and gay people) and the wilder evangelical Christian groups (prejudice against non-Christians and gay people).
That's not to mention the people who are not members of any organisation but are pejudiced anyway.
We have rules and disciplinary procedures to deal with people who discriminate illegally at work. If BNP members, or anyone else, behave in a racist way at work they can be fired.
But trying to discipline people for what they think rather than what they do takes us into dangerous territory.
Posted by Rick | November 24, 2008 12:47 PM
Posted on November 24, 2008 12:47
Well excuse me, but your article is riddled with prejudice about the BNP and your assumption that the policies of the present regime are right and fair are utterly wrong. The truth is that the BNP represents real equality, respecting every ethnic group's right to self-determination without foreign intervention and a homeland that is not occupied by foreigners.
Your assumption that BNP members must be "racist" is incorrect. We do not hate other ethnic groups for being different, nor arrogantly view ourselves as superior. Rather we see ourselves equal to others, as diverse people with diverse cultures, and this diversity must be preserved by establishing and respecting boundaries.
The pro-immigration stance of the other mainstream parties should be considered an extemist and irresponsible policy relative to the BNP's sensible and neutral zero-immigration policy. This is given the shortage of jobs in the present economic downturn, the housing shortage due to our population rising faster than we build homes, the uncertainty of our future energy supply from peak-oil, our dependence on food imports at a time of poor worldwide harvests, increasing threat from flooding and sea-level rise affecting millions in coastal and low-lying areas.
Immigrants have a choice of whether to live by our laws when they come here, but our future descendants wont have that choice once they become an ethnic minority in their own homeland.
Our opponents say we want to curtail freedom of speech. We have no such intention. On the contrary we encourage debate to uncover the truth, because the truth is that all the rumours they spread about us are malicious lies.
Our opponents see multicultural countries as a utopia. In reality countries that don't have one ethnic or religious group in a clear majority are inherently unstable as they vie for control. Take protestants v catholics in Northern Ireland, sunnis v shias in Iraq, arabs v. non arabs in Darfur just to mention a few. By supporting a pro-immigration party that is the future you are condemning this country to.
Posted by Russ | November 25, 2008 4:34 PM
Posted on November 25, 2008 16:34