Post by Steve Gardner on Jun 26, 2008 11:43:06 GMT
I'm a bit lost for words with this - maybe I'm missing something.
First, it strikes me as utterly perverse that a law lagalising discrimination should be called the 'Equalities Bill'.
Second, consider this from the article: "...firms should be able to choose a woman over a man of equal ability if they wanted to". Fair enough, but why do we need a new Bill to address this? I mean, if an employer currently wants to hire a woman who is as skilled and/or educated as a male applicant, they're already entitled to, aren't they?
Third, age discrimination has been illegal for several years now. Why is the government seeking to legislate against it again?
Fourth - NHS treatment for the elderly. The article states:
Again, what's really going to change? A doctor currently inclined to either deny an elderly person treatment or else prioritise resources in favour of a younger patient will very easily be able to provide a 'sound clinical reason' for continuing to do so under this new legislation, won't they?
It seems to me the only 'new' development here is the publication of the 'gender pay gap'. And this I can see as being a problem.
How far will this disclosure go? Will it be available for everyone within an organisation to view? What will happen if discrepancies are found? Can two males doing the same job but on a different wage also get some redress? How will people distinguish between genuine discrimination and a difference in negotiating skills?
Spurce and full article: BBC
First, it strikes me as utterly perverse that a law lagalising discrimination should be called the 'Equalities Bill'.
Second, consider this from the article: "...firms should be able to choose a woman over a man of equal ability if they wanted to". Fair enough, but why do we need a new Bill to address this? I mean, if an employer currently wants to hire a woman who is as skilled and/or educated as a male applicant, they're already entitled to, aren't they?
Third, age discrimination has been illegal for several years now. Why is the government seeking to legislate against it again?
Fourth - NHS treatment for the elderly. The article states:
The Bill will also seek to stop pensioners being denied NHS treatment because of their age.
Ms Harman said doctors will still be able to refuse treatment if they believe there are sound clinical reason for doing so.
Again, what's really going to change? A doctor currently inclined to either deny an elderly person treatment or else prioritise resources in favour of a younger patient will very easily be able to provide a 'sound clinical reason' for continuing to do so under this new legislation, won't they?
It seems to me the only 'new' development here is the publication of the 'gender pay gap'. And this I can see as being a problem.
How far will this disclosure go? Will it be available for everyone within an organisation to view? What will happen if discrepancies are found? Can two males doing the same job but on a different wage also get some redress? How will people distinguish between genuine discrimination and a difference in negotiating skills?
Spurce and full article: BBC
Harriet Harman has defended plans to make it legal for firms to discriminate in favour of female and ethnic minorities job candidates.
The equalities minister said firms should be able to choose a woman over a man of equal ability if they wanted to.
The new Equalities Bill will also force employers to disclose salary structures in a bid to close the gender pay gap.
The plans, which will be adopted first across England then Wales and Scotland, will also ban all age discrimination.
Ms Harman said she wanted a more "open and diverse" economy with companies not just choosing from "a pool of friends of friends".
Tackled on BBC Radio 4's Today programme about whether the proposals would lead to discrimination against white men, she said companies would not be forced to use positive discrimination.
