Times caption: Theresa May discussed inequality in the Race Disparity Audit at No 10 yesterday (BRADLEY PAGE/GETTY IMAGES)
Following the insane introduction of compulsory gender pay gap reporting, the government is going to enforce ethnicity pay gap reporting in the private and public sectors. Why stop there? It’s long been known that taller people and attractive people, on average, earn more than shorter and less attractive people. We must demand that the government enforce compulsory height and weight and attractiveness pay gap reporting. I look forward to the chants at the ensuing demonstrations, such as:
What do we want?
Equal pay for short, fat, ugly munters!
When do we want it?
Now!!!
Helpfully, the Urban Dictionary has this:
An ugly woman (British slang)
Gaz got pissed and pulled a right munter last night!
A piece in today’s Times, emphases ours:
Private companies and public sector employers will be forced to reveal their ethnicity pay gap under plans to be outlined by Theresa May today.
The proposals will oblige bosses to reveal how much employees from ethnic minorities are paid compared with their white counterparts in a move that will mirror the gender pay gap audit carried out last year.
Some of the worst disparities are expected to be in the armed forces, police service, NHS and schools, where there are few ethnic minority chiefs.
A Whitehall source said that the audit was “likely to throw up some awkward conclusions, particularly for the public sector, which will have to take part. Think of what the results will look like in, say, the army or the NHS. It could be quite challenging. It’s just something we have to confront.”
The prime minister is keen to show that she has a domestic agenda despite the political dominance of Brexit and still wants to pursue some of the “burning injustices” she spoke of on the day she entered No 10. Today’s consultation paper says that tackling inequality in the workplace is a matter of “social justice”.
Gender pay gap reporting exposed stark differences between average pay, with women found to be earning up to 75 per cent less on average than men in some companies, and led to demands for change. The latest plan, however, is likely to pose difficulties for employers because there is no obligation for an individual to disclose his or her ethnic group. Among employers who collect the data, some say that the declaration rate is below 50 per cent.
The Office for National Statistics uses 18 standardised ethnic classifications and there is likely to be pressure for employers to provide a detailed breakdown. Although people from ethnic minorities on average have a lower employment rate, earn less and have worse career advancement, there are wide variations between groups.
Indians, for example, are most likely to work in the highest skilled occupations while more than two in five people from Pakistani and Bangladeshi backgrounds work in the three lowest-skilled types of job. Black workers are also more likely to be employed in lower-paid roles such as in the service, leisure and care sectors. [J4MB: Hmm… so the issues lie, if anywhere, in the ethic communities, this isn’t an issue of employer discrimination? What, then, is the point of ethnicity pay gap reporting, other than to stir up discontent for political advantage, in a futile attempt by a Conservative government to curry favour in ethnic minorities?]
The move comes on the first anniversary of a government “race audit”, which aimed to highlight variations in how people from different ethnic backgrounds were treated by public services. It found disparities between employment rates and educational outcomes, and revealed that white offenders were receiving shorter jail terms than those from ethnic minorities. [J4MB: Hmm, did it also find that women received shorter jail terms than men? The enormous prison sentencing gender gap isn’t a problem, clearly.]
The Conservatives’ 2017 manifesto included a pledge to “ask” large employers for details of ethnic minority pay gaps. Initially the government appealed to businesses to do this voluntarily but only 11 per cent have done so, prompting Mrs May’s move towards making it a legal requirement.
A review last year by Baroness McGregor-Smith, a Tory peer , recommended that organisations with more than 50 staff be forced to publish ethnicity pay gap data. She also called for employers of this size to publish five-year targets to improve their figures. [J4MB: If you want passive-aggressive proposals, ask a Baroness.]
The consultation gives several options for types of employers that should comply: those with 50 staff, those with more than 250, as with gender pay gap rules, and those with more than 500. It also suggests that the gap could be reported in different ways: either with a single figure; separate figures for broad categories such as Asian, black, mixed, other, unknown or white; or into up to 18 separate classifications, including Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Chinese, other Asian, Arab, African, Caribbean, Irish, [J4MB: Northern Irish? Scottish? Welsh? Cornish?] Gypsy or Traveller and four categories of mixed ethnicity.
The consultation will run until January and legislation [J4MB: Legislation will be unaffected by the consultation, as usual] could be introduced by the end of next year, although employers would probably be given at least another year to prepare.
The CBI said that it would support the move as long as it was done in a way that commanded support from businesses and did not intrude on private data. Matthew Fell, its chief UK policy director, said: “Transparency can be a catalyst for action in tackling the ethnicity pay gap, in the same way that it has been so successful for gender. [J4MB: The CBI has long been a major driver of anti-business SJW initiatives, particularly in the area of the “need” for more women in boardrooms.]
“Reporting must be done in a way that is supported by both businesses and employees, to recognise the wide range of ethnic groups and legitimate staff concerns about intrusiveness where sample sizes are small.”
Frances O’Grady, general secretary of the TUC, said: “This is something unions have been calling for. Without government action, racist discrimination at work will continue to be a problem. [J4MB: Of course she offers no evidence that such a thing exists.] These proposals must have teeth. As well as publishing their pay gaps companies must be required to set out how they are going to close them.” [J4MB: They must set this out, even if there is no evidence of racial discrimination? So BME people will be paid more purely on the basis of their ethnicity, and white people less on the basis of their ethnicity, to fund that? In the private sector at least, there is a finite pot of money to pay for salaries. In the public sector taxpayers will of course fund this lunacy.]
If everyone who read this gave us just £1.00 – or even better, £1.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
