Editors Blog

Earlier this week I visited the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) offices in central London to interview Jenny Watson before she sets off into the Outback sunset next week.

It can of escaped no HR professional's attention that the EOC is being wound up at the end of September to make way for the all-encompassing Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR).

What's in a name? Quite a lot apparently. The new all powerful equalities body starts work today, replacing the three long standing commissions.

What we thought was going to be called the Commission for Equality and Human Rights is, in fact, going to be named the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Why the last minute change you may ask? Why was nobody told about the name tweaking until the commission sent out press information yesterday (Sunday).

The debate on whether diversity should be taken out of human resources was taken one step further at the Employers Forum on Age awards lunch yesterday.

Now HR practitioners are calling for, wait for it... HR to be taken out of HR.

The subject came up when HR and diversity senior managers were discussing how HR can be seen as being more 'in tune' with business-wide concerns, rather than being accused of having a narrow vision.

HR should be taken out of HR, to give it more credibility and equal weight with core business functions such as IT and finance, according to one equality manager.

Britain's first Muslim minister, Shahid Malik, was detained and searched by airport security in the US.

The international development minister was searched at an airport in Washington DC, ironically after a meeting aimed at tackling terrorism.

Malik said he endured a similar experience at JFK airport in New York last year, again after an invitation as a keynote speaker to talk about tackling extremism and defeating terrorism.

"I am deeply disappointed," he said, adding that British ministers and parliamentarians should be afforded the same respect and dignity in the US as Britain bestows upon members of the Senate and Congress.

"Obviously, there was no malice involved but it has to be said that the US system does not inspire confidence," Malik said.

England women's footballers were fuming last week over a poultry £40 a day allowance allotted to them by the Football Association for the five weeks that they were at the World Cup in China in September.

The team reached the quarter-finals, but players believe they are struggling to retain their fitness levels because they now have to work extra hours to claw back wages lost from their jobs.

“Two months back from China, people are still working to recoup the money,” said Chelsea striker Eniola Aluko.

It's World AIDS Day tomorrow and the TUC is launching a campaign to combat the discrimination and stigma that accompanies infection.

Alongside the global pandemic, 70,000 people are now HIV positive in the UK. In that light the TUC said the workplace was a "key battleground" because HIV is suffered disproportionately by people of working age.

And although discrimination on grounds of HIV infection is illegal under the Disability Discrimination Act - many people living with HIV face unfair treatment at work, according to the TUC.

A recent survey found that majority of workers living with HIV still felt unable to tell their employer about their condition, despite increased legal protection.

A 2005 revision to the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) extended protection to employees living with HIV from when they are first diagnosed. However 84% of non-white gay men living with HIV who responded to the survey said they did not feel able to tell their employers about their condition.

A new GMB analysis of pay by occupation reveals that directors and chief executives of major organisations took home an average annual salary of £214,000, up 714% from a UK average of £29,999 for full time staff.

The union found that brokers on £101,627 or 339% of the UK average are next on the list, followed by financial managers and chartered secretaries on £84,063 and medical practitioners with £78,882.

Senior officers in national government took home an average of £69,404 followed aircraft pilots, who obviously need to afford the leather jackets, Porsche, and Ray-Bans that comes with looking cool.

The lowest paid job in the country (341st position) were waiters and waitresses on £11,303, followed by school midday assistants on £11,439.

And somewhere in the middle, earning around the UK average of £29,999, include storage and warehouse managers, rail construction and maintenance operatives, engineering technicians and researchers.

I was quite un-moved at first when I read that the new Equalities Commission had formerly issued a statement, together with a range of leading faith figures, that it's OK to celebrate Christmas. And, more to the point, it's OK to celebrate Christianity.

Well, obviously, I thought. But then it took me just seconds to remember the plethora of stories hitting the papers that nativity plays have been banned from nearly half of England's schools; that only one in ten of Christmas cards sold in the UK have the word "Christmas" in them; and that Birmingham City Council, in a PC panic back in 1998 decided to re-name Christmas 'Winterval' so as not to offend anybody.

Britain's employers too are scared of putting up decorations for fear they will leave out those non-Christian employees.

The taboo of Christmas - and Christianity - does seem to be growing: and finally, a formal commission has spoken out about it.

The creation of a new body representing equality and diversity professionals seems to be edging ever closer following the publication of a study by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC).

Initial research last summer overwhelmingly found that employees in these fields would welcome a new professional association to help establish industry standards and define proper career paths.

At the time, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Develop­ment (CIPD) said the formation of the Association of Diversity and Equality Practitioners – or whatever it might eventually be called – was a “gung-ho” approach, and that more research was required.

UK consumers are being encouraged to recycle their clothes through an exchange programme being launched by retail giant Marks & Spencer (M&S) and UK charity, Oxfam.

The new initiative aims to raise money to reduce the one million tonnes of clothing sent to landfill annually.

The M&S and Oxfam Clothes Exchange programme marks the first anniversary of Plan A, M&S’ ‘eco-plan’, and will enable consumers to pick up a £5 voucher when they donate unwanted clothes to Oxfam.

Research by the National Aids Trust has revealed that almost half of UK workers would expect to be told if a colleague was HIV positive. But why? Apart from fact the law states that people do not have to disclose their HIV, what business is it of those who work with them? Perhaps more worrying though is the large number of people questioned who stated at least one incorrect way in which HIV is transmitted. HIV and Aids have been widely known about since the early 1980s – almost 30 years. Where have all these misinformed workers been? On a desert island?

A report out today (Saturday) - Jobs for the Girls - says the government needs to look again to find out the best way forward in eliminating the gender pay gap.

Great! But I've heard this many times before.

And looking at the report's contents - much of it's been 'discussed' or 'considered' before.

What is actually new in it, then, you ask?

Ahem. Nothing.

What are the areas it highlights that are barriers to women, you ask?

Here we go, drum roll please...

• Lack of knowledge of career opportunities (yep, heard that before)
  
• Difficulties with training (oh that old chestnut)
  
• Training for older women (ooh, possibly a new angle with older women, but again, heard similar before)
  
• Problems with business cultures (obviously)
  
• Flexible working (oh gosh, not this again)

Six months on from the formation of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) the consensus among employers and others would probably be; could do better.

The commission’s softly-softly approach in the first weeks of its existence has not been met with universal approval as our news analysis in this week's Personnel Today shows. When it launched back in October there seemed to be more of a debate about what it should be called – EHRC or CEHR, did it matter? – and the £100,000 spent on a new logo and website (still incomplete), than what it meant for employers.

That debate still seems to be raging with one senior figure bemoaning the lack of either campaigning action or real dialogue. The news that the watchdog is about to launch an awareness campaign on YouTube, then attempt to gain some friends on Facebook, will hardly set pulses racing among HR professionals.

As our story in this week's Personnel Today magazine points out, employment minister Stephen Timms is urging HR "to recognise and embrace the scale of the opportunity that an approach to greater diversity in recruitment can provide". While most in HR recognise the opportunities greater diversity can deliver, few employers have fully embraced them.

It's fair to say that HR has sometimes struggled to get buy-in from the rest of the organisation (see our 'Trade secrets' feature for tips on how to do this).

And now the debate over whether HR be stripped of its diversity role - which has been hotting up in Personnel Today over the past few months - has moved on with Whitehall HR chief Gill Rider adding fuel to the debate by recommending that, for chief executives to take diversity seriously, it should be taken out of HR. At the same time, it seems that support for a separate diversity body is waning.

Personnel Today reports that demand for staff is at its lowest for more than four years, and employers are preferring temps to permanent staff. Might this be an opportunity for older workers, who can still legally be forced to retire at 65 – despite legislation which you could be forgiven for expecting to have outlawed such discrimination – to extend their employment prospects beyond shelf-stacking at B&Q?

Hard to believe but it is 40 years since Enoch Powell delivered his notorious "rivers of blood" speech about immigration.

On 20 April 1968, the Tory minister warned of disastrous social consequences if immigration levels were not reduced, speaking of 'rivers of blood' flowing through the country.

Now 40 years on equalities chief Trevor Phillips gave his own speech in the very Birmingham hotel in which Powell spoke all those years ago. His message was basically that there were no rivers but "a tide of managed immigration and active integration".

There can be no doubt that immigration has brought economic benefits to the UK and employers welcome the ready supply of labour. But the wider social impacts and strain on public services should not be ignored.

The two issues that seem to be preoccupying HR professionals at the moment are agency workers' rights and flexible working. Yes, it's the old red tape story. For a couple of decades employment regulations have kept HR in gainful employment and given the profession a useful lever to make line managers take them seriously. But cynics could say the red tape mind set reflects an us and them attitude: us being the management and the others being those pesky employees threatening to cost the organisation more money and take you to the cleaners at an employment tribunal.

On the other hand, you could turn this on its head and, instead of seeing temporary staffing and flexible working as a threat, try to see  them as strategic opportunities. This week a report by the CBI and the TUC called Talent not Tokenism showed how some firms are using flexible resourcing to their advantage. Hospitality company Botanic Inns provides employees with flexible working options and enhanced maternity and paternity pay resulting in lower staff turnover.  Even small firms (Beacon Foods, Oakwood Builders and Joinery, and mouse mat manufacturer Listawood) are taking into account the need for flexibility to look after children. 

Unfortunately the sad truth is that some HR manager's focus on the red tape reveals that they see the workforce as a liability? In other words it's the complete opposite of the HR cliche "People are our most valuable resort."

Brummies beware - a whopping 76% of employers have discriminated against job applicants because of their accents, with candidates from Birmingham the worst hit.

A study by law firm and prolific survey producers Peninsula found that 'accent discrimination' is widespread and job seekers are becoming increasingly desperate to disguise their regional twangs.

The worst accents as voted for by 2,647 employers, according to the survey were:

1. Birmingham
2. Liverpool
3. Newcastle
4. Glaswegian
5. 'London' Cockney

There's certainly an argument to be had that the Brummie accent is grating, but is it really enough to not give a job to someone? I'd certainly think about hiring Birmingham-born Cat Deeley.

HR legal eagles will need to swap their summer read for some serious Equality Bill swotting, following the raft of controversial new measures announced last week.

The purpose of the Bill is to 'strengthen protection, advance equality and de-clutter the law'. However, far from being a definite move in the right direction, equality minister Harriet 'Harperson's' framework document has raised a few eyebrows - in particular with its moves to allow employers to give preferential treatment to female and ethnic minority candidates.

It lacks clarity as to how a business could positively discriminate in a lawful way and, by inconsistently referring to both 'equally suitable' and 'equally qualified' candidates in describing the positive discrimination test, it raises more questions than it answers.

The fallout from last month's unveiling of the Equality Bill continues apace. The suggestion that employers should, in effect, be paid to hire more women and black and minority ethnic (BME) workers will undoubtedly provoke controversy.

As this is a view expressed by the managing director of one of the leading names on the high street, does it truly indicate the way the wind is blowing in boardrooms across the UK?

The idea put forward by Boots' managing director Alex Gourlay suggests that top employers have yet to be fully convinced of the business case for diversity ­ if they were, surely there would be no need for financial incentives in the form of tax breaks to operate a more diverse workforce?

Compare paid paternity leave levels with other countries and you'll find the UK has some of the worst rights for new fathers in Europe.

The speech made last week by Nicola Brewer, Equalities and Human Rights Commission chief executive, highlighted the fact that the UK's parental rights currently support the idea that fathers are "optional seasoning" on children's lives, while mothers are the main carers ('Maternity leave could damage women's careers', Personneltoday.com, 14 July).

The government has published its response to the consultation it held before drafting the Equality Bill.

The document can be downloaded here. Be warned - it's a weighty piece of work (more than 200 pages long) but the executive summary is useful.

It succinctly covers the government's plans on a new equality duty, gender pay, positive action, gagging clauses in pay deals, extending tribunals' powers, union equality reps.

The government also said it would be working with the Tribunals Service, employment judges "and other relevant stakeholders", to identify other ways of ensuring that lessons are learnt from tribunal judgments.

The losers it seems are the Welsh and Indian workers of lower castes. The government said it did not intend to introduced specific protection against caste discrimination or discrimination of Welsh speakers.

Personnel Today is supporting a campaign by the Employers Forum on Age (EFA) to force the government to commit to remove the default retirement age (DRA) in 2011, rather than merely reviewing it.

Ditching the retirement age will provide much needed clarity for both employers and employees and give organisations more than two years to prepare. EFA director Catharine Pusey outlines the arguments for scrapping the default retirement age in this week's magazine.

The EFA is working with a growing number of employers, including Co-op and Hertfordshire County Council, who are operating successfully without a fixed retirement age and is encouraging other employers to follow suit.

It is our view - and the EFA's - that it's inevitable the default retirement age will be removed altogether, whatever the final outcome of the Heyday legal challenge currently being considered by the European Court of Justice.

So now's the time for HR professionals to show leadership and make the decision to ditch the retirement age. You can register your support for our campaign by signing our petition on the Number 10 website.

My story about the CIPD member named as a BNP activist on a leaked membership list, which featured on the front page of Personnel Today this week, has got the forums and message boards buzzing.

The debate over whether the CIPD took the right stance towards this individual has been raging on Personnel Today's community forum HR Space, as well as the institute's own online forums.

It does raise the important issue of self regulation and what role a professional body should play. Professional regulation is seemingly low on the CIPD's agenda - there is not even a mention of it in its annual report.

The institute also refuses to disclose the number of disciplinary panels it has held in the past three years and the outcome of those. Back in 2005, my colleague Mark Crail, writing for IRS, came up against the same brick wall when posing a similar question.

Personnel Today's drive to force the government to commit to scrapping the default retirement age (DRA) has stepped up a gear yet again, with outraged reaction from all angles to the European Court of Justice's (ECJ) decision last week to refer the Heyday legal challenge back to the UK High Court.
Even the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) has made its position clear, six months after we threw our weight behind the Employers Forum on Age's (EFA) campaign to force the government to commit to remove the DRA in 2011, rather than simply review it.
CIPD employee relations adviser Mike Emmott said the government needs to realise that scrapping the DRA is "a must", adding that compulsory retirement ages "can leave organisations blindly waving goodbye to valuable skills and experience".
Meanwhile, a frustrated EFA accused the ECJ of being "behind the times". It's difficult to disagree, since many employers already have policies in place that make no assumptions about people's employability based on age. This latest verdict leaves hundreds of claims pending in tribunals, while thousands more pensioners who were forced to retire against their will have compensation claims waiting if the High Court's final ruling decides the compulsory retirement age is not justified.
On a brighter note, in this week's issue, out tomorrow (10 March) we bring you five examples of companies thriving in the downturn, from car clubs to fast food restaurants. It's great to see businesses bucking the recession trend, with their HR departments playing a key role. We will continue to bring you such success stories throughout 2009.

News this week that the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is not planning to lobby the government to introduce mandatory equal pay audits came as a shock to many, despite the fact the equalities body has long said the same thing on the matter.

The Guardian ran a story earlier this week saying the EHRC did not want equal pay reviews to become mandatory in the forthcoming Equality Bill due to the current economic climate. But the organisation has never wanted equal pay audits to become mandatory.

It has long said that while such reviews would help employers determine their gender pay gap - it has an equal pay audit toolkit on its website - it understands that pay reviews alone will not stamp out inequality. A spokeswoman told Personnel Today that each business is different and needs to tackle inequality differently - equal pay audits tend to place the burden of equality on the victim which leads to costly tribunal claims, rather than getting to the heart of the problem.

However, several interest groups including unions, employers' bodies and even employment lawyers have since come forward with something to say on the subject.

Unions argue that without mandatory equal pay reviews how could employers possibly know what their organisation's pay gap between men and women is? The gender pay gap is roughly 17% for full time roles, and after 30 years of legislation this is not good enough.

The one provision of the Equality Bill  which I find troubling is the idea that employers will be able to recruit people from an under-represented group when there are candidates of equal merit. One problem with this is that in the real world it is extremely rare to find two or more candidates who are exactly as well qualified for a job, there is always going to be something that gives one candidate the edge in the view of the recruiter.

But the bigger concern is that if such a policy is introduced by an employer, candidates in the better represented group may believe that the successful candidate from an under-represented group has been given an unfair advantage. It is important for the credibility of the recruitment process for all candidates to believe that the recruiter has selected the recruit who in their view is the best person for the job. If unsuccessful candidates feel they have experienced unfairness then this will undermine the credibility of the successful candidate. 

It is difficult to illiminate all subjective bias in recruitment processes, but surely employers should not try to increase the number of employees from under-represented groups through positive discrimination in borderline decisions? The fairer and more credible approach must be to adopt a diversity policy and be as rigorous as possible in ensuring that there is no bias in the recruitment process so that the person selected is seen to be the best qualified candidate for the job. 

As expected the Equality Bill contained a few surprises. I realise that's an oxymoron, but the government always likes to think its new draft legislation contains a few 'shock factors', despite the fact that most of the press including Personnel Today heard word of what was in the Bill days before.

So, the big surprise? The will-they-wont-they saga over pay audits was finally cleared up. Firms with more than 250 staff will be forced to conduct pay 'reports', the government is calling them (for audit is too scary a word?), in 2013. Public sector firms with just 150 staff or more will have to do this in four years time too.

Seems simple enough. But when I asked Vera Baird, the solicitor general and minister responsible for taking the Bill through parliament, whether firms would get some sort of amnesty for dealing with equal pay claims away from the tribunal process, it all became very complicated. Apart from avoiding a direct answer to my question - a straight yes or no would have done - she simply said that the amnesty period was "now" - ie while it was still voluntary for firms to do pay audits.

Despite me re-asking my question, I still didn't get a direct response. So we can assume that firms that do try to sort their unequal pay out, now or in 2013, will be subject to costly and lengthy tribunals.

Funny that, considering the Equalities and Human Rights Commission has long said that firms should get some form of transitional arrangements to encourage them to deal with the matter now. But, the EHRC is keeping quiet on the issue - ahead of a formal consultation. Instead, it's focussing on its new role identifed by the Bill: to launch an annual report on the pay gap.

The government's attempts to outlaw religious discrimination in the workplace turned into farce last week when a draft code of practice was published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
The code aims to help employers interpret the Equality Bill, but eyebrows were raised in the HR community at the revelation that not only will established religions be covered but also vegans, members of Cults and people with no beliefs at all.
The government tried to distance itself with a statement that opinions based on scientific or political theories were not akin to religious or philosophical beliefs and therefore not covered.
But in practice both employers and tribunals may find it difficult to judge what is an opinion and what is a belief.  This was the case in November 2009 when a former manager at residential landlord group Grainger was given the go-ahead to take his employer to a tribunal for allegedly making him redundant because of his views on climate change.
The draft code says atheists will be covered by the Bill. But what if an atheist believes only things that can be scientifically proven? As such opinions are not covered atheists presumably will be protected from discrimination only when their beliefs are based on blind ignorance of the facts. 
The serious concern is that extending the law to cover groups such as vegans will damage the hard-won credibility of workplace equality among employers. The Bill will be debated in the House of Lords on 23 March. Let us hope they can inject some common sense before it is too late.