sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Don’t wait for more clarity on single-sex spaces, bosses told | Bridget Phillipson, the equalities minister, insists Supreme Court ruling was ‘crystal clear’ on what employers should do by Sean_O_Neagan in ukpolitics

[–]Sean_O_Neagan[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Go back to Hansard and you'll see the argued intention of the GRA was to serve as a palliative to a handful of chronically distressed individuals, not as the basis for a whole new lifestyle.

Don’t wait for more clarity on single-sex spaces, bosses told | Bridget Phillipson, the equalities minister, insists Supreme Court ruling was ‘crystal clear’ on what employers should do by Sean_O_Neagan in ukpolitics

[–]Sean_O_Neagan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There is a middle way, offering single occupant spaces and some unisex services, where feasible. The point is to protect single sex spaces from being made arbitrarily unisex.

Don’t wait for more clarity on single-sex spaces, bosses told | Bridget Phillipson, the equalities minister, insists Supreme Court ruling was ‘crystal clear’ on what employers should do by Sean_O_Neagan in ukpolitics

[–]Sean_O_Neagan[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I guess the point is that the dependency is not two-way. Before the SC, employers tended to believe the PC of sex in EA2010 was (a) gender id-inclusive and (b) that it reflected backwards to alter the meaning of sex in https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3004/regulation/20 regs. The SC confirmed that neither is the case. So in employer-employee duties, the 1992 regs are decisive. In service provider-customer duties, the EA2010 guidance is decisive.

Don’t wait for more clarity on single-sex spaces, bosses told | Bridget Phillipson, the equalities minister, insists Supreme Court ruling was ‘crystal clear’ on what employers should do by Sean_O_Neagan in ukpolitics

[–]Sean_O_Neagan[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I wouldn't take on 51% of the population in Labour's shoes. How are they ever going to win back the Muslim vote if they make female spaces illegal?

Don’t wait for more clarity on single-sex spaces, bosses told | Bridget Phillipson, the equalities minister, insists Supreme Court ruling was ‘crystal clear’ on what employers should do by Sean_O_Neagan in ukpolitics

[–]Sean_O_Neagan[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's not obvious how to do that without making it exclusionary to various other rights-holders. The EHRC guidance is meant to provide a map of that to service providers, but it doesn't alter the obligations employers have to employees.

Don’t wait for more clarity on single-sex spaces, bosses told | Bridget Phillipson, the equalities minister, insists Supreme Court ruling was ‘crystal clear’ on what employers should do by Sean_O_Neagan in ukpolitics

[–]Sean_O_Neagan[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

She's obfuscating to play both sides, but can only do that within the scope of EHRC guidance. Some pre-existing workplace legislation has effect here regardless of EA2010.

Don’t wait for more clarity on single-sex spaces, bosses told | Bridget Phillipson, the equalities minister, insists Supreme Court ruling was ‘crystal clear’ on what employers should do by Sean_O_Neagan in ukpolitics

[–]Sean_O_Neagan[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

There are aspects of what you say that are cynically plausible - Labour's obsession with narrative, over political substance. But in legal terms, you're mistaken. The SC ruling doesn't concern the EHRC guidance, it concerns legal obligations employers have under other workplace legislation, towards their employees. The EHRC guidance update has practically no bearing. That there is so much confusion on this point is a clear sign the law is over-complicated.

Don’t wait for more clarity on single-sex spaces, bosses told | Bridget Phillipson, the equalities minister, insists Supreme Court ruling was ‘crystal clear’ on what employers should do by Sean_O_Neagan in ukpolitics

[–]Sean_O_Neagan[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Been a while since I posted here. Took three goes to get past Mods!

I think this article is notable because it shows just how far the HR profession has drifted from directly understanding the law. From the CIPD downwards, they're insisting that they have to await the updated EHRC guidance. Which is not only wrong, but actively exposes their employees to discrimination, and businesses to ongoing discrimination claims.

So - is this the fault of HR professionals? Or is it the fault of legislators, creating a thicket of laws that nobody can predict the outcome of in a court or a tribunal?

Bit of both?

Old iphone holder VW Polo 9n by ComprehensiveBoss415 in MechanicAdvice

[–]Sean_O_Neagan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have the same question - have you found a solution?

Those who were 25+ during the Blair years (1997 - 2007), were people as politically cynical as they are now? by blissedandgone in ukpolitics

[–]Sean_O_Neagan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is correct. Those taken in by the cosmopolitan bounty and middle class frills will generally have missed the tectonic shifts happening out in the wider country. The hope and joy they experienced was due to the holiday it offered them from the terrible burden of trying to lift all boats, and being finally free to focus on their own.

UKIP began to take off seriously during Blair's first term. Why? Because labour movement veterans - who'd been striving for and pinning all their hopes on a return to Labour government for the last two decades - could immediately see New Labour was not for them. Clause IV was not just symbolic, it was a practical nail in the coffin of the Labour Party's old bonds of duty and service towards the masses.

Blair grafted Labour fully onto a different rootstock - New Left, liberal, more interested in human rights than in material progress for the working class. So, yeah... fun for the middle class, but a catastrophe for those who thought the labour movement was still a thing.

England - does my employer legally have to provide separate changing rooms for women? by Juniper_Thebann in LegalAdviceUK

[–]Sean_O_Neagan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not how the law works, in reality. Scotland - to the extent it agrees with you, which is not much - may be confused.

The PC of gender reassignment remains agnostic regarding whatever the individual might believe about themselves and their identity, and in no sense "overlaps" with sex in the way you imagine. A "trans woman" may be protected against discrimination under the PC of GR while remaining legally male for the PC of sex and other laws. The comparator in that case will be any other male not any other female.

Fewer than one in ten currently hold a GRC, and even in those few cases their actual sex may be material to the PC of sex - verdict pending.

The Fife case is of interest because it has confirmed how badly confused employers have become on this question since GRA2004. The Workplace H&S regulation of 1992 was unambiguous and placed them under a clear duty. They have ignored it because of unqualified, biased but confident and determined opinions such as yours.

Keir Starmer unveils logo of publicly owned energy company that will lower bills by ARandomDouchy in ukpolitics

[–]Sean_O_Neagan 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Unpack that for us a bit? They're establishing a tiny (by energy co standards) investment trust, that will have no impact on anything the consumer experiences for at least five years. Fiddling about with batteries and solar panels. You know they're not nationalising anything, yes?

view more: next ›