Title

The recently-introduced Equalities Act has created a charter for snitches in the workplace, says Claire Fox It's a sorry day, but every time I hear the word ‘equality', of late, I reach for my gun. How did such a noble aspiration become so sullied in illiberal regulation? Nothing makes this clearer than the Equality Act, which became law on 1 October. Despite the apparent disdain they expressed for Harriet ‘Harperson' when she was Labour's equalities minister, the new coalition has happily enacted the bulk of this meddling, divisive and dangerous law. The Act has been presented as simplifying and harmonising the myriad equality laws which have developed over the past 40 years. Rather, it bureaucratically bundles every piece of legislation together, and adds in new Draconian rules for good measure. As the Act codifies the law into one whopping 238-page document, local authorities will, no doubt, have to put unnecessary time and money into working out the ramifications. Already, the mischievous TaxPayers' Alliance has taken councils to task for spending £20m on 550 diversity-related ‘unnecessary roles'. In response, Hull City Council has explained that it needs to employ the equivalent of three-and-half full-time officers for £166,000 to ensure ‘that the council complies with the Equality Act 2010'. Hull leader, Carl Minns, explains: ‘If the council ends up on the wrong side of it, it can end up in court and be fined thousands of pounds.' So, I thought I'd save you all some money by highlighting some of the most invidious new aspects of the Act. Surely, we should be counselling employees to show a bit of empathy and understanding, to manage the situation, to calm people down, soothe it over, and definitely not to take such flare-ups personally. Instead, this law can only encourage staff to escalate such incidents into serious matters of litigation. First, we have the concept of ‘third-party harassment', now expanded beyond sex to cover age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief and sexual orientation. What constitutes harassment remains subjective, defined so that if one employee feels that someone else's comments or conduct ‘violate their dignity' or create an ‘intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment', they can sue if steps aren't taken to protect them. This turns those deemed as having ‘protected characteristics' into potential victims in need of protection, and everyone else as potential harassers. Additionally, employers can be held liable if an employee suffers ‘harassment' – or takes umbrage – even from someone who doesn't work for the organisation. This bodes badly for relationships between frontline workers and the public in such tense economic times. It doesn't take a lot to imagine tempers fraying and people – deprived of services, facing the impending loss of income – blowing their top at staff. Of course, it's unpleasant if angry service-users are rude and abusive. It is indeed unwarranted to take out the frustrations created by the cruel realities of deep cuts on local government staff. But surely, we should be counselling employees to show a bit of empathy and understanding, to manage the situation, to calm people down, soothe it over, and definitely not to take such flare-ups personally. Instead, this law can only encourage staff to escalate such incidents into serious matters of litigation. The Act is also likely to poison relationships within the workplace through the codification of ‘discrimination by perception and association'. As one HR website explains: ‘If a heterosexual is perceived to be gay, lesbian or bisexual – perhaps because of mannerisms or rumours – and becomes the butt of banter', or ‘if an employee is subjected to joking about their partner's disability or a friend's sexual orientation', they have grounds for complaint. You don't have to be the Daily Mail to recognise this makes jokes that fail the PC etiquette test or office backbiting, criminal offences. As it is stressed that ‘discriminatory behaviour' can occur ‘regardless of whether a person with a protected characteristic will witness it or not' – this is a snitches' charter too. Regardless of whether one approves of ribald joshing between colleagues, or bitching at work, unleashing the state's punitive power to arbitrate relations between adults working together is disproportionate. For all the Big Society rhetoric about rolling back the state and people power, here is legislation where a top-down state rolls itself into the nooks and crannies of office politics and people are not deemed capable of standing up for themselves. And surely – as so many workers face the prospect of job cuts and uncertain futures – the last thing we should impose on council employees or, indeed, employers, is a new legal minefield. There is enough to worry about without the threat that off-guard, informal chatter at work might be perceived as harassment. At a time when we might want to pull together to confront the cuts, perhaps indulge in gallows humour about each other to cope with what lies ahead, the Government has the nerve to make a mockery of real equality by reducing it to a series of petty behaviours and bureaucratic rules. This new legislation is likely to make the workplace not so much equal as joyless. Pull the other one. Claire Fox is director of the Institute of Ideas

Title

WHITEHALL

This equality just isn't fair

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING