‘Fairness means equal treatment and opportunities for women and ethnic minorities in the workplace, not skilled white men denied career opportunities in the name of equality’, suggested Ivan Lewis in a piece for Progress earlier this month. As progressives, our ambition is to build the good society, reflecting the core values of fairness, dignity and respect.
But equality is not just an ethical principle – it is an economic imperative in an era characterised by rapid globalisation and greater international competition. By the end of this decade, just a fifth of the UK workforce will be composed of white, able-bodied men in full time work. A fairer society is not about depriving them of jobs – it demands that we unlock the huge diversity of talent in our country, breaking down barriers that hold people back and preparing Britain for the challenges of the future.
In short, discrimination is a drag on our economy. We must find ways of releasing the talent of ethnic minorities, disabled people and women, opening up the job market to previously untapped potential. A modern legislative framework has a valuable role to play in setting standards and encouraging culture change. Any new equality legislation should seek to tell employers what they should do rather than what they must not do.
Fairness is about creating a level playing field and we need to introduce greater clarity into law so that all organisations understand what they are permitted to do to overcome entrenched disadvantage, and to provide maximum flexibility to respond to the needs of employees and potential employees.
Currently employers face what can often appear to be an impenetrable thicket of equality legislation. The Equality and Human Rights Commission would like to see an approach that understands the relationship between equality law, a competitive economy and the fulfilment of individual’s potential.
Businesses need effective legislation so they can focus on releasing talent. Anti-discrimination law has inevitably evolved in a piecemeal fashion over the last 35 years. Even well-intentioned employers find the law confusing and inconsistent. For example, there are three different definitions of direct discrimination and four definitions of indirect discrimination; an employer might be liable for harassment in one scenario, but not liable for exactly the same behaviour in another; the burden of proof will shift to the employer in some circumstances, but not in others.
Fairness is not only about ensuring employees can compete on equal terms with their colleagues, but that they can get through the doors of the organisation in the first place. At present, limited positive action is allowed. This means people from a particular under-represented group are either encouraged to apply for jobs in which they are under-represented, or are given training to help them develop their potential to improve their chances in competing for particular work.
But many employers are often unclear about what is permitted with the result that they don’t take the risk of being challenged. The confusion costs us talent; and in the case of some public sector organisations, such as the police, undermines their efforts to become more representative of the communities they serve.
The aim of a new equality act should be to remove barriers to equality by lifting the burdens on business. It should liberate employers from bureaucratic form-filling and not force individuals to engage in retrospective legal action as their only route to justice, giving everyone new freedoms. A fairer society is not made at the expense of white, able-bodied men, but enables everyone to play their part.