The new Equality Act

[Tifosi]

The new rules on equality and anti-discrimination come into force today and employers are already complaining

When Arlene Phillips, the 66-year old Strictly Come Dancing judge, was removed from the show to make way for 30-year old Alesha Dixon, there was a wave of public outrage. But Phillips could not have claimed age discrimination – one of the other male judges who remained on the show was 65. And she could not have claimed sex discrimination – she was replaced by a woman. The BBC, which is frequently accused of ditching women when they become "too old for TV", may have thought harder about removing her if the law had had more to say.
From today, it does. Under the new Equality Act which comes into force, the law recognises that you can be - this is innovative I know - both a woman, and old. It sounds obvious, but it really is progress.
And If you've ever had to fill in a pre-employment medical questionnaire, you won't have to any more. In an attempt to prevent employers discriminating against people with disabilities, the new law makes medicals and questions at the application stage unlawful. And if you did answer questions about your health and did not get the job, the burden will be on the employer to show that disability discrimination played no part in the decision not to hire you.
Then there is the much maligned – in my view wrongly – positive discrimination. From today, it's legal for the first time. Faced with two candidates of equal merit, employers can take characteristics which are underrepresented in their organisations into account when deciding which one to hire. People always feel strongly about this concept, but I don't see why. Faced with two candidates of equal merit it was always within an employer's discretion what they chose to take into account – the only difference now is that disadvantage in the workforce based on factors like race, sexual orientation or disability, can be openly cited as a reason.
And a baby step has been taken towards equal pay. "Pay secrecy" clauses in employment contracts will now be unenforceable – no one can be disciplined any more for discussing salary and details of their pay with colleagues at work.

But the new law is also full of "buts". As far as equal pay is concerned, openly publishing who earns what – or "pay reporting" – is the only way employees will seriously be able to address the injustice of pay discrepancies. There are pay reporting requirements in the new rules tomorrow and the coalition government has no plans to change that any time soon.
There are exemptions to the rules about medicals and questionnaires – employers are still allowed to ask questions about health before hiring if the question is "intrinsic" to the role, and can still screen for health problems at the short-list stage.
And the so-called "socialism in one clause" provision – a public sector equality duty which would require public bodies to consider race, gender, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion or belief, pregnancy and maternity, and gender reassignment when designing and delivering public services – is still the subject of government consultation.
The Act must be doing something useful for employees though, because employers are already complaining about it. Meanwhile lawyers report a "surge" of activity as employers update their policies to make sure they comply with the new anti-discrimination regime. Some are estimating a ten per cent rise in employment tribunal claims. Adopting the age-old principle that if change doesn't bother anyone then it's not working - that sounds just fine to me.

Source (http://m.guardian.co.uk/?id=102202&story=http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/afua-hirsch-law-blog/2010/sep/30/new-equality-act-under-the-spotlight)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm not a believer in positive discrimination in this country.

When it is introduced by those who are supposedly supporters of anti-racism, it is actually a barrier to racial equality in attitudes. The same applies for other factors of discrimination: age, gender, sexual orientation etc.

If we want to change people's attitudes towards discrimination then we should do just that, rather than patronisingly introducing such things as all-women/BME shortlists for elections, for example. It might ensure a woman or BME candidate is elected, but it may do more harm in that it actually angers people who do not like to be patronised, or to a male/non-BME candidate who may actually be more suited to the job.

Positive discrimination, in all but the most discriminatory of places (it may be more suited to the US), can actually discriminate against white, male types and also does little or nothing to change peoples' attitudes.

[Tzadikim]

I'm not a believer in positive discrimination in this country.

When it is introduced by those who are supposedly supporters of anti-racism, it is actually a barrier to racial equality in attitudes. The same applies for other factors of discrimination: age, gender, sexual orientation etc.

If we want to change people's attitudes towards discrimination then we should do just that, rather than patronisingly introducing such things as all-women/BME shortlists for elections, for example. It might ensure a woman or BME candidate is elected, but it may do more harm in that it actually angers people who do not like to be patronised, or to a male/non-BME candidate who may actually be more suited to the job.

Positive discrimination, in all but the most discriminatory of places (it may be more suited to the US), can actually discriminate against white, male types and also does little or nothing to change peoples' attitudes.

In a way, I agree with you. Too often measures from the bourgeois State to "combat discrimination" (when they aren't purely for show) are interpreted by the lower classes, because of the fucked-up sort of anti-class consciousness that now exists, as "liberal intervention". And to a certain extent the workers are right: the bourgeois aren't "combating discrimination" because they're ethically convinced discrimination is wrong, though they may consciously believe it; they're doing it because it's good for their bottom line, because, by integrating minorities (to a degree) into the economy they open up a new stream of revenue - streaming, that is, from the pockets of the minorities into those of the capitalists.

To legitimately fight discrimination we must begin from the bottom-up: we workers must begin to confront the racism and tribalism that we experience by understanding that it is a misbegotten substitute for class consciousness. Only then can we begin to fight it at its source.