New UK 'equality' legislation

[HMS Sophia]

Okay, so I read in the paper yesterday that there is a new piece of so called 'equality' legislation that has been passed in this Country (the UK).
I can't link the article I'm afraid, but I can put down the basic points:
Employers can now hire a women over a man, if they are of equivalent skill. By which I mean they can happily say "We're hiring this woman because she is a woman, not because she has more skill".
Employers do not have to reveal whether they pay women the same amount as they pay men doing the same job. This, when combined with the above, means they can hire a woman over a man for the job, and then pay her less than they would pay a man, without breaking any laws.

Now, where is exactly does this improve gender equality? At which point did someone think this was a good idea? Or am I missing the point entirely, and this does in fact improve equality?

[Serafina]

You know, UK-equality laws start to sound more and more messed up to me. "Messed up" as in "they are not consistently structured and contradicting themselves as well as just dumb".
That oppinon is mostly based on the recent 2010 "Equality Act", which was an utter mess regarding transsexual people - it's examples section was riddled with disinformation and errors. It's also based on some recent EU-actions against the UK, whom i don't recall exactly right now.

And this little gem is just reinforces that opinon. While the first part might make sense - i think it's supposed to mean "you can hire a woman for being a woman when your workforce is mostly male right now" (which makes sense), the second part makes no sense at all AFAIK.

Edit: According to the Equality Act 2010, most employers are required to publish information on how they pay men and women. However, the government decided not to enfore that part, which is still stupid.


Oh, and generally, it would be nice if you can link the article and/or make it clear what law exactly you are talking about.

[bobalot]

Seriously, please post the actual facts backed up by a source. This sounds like some shock jock talking point.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

Employers do not have to reveal whether they pay women the same amount as they pay men doing the same job. This, when combined with the above, means they can hire a woman over a man for the job, and then pay her less than they would pay a man, without breaking any laws.

I've never seen a job where men and women don't get the same salaries in the same position; my female coworkers and I earn exactly the same. The reason women as a group earn less than men as a group is because it's overwhelmingly women who put their careers on hold for several years in order to raise a family. Therefore, men get promoted over them. The only sensible way to stop that is to try and even out the numbers of men and women taking long gaps in employment. You could, I guess, just keep letting women who take maternity leave accrue seniority, but if they haven't put in the hours and acquired the experiance, they shouldn't be promoted over somebody who has just because they're a woman.

Although, I suppose this might be a step in that direction, if what you say is accurate. Knowing which law you're talking about would help.

[Broomstick]

I've never seen a job where men and women don't get the same salaries in the same position; my female coworkers and I earn exactly the same.

That's fantastic! I'm old enough to remember when it was legal to openly pay a woman less for doing the exact same work as a man.

Employers do not have to reveal whether they pay women the same amount as they pay men doing the same job. This, when combined with the above, means they can hire a woman over a man for the job, and then pay her less than they would pay a man, without breaking any laws.

Here in the US that would be against the law - you are not allowed to discriminate in that manner due solely to gender (due to seniority, skill, or performance is another matter). Are you sure that would be legal in the manner in which you describe? It sounds more like something someone would fear happening, rather than something actually legalized. Then again, stupid laws do get passed all the time.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

That's fantastic! I'm old enough to remember when it was legal to openly pay a woman less for doing the exact same work as a man.

Yeah. You should bear in mind, of course, that I've not worked every job in Britain, but like I said, in all the jobs I've had, men and women doing the same thing were payed the same, and I've never seen a job advert that differentiated between genders for pay. It's not impossible that it happens and I've just not encountered it, but I think it's also flat out illegal to discriminate based on gender like that.

[Serafina]

Note: The OP is talking about the Equality Act 2010, and specifically about news that the government decided that it will enforce section 159 and not enforce section 78.

Section 159:

159
Positive action: recruitment and promotion
(1)
This section applies if a person (P) reasonably thinks that—
(a)
persons who share a protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage connected to the characteristic, or
(b)
participation in an activity by persons who share a protected characteristic is disproportionately low.
(2)
Part 5 (work) does not prohibit P from taking action within subsection (3) with the aim of enabling or encouraging persons who share the protected characteristic to—
(a)
overcome or minimise that disadvantage, or
(b)
participate in that activity.
(3)
That action is treating a person (A) more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than another person (B) because A has the protected characteristic but B does not.
(4)
But subsection (2) applies only if—
(a)
A is as qualified as B to be recruited or promoted,
(b)
P does not have a policy of treating persons who share the protected characteristic more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than persons who do not share it, and
(c)
taking the action in question is a proportionate means of achieving the aim referred to in subsection (2).
(5)
“Recruitment” means a process for deciding whether to—
(a)
offer employment to a person,
(b)
make contract work available to a contract worker,
(c)
offer a person a position as a partner in a firm or proposed firm,
(d)
offer a person a position as a member of an LLP or proposed LLP,
(e)
offer a person a pupillage or tenancy in barristers' chambers,
(f)
take a person as an advocate's devil or offer a person membership of an advocate's stable,
(g)
offer a person an appointment to a personal office,
(h)
offer a person an appointment to a public office, recommend a person for such an appointment or approve a person's appointment to a public office, or
(i)
offer a person a service for finding employment.
(6)
This section does not enable P to do anything that is prohibited by or under an enactment other than this Act.

Well, that's rather garbled, so i'll try to explain it. According to the governments own explanation, it's supposed to enable people to balance the gender ratio (or something similar) of their workforce by hiring someone who is of the underrepresented/disadvantaged group.
However, no framework is provided which restricts the criteria chosen or the requirements for such a preference. It is (apparently, i might be wrong) nearly completely arbitrary.

Section 78

78
Gender pay gap information
(1)
Regulations may require employers to publish information relating to the pay of employees for the purpose of showing whether, by reference to factors of such description as is prescribed, there are differences in the pay of male and female employees.
(2)
This section does not apply to—
(a)
an employer who has fewer than 250 employees;
(b)
a person specified in Schedule 19;
(c)
a government department or part of the armed forces not specified in that Schedule.
(3)
The regulations may prescribe—
(a)
descriptions of employer;
(b)
descriptions of employee;
(c)
how to calculate the number of employees that an employer has;
(d)
descriptions of information;
(e)
the time at which information is to be published;
(f)
the form and manner in which it is to be published.
(4)
Regulations under subsection (3)(e) may not require an employer, after the first publication of information, to publish information more frequently than at intervals of 12 months.
(5)
The regulations may make provision for a failure to comply with the regulations—
(a)
to be an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;
(b)
to be enforced, otherwise than as an offence, by such means as are prescribed.
(6)
The reference to a failure to comply with the regulations includes a reference to a failure by a person acting on behalf of an employer.

Basically, the government has decided to NOT enforce this and to try to get employers to release that information voluntarily.

And yes, apparently, there IS a pay gap. As in "equal work, unequal pay". I'm not sure about this, but this is the only way for this section to make sense - otherwise it would be utterly unnecessary.



IMO, the Equality Act 2010 in general is a giant fuckup, mostly because it attemtps to allow discrimination in certain areas (such as banning a pre-OP transwoman from womens shelters, which makes at least some sense) without giving valid limits to these exceptions. In that example, a rigorous application of the law would allow you to ban transwomen from everything that is provided "for women only". It's not supposed to work that way according to the government side i quoted above, but that's what the law states.
To elaborate on that:

Equality Act 2010 (c. 15)
Schedule 3 — Services and public functions: exceptions
Part 7 — Separate and single services

Gender reassignment
28
(1) A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to gender reassignment discrimination, only because of anything done in relation to a matter within sub-paragraph (2) if the conduct in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(2) The matters are—
(a) the provision of separate services for persons of each sex;
(b) the provision of separate services differently for persons of each sex;
(c) the provision of a service only to persons of one sex.

Equality Act 2010 (c. 15)
Schedule 9 — Work: exceptions
Part 1 — Occupational requirements
(3) The references in sub-paragraph (1) to a requirement to have a protected
characteristic are to be read—
(a) in the case of gender reassignment, as references to a requirement not to be a transsexual person (and section 7(3) is accordingly to be ignored);

Section 29 is referring to service providers. If you have a "legitimate aim", then it's perfectly legal to discriminate against a transsexual person because that person is transsexual. My point here is that "legitimate aim" is not defined at all. There are two examples given elsewhere:
-A transsexual person can be barred from a female-only rape-victim group
-A transsexual person can be barred from working as a counselour for such a group.
The way this is applied is already pretty bad, because it doesn't pay any attention to the transwomans status of transition. You are allowed to discriminate against a feminine transwomen after SRS, but not against a butch lesbian. It completely missed the obvious intention and just broadly enables discrimination. Furthermore, it effectively puts "transwomen" into another category as "women", which is also step back from the Gender Recognition Act 2004.



Okay, bottom line:
Many of the exceptions in the Equality Act 2010where discrimination is allowed are poorly defined and thus enable discrimination beyond those exceptions. While that matter might be settled over time, it is evident from this and other errors that this is mostly a matter of being a poorly-crafted law.

[HMS Sophia]

Seriously, please post the actual facts backed up by a source.

Sorry. I couldn't find the source, I was just trying to get some opinion on the legislation.

This sounds like some shock jock talking point.

... What does that even mean?

[DaveJB]

Employers can now hire a women over a man, if they are of equivalent skill.

Um, you do realise that it was entirely possible to do that before? Obviously you couldn't flat-out tell an unsuccessful male applicant that "we're not hiring you because you have a penis," but if you really think this is going to lead to a vastly increased level of men being refused jobs over women, then you're seriously wrong.

[Dartzap]

From the looks if it, this bit of law was rushed through due to the pressure from Brussels, hence the piss-poor wording of it. If any cases were to be brought against someone/a company, it'll be the poor sod of a judge who has to understand what the spirit of the law is, if not the wording.


The same thing happens with the majority of law making, sadly.