I am unashamedly pro-equality, many others will easily say the same thing. However for some reason many of those people will try to claim that some people need to be more equal than others. On one side of the fence it is the BNP with their "we're not racist but white kids should get first choice on schools" amongst other hypocritical rhetoric. On the other you have Harriet Harman with "I'm for equality, but will legalise employers 'positively' discriminating". I, as others, don't really agree with this term "positive" discrimination as one persons gain is another persons loss...ultimately we feel that everyone should be equal in their entirity, but equal not in statistics and targets, just equal in opportunity, value and thinking.

It's this reason why I have to ultimately ask why it is that Harriet Harman's new legislation would be necessary, and whether or not liberal minded people should really be putting their support so readily behind it.

First of all I want to applaud what is good about the bill. I think openness about pay is long overdue, and outlawing gagging clauses on pay is a good thing. I also applaud the idea that if decisions are made against an employer that the effects are felt through all disadvantages parties not just the complainant. Stopping companies from being able to refuse health insurance to those that are older is great, and generally ensuring that companies cannot block opportunities to those that are disabled or old is a necessity in modern liberal societies.

But unfortunately I cannot agree, or do not see the relevance, of just as many alternate announcements. Publishing pay figures, refusing contracts to companies that don't meet a centralised equality standard and most strangely legalising positive discrimination

Gender Pay

Let's start with the gender pay gap. Harriet Harman did a huge disservice to the gender pay gap by using fudged figures that compare part-time pay to full time pay. This doesn't mean that she doesn't have a point. I've commented in the past about why the figures we actually have on the gender pay gap aren't enough. The facts are that women, despite being promoted faster than men, are taking home less pay than people on an equal employment (and therefore skills) level than men, notably 20% less than men at the highest level of employment. What we don't know is enough about how much those pay gaps are down to women having taken time out to have children and other things, or if it is down to men supposedly being more bullish and secretive about pay.

It is this last point that I believe Harman is trying to break open, and stopping companies from being able to stop discussions about salary levels is a good thing, but doing so by making companies publish pay details is detrimental to both market competitiveness and counter-productive to progression of pay.

On the first point, if all companies know precisely what it is that their direct competitors are paying for their talent then it becomes much harder for employees to argue about pay rises. If an employer can just point at the nearest competitor and say "well you won't get any better elsewhere" then it's not exactly empowering the employee to progress, develop and better themselves. It is equality in the most nasty and bland way.

Secondly, as alluded to above, it also means that companies will be less likely to award pay increases not only based on other companies pay portfolio but also because an employer will be apprehensive in rewarding a pay rise if that has to go to everyone. Now let me stop you here, yes...I know...what exactly is equal about one person benefiting while others don't? Well as I said, I agree completely with allowing employee's at all time to be able to discuss their pay increases and salary situation, but also enabling salary to be personal and individual enough that employers can be flexible in the delivery of that aspect of employment. It is no benefit to equality or for the employment market to make everything as generic and level as possible. A stagnant pond becomes overgrown with algae, and likewise a stagnant market will breed a lack of productivity and brain drain.

Awarding Contracts

I also don't like this idea that companies could be refused public contracts if they are not "equal" enough in their workforce. I've said it on Liberal Conspiracy that if a company exists that has gone through an equality based employment process but employs 100% white males, then that is not a discriminatory workforce. Forgive me perhaps for not trusting Labour on centralised targets, and that they don't possess the finesse to differentiate between discriminatory employers and those employers that don't happen to have an accurately diverse workforce. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating I guess, and perhaps some of my concerns about how companies would be measured up against the Labour yard stick of equality will be quelled, but I'm not holding my breath.

Positive(?) Discrimination

But the main problem with this whole thing is legalising "positive" discrimination. As I said at the top of this article equality of process and of opportunity are the keys, the keys to breaking down inequality and discrimination in the workplace. This kind of measure is a plaster over a weeping wound, it's not a real solution. It is also worryingly ambiguous at this stage, and we should be asking whether or not this actually leaves the door open for truly discriminatory behaviour. If Harriet Harman had announced measures for more equal procedures then this couldn't happen, but legalising the action of employers favouring lesser candidates (not equal candidates as some have suggested) can surely lead to abuse?

Let's say that I own a company, Bright Neon Paint Ltd, and I really don't want to employ any black or Asian people in my company. There are black and Asian people that apply and to appear legitimate I bring them to interview. They are more qualified than anyone else but I don't want them. Could I now use this law to ensure I employ a lesser qualified woman on the basis that I don't feel women are represented enough in my workforce? Or how about feeling that there aren't a proportionate amount of Christians? There is surely no way that anyone can claim that I am discriminating other than positively, and therefore legally, to redress the balance of my company?

These kinds of measures are never the way to go to try and ensure that workforces are balanced. If the police need more ethnic minorities in the force then they should be trying to attract them through different means than fast tracking them past those that would make better officers. If schools want more male teachers then incentives are necessary to increase numbers, not putting a worse teacher in charge of educating our children for the sake of some equality figures.

The Real Way Forward

Ultimately I believe people need to accept that people do not necessarily wish to pick a career path that ensures every job will be diverse and equal. If even government incentives can't encourage more men to become primary school teachers then perhaps the government needs to look deeper than legislation to drive education standards down? Equality of opportunity should be about ensuring that employers cannot discriminate, sub-consciously or otherwise, because of someone's name or gender on an application form, by ensuring appropriate funding goes to those in poverty to lift them out of the poverty of opportunity they may feel exists, and by giving appropriate and free support to those that don't find it easy to convey their skills to employers on their CVs or in an interview.

We can all badly patch things together because we feel that something needs to be done, especially when your party is dying, but why is it so hard for this government to make not only the "tough choices" but also the "right choices" throughout?