Public sector bias against men in recruiting and promoting and training and paying them, anti-male employment tribunals

Two days ago we published a piece titled Former civil servant Kevin Legge, who claimed he was sacked from the Environment Agency for not being a feminist, is ordered to pay £20,000 for ‘vexatious’ and ‘unreasonable’ case. Our thanks to “James” for posting comments, reproduced here with his permission:

“Women bringing claims to the employment tribunal receive huge payments, on the basis of the most tenuous of complaints of “discrimination” (see Wendy Williams v MOD, Birmingham employment tribunal, £560,000 and Rebecca Kalam v West Mids police, Birmingham employment tribunal, £830,000).

Yet, where a man brings complaints of discrimination, he is forced to pay tens of thousands of pounds to the very people who have discriminated against him.

It is no wonder that very few men bring claims of sex discrimination to the employment tribunal, let alone are “allowed” to win. The only case that I am aware of is Furlong v Cheshire police.

I assume that many men do not bring claims, because they assume (probably correctly) that the “system” is biased and discriminatory against men and in favour of women, or they are unaware that men are afforded (in principle) the same “protections” under the law as women – the protected characteristic, is “sex”.

This Environment Agency case has parallels with what I have experienced, whilst working for a large a public sector (government) body. Some of the particular discrimination that I have personally experienced in the public sector:

  • a female dominated HR department that has been described as engaging in “institutional misandry”.
  • myself being paid substantially less than women for doing exactly the same work.
  • the “gender pay gap” being used as a reason for paying women more than men, and for recruiting or promoting less qualified women into the higher paid positions. (Note: it is unlawful to pay a man less than a woman for doing the same work, but it is NOT unlawful to pay women less than men ON AVERAGE).
  • rigged / biased performance reviews that give preferential treatment to women and “male allies” to give them higher bonuses and pay rises.
  • rigged / biased “competency based” interviews (using subjective criteria rather than objective criteria) and the promotion or recruitment of women who do not hold the qualifications required by the positions over men who do.
  • shortlisting women for interview despite not holding the required qualifications, and then appointing them into the position over better qualified men who do hold the required qualifications.
  • women being provided with more training and development (which leads to higher pay), and then this being used to claim that they are “better” and more “deserving” of recruitment or promotion into the higher paid positions, or bigger pay rises and bonuses.
  • positive discrimination and quotas being used to give preferential treatment to women on an almost unlimited basis, but the company calling this “positive action” and “targets” to disguise the discriminatory intent (positive action and targets are lawful, positive discrimination and quotas are not).
  • using “equity” to give preferential treatment to women and minorities, but calling this “equality”.
  • serious sexual harassment by a male manager towards another man, about which nothing was done. This within the same company that has penalised men for “sexual harassment masquerading as banter”.
  • a grievance system that discriminates in favour of women and against men. Rewards and preferential treatment being given to women who make complaints, but victimisation and harassment of a man who made complaints.
  • it is apparent that the (taxpayer funded) employment tribunal offers no protection whatsoever for men who are being discriminated against, and if anything the employment tribunal further discriminates against men who bring claims of discrimination.

I am not sure what, if anything, can be done to raise awareness of this issue, or to elicit any form of change, so that the tribunal system gives fair and equal treatment to men who make complaints of discrimination.”

—————————-

If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.

Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.

If everyone who reads this gives us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. You can support our work by making a donation here.

One thought on “Public sector bias against men in recruiting and promoting and training and paying them, anti-male employment tribunals

  1. “I am not sure what, if anything, can be done to raise awareness of this issue, or to elicit any form of change, so that the tribunal system gives fair and equal treatment to men who make complaints of discrimination.”

    I think it was Einstein who said, we can’t solve our problems at the same level of thinking at which it was created.

    Bringing cases to Court or the EAT will be ineffective.

    Different tactics have been somewhat successful against a misandrist barrister who shall not be named. I suspect the BSB didn’t act because it wanted to, it acted because the way things were progressing was going to start bringing its own reputation into disrepute.

    The Achilles heel was eluded to recently in an article by Phillip Davies MP, namely activist lawyers giving their own personal views and not legal advice.

    Men are entitled to Legal Aid for discrimination (on the merits test) on the same basis of sex discrimination as women (they would then have to pass the means test.

    The evidence gathering stage has already been conducted and that there is evidence that feminist activist lawyers in the Civil Legal Advice are allowing their personal views to unfairly discriminate by not granting Legal Aid to men for discrimination on the basis of sex. CLA – https://checklegalaid.service.gov.uk/contact

    This arguably amounts to a breach of the SRA code of Conduct, para 1.1 which states:

    1: Maintaining trust and acting fairly

    i

    1. You do not unfairly discriminate by allowing your personal views to affect your professional relationships and the way in which you provide your services.

    I suspect the SRA will not want to have to take it seriously, but a lot of free speech and trying to get someone like Reform interested may help focus their minds. Why are people who enter the country illegally getting Legal Aid and men who are at risk of becoming homeless or unfairly discriminated against at work etc being refused Legal Aid based on the personal views of activists lawyers. Solicitors are officers of the court who owe duties to the court, administration of justice and the public interest. They are not hired guns whose only duty is to their client or to their own personal ideological views.

    https://www.sra.org.uk/globalassets/documents/solicitors/freedom-in-practice/balancing-duties-in-litigation.pdf?version=49070d

    Like

Leave a comment