Positive action
The Equality Act enables, but does not require, people to encourage greater diversity in all the areas covered by discrimination law. For example, it allows employers to encourage people with protected characteristics (e.g. age, race etc) that are under-represented in the workforce to apply for jobs. Positive action doesn’t allow a less qualified person to be chosen for a job or promotion over someone who is better qualified. That would be positive discrimination and remains unlawful.
The Act mainly brings together what was in previous law. In addition it:
- allows employers to choose a candidate with a protected characteristic that is under-represented in the workforce over another candidate of equal merit when recruiting or promoting;
- allows political parties to use positive action to increase the diversity of election candidates.
The Act also enables Parliament to make further legislation to require political parties to report on the diversity of their election candidates.
Tell us what you think should happen to these measures and why, being specific where possible
- Should we scrap them altogether?
- Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
- Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
- Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
- Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
- Should they be left as they are?
Positive Action is intended to offer some limited redress for centuries of systematic discrimination which have left large sections of society at a significant social, economic and political disadvantage. Given ongoing discrimination in employment practices, it is important to retain the current, extremely “soft”, approach to positive action.
Just to be clear, positive action is NEVER about giving priority to anyone if their qualifications are inferior. It is ONLY about giving priority to someone from a minority background when they have EQUIVALENT / IDENTICAL qualifications. In my experience, positive action hardly ever happens at all. In my many years of doing research on ethnic minority issues, I have come across extremely rare instances of positive action. It is so rare that this is not something to get exercised about, certainly not until and unless we see greater parity in employment.
By contrast, there is a significant body of evidence which shows that, despite having much higher and better qualifications than their White British counterparts, Black African men, for instance, do not secure the same quality of employment and continue to earn much less. Why? They don’t have the networks; they are being stereotyped; there is unwitting discrimination, etc.
As a school government, I have witnessed with my own eyes CV of applicants with Black African names being dismissed without ever being looked at. I forced significant changes in policy and practice to try to remedy this. It was not easy.
Like most other people in this discussion, I am uncomfortable with anything that undermines meritocracy. However, I know that employment is not strictly meritocratic. Until it is shown to be fairer and less discriminatory, there will be a role for positive action.
Scrap postiive action. I thought the days of prefering one gender, one race, one sexual orientation were meant to be over… but not on our statute book!Comment Tags: Scrap postiive action
You say above that : The Equality Act enables, but does not require, people to encourage greater diversity in all the areas covered by discrimination law.
So what you are saying is ” Do as I say and not as I do !” like your discrimination against a minority of pensioners who you choose to deny any annual increases. What a fine example you set. Get your own house in order before tryinh to tell others how to act . Stop the freezing now !Comment Tags: frozen pension
There needs to be a method which enables people to at least get a foot in the door. The statistics tell us that some people because of the colour of their skin, or other reasons covered by the Equality Act are not being selected for jobs- even when they have the same qualifications as others not perceived to be ‘different’. This voluntary section of the Act should be left as it is so that employers who want to participate can do so. Leave the legislation as it is.
Positive action is still discrimination. Discrimination of every kind is wrong, and as such I feel that this part of the law should be repealed. It is the government’s role to ensure everyone plays by the same rules, and that discrimination does not occur. If we take that to the basic level where this would be applied: you do have two candidates of equal abilities and qualifications for a job. One does not have a “protected characteristic” that is under-represented in the workforce, the other does (race, gender, orientation etc). Under positive action, which is enforced throughout the public sector, the latter would receive the job. That means that the first person has been discriminated against because of their skin colour/gender/sexual orientation. That is simply wrong, and the government certainly should not be encouraging it.
Why was this law even introduced, especially as there is no public appetite for such a law? How is under-representation measured? At the last census 85% of the population was White British, so therefore 85% of each workforce must be White British? Who knows, the bureaucrats probably didn’t think about that. In addition, this law works against the spirit of a meritocracy, which is surely a principle our society works towards.
Not only should this government repeal any law encouraging positive action, it should ban positive action as it is discrimination, plain and simple. The government should simply be working towards providing equal opportunities for all sections of society by address the underlying issues such as education, the role of parents, aspirations etc rather than discriminating against people.Comment Tags: Positive action
Remove positive discrimination, this is just as bad as discrimination itself. Surely ones’ right for the position should be based on their ability to meet the role requirements and not to fill a quota for the under represented? If you fit the bill it should not matter about race, religion or any other “protected” element.
If it’s voluntary, what’s the point? Scrap it!
“Positive” action is backwards thinking. Voluntary or not, it provides legal justification for those that wish to choose one person over another based on their protected characteristics.
THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION! It is wrong.Comment Tags: Positive action
All Public Authorities should consider MORE Positive Action to ensure that EVERYONE starts on a level playing field to address historic discrimination over the last centuries! It is likely to take 150 years to increase the amount of women in the House of Lords-is this equal?
Scrap positive action.
Everyone should be on a level playing field and no one should receive preferential treatment based on the fact they have a protected characteristic.
All job offers, promotions etc should be based on the person’s own merits in terms of capability, experience and qualifications to do the role regardless of their personal characteristic, whether protected or not. In reality there will never be 2 candidates of equal merit.
This should be kept as it is – it is already voluntary – and should not be scrapped. It enables people to increase the diversity of their service or business or activity because they recognise the benefits that diversity can bring to it. Diverse workforces, services and activities also benefit society as a whole, as they increase fairness and equality across the different population groups, increases social harmony and therefore wellbeing.
Without positive action, passive complacency could become the norm, and complacency is the same as indifference. This is not acceptable so please keep the legislation as is.
Abandon this legislation, it is in it self discramantory, also can it be compared to equality policy’s in other countries…no it can not.
for example, dpo they monitor how under represented english people are in their conuntries…….no they do not to save you time checking.