We Are All Equal, Just Some More Equal Than Others

Ageism is dead; Long live ageism!

We could go on for hours with these pithy remarks but how ground breaking is the news the the new Equalities Bill will finally put an end to ageism? I can tear up my gym membership and pour the Grecian 2000 down the drain - I can now look a prospective employer in the eye and say, 'I dare you not to give me this job. I have Harriet Harman's phone number, you know.'

But what is best about the new Equalities Act is that it is now legal for firms to discriminate in favour of females and ethnic minorities job candidates.


Legal Logic

I used a computerised Mr. Spock Test of Vulcan Logic on this part of the act and unfortunately it got a bit emotional and told me it did not compute. You see if you positively discriminate in favour of someone then in fact you have discriminated against someone else.

No, no, that's not what Harriet meant at all. What this actually stops is companies not just choosing from 'a pool of friends of friends' which is very rife in business as we all know - well at least in Government it is. You see when you positively discriminate in favour of a woman over a white male it is because the company in question 'Might think we don't want an all male team'. Very good point, if you have an all male team.

Right, so back to the logic machine. So two candidates with similar credentials and experience, one white male, one female for example. The Company in question invokes positive discrimination and chooses the female. So would the white male not think, 'Hang on a minute, she got the job because she's a female - that's not fair'.

Positive Discrimination, sound as it may appear, is one of those circular arguments similar to explaining time travel - sooner or later logic will go right around until you eventually disappear up your own backside.

But Harriet explains that we do not have to argue ourselves into oblivion. You see while it is now legal to positively discriminate you are not obliged to do so. As Harriet explains very clearly, 'The law at the moment is not clear and we are clarifying and saying if you want to do it, you can, and it makes it much more open.'

That clearly clarifies that then.

My Mr. Spock Program went into meltdown but before it did it posed a number of 'what ifs'. Suppose you have a female and an ethnic minority person going for the same job with similar credentials and experience? What if you have a significantly older white man and a female or ethnic person in the situation above? What if you have two females in the above situation, but one is gay or older? What happens if you have a female and an ethnic man in the same situation? The machine blew up at that point although the last output before it flickered off said, 'Why make this optional if you are sure positive discrimination is the right way to go?'

The Good Parts

It was not all illogical. The rest of the Bill deals with getting some sense into the wage gap making Companies more open about pay scales between men and women and that is a very good thing. Further, the Law will enforce doctors to treat pensioners who have been denied treatment because of their age, which is interesting as this seems to have inflamed in the last 10 years while the NHS has been bombarded with budgets and targets by the same Government. The caveat is that the same doctors can refuse the treatment on clinical grounds - would such a clinical ground be that the pensioner has less time left to live, I wonder? Even better though is that Age Discrimination will be outlawed in the holidays and insurance business. Quite where that leaves Health Insurance actuarial calculations I don't know.

But before you pensioners call Club 18-30 it's exempt. However, there is nothing stopping me being on your next Saga Holiday.

Are we Better off Then?

I have no idea. Certainly the Bill is unlikely to have been drawn up by anybody who employs people because it just seems so daft. Positive Discrimination is either right or wrong; making it optional is absurd. But more importantly, how on earth do you properly decide and act within the law? How similar do the credentials have to be to allow positive discrimination to be invoked? What are the repercussions if positive discrimination is used and it is subsequently proven all was not equal after all? Would the white male blighted by the decision have a case in law to claim actual discrimination as opposed to being positively discriminated against? Finally, why wasn't age included in the positive discrimination part - would that also have been logical if this was so much of an issue?

I can hear the Employment Law eagles tapping their calculators furiously as the answer is 'Billable Hours'. Hands up all those in Government who are lawyers by qualification! Quite a few - my, my is that not a strange coincidence.