Equality, Diversity and Disadvantage in Employment

Equality, Diversity and Disadvantage in Employment Edited by

Mike Noon and Emmanuel Ogbonna

EQUALITY, DIVERSITY AND DISADVANTAGE IN EMPLOYMENT

Also by Mike Noon THE REALITIES OF WORK (with Paul Blyton)

Equality, Diversity and Disadvantage in Employment Edited by

Mike Noon and

Emmanuel Ogbonna

© Selection, editorial matter and Chapter 1 © Mike Noon and Emmanuel Ogbonna 2001 Individual chapters (in order) © Wendy Richards; Nelarine Cornelius, Larraine Gooch and Shaun Todd; John Kaler; Lynne Bennington; Harish C. Jain; Ian Cunningham and Philip James; Elisabeth Michielsens, Linda Clarke and Christine Wall; Trevor Colling and Linda Dickens; Cliff Oswick and Patrice Rosenthal; Andrew Pilkington; Gillian Reynolds, Phillip Nicholls and Catrina Alferoff; Irene Bruegel 2001 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1P 0LP. Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2001 by PALGRAVE Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS and 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010 Companies and representatives throughout the world PALGRAVE is the new global academic imprint of St. Martin’s Press LLC Scholarly and Reference Division and Palgrave Publishers Ltd (formerly Macmillan Press Ltd). ISBN 0–333–80124–5 This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 Printed in Great Britain by Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham, Wiltshire

Contents Notes on the Contributors 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

vii

Introduction: The Key Analytical Themes Mike Noon and Emmanuel Ogbonna

1

Evaluating Equal Opportunities Initiatives: The Case for a ‘Transformative’ Agenda Wendy Richards

15

Managing Difference Fairly: An Integrated ‘Partnership’ Approach Nelarine Cornelius, Larraine Gooch and Shaun Todd

32

Diversity, Equality, Morality John Kaler

51

Age and Carer Discrimination in the Recruitment Process: Has the Australian Legislation Failed? Lynne Bennington

65

Equality and Diversity in Employment in Canada Harish C. Jain

80

Managing Diversity and Disability Legislation: Catalysts for Eradicating Discrimination in the Workplace? Ian Cunningham and Philip James

103

Diverse Equality in Europe: The Construction Sector Elisabeth Michielsens, Linda Clarke and Christine Wall

118

Gender Equality and Trade Unions: A New Basis for Mobilisation? Trevor Colling and Linda Dickens

136

Towards a Relevant Theory of Age Discrimination in Employment Cliff Oswick and Patrice Rosenthal

156

v

Contents

vi 11

12

13

Beyond Racial Dualism: Racial Disadvantage and Ethnic Diversity in the Labour Market Andrew Pilkington

172

Disabled People, (Re)Training and Employment: A Qualitative Exploration of Exclusion Gillian Reynolds, Phillip Nicholls and Catrina Alferoff

190

The Full Monty: Men into Women’s Work? Irene Bruegel

208

Author Index

229

Subject Index

234

Notes on the Contributors Catrina Alferoff is a Research Officer in the Postgraduate School of Medicine at Keele University. She is currently undertaking EU-funded cross-national research into the working lives, training and development of older workers. Previously she researched and lectured in Sociology and Human Resource Management at Staffordshire University. Her principle areas of interest lie in equal opportunities, organisations, the impact of new technologies, power and social change and the restructuring of the NHS. She has published on flexibility and training for older workers, direct mail, new technology and the problem of privacy, and on disability and access to employment. Lynne Bennington is the Research Director of the Graduate School of Management and an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Law and Management at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia. Prior to becoming an academic, she had significant management experience in both the public and private sectors. In addition to her ongoing research on age discrimination, she has research interests in services quality, public administration, marketing and educational psychology. Her major teaching areas are in human resource management and international management. Irene Bruegel is a political economist with a long standing interest and involvement with gender divisions in the labour market and with local economic development and urban policy in Britain. She is Professor of Urban Policy at South Bank University, helps to run the Local Economy Policy Unit at South Bank and edits the journal Local Economy. Her current research is on gender restructuring in developed western economies. Linda Clarke is a Reader in the Westminster Business School, University of Westminster. As well as teaching on employee relations in Europe, she is responsible for a programme of research within the Education, Training and the Labour Market Research Group on wage relations, skills, training, gender segregation and the labour process in different European countries – much of this with specific reference to the construction industry. Her publications include Building Capitalism vii

viii

Notes on the Contributors

(Routledge, 1992) and, with Christine Wall A Blueprint for Change: Construction Skills Training in Britain (Policy Press, 1998). Trevor Colling is Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Human Resource Management at De Montfort University, Leicester. He has researched and published widely in the area of sex discrimination and collective bargaining. He is co-author, with Linda Dickens, of Equality Bargaining – Why Not? (HMSO), and contributed to the major programme of research on equal opportunities in Europe undertaken by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Nelarine Cornelius is a Lecturer in Human Resource Management, and heads the Organisational Change and Development Subject Group in the School of Business and Management at Brunel University. She teaches on a range of undergraduate, post-experience and postgraduate programmes. Prior to becoming a university lecturer, she worked for General Motors (UK and Europe) and also in local government, as an internal consultant in the fields of Management and Organisational Development and Equal Opportunities and Personnel Systems’ Development. A chartered psychologist, her research interests include the management of workforce diversity and inclusion and organisational learning. She has also acted as a consultant for a number of major private and public sector organisations. Ian Cunningham is a Lecturer in Human Resource Management at the University of Strathclyde. He has previously been involved in research into management initiatives designed to encourage employee involvement and participation. Ian is joint coordinator, with Professor Phil James, of a two-year project funded by Middlesex University examining the impact of the Disability Discrimination Act on absence management policies. His other current research interests include changes to employee relations in the voluntary sector, the impact of the Employment Relations Act, and management policies to reduce violence at work in the rail and airline industries. Linda Dickens is Professor of Industrial Relations at the University of Warwick and a member of its Industrial Relations Research Unit. She has researched and published widely, including work on legal intervention in employment relations and equal employment opportunity.

Notes on the Contributors

ix

Larraine Gooch is a Principal Lecturer in Human Resource Management in the Business School at Oxford Brookes University. She manages the Business School’s Human Resource Management and Management Development Unit. She teaches on a range of undergraduate, postgraduate and post-experience programmes. Prior to becoming a University lecturer, she spent a number of years in the field of personnel management in the private and public sectors, including J. Lyons and BBC Television. A Fellow of the Institute of Personnel Management and Development, her research interests include the management of diversity and career paths of women in personnel. Harish C. Jain is a Professor of Human Resources and Labour Relations at the Michael G. DeGroote School of Business at McMaster University. His research interests include human rights, diversity management and employment equity; labour relations policy; and comparative human resource and industrial relations policies of multinationals in developing countries. He has published widely on these issues. He is currently (appointed April 1999) a member of the Canadian Human Rights Act Review Panel. He has been policy advisor and consultant to the South African Department of Labour; the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris, France; and the Royal Commission of Distribution of Income and Wealth in the UK. Philip James is Professor of Employment Relations at Middlesex University Business School. Previously, he has worked at the University of Birmingham and for the Industrial Relations Services. He has published and researched widely in the fields of industrial relations and occupational health and safety. His current research interests include the impact of recent employment law reforms, the regulations of health and safety at work, and the management of absence and disability. He is on the editorial board of the Human Resource Management Journal and is an executive committee member of the Institute of Employment Rights. John Kaler is a Senior Lecturer in the University of Plymouth Business School, teaching business ethics, cultural issues in business, and jurisprudence. He is the co-author (with G. Chryssides) of An Introduction to Business Ethics (Chapman & Hall, 1993; ITP, 1996 – second edition forthcoming), and of Essentials of Business Ethics (McGraw-Hill, 1996). Elisabeth Michielsens is a Research Fellow at the University of Westminster with particular interest in gender and labour market issues.

x

Notes on the Contributors

She studied Social and Political Sciences and Business Economics in Belgium and worked in several EU countries as a researcher on crosscountry research concerning the employment of women and men in top positions in business and political life in a global context. Recently she worked with Linda Clarke and Christine Wall on EU initiatives to improve the position of women in non-traditional occupations. Currently, she is researching equal opportunities policies and human resource practices in a European context. Phillip Nicholls is a Principal Lecturer and Head of Department of Sociology at Staffordshire University, teaching comparative social structure, sociological theory and the sociology of health and medicine. He has conducted research on the history of complementary therapy since 1978, and more recently on the issue of disability. The main results of his work on the history of homeopathy are contained in Homeopathy and the Medical Profession (Croom Helm, 1988). Mike Noon is Professor of Human Resource Management at Leicester Business School, De Montfort University. In addition to racial/ethnic discrimination, his research and publications cover contemporary developments in HRM, the impact of technological change on work organisation and industrial relations. He has previously taught and researched at Cardiff Business School and Lancaster University. Emmanuel Ogbonna is Senior Lecturer at Cardiff Business School and Director of the Postgraduate Diploma in Business Administration. His major research and publications are in the areas of organisational strategy, culture, human resource management and the UK food retail sector. His other research interests cover all aspects of race discrimination on government-sponsored training programmes. Cliff Oswick is a Senior Lecturer in Organisational Analysis and Development at the Management Centre, King’s College, London, UK. In addition to an interest in the discursive analysis of organisations and organisational phenomena, he has an ongoing research interest in age discrimination which, at present, is primarily concerned with the study of ageist attitudes and stereotyping in the workplace. Andrew Pilkington is Head of the School of Social Studies at University College, Northampton. His primary research interest is within the sociology of race and ethnicity. His publications include Race Relations

Notes on the Contributors

xi

in Britain (1984) and Racial Disadvantage and Ethnic Diversity in Contemporary Britain (2000). Gillian Reynolds has lectured and researched at Staffordshire University. She has since retired from paid employment to concentrate on her personal research interests. She has been closely involved with publishing a Diocesan Guide on creating churches which are accessible and open to people with disabilities, carers of disabled people, and those with mental health needs. Her interests lie in disability issues, Christian spirituality and Christian cultures, and she is currently engaged in research for a book of memories of the twentieth century for her local church. Travel, gardening, walking, church involvement and her family leave her little time to ponder on the benefits of employment. Wendy Richards has been Lecturer in Industrial Relations in the Department of Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations at Keele University since 1988. Her principal research interests are interdisciplinary, in the area of gender discrimination and in remedies for discrimination, such as equal opportunities policies and the law. She has published in these areas, as well as on Irish industrial relations and employment law. Patrice Rosenthal is a Lecturer in Organisational Analysis and Human Resource Management at the Management Centre, King’s College, London. She has published in a range of journals, including Work, Employment and Society, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, British Journal of Industrial Relations and the International Journal of Human Resource Management. Her work on ageism is part of a wider research interest in discrimination and diversity in the workplace, which includes gender and managerial work. She also conducts research on HRM and front-line service work, and on the evaluation of organisational change. Shaun Todd is an independent consultant working in the areas of human resource management, training and development and diversity. He has worked in the field of diversity management for many years. Previously, he worked as an HR consultant in equal opportunities and recruitment for Great Western Trains. In addition to his consultancy work, Shaun lectures on personnel management professional qualification programmes. He is a Member of the Institute of Personnel and Development.

xii

Notes on the Contributors

Christine Wall is Senior Research Fellow at the Westminster Business School, University of Westminster. Her research interests cover the construction process in Europe, architecture and industrialisation in post-war Britain and the role of women in the European construction industries. Her related publications include ‘Women in Construction in Europe’, a special edition of Construction Labour Research News and Staying Power: Women in Direct Labour Building Teams (with Linda Clarke).

1 Introduction: The Key Analytical Themes Mike Noon and Emmanuel Ogbonna

The concept of equal opportunities is increasingly being replaced with the notion of the management of diversity. It has been a gradual drift, emanating from writers and organisations in the USA, travelling across to the UK and seeping into mainland Europe. In both theory and practice it offers a new challenge to both conceptualising and tackling the issues of equality, discrimination and injustice in employment. The chapters in this collection illuminate different aspects of these changing theoretical and practical problems. In particular they lay down two challenges. The first is to explore the nature of equality by analysing the framework, assumptions and policy implications that emerge from an approach of equal opportunity compared with the management of diversity. The second is to examine how groups become disadvantaged and unfairly discriminated against. This introduction is organised around these two analytical themes because this provides an opportunity to explore the common ideas and different tensions across the chapters as a whole. It further allows us to introduce the chapters through summarising their central ideas at the outset, rather than seeking to draw together the themes at the end; consequently, there is no concluding chapter. This, we argue, is a more dynamic way of integrating the chapters. In this respect, the introduction can be seen as the centre of a network of ideas, problems, dilemmas and themes that interlink the various chapters. In themselves, the chapters represent a diversity: of approach, of style and of method. In terms of approach, the authors reveal their different orientations to the equal opportunities or management of diversity problem. Some tackle the issue head on, whilst others address it more obliquely as a consequence of their empirical investigations. They also focus on different subject groups; thus there are four chapters exploring gender-related issues and two each covering race/ethnicity, disability and age. Two further chapters, one empirical and the other theoretical take a general approach to theory and policies rather than focusing upon a specific disadvantaged group. 1

2

Introduction

There is also a diversity of style: from detailed empirical investigations, reported in a systematic, scientific manner, to polemical discussions that seek to convince through rhetoric rather than data. Methodologically, the papers range from qualitative to quantitative approaches, using a variety of research tools and techniques: non-structured and semi-structured interviews, questionnaires, quasi-experiments, observation, secondary data analysis, action research and covert method. The rest of this introduction is divided into two main sections to explore the themes that emerge from the various chapters in their analysis of (1) equality and diversity, and (2) disadvantage.

ANALYSING EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY Which Approach? One of the fundamental issues facing those who research, devise and implement measures to alleviate inequality and unfair discrimination is the theoretical base upon which to build policy. Put simply, there seem to be two potentially competing solutions to the problem: one focuses on equal opportunities, the other on the management of diversity. Underpinning these are two different rationales: the need for social justice (the moral case) or the needs of the organisation (the business case). In turn these lead to very different conclusions about the appropriate course of action: regulation with government intervention through policy-making; or voluntarism allowing self-regulation of organisations under the guidance of market forces. Of course in drawing out these two stereotypes we are in some senses setting up a false dichotomy whereby one approach is seen as in total conflict with the other (Liff and Dickens, 1999). In practice, if not in theory, there may be occasions where both an equal opportunities approach and a management of diversity approach might be pursued with equal vigour and with some complementarity. But for analytical purposes, characterising these two approaches as offering a competing (and often contradictory) emphasis provides a conceptual map to locate various equality initiatives and policies. In addition, such a conceptualisation allows us to theorise a drift from a (traditional) equal opportunities approach to a (contemporary) management of diversity approach. This raises some important questions. To what extent is this change a conscious move because of the inadequacy of previous approaches to tackling inequality; or to what extent does it reflect a new agenda of concerns reflective of a funda-

Mike Noon and Emmanuel Ogbonna

3

mentally different context? Certainly many of the traditional approaches to equal opportunities might be said to have ‘failed’ in the sense that unfair discrimination has not been eliminated. Yet they might be judged successful if they are measured in terms of the progress towards equality of opportunity. Much of the contemporary debate about the management of diversity implies that it is both a more appropriate and more adequate approach that will supersede the obsolescent ideas of equal opportunities (Kandola and Fullerton, 1994; Ross and Schneider, 1992). But as we shall see in the following chapters, none of the authors accept this line of thinking and instead point to the differences between the approaches. The contrast in approach is vividly illustrated by Wendy Richards (Chapter 2) on the one hand and by Nelarine Cornelius, Larraine Gooch and Shaun Todd (Chapter 3) on the other. Richards explores what might be termed a ‘mainstream’ equal opportunities initiative which is firmly located within the ‘liberal’ approach to policy-making: an approach that advocates intervention to ensure that ‘individuals are enabled freely and equally to compete for social rewards’ (Jewson and Mason, 1986: 313). She evaluates Opportunity 2000 – a national initiative in the UK aimed at improving the career chances for women within organisations – and reveals how its impact is only partly effective in her case study organisations. Whilst Opportunity 2000 can be credited with improving employment opportunities higher up the organisations – thereby raising the glass ceiling – it has little effect for women at the bottom end of the pay and career structure. Furthermore, Richards found little evidence of genuine commitment amongst the managers; the policy was seen as an administrative necessity rather than being of organisational benefit. The problem, according to Richards, is that initiatives driven by employers consistently fail because they reflect the issues that are seen to be important by employers and not employees. Yet, for Cornelius, Gooch and Todd, this is the virtue of equality initiatives: an employer’s commitment to the policy, through a partnership with employees, produces the basis for success. Their chapter explores how employers can be encouraged to broaden their agenda by seeing the diversity of their workforce as an asset; for example, a diversity of views and opinions from people of different backgrounds can be a means of identifying and exploiting new business opportunities, moving into new markets and appealing to a broader customer base. In the context of their case study analysis based on action research, they argue that a holistic approach to the management of diversity ensures that equality and discrimination

4

Introduction

are brought into the mainstream of management thinking and business planning, rather than being seen as a separate set of issues to be addressed through specific policies. Whilst such arguments for the management of diversity are unlikely to convince Richards, she too notes the importance of extending the agenda. However, rather than allowing it to be directed by managers, she advocates the transformative approach (Cockburn, 1989) that requires deeper, structural change in the composition of the workforce and access to positions of influence and decision-making. This would require more radical initiatives that are unlikely to fit easily within a management-driven diversity approach. Voluntarism or Intervention? Returning to the question of the theorised drift: undoubtedly, the political and economic context plays an important part in setting the limits to social policy (see for example, Jewson and Mason, 1994). Thus the conservative, right-wing agenda of the 1980s and early 1990s in the UK and the USA provided a political environment in which a deregulated, voluntarist, diversity approach could flourish. This contrasts with the social regulatory frameworks in parts of Europe and in countries such as Canada and Australia. It can be argued that the rationale behind the diversity approach is fundamentally different to that of equal opportunities. This is most forcefully expressed in Chapter 4 by John Kaler. In a detailed, theoretical analysis, he carefully unpacks the concept of equal opportunities and reveals how it rests fundamentally on a moral objective: social justice. The dilemma, however, is that social justice might be pursued through at least two different versions of equal opportunities. The first stresses procedural justice, whilst the second emphasises representativeness in outcomes. For example, in a recruitment process, this would mean either a person is selected according to merit (procedural justice) or he/she is selected in order to fulfil a quota (to ensure representativeness). Selection on merit alone will not produce representativeness unless that merit is evenly distributed throughout all groups. Of course such even distribution is highly unlikely due to structural disadvantages and inequalities (schooling, economic support, connections, social stereotypes, and so forth) which limit a person’s potential to acquire meritorious characteristics. The consequence of this, argues Kaler, is that remedial intervention by the government is seen as necessary in order to preserve the objective of social justice.

Mike Noon and Emmanuel Ogbonna

5

The alternative approach is to base policy-making (or lack thereof) solely on the needs of the organisation. Advocates of this line of thinking would argue, for example, that organisational self-interest will guarantee the recruitment and promotion of minorities because it would not be in the economic interest of the business to ignore a valuable source of labour. Such ‘business case’ arguments have been vehemently challenged by commentators (for example, Dickens, 1994 and 1999) for being based naively on faith in the free market and failing to acknowledge that business imperatives may in some circumstances provide justification for not acting fairly. For example, in Chapter 7 by Cunningham and James, line managers justify the decision not to employ disabled people on business grounds: that the workplace adjustments necessary under the Disability Discrimination Act would eat into their operating budgets. Similarly, Oswick and Rosenthal’s survey (Chapter 10) reveals that the supposed lower ability of older workers to hit performance targets is the reason used by some managers to justify why certain jobs are reserved for young people. Although Kaler is careful not to associate organisational self-interest solely with the management of diversity approach, he condemns it as morally vacuous and antithetical to the objective of an absence of discrimination. His conclusion is unequivocal: nothing is to be gained by moving to the management of diversity approach. Inevitably, the diversity/equal opportunities argument becomes intertwined with concerns about the extent of, or even need for, government regulation through legislation. At one extreme are those commentators who argue that regulation is unnecessary because of the ‘business case’ reasons outlined above. None of the authors in this collection adhere to such a viewpoint – all argue that at least some form of regulation is needed to provide an appropriate context for organisations to enact policies encouraging equality and/or diversity. Many of the chapters are dealing with different legislative contexts and therefore provide some interesting points of comparison. Lynne Bennington’s analysis (Chapter 5) of the impact of Australian legislation designed to curb discrimination on the basis of age or carer responsibilities (such as childcare needs or looking after sick or elderly relatives) leads her to conclude that legislation is only likely to have a limited impact. Through her use of bogus applicants to secretarial positions, Bennington explored the likelihood of success in getting a job when the only difference between candidates was age or carer status. She confirmed that (as expected) age preferences and carer stereotypes have not been eradicated by the legislation. Importantly, this cannot be blamed on

6

Introduction

ignorance of the legislation since her subject group were recruitment consultants who ought to know the law as it affects their profession. In other words, her study provides evidence that unfair discrimination cannot be legislated out of existence. A useful comparison can be made with Chapter 6 by Harish Jain who explores the impact of the Employment Equity legislation in Canada on ethnic minorities. He explains that the legislation in Canada is far-reaching because it requires employers to work with trade unions in preparing employment equity plans; to establish equity goals with specific timetables; and to submit their employment equity plans to the Canadian Human Rights Commission for auditing. Jain argues that such legislation is thoroughly justified, given the extent of disadvantage for ‘visible minorities’ revealed by research, and he is confident about the efficacy of such regulatory measures. He advocates the development of an employment equity index that provides employers with a tool to assess their own employment practices, to ensure they are complying with the legislative requirements and to develop ‘best practices’. A good example of the UK context is provided by Ian Cunningham and Philip James in their analysis of the effectiveness of legislation intended to tackle the problem of discrimination based on disability (Chapter 7). From their survey of managers, some rather depressing findings emerge. There was very little auditing and monitoring of disability within the workforce to assess the nature and scale of workplace disability issues. The generally poor communications and consequent ignorance about the requirements of the legislation meant that, at best, there was minimum compliance. A host of other issues surfaced but Cunningham and James’s overall conclusion is that the legislation is not effective in getting organisations to change radically in their approach to the employment of disabled people. They argue that the legislation needs strengthening, perhaps more in line with the regulatory requirements identified by Jain (Chapter 6). However, as Bennington (Chapter 5) and Richards (Chapter 2) argue, it may well be that legislation can never be sufficient, and what is required is more fundamental change: a transformation in beliefs and attitudes to combat prejudices and stereotypes (see below). The legislative context is also a theme in Chapter 8 by Elizabeth Michielsens, Linda Clarke and Christine Wall. They examine a Europeanwide equality initiative, New Opportunities for Women (NOW) and assess the impact of the national context in moderating the success of the programme. Their analysis reveals how national divergence in terms of social policy, regulatory frameworks and assumptions about equality

Mike Noon and Emmanuel Ogbonna

7

can impact upon the interpretation and implementation of a common equality initiative. For example, the socio-democratic, equal treatment approach of Denmark produces the most progressive outcomes, whilst the regulated context of Spain can potentially achieve similar outcomes yet fails to do so because the equality problem (and consequent social policy concern) is not segregation but access to labour markets – unemployment being the major issue. Such differences not only produce varied effects across member states, but also lead to the pursuit of short-term objectives and undermine the EU approach of mainstreaming equality into all aspects of policy-making across and within member states (Rees, 1998). The impact of the European context is also explored by Trevor Colling and Linda Dickens (Chapter 9). They discuss how the developing EU social agenda, previously resisted by the Conservative administrations in the UK, has been embraced by the Labour government since its election in May 1997. However, more importantly their chapter examines how the agenda for equality should be seen as broadening not only to supranational level, but also regionally and locally through the trade union movement. Interestingly, they highlight how the marginalisation of the trade unions under successive Conservative governments between 1979 and 1997 led to a reappraisal within the trade unions of their policies and attitudes to gender equality issues. As a consequence, there was a widening of membership, improvements in the representation of women, and the incorporation of equality demands within collective bargaining. The new context of a Labour government that is generally supportive of workplace interventions concerned with greater equality and fairness provides the opportunity for trade unions to consolidate and build upon equality initiatives. However, Colling and Dickens remain sceptical of wholesale change because although women’s membership has increased, women are still under-represented in influencing and decision-making roles; and they warn that some trade unions might be tempted to resort to the malefocused, ‘business as usual’ agenda. Indeed, their analysis points at a bitter irony: whilst equality issues have been pursued by trade unions acting in the face of an onslaught from a succession of anti-union governments, such issues might drop down (or drop off) the agenda in the context of a government broadly sympathetic to trade union organising. Inevitably, as many of the chapters show, the political and economic context can both set the limits to action and promote action within organisations. In this sense, the agenda for equality has to be seen as bounded by the broader context and, in many respects, is a response to that context. The discontented will fall into two categories: those seeking

8

Introduction

a management of diversity approach but trapped in environments they consider to be over-regulated; or those seeking an equal opportunities approach yet frustrated by a lack of effective legislation to enforce compliance with policy initiatives. Our view is that the supposed drift to the management of diversity may be more an expression of commentators challenging the regulatory environment and finding support from the neo-liberal political thinking in the USA and the UK during the 1980s and 1990s. The change in the UK’s political context and the closer alignment with mainland Europe may shift the emphasis from the management of diversity back towards equal opportunities. Further, it seems that the term ‘diversity’ itself has acquired political baggage (neo-liberalism, voluntarism, deregulation, and so forth) and ought to be reclaimed for use as a neutral descriptor of variation within a workplace.

ANALYSING DISADVANTAGE Disadvantage is an important issue for all of the authors, but in several of the chapters it becomes the focus of the analysis. Three particular themes surface in these chapters and provide a means of understanding how disadvantage is constructed: defining the disadvantaged group, stereotyping and gatekeeping. Defining the disadvantaged group The chapters in this volume address four differences that can distinguish particular groups and lead to their disadvantage: gender, race/ ethnicity, disability and age. However, it becomes apparent from the analyses presented that whilst the common denominator is disadvantage, there is little reason to assume similarity in either the experiences of disadvantage or the potential needs of the various groups. Indeed, the emergent conclusion from the chapters is that the definition and type of disadvantage endured is distinct and, as a consequence, the different groups have different requirements. One way of illustrating this is by exploring the ‘fixity’ of the distinguishing group characteristic. It can be argued that gender is a characteristic that is ‘fixed’ because, apart from rare instances of sex-change, men and women do not experience gender change across their lives, and thereby have different experiences of sex discrimination. This rather obvious statement only becomes significant when it is contrasted with the issue of age discrimination. As Cliff Oswick and Patrice Rosenthal point out (Chapter 10), discrim-

Mike Noon and Emmanuel Ogbonna

9

ination on the grounds of age is something that potentially can affect everyone. They argue that people move in and out of age discrimination throughout their lives and in this sense there is a transience to the distinguishing characteristic (age) that defines the disadvantaged group. Everyone is susceptible to being a victim of ageism, and the type of ageism will change at different life stages. With poignant irony they note that there is a kind of ‘natural justice’ to this discrimination: we are all equally vulnerable and will all most likely be discriminated against on the grounds of age at some stage in our lives. In this sense their analysis may have particular appeal to those who would argue for a non-interventionary policy. Oswick and Rosenthal highlight a further difference that distinguishes discrimination on the basis of age. They explain that whereas discrimination is perpetrated typically by one group against a different group (men over women, able-bodied over less-abled, ethnic majority over minority) this is not true of ageism. For instance, their analysis reveals that older workers are frequently discriminated against by managers of similar ages; it is not simply the case that the ‘old’ are discriminated against by the ‘young’ (or vice versa). As they vividly express it, ‘the purveyors of ageism are also in other circumstances its recipients’. Thus there is ‘same-group’ discrimination, rather than ‘different-group’ discrimination. The inappropriateness of fixing definitions is also a theme in Chapter 12 by Gillian Reynolds, Phillip Nicholls and Catrina Alferoff. Their analysis reveals that not only is disability a diverse and wide-ranging categorisation, it too has a fluidity. People can move into a state of disability from ill-health, work accidents and ageing, thus whilst there are people ‘born disabled’, there is an increasing proportion of employees who ‘become disabled’. Moreover, the needs of those with different ‘disabilities’ is so wide that it leaves one questioning whether there is any use in the ‘disability’ categorisation at all. The same conclusion might be reached for race/ethnicity. Increasingly commentators (for example, Modood et al., 1997; Pilkington, Chapter 11) are arguing that research evidence suggests there is so much ethnic diversity that to describe discrimination as being the same across different ethnic groups fails to take into account its differential impact. This means it is essential to recognise the differences between ethnic groups not only in terms of their experiences of discrimination, but also in their varied requirements for redressing the discrimination. Furthermore, it is possible to challenge the assumptions that a person’s ethnic group can be clearly defined and remains fixed. First, there are increasingly

10

Introduction

people with multiple cultural identities who simply do not ‘fit’ the ethnic categories and, second, exposure to varied cultural influences means that ethnic identity is likely to change across one’s lifetime. This cultural diversity and the need to recognise heterogeneity within supposedly homogeneous groups is explored by Andrew Pilkington (Chapter 11). He evaluates the issue of whether there is a racially defined ‘underclass’ that can be distinguished by its disproportionate disadvantage in the labour market. After a careful analysis of statistical data from the UK census, Labour Forces Surveys and the Policy Studies Institute Surveys, he reaches the conclusion that whilst racial disadvantage is evident, the underclass thesis is not substantiated. In particular, he argues that the general trend revealed by the data is that the position of ethnic minorities relative to whites is improving, rather than deteriorating. Importantly, he qualifies this by identifying how different ethnic groups have progressed to differing extents, and consequently have increasingly diverse experiences within the labour market. Most notably, Pilkington links his analysis to recent work on culture in social theory which, he argues, provides a more appropriate analytical framework because it allows the exploration of ethnic diversity under continuing (although changing) conditions of racial disadvantage. So what can be concluded from these three chapters (10, 11 and 12)? In sum, the differences that define disadvantaged groups are far more imprecise than might first appear and the boundaries that delineate the disadvantaged are far more permeable. In this sense, disadvantage might increasingly become more widely experienced such that by the end of their working lives, the majority of people will have known what it is like to be unfairly discriminated against in the workplace. However, those with multiple disadvantage (for instance, older disabled and ethnic minority women) are likely to have a proportionately worse experience. Stereotyping One of the consistent themes within all analyses of discrimination is the role of stereotyping, so it is of no surprise that it surfaces as a key issue in several of the chapters. In particular, there is notable evidence of the importance of job-typing and stereotyping in terms of disability (Reynolds et al., Chapter 12), age (Oswick and Rosenthal, Chapter 10; Bennington, Chapter 5) and gender (Bruegel, Chapter 13). One of the most vivid accounts emerges from the analysis of the experiences of disabled people by Gillian Reynolds, Phillip Nicholls and Catrina Alferoff (Chapter 12). They show how a stereotypical image

Mike Noon and Emmanuel Ogbonna

11

of ‘the disabled employee’ having lower productivity, higher absence and greater dependency on others leads to a general perception of disabled people being ‘hard to employ’. The negative stereotype permeates the process of access to jobs with the result that opportunities become severely limited. Further, it perpetuates a general tendency to marginalise disabled people: ‘a process by which disabled people find themselves, in various ways, on the edges of social life, only being considered as a “side” issue, or as a necessary “extra” problem’ (Reynolds et al.). This process is vividly portrayed through illustrative quotations in the chapter that give a voice both to the recipients of the discrimination and the employers who perpetrate it. In the main, marginalisation is the result of an unquestioning acceptance of stereotypes; but at its most cynical it represents the ghettoising and exploitation of people because of their disability. This disturbing ‘positive’ discrimination manifests itself in opinions such as ‘deaf people are suited to assembly lines because they do not talk to other people’ and ‘people with learning disabilities enjoy boring jobs’. Evidence of age-typing of jobs is revealed in Chapter 10 by Cliff Oswick and Patrice Rosenthal. Their survey uncovers attitudes from the managers of how certain jobs are best suited to certain age groups and how age discrimination can be justified on these grounds. Thus, for example, it was seen as legitimate to discriminate in favour of older workers when the job demanded stability, loyalty and maturity, and against them when fitness, energy and innovation were required. Interestingly (although the authors do not comment on this) there are often gender assumptions evident in the quotations they cite, which suggests at least two levels of job-typing are occurring simultaneously. In both these chapters the same process is being illustrated: the stereotyping of a person according to their social group and irrespective of their individual attributes; the association of a particular job with the need for certain attributes; and the matching of the stereotype to the job rather than the individual. As well as being morally questionable, it is also bad personnel practice, assuming the objective is to get the best person for the job. Sex-typing of jobs has long been recognised as a significant factor in the social construction of women’s disadvantage (for example, Phillips and Taylor, 1986; Steinberg, 1990) but there is less analysis of the implications for men entering gender-atypical work. Therefore, Chapter 13 by Irene Bruegel provides a fresh perspective by assessing the impact of feminisation upon men. Interestingly, although the same processes of stereotyping as noted above might be expected to occur, the outcomes are very different. Bruegel analyses data collected

12

Introduction

through the Labour Force Surveys and New Earnings Surveys in the UK to explore the restructuring associated with feminisation. The data reveal a complex picture, but there appears to be four barriers to men entering gender-incongruent jobs. First, poor pay discourages men from seeking gender-atypical work. This reflects how jobs stereotyped as ‘women’s work’ are consistently rewarded less than ‘men’s work’ even in spite of legislation on equal pay and work of equal value. Second, feminisation has not grown to the extent predicted in the 1980s and so there has not been the expansion of gender-atypical work in the 1990s. Third, many of the feminised jobs are part-time, and employers are less willing to employ men because the stereotypical assumption is they are simply biding their time until they can find a full-time job. Fourth, social attitudes and gender identity problems dissuade men from accepting ‘female work’. So strong are such social attitudes that even unemployment fails to encourage men to seek genderincongruent work. Although older workers with family responsibilities are more likely to take ‘female’ jobs, young unemployed men are not found in female jobs in the expected proportions. Thus, Bruegel’s chapter underlines the power of stereotypes and their resilience even under conditions of fundamental economic change. Gatekeeping The collection of chapters in this volume also highlights an important issue that has received relatively little consideration in both the equality of opportunities and management of diversity literature. That issue is the increasing recognition that intermediate agencies act as ‘gatekeepers’ with a critical role in either ensuring fairness or perpetuating inequality. For example, the actions of the recruitment consultants documented by Bennington (Chapter 5) are tantamount to a third party perpetuating discrimination. As was highlighted above, such discrimination is made worse by the fact that recruitment consultants are supposed to be knowledgeable about the legal provisions on discrimination. Interestingly, the flaws in the business case argument are well-illustrated here. For example, the recruitment consultants in Bennington’s study might argue that they were acting in their organisation’s best interest in that their competitiveness may be threatened if they continued to short-list those that may be perceived by employers as carrying ‘baggage’. Thus, such intermediate agencies may believe that the businesses they represent do not wish to employ older workers, women, those with carer responsibilities, ethnic minorities, disabled people and so forth.

Mike Noon and Emmanuel Ogbonna

13

This echoes findings of research that has examined the tendency for quasi-governmental agencies and their contractors to discriminate against ethnic minorities on government-sponsored training programmes. Indeed, it is ironic that in some cases these agencies believed that they were protecting the ethnic-minority trainees by not recruiting them onto more challenging training programmes (Cross et al., 1990) or by failing to put them on work-experience placements where it was believed that an organisation might discriminate against them (Noon and Ogbonna, 1998). There are also important gatekeepers within the organisations. Indeed, several authors in this volume suggest that the line manager has come to play a key role in access to opportunities, whether that is through a traditional equal opportunities route (in particular, Richards, Chapter 2; Jain, Chapter 6; Cunningham and James, Chapter 7) or through a management of diversity approach (Cornelius et al., Chapter 3). In these instances, as was noted above, the gatekeepers were frequently making decisions not based on the moral justice of access to opportunities, but based on financial grounds. Once again the limits of the business-case argument surface: when budgets are tight there might be a strong ‘business’ argument for not investing in development opportunities for those who are disadvantaged by the status quo. This ‘gatekeeper’ issue is important because it highlights how key agents become the power holders through their control of access to jobs, opportunities, training and rewards. It reveals how those already lacking power and control as a result of their disadvantage are obliged to rely on others to empower them. Those who are disadvantaged are ultimately allowed access only when the advantaged deign it appropriate or necessary.

OVERVIEW In summary, this introduction has identified two sets of issues that surface from the chapters. First is the issue of whether an ‘equality’ or ‘diversity’ approach is appropriate, what form it can take and the implications for policy-making at national level that emerge from the particular approach taken. Second is the issue of understanding how disadvantage becomes constructed, particularly from the associated processes of defining a disadvantaged group, stereotyping and gatekeeping. Again there are important implications for policy-makers, but this time at an organisational level.

14

Introduction

To varying degrees, the chapters address a combination of these issues, and all are based on original research conducted by the authors. They can be read as standalone research papers but together constitute a collection that illuminates various aspects of equality, diversity and disadvantage in relation to gender, race/ethnicity, disability and age. Given that the chapters are self-contained, they can be read in any order so their sequence is significant only in that it simply reflects the pattern of themes addressed by this introductory chapter. Obviously, no volume of this nature can be totally comprehensive, but the contributions have been selected to give a balanced view of the range of contemporary employment issues being faced by disadvantaged groups and presenting important challenges for policy-makers at the start of the new millennium.

References Cockburn, C. (1989) ‘Equal Opportunities: The Short and Long Agenda’, Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 20 (3): 215–25. Cross, M., Wrench, J. and Barnett, S. (1990) Ethnic Minorities and the Careers Service (London: Department of Employment, Research paper no 73). Dickens, L. (1994) ‘The Business Case for Women’s Equality’, Employee Relations, vol. 16 (8): 5–18. Dickens, L. (1999) ‘Beyond the Business Case: A Three-Pronged Approach to Equality Action’, Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 9 (1): 9–19. Jewson, N. and Mason, D. (1986) ‘The Theory and Practice of Equal Opportunity Policies: Liberal and Radical Approaches’, Sociological Review, vol. 34 (2): 307–34. Jewson, N. and Mason, D. (1994) ‘Race, Employment and Equal Opportunities: Towards a Political Economy and an Agenda for the 1990s’, The Sociological Review, vol. 42 (4): 591–617. Kandola, R. and Fullerton, J. (1994) Managing the Mosaic (London: IPD). Liff, S. and Dickens, L. (1999) ‘Ethics and Equality: Reconciling False Dilemmas’, in J. Marshall and D. Winstanley (eds), Ethical Issues in Contemporary Human Resource Management (London: Macmillan). Modood, T., Berthoud, R., Lakey, J., Nazroo, J., Smith, P., Virdee, S. and Beishon, S. (1997) Ethnic Minorities in Britain (London: PSI). Noon, M. and Ogbonna, E. (1998) ‘Unequal Provision? Ethnic Minorities and Employment Training Policy’, Journal of Education and Work, vol. 11 (1): 23–39. Phillips, A. and Taylor, B. (1986) ‘Sex and Skill’, in Feminist Review (ed.), Waged Work – A Reader (London: Virago), pp. 54–66. Rees, T. (1998) Mainstreaming Equality in the European Union – Education, Training and Labour Market Policies (London: Routledge). Ross, R. and Schneider, R. (1992) From Equality to Diversity (London: Pitman). Steinberg, R. J. (1990) ‘Social Construction of Skill’, Work and Occupations, vol. 17 (4): 449–82.

2 Evaluating Equal Opportunities Initiatives: The Case for a ‘Transformative’ Agenda Wendy Richards

INTRODUCTION Over the past twenty years there has been considerable debate within both the academic and the business community about the purpose and effectiveness of equal opportunities policies. Jewson and Mason (1994) summarise this debate, beginning with the view in the 1970s that equal opportunities was an issue of social justice and should be pursued for its own sake. In the 1980s the debate moved on as the ‘business case’ for equal opportunities was promoted, in response to the individualistic values and right-wing economic philosophies of the decade; since then newer approaches such as ‘managing diversity’ have gained prominence, and many organisations promote a commitment to equal opportunities as part of their business objectives. Why this should be so is addressed by Jewson and Mason (ibid.), and also considered by Dickens (1994). Academic and policy debate as to the effectiveness of such policies continues. One element which appears to be common to all sides in the debate is that equal opportunities policies (EOPs) are valuable and should be promoted for their own sake, regardless of the merit or effectiveness of individual policies. To some degree, this belief may have fostered a culture in which organisations feel that simply by having, and to some degree disseminating, an EOP is sufficient evidence of their commitment to equal opportunities. This to some extent appears to be the position with respect to Opportunity 2000 – a campaign established in the UK in 1991 to ‘increase the quality and quantity of women’s participation in the labour force’ (Business in the Community, 1992: 5). The campaign lacks an important element of ‘quality control’, both over goals set by participating organisations and over the achievement of 15

16

Evaluating Equal Opportunities Initiatives

these goals (see Richards, 1996), and stresses as a virtue the fact that it is ‘wholly voluntary’ and that ‘there is no prescription . . . ’ (Business in the Community, 1992: 5). This chapter will not take the position that EOPs should be abandoned as a route to ensuring greater equality, but instead argues that more emphasis should be placed on evaluating their effectiveness. A case study assessing the implementation of Opportunity 2000 in the UK National Health Service (NHS) will be referred to as an illustration of the need for evaluation. However, first it is important to consider the debate surrounding the evaluation of EOPs, in order to establish the analytical tools available.

A RADICAL OR TRANSFORMATIVE AGENDA? There are two separate aspects to evaluating the effectiveness of equal opportunities policies. The first aspect, which will be discussed in more detail below, considers whether such policies, in their design, are actually capable of achieving real change. One criticism of initiatives such as Opportunity 2000 has been that in some organisations the initiatives taken have involved little more than bureaucratic exercises which appear to substitute for real change (Richards, 1996). The academic literature has provided researchers with some templates for the evaluation of EOPs, notably the liberal and radical approaches of Jewson and Mason (1986), and Cockburn’s (1989, 1991) short and long agendas. Perhaps the most influential intervention in the area of evaluating EOPs has been the contribution of Jewson and Mason (1986). The authors point out that the concept of ‘equal opportunities’ is not straightforward, and they suggest that there are two quite separate concepts, which they term the ‘liberal’ and the ‘radical’ approach. The liberal approach aims to provide equality of opportunity, and relies on fair procedures, bureaucratic processes, and a sense of justice being seen to be done. The emphasis is on the principle of recognising individual merit, rather than on any notion of providing social justice in relation to under-represented or disadvantaged groups. The radical approach is interested in equalising outcomes, and thus emphasises the fair and equal distribution of rewards, and positive discrimination. Jewson and Mason present these two frameworks as opposing ‘idealtypes’ of EOPs, and point out that the existence of two very different models of EOPs can lead to much confusion and misunderstanding. Disadvantaged groups may become disillusioned with an EOP, and

Wendy Richards

17

believe that management is not acting in good faith, if the implementation of policy does not lead to a more equal distribution of rewards or greater representation of minority groups within the organisation. Yet where the policy approach being followed is more akin to the liberal framework, it should not be expected that radical outcomes would follow. An alternative, superior approach to evaluating EOPs has been proposed by Cockburn (1989 and 1991). Her approach, much neglected by subsequent literature, is to suggest an equal opportunities agenda of shorter or longer length. The short agenda involves the kind of procedural changes which Jewson and Mason suggest may exist under a ‘liberal’ policy: an approach to equal opportunities which introduces new measures to reduce bias in procedures such as recruitment and promotion. Such procedures are, Cockburn argues, formal and managerial, but none the less desirable for that (1989: 218). She agrees that a liberal approach (which she does not specifically identify with her ‘short agenda’) may be criticised for its focus on justification by reference to its procedures; as Aitkenhead and Liff put it, holders of the liberal perspective do not necessarily view the lack of change in organisational structures as evidence that the policy is failing: if the procedures are in place, then the policy must be working (1991: 29–30). However, while accepting a framework similar to Jewson and Mason’s as her ‘short’ agenda, though which appears to credit organisations with more good intentions, Cockburn explicitly rejects the radical approach as either a desirable model for EOPs or a useful means of evaluating such policies. She criticises what she refers to as Jewson and Mason’s tendency to ‘dichotomise’, and argues that this results in a ‘strait-jacket’ which is counterproductive (1989: 215). She argues that employers and managers have a variety of motives in introducing equal opportunities policies, and that it is wrong to characterise employers as ‘unified entities pursuing a single interpretation that can be called “liberal”, predicated on a morality of “fairness”’ (ibid.: 216). Likewise, she argues that it is ‘equally difficult to represent disadvantaged groups of employees as opposing management with a one-dimensional “radical” version of EO’ (ibid.). The groups of disadvantaged employees in her survey had a variety of different, and sometimes competing, interests. She found little support among women and ethnic minorities for a ‘radical’ approach: while women referred to disadvantage and black people complained of racism, there was a ‘powerful dislike of the idea of favouritism, of moving the goalposts to make things easier for one’s own particular group’ (ibid.: 217). This seemed to stem from two factors. One was a general distaste for being treated as a ‘special case’,

18

Evaluating Equal Opportunities Initiatives

unable to achieve without assistance. The second was the view that the practices associated with radical procedures, while they might improve the position of particular members of the disadvantaged group, ‘did not seem to promise any improvement in the nature of the organisation itself. Instead they introduced a principle that could seem divisive and retrogressive’ (ibid.: p. 217). Therefore Cockburn argues that the radical approach should not be identified with progressiveness and as a better route to equality. She acknowledges that this approach offers a solution to the contradiction of the liberal approach, which is that it cannot succeed in achieving its aims. However, she argues, the radical approach itself contains a major contradiction: ‘it seeks to put right old wrongs by means which themselves are felt to be wrong . . . it is retrogressive in that its effect is to divide further the already fragmented powerless groups’; it gives disadvantaged groups a quick means of advancement, while doing nothing to alter the structure of the organisation, procedures, culture and attitudes. ‘It is about gaining power, not changing it’ (ibid.: 217). While this analysis is convincing, others may criticise it for failing to suggest that the alteration of the organisational composition which should follow from a radical EOP might itself have an impact on its structures and power. Cockburn’s alternative, the ‘long agenda’ approach, envisages a transformative framework. A long agenda, she argues, is an ambitious and progressive project for transforming the organisation, which needs to examine the nature and purpose of the organisation as a whole, and to understand the processes by which power is created and maintained. The transformative approach acknowledges the need of disadvantaged groups to gain access to power, but also seeks change in the nature of power itself. Therefore, unlike the radical approach, the transformative approach is not about the ‘numbers game’, but about quality (ibid.: 218). This type of approach is also more likely to be accepted by wider interest groups than the radical approach. Cockburn (1989 and 1991) examines the implementation of EOPs by employers and highlights some examples of the beginnings of a transformative approach; however, she also identifies and illustrates the barriers to the effective implementation of a transformative EOP. These include the shortage of women and other under-represented groups in positions of organisational power and influence; the ‘male backlash’ against feminism which results in the reluctance of some women to refer to themselves as feminists; and male strategies for asserting and maintaining control (Cockburn, 1991).

Wendy Richards

19

Subsequent writers have attempted to utilise the Jewson and Mason models as a framework for evaluating EOPs, although this chapter argues that in some respects this is a mistake. It is highly unlikely that, in Britain at any rate, policies of a radical nature will be found: many of the mechanisms envisaged are not permitted under existing equality legislation. Aitkenhead and Liff (1991: 31), for example, critique the liberal approach’s assumptions about the need for fair procedures, and cite a case where a rapid increase in the number of black people employed in secretarial positions was achieved by a single person being ‘in the right place at the right time’. This individual noticed two things: that most secretarial staff began as temporary employees, and that the employment agencies used by the company operated within mainly white areas of the local community. He asked the agencies to send along more black candidates for interview, and extended the pool by adding agencies situated in areas where more black people lived. This, Aitkenhead and Liff point out, was hardly a formalised, elaborate EOP, yet within months the proportion of black people employed rose dramatically, and they then generalise from this example to suggest certain factors which may be useful in determining the success of equal opportunities initiatives. This anecdote is interesting, and it is clearly possible here to draw parallels with the transformative approach; Cockburn has argued that success in equal opportunities may frequently be the result of dedicated individuals determined to achieve change. However, Aitkenhead and Liff do not appear to recognise the parallels. Similarly, their survey of equal opportunities officers’ perceptions of their work appears to be reflective of the need for a ‘long agenda’ approach, rather than the radical approach for which they express a preference earlier in the chapter. The equal opportunities officers had a view of EO such that they already prevailed, that EO were not conceived of in terms of organisational structures requiring adaptation, that distributional changes within the organisation were perceived as unnecessary, and that the criteria for evaluating the success of EO were only vaguely conceived of, if they existed at all. Therefore the very individuals responsible for implementing equal opportunities had little conception of the problem, its causes and the remedies which might be necessary to achieve the desired aim. Since most respondents felt that little needed to be done within their organisations, it was thus not surprising that little was in fact being done (ibid.: 39). One of the prerequisites for a successful EOP is commitment from those within the organisation who are in positions of influence and will be required to carry through the programme (Richards,

20

Evaluating Equal Opportunities Initiatives

1995). This is a necessary element of a transformative approach. Similarly, Collinson et al.’s (1990) research on equal opportunities implementation across a range of industries identifies both the covert and explicit support from personnel managers for line managers who wish to circumvent espoused equal opportunities policies, and thereby demonstrates the need for organisational commitment if formal policies are to have any impact. Gibbon (1992), like Aitkenhead and Liff, criticises the focus on procedural mechanisms as the key levers to bring about equality. Gibbon’s own research, focusing on ethnic minority employees, attempted to establish why some organisations had been successful in achieving better representation of black workers, and others, while claiming to be equal opportunities employers, had not. Gibbon examines a small number of organisations that had deliberately attempted to target ‘non-standard’ sectors for recruitment. In these organisations, Gibbon argues, the pursuit of equality of opportunity was on a par with business objectives, and it was a condition of employment for managers that they accept an ideology of avoiding and opposing stereotyping. The manager of the training organisation explained his organisation’s approach to some degree: I think [management here’s] constantly aware that people are discriminated against, without becoming paranoid about it. [We’ve] developed an ethics and an ideology which the people who work here [have to accept]. It’s transmitted to them as part and parcel of being here. It’s my ideology. (Gibbon, 1992: 246–7) It is disappointing that Gibbon does not explore this further: it would appear that, to use Cockburn’s terms, transformative change is being achieved. Equal opportunities is at the heart of the organisation’s activities, and commitment to these aims is demanded of all employees. It is the generation of this thorough-going commitment, rather than the actions of particular individuals or the drafting of procedures, which brings about moves towards equality. But how and why was this commitment generated, and why is it seen as so important? These are questions which Gibbon does not address. Instead, he concludes that there is no correlation between the existence of formalised EOPs and positive outcomes for disadvantaged groups. This is not surprising, as other research demonstrates. However, it may again be argued that Gibbon’s findings are indicative of the usefulness of the transformative model.

Wendy Richards

21

This reliance on Jewson and Mason’s approaches leaves some writers without any model of EOPs which they can recommend, given that they are aware of the legal problems with a radical approach. Gibbon (1992) criticises the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission recommending proceduralisation as a means of ensuring equal opportunities, but since he has no alternative to offer, he is reluctant to suggest the abandonment of such models since this may play into the hands of the political right which is opposed to EOPs on ideological grounds (see, for instance, McElroy, 1992). Likewise, Collinson et al. (1990) identify many circumstances in which procedures were, in the words of Jewson and Mason (1986: 318), ‘circumvented by manipulation’. It is surprising, therefore, that Collinson et al.’s solution to the rampant discrimination they identify is greater proceduralisation (1990: 207). More formalisation and less scope for line managers to act independently is supposed to prevent the discrimination which has been identified in their study, yet what appears most apparent in that study is the degree of resistance to formal procedures and the intent behind them; and this resistance comes mainly, but not exclusively, from line managers. Personnel managers in some cases were also very resistant: I’m slightly ambivalent about male/female discrimination in a way I’m not about black/white discrimination. I think there are no circumstances where you should discriminate against a black man . . . I think . . . I feel . . . that women are different to men. Men can’t bear children and women are more likely to drop out for biological reasons. (Personnel manager, large retail chain quoted in Collinson et al., 1990: 122) It is clear that the single most important element missing in the organisations studied by Collinson et al. is commitment to the aims of equal opportunities; this commitment is key to a transformative approach. The need for EOPs to pursue a transformative, committed agenda in order to be effective will be considered further below in a case study of the implementation of the Opportunity 2000 programme in the largest employing organisation in Britain, the National Health Service.

THE ‘GLASS CEILING’ AND ‘STONE FLOOR’ The second important aspect in considering the effectiveness of EOPs involves a consideration of which employees such policies are aimed at.

22

Evaluating Equal Opportunities Initiatives

In the late 1980s, when EOPs became a ‘fashionable’ aspect of industry’s behaviour, it was noticeable that the vast majority were aimed at women; members of ethnic minorities were not the subject of such campaigns. Opportunity 2000, launched in 1991, is gender-oriented; it was not until 1995 that an analogous programme for ethnic minorities, Race for Opportunity, was launched. However, even with policies aimed at women, for example, there are difficulties. The measures included within most gender-directed EOPs tend to be those directed at career aspirations. These measures, such as those advocated by Opportunity 2000, may therefore assist what has occasionally been referred to as the ‘middle-class’ problem in respect of equal opportunities (Richards, 1996: 98). These are measures aimed at the ‘glass ceiling’, which was identified by the Hansard Society (1990: 2) as, ‘blocking their aspirations, allowing them to see where they might go, but preventing them from arriving there’. However, the problems faced by women in ghettoised employment – such as low pay, job insecurity, lack of training and poor working conditions – are not addressed by such policies. Thus, to utilise the helpful terminology of Jewson and Mason (1994: 612), most EOPs address the problem of the ‘glass ceiling’ while ignoring the ‘stone floor’. It is arguable, however, that many employers do not consider low pay and gender segregation at the lower end of their organisational hierarchies to be an equal opportunities issue. Certainly it has not been highlighted as such by the Opportunities 2000 campaign, and while trade unions have taken some equal value cases on behalf of large groups of women workers, in local authorities and in retail chains among other sectors, the problems associated with these ‘stone floor’ jobs do not tend to form part of discussions in relation to EOPs. Equal opportunities for women in these areas of employment have nothing to do with career development of the type considered by Opportunity 2000; what is needed in their case is action to remove their continuing pay disadvantage, as well as assistance with childcare and family responsibilities (few organisations in the first Opportunity 2000 survey of provisions, cited in the campaign’s first annual report, offered such help to all employees). Even more recently, the criteria used by Opportunity 2000 to determine successful implementation continue to relate to the ‘glass ceiling’: the 1999 ‘Benchmarking Report’ cites indicators such as the number of women who are middle and junior managers, executive directors, professors and so on (Business in the Community, 1999) It is in the area of low-paid and low-status work that the major source of inequality and disadvantage for women remains. Campaigns such as

Wendy Richards

23

Opportunity 2000 do not tend to address this, although this does not stop those employers who are members of the campaign from using their membership to suggest that they are indeed ‘equal opportunities employers,’ while seemingly forgetting the needs of their female clerical and domestic employees. Opportunity 2000 has been described as a ‘trickle-down’ approach to equal opportunities, and one trade union General Secretary, commenting on the campaign, asked publicly what was being done for women in other occupational areas: ‘to them, the key issues are low pay, training and maternity provisions, which seem to be passed over’ (Christine Hancock, General Secretary, Royal College of Nursing, quoted in the Guardian, 27 October 1992).

OPPORTUNITY 2000 AND THE UK NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE The National Health Service provides an interesting case study of equal opportunities in relation to gender, as its employment structures are highly feminised. The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) reported in 1991 that 79 per cent of NHS employees are women, and there is no reason to suspect that this ratio has since altered. However, vertical and horizontal segregation by gender is a striking feature. Most ancillary and lower clerical and administrative grades are female-dominated, while skilled manual grades are male-dominated. Within clinical occupations, women are in the majority (sometimes 90 per cent or more) in the ‘caring’ professions, while the men who enter these occupations attain promotion at a faster rate and in greater proportion to their representation within the occupational groups (Thornley, 1996; Bevan et al., 1989). In medicine, men have traditionally been in the majority among qualified doctors and surgeons, with female representation lower still among registrars and consultants (Allen, 1989 and 1994; Department of Health, 1991). Allen’s research has identified reasons for the continuing low representation of women in senior levels of the medical profession despite women making up half of entrants to medical school since 1990 (1994: 2). These include the nature of post-registration employment, which tends to be on fixed-term contracts with an expectation of mobility; the prevalence of stereotyped opinions and prejudices about women in medicine among the senior members of the profession; and the persistence of informal networks which influence the appointments process.

24

Evaluating Equal Opportunities Initiatives

In 1990 the EOC produced a report highly critical of the health service’s performance in relation to equal opportunities (EOC, 1991). While the report made a number of specific criticisms in respect of gender pay differences, issues relating to part-time working, recruitment and retention and so on, its central criticism related to the decentralised approach to driving equal opportunities practice. This resulted in a situation where the various Health Authorities had some autonomy in respect of their EO practices, and there was therefore inconsistency in practice across the country. The EOC recommended that a ‘top-down’ approach to equal opportunities should be pursued, in which objectives and criteria would be established from the centre (EOC, 1991). Subsequently, the NHS joined Opportunity 2000 in October 1991; eight goals were set, and the NHS’s performance in respect of these goals is critiqued elsewhere (Richards, 1995 and 1996). The pertinent issue for this chapter is the campaign’s implementation under the two strands of evaluation considered above: the ‘transformative’ agenda for change, and the glass ceiling/stone floor. The research was qualitative, based on detailed interviews with personnel and equal opportunities managers in 17 NHS service-provider units in two health Regions, and some trade union representatives. The Trusts visited are referred to by pseudonyms, and the research was carried out between 1993 and 1995. Although one of the units visited was not at the time of the visit an NHS Trust, for ease of reference the term ‘Trust’ is used throughout to refer to the case-study units. Organisational Commitment: A ‘Transformative’ Agenda? This section examines the scope and achievement of the goals relating to the NHS’s participation in Opportunity 2000. The additional vital element of transformative change, organisational commitment, is also considered here. Many of the goals and action plans set by the NHS for its participation in Opportunity 2000 were too limited in their scope and in the range of employees covered to represent a genuinely transformative equal opportunities initiative (Richards, 1996). Some of the goals were expressed in quantitative form; for instance, they required a percentage increase in woman consultants and an increase in female representation on Trust boards. While this appears to be entering into the ‘numbers game’ of the Jewson and Mason (1986) ‘radical’ EOP, some interviewees argued that there is a clear difference between the mere existence of women in senior posts and the need for supportive women. At New Town Hospital Trust, for instance, the personnel

Wendy Richards

25

manager commented that women members on the board were ‘not particularly effective’, and gave as an example the fact that when the equal opportunities report went to the board, the woman non-executive director did not speak to it. At another Trust, a senior woman was asked to join the Opportunity 2000 Steering Group, but declined because: She didn’t see the point. She said that women shouldn’t be given special privileges. She said that she would always employ a man over a woman – less threatening! (Woman personnel manager, St Andrew’s County Town) It became clear from the research that some of the goals were very easily achieved, and some did not even require the Trusts to do very much in order to claim that they were meeting the requirements of the campaign. Two of the goals related to recruitment and retention, for example, and one of these had already been resolved at national level before the research started. In relation to the other goal, most interviewees simply stated in interview, and in their returns to the central monitoring committee, that they did not have a recruitment and retention problem. Interestingly, at the time this research was being carried out the staffing shortages in nursing and other paramedical groups were already known: turnover and ‘wastage rates’ had been a cause for concern since 1992 – Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council, 1996. Yet, to all intents and purposes, these Trusts were able to claim in all relevant documentation that they were meeting this goal. The manager at one Trust openly admitted that few of the goals required much action, commenting that his organisation was ‘not taking any particular Opportunity 2000 action, though we’re actually meeting the objectives . . . most of the progress on EO is by accident rather than design.’ These criticisms raise the issue of whether the agenda for Opportunity 2000 in the NHS was sufficiently ‘transformative’ to be of much benefit. This is reinforced by the impression gained by the researcher that, even in the Trusts where changes were being made as a result of Opportunity 2000, it was largely due to individuals taking particular responsibility for action. This is illustrative of Cockburn’s (1989) argument that much EO action is the result of impetus from interested individuals, rather than a committed organisational focus. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this campaign, both in terms of the goals set and the manner of their implementation, does not represent an attempt to change the nature of power within the NHS, as Cockburn

26

Evaluating Equal Opportunities Initiatives

argues a transformative approach should. However, even allowing for the weaknesses in the goals, the NHS might argue that it was committed to their implementation. The research evidence here is not encouraging. The manner in which the NHS Executive monitored the implementation and assisted Trusts does not suggest that the momentum lasted beyond the first year or so. No summaries of action were produced beyond the beginning of 1994, and no publicity accompanied the end of Phase I at the end of 1994, or the commencement of Phase 2. The Executive was supposed to be providing support for the campaign by issuing advice and literature: however, little of this seemed to materialise. Some respondents would have welcomed regional seminars where they could share their experiences, but these were not forthcoming. Other respondents commented critically on the apparent lack of resources for the campaign at the centre, and criticised the Executive’s Women’s Unit, ‘who see themselves as support-giving . . . in practice, though, very little is actually sent out.’ This lack of commitment was also found at local level. Despite the NHS Executive’s requirement that the campaign be discussed in Trust Annual Reports, only two of the Trusts who supplied copies mentioned Opportunity 2000. Additionally, although all Trusts were required to send an annual report on progress to the Executive, at least one had never done so and this had never been followed up. Organisational commitment at local level was patchy in other ways as well. While some Trusts had steering groups to implement the campaign, others did very little (and yet, as noted above, were still able to claim that they were meeting the goals). Commitment at the top level was lacking in many case study Trusts, from a large acute hospital where the Chief Executive’s view of equal opportunities was that ‘he prefers to stay just this side of the law’, to another where the Deputy Chief Executive, who was responsible for personnel matters, stated firmly that ‘Opportunity 2000 . . . distracts us from what we want to do’. A specialist Trust, where the personnel department and joint trade union committee did want to implement the campaign, was faced with a Chief Executive ‘who is not in favour of positive action’ and who ordered the sections on sexual harassment to be removed from the draft EOP. It is the conclusion of this research that the implementation of Opportunity 2000 in the National Health Service cannot in any way be described as a long, ‘transformative’, agenda. As Cockburn comments in respect of the organisations she studied, management at best supports a ‘short agenda’, the ‘minimum position’ (1991: 216); while various

Wendy Richards

27

individuals within the Trusts studied did have a longer agenda in mind – some of the personnel officers, and occasionally trade union officials – the wider organisational commitment was lacking, at both a national and local level, to achieve greater impact. In some cases, attitudes among management were clearly a problem: at the New Town Hospital Trust, the personnel manager, when asked about women in senior posts, commented that ‘perhaps it’s women’s fault – they don’t do themselves favours, don’t put themselves forward.’ The goals themselves were also clearly insufficiently ‘transformative’ in nature (Richards, 1996). Glass Ceiling and Stone Floor The second criterion for evaluation is the extent to which the campaign affects all employees, and not just those in senior positions: the glass ceiling/stone floor distinction. This issue will be addressed at two levels: across the health service as a whole, and within occupational groups. The campaign goals bear little relevance to women in clerical and administrative grades, much less ancillary workers such as cleaners, catering staff and health-care assistants. Career development opportunities are of little benefit to these staff. While the goals relating to recruitment and retention do offer the opportunity for policies on flexible working, retainer schemes and so on, at the same time as this campaign was launched the health service was, like most of the public sector, having to make cuts in expenditure, and these cuts particularly affected ancillary services. Given that staff costs account for a significant amount of expenditure in this area, it is not surprising that the impact of cuts and of compulsory competitive tendering (CCT) has been highly detrimental to the pay and conditions of women employees (Escott and Whitfield, 1995). CCT, together with the introduction and expansion of new and low-paid grades such as Health Care Assistants (Thornley, 1997) suggests that equal opportunities at the lowest end of the hierarchy is deteriorating despite the existence of Opportunity 2000. There is no mention of equal-pay audits, gender audits across the NHS hierarchy, or of attempting to break down the gendered division of work, although the NHS is one of the most highly gender-segregated organisations in the UK. Only two interviewees made any mention of ancillary staff in relation to the goals; the personnel manager at Flagship General stated that training and development courses offered under Goal 5 were open to all employees, including ancillaries. The personnel officer at Pottery Community Services, alone of all interviewees, argued that the Opportunity 2000 campaign offered little to

28

Evaluating Equal Opportunities Initiatives

clerical and ancillary staff: ‘If you work in the NHS and are not clinical, you’re a second-class citizen’. Within occupational groups, the campaign may be criticised for focusing on the top grades, and this point was made by a number of interviewees. One goal related to women in management, and the guidance from the centre stated that this goal referred to a particular level on the management structure: a number of the smaller Trusts had few or no employees on the relevant grades. In order to assist with this goal, the Executive established a Career Development Register for women seeking advancement; this register was seen as ‘unhelpful’, ‘not much use’ and ‘elitist’ (interviewees from three different Trusts). In relation to the target for women consultants, the NHS accepted that ‘this is one of the most challenging goals’ (NHSME, 1993), and acknowledged that by early 1994 only four out of 16 Regions had reached the target (NHSE, 1994). Many interviewees argued that this goal had been set at the wrong level of the medical hierarchy: The problem is the shortage of applicants. Women just aren’t there at Senior Registrar level. (Personnel manager, Pottery City General) Very few Trusts had women surgeons, although most employed some women in medical consultant posts. Women were found in so-called ‘Cinderella’ specialisms, such as elderly care, mental health and paediatrics. This confirms national data on the employment of women in medical specialisms (Department of Health, 1991). The personnel manager at St Andrew’s County Town commented on the ‘gap’ between junior doctor and consultant status, and suggested that many women went into GP training or left medicine when they realised that the medical profession is not geared up for part-time working or family-friendly arrangements; as has also been noted by Allen (1989 and 1994). Some respondents argued that the goal would have been better targeted at Registrar level, or directed at encouraging women to remain in hospital medicine after training. It is thus clear that this campaign is principally focused on the ‘glass ceiling’ and ignores the ‘stone floor’. This is a major criticism of a campaign which to a degree was launched in response to the EOC’s indictment of the NHS (EOC, 1991), and which, it was claimed, would ‘take full advantage of the potential of women in the NHS’ (NHSME, 1991). The focus on more visible, senior positions may to a degree explain the lack of interest from trade unions: as one senior steward argued, ‘Opportunity 2000 is a PR job’.

Wendy Richards

29

CONCLUSION The research considered above adds strength to the argument advanced in this chapter that there can be difficulties with employer-driven EO agendas. To begin with, the priorities addressed by such policies frequently reflect those issues which are seen as important by employers, which usually coincide with visible aspects of EO such as the number of women in senior positions, or issues which are seen by employers as an economic necessity, such as measures to reduce staff turnover. They are unlikely, therefore, to offer measures dealing with ‘stone floor’ inequalities. While a top-down campaign such as Opportunity 2000 may give the appearance of organisational commitment to an EOP, problems may arise where managers at local level see EOPs as an infringement of their managerial authority and discretion (see Collinson et al.: 86–7). This contributes not only to a lack of organisational commitment overall, but may also lead to ‘circumvention by manipulation’, as Jewson and Mason (1986) suggest. The empirical research also illustrates the usefulness of Cockburn’s transformative approach in evaluating the effectiveness of EOPs. It is actually possible that under a radical approach the NHS’s campaign could have been considered effective since it did set numerical targets in some respects, tools which would be promoted by a radical agenda. There are a range of approaches to equal opportunities in use across industry, including the current theme of ‘managing diversities’, which consists of recognising the varying composition of the workforce and portraying this as a positive factor rather than something problematic. However, it is the argument of this chapter that unless the chosen policy approach is directed at achieving genuinely transformative change, and in doing so secures the commitment of the majority of members of the organisation to that change, there is a danger that it will in the end be little more than window-dressing.

References Aitkenhead, M. and Liff, S. (1991) ‘The Effectiveness of Equal Opportunity Policies’, in J. Firth-Cozens and M. West (eds), Women at Work: Psychological and Organisational Perspectives (Milton Keynes: Open University Press), pp. 26–41. Allen, I. (1989) Doctors and their Careers (London: Policy Studies Institute). Allen, I. (1994) Doctors and their Careers: A New Generation (London: Policy Studies Institute).

30

Evaluating Equal Opportunities Initiatives

Bevan, S., Buchan, J. and Hayday, S. (1989) Women in Hospital Pharmacy, Institute of Manpower Studies, MS report no. 182. Business in the Community (1991) Summary of Goals and Action Plans of the Opportunity 2000 Campaign Organisations (London: Business in the Community). Business in the Community (1992) Opportunity 2000: Towards a Balanced Workforce – First Year Report (London: Business in the Community). Business in the Community (1999) Benchmarking Report and Index – Spring 1999 (London: Business in the Community). Cockburn, C. (1989) ‘Equal Opportunities: The short and long agenda’, Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 20 (3): 213–25. Cockburn, C. (1991) In the Way of Women (London: Macmillan). Collinson, D., Knights, D. and Collinson, M. (1990) Managing to Discriminate (London: Routledge). Department of Health (1991) Women Doctors and their Careers: Report of the Joint Working Party ( London: Department of Health). Dickens, L. (1994) ‘Wasted Resources: Equal Opportunities in Employment’, in K. Sisson (ed.), Personnel Management, 2nd edn (Oxford: Blackwell), pp. 253–98. Equal Opportunities Commission (1991) Equality Management: Women’s Employment in the NHS (Manchester: EOC). Escott, K. and Whitfield, D. (1995) The Gender Impact of Compulsory Competitive Tendering in Local Government (Manchester: EOC). Gibbon, P. (1992; orig. publ. 1990) ‘Equal Opportunities Policy and Race Equality’, in P. Braham, A. Rattansi and R. Skellington (eds), Racism and Anti-Racism: Inequalities, Opportunities and Policies (London: Sage), pp. 235–51. Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government (1990) The Report of the Hansard Society Commission on Women at the Top (London: Hansard Society). Jewson, N. and Mason, D. (1986) ‘The Theory and Practice of Equal Opportunities Policies: Liberal and Radical Approaches’, Sociological Review, vol. 34 (2): 307–34. Jewson, N. and Mason, D. (1994) ‘“Race”, Employment and Equal Opportunities: Towards a Political Economy and an Agenda for the 1990s’, Sociological Review, vol. 42 (4): 591–617. McElroy, W. (1992) ‘Preferential Treatment of Women in Employment’, in C. Quest (ed.), Equal Opportunities: A Feminist Fallacy (London: Institute of Economic Affairs). NHSE (NHS Executive) (1994) Opportunity 2000 – Update on Goals (Leeds: NHSE). NHSME (NHS Management Executive) (1991) Women in the NHS: An Action Guide to the Opportunity 2000 Campaign (London: Department of Health). NHSME (NHS Management Executive) (1993) NHS Women’s Unit: Opportunity 2000 in the NHS – An Update on Progress (London: Department of Health). Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council (1996) Staff Side Evidence to the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives and Health Visitors 1997 (London: NMSNC). Richards, W. M. (1995) ‘Equal Opportunities and Opportunity 2000 in the National Health Service: Panacea or Placebo?’ Paper presented to the British Universities Industrial Relations Association Annual Conference, Van Mildert College, Durham, 30 June–2 July.

Wendy Richards

31

Richards, W. M. (1996) ‘Equal Opportunities for Women in Britain: The Case of Opportunity 2000 and the National Health Service’, Review of Employment Topics, vol. 4 (1): 91–119. Thornley, C. (1996) ‘Segmentation and Inequality in the Nursing Workforce’, in R. Crompton, D. Gallie and K. Purcell (eds), Changing Forms of Employment: Organisations, Skills and Gender (London: Routledge), pp. 160–81. Thornley, C. (1997) The Invisible Workers: An Investigation into the Pay and Employment of Health Care Assistants in the NHS (London: UNISON).

3 Managing Difference Fairly: An Integrated ‘Partnership’ Approach Nelarine Cornelius, Larraine Gooch and Shaun Todd

INTRODUCTION This chapter reviews the current debate about the concept of diversity management in organisations and its relationship to equal opportunities. It is concerned with the role managers play in the management of diversity initiatives, why this involvement often fails to deliver permanent change in organisational culture, systems and structures and how managers might work in an integrated ‘partnership’ within their organisations to implement diversity successfully. In particular, we have drawn our ideas from the European and North American traditions and literatures on equal opportunities and diversity management. To highlight a number of our views, a case study from the railway industry is presented to illustrate key points. Our broad conclusions are that a multidisciplinary and multifunctional approach is most likely to sustain the long-term and deep-rooted changes necessary for successful diversity management.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES OR DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT? In essence, much diversity management has ‘evolved’ from the area of equal opportunities, and indeed in practice the two terms are often used interchangeably. However, it would be fair to say that the common understanding of ‘traditional’ equal opportunities is most closely associated with the legal aspects of managing equality of opportunity and the making good of different treatments that are grounded in biases and inequality. Typical activities include the auditing of sources of direct and indirect discrimination, and interventions aimed at rectifying historical imbalances in access to opportunity, such as positive or affirmative 32

Nelarine Cornelius, Larraine Gooch and Shaun Todd

33

action interventions (Roosevelt Thomas Jr., 1996; Gooch and Cornelius, 1999; Kandola and Fullerton, 1994). Equal opportunities policy and practice are usually targeted at those groups whose rights are reinforced through law, including women, ethnic minorities and the disabled. The essence of equal opportunities is encapsulated in what Thomas and Ely refer to as the ‘discrimination-and-fairness’ paradigm (Thomas and Ely, 1996). A major concern is that the equal opportunities initiatives approach has too often failed or simply run out of steam, and not delivered any real equality of opportunity (Cockburn, 1989). In addition, the tracking down of direct and indirect discrimination and, more importantly, affirmative action (in the United States) has created, for some, concerns and anxieties about resentments by the majority, dominant group, especially white males. In some organisations, diversity management is no more than equal opportunities re-labelled. More accurately, however, it can be described as an approach to managing differences more closely aligned with managing cultural diversity (intra-organisational and societal), inclusiveness and business objectives (Roosevelt Thomas Jr., 1996). This inclusiveness extends beyond the range of ‘traditional’ equal opportunities. As well as traditionally disadvantaged groups, diversity management seeks to include the perspectives and views of majority and dominant groups within organisations (typically male), and those groups who often do not enjoy protection in law, such as older workers. Diversity management is sometimes concerned with more individual factors such as personality and learning style. The focus in diversity management is more on the creation of a culture and climate within which differences can find expression and potentially also ‘add value’ through enhancing organisational creative thinking and innovation. Such a perspective entails a ‘paradigm shift’ away from just ‘discrimination and fairness’ towards ‘access and legitimacy’ (Thomas and Ely, 1996). However, Thomas and Ely argue that this new paradigm on its own is insufficient as a diversity ideal. If organisations regard employee experiences as useful only to gain access to narrow markets, these employees may feel exploited. They argue strongly for an emerging paradigm that connects diversity to work perspectives, within which employee perspectives are incorporated: ‘into the main work of the organisation and to enhance work by re-thinking primary tasks and re-defining markets, products, strategies, missions, business activities and even cultures. Such companies are entering the ‘learning and effectiveness paradigm for managing diversity and, by so doing, are tapping diversity’s true benefits’ (ibid.: 85).

34

Managing Difference Fairly

Diversity management is not an approach distinct from that of equal opportunities, but is built firmly on it (Cornelius et al., 1998; Thomas Jr., 1996; Equality Foundation, 1997). Specifically, we regard equal opportunities as the essential basis on which effective diversity management is founded. To amplify these views, our interpretation of the shift in view on diversity management as an outlook and practice, is that it can be defined as an approach in which differences between individuals and groups are proactively highlighted and marshalled. The aim is to enhance employee participation and to utilise a diversity of views to identify and exploit business opportunities within the context of a more inclusive organisational culture. It is presumed that different individuals and groups may possess tacit knowledge about their ‘host’ groups which, in turn, they may make explicit for more widespread commercial use by their organisation. ‘Difference’ is viewed as an asset that may be exploited not only through enhancing commercial activity, but also by creating an organisational environment that is more likely to be regarded positively by a wider range of groups than are normally drawn from traditionally narrowly-focused labour market segments and recruitment channels. This in turn allows organisations to select from a better and wider pool of labour and thus continuously enhance their skills and knowledge base, providing a stronger base for creativity, innovation and, in turn, sustainable competitive advantage. If managed effectively, equal opportunities policies and practices generate important management information, and help to shape desirable behaviour through the ‘boundary setting’ of policies and codes of conduct. In addition, personnel information systems and regular ‘health checks’ in the guise of attitude and climate surveys can monitor the progress of specific groups and the environment in which they operate. It is on this solid platform that diversity management policy and practice can be erected (Cornelius et al., 1998). Therefore, diversity management is likely to be most effective when built on the operational gains of equal opportunities. Diversity management is most likely to be effective when there is proactive employee and manager involvement and commitment (Liff and Cameron, 1997; Cornelius et al., 1998). It has been argued by some that managers are better able to deliver diversity management as a general line activity (rather than diversity management being delivered as a specialist ‘support’ activity which ‘oversees’ line management action) when the ‘business case’ is proven. Diversity management is often introduced through the mechanisms of business strategy, human resource management policy and practice, and change intervention.

Nelarine Cornelius, Larraine Gooch and Shaun Todd

35

Management Involvement in Diversity Management Although progress has been slow, there is now evidence that personnel/ HRM specialists are taking an increasingly strategic role in organisations, while managers have been taking increasing responsibility for operational employment management activities (Guest, 1987; Hutchinson and Wood, 1995; Bevan and Hayday, 1994; McGovern et al., 1998; Hall and Torrington, 1998). The devolution of personnel/HRM provides the potential to empower line managers to take responsibility for managing people. As HRM has a more managerial focus than personnel, it has been suggested that HRM is an area of senior management responsibility and middle-management implementation (Townley, 1994). Research suggests that managers are selective about the aspects of personnel/HRM that they would choose to be involved with (Brewster and Hegeswisch, 1994) or indeed are committed to (McGovern et al., 1998). The main source of manager motivation towards involvement in employment management issues is in the setting of short-term people-centred business targets. Diversity becomes a marginal issue within this premise; managers are not sure why they should want to manage diversity. Sisson (1995) sees a premium placed by organisations on short-term profitability and payback criteria for investment. Where managers are convinced by the business cases for diversity – that diversity can contribute to the bottom line – the role of the manager to integrate equality goals within the broader business strategy can become the lever to the necessary culture change. Moreover, it has been argued that the linking of diversity with the business case is an essential element in the transfer of responsibility for equality from personnel/human resources to line management. The rationale is that once equality measures are reformulated in this way, managers will be able to see a clear business reason to pursue them and hence be more committed to their implementation (Liff and Cameron, 1997). One barrier appears to be a reluctance on the part of human resource specialists to devolve their budgets and operational responsibilities to managers (Hall and Torrington, 1998). Where budgets do not include additional funding for HR issues, limited financial resources were found to be the strongest negative influence on equal opportunity initiatives (Dickens, 1997). Furthermore, additional factors which may slow down this movement include the failure to provide managers with the skills and knowledge needed to take on these responsibilities

36

Managing Difference Fairly

(Hutchinson and Wood, 1995; Bevan and Hayday, 1994; McGovern et al., 1998; Hall and Torrington, 1998). Managers who have the ‘softer’ management skills to value contributions from each member of their team and to develop them can become real change agents in developing a diversity culture in their organisation. However, many managers are selected for their ability to focus on the ‘hard’ skills of directing and achieving tasks and such managers can be a barrier to diversity (Carnevale and Stone, 1994). However, the paradox remains. Although line managers are potentially barriers to the implementation of equal opportunities and diversity management (as highlighted by Liff and Cameron, 1997), the devolution of HR to line managers has placed them in the best position to reformulate and operationalise HR policy and practice including diversity management. Changing Workforce Patterns and Customer Base Many managers are not sure why they should want to learn to manage diversity. They may be pressurised by an organisational need to fulfill a social and moral responsibility to increase opportunity for traditionally disadvantaged groups and to meet legal requirements. Roosevelt Thomas, Jr. (1996) believes that this approach can only create short-term commitment from managers and that long-term motivation can only be delivered if a business case can be made for managers to want to manage diversity and to want to create truly diverse organisations. From an organisational viewpoint, there are four well-documented business advantages for diverse organisations: 1.

Taking advantage of diversity in the labour market. Labour market pressure and in particular the predicted decrease in the number of white males in the labour force in many large industrialised regions such as the USA, (Johnson and Packer, 1987), Europe (Employment in Europe, 1997) and the UK (Labour Force Survey, 1997) has led to increasing interest in recruiting from more diverse, traditionally neglected sectors in the labour market. This focus on diversity has been driven by the business imperative of attracting and retaining a workforce from a diverse pool of labour (Kandola and Fullerton, 1994; Jackson et al., 1992). 2. Maximising employee potential. Diversity management is a term commonly used but which is defined in many ways. In the most general definitions, it relates to a range of differences that individuals

Nelarine Cornelius, Larraine Gooch and Shaun Todd

37

possess, such as predispositions which are relatively fixed (such as personality or learning styles) but often include those factors traditionally associated with equal opportunities, including gender, ethnicity and disability. The implicit message underpinning the diversity management position is that such differences can and should be marshalled as they represent aspects of human capital which organisations can utilise to their benefit. Such a message is consistent with the views of strategy management researchers who have argued that human resources are potentially a source of sustainable competitive advantage (Hamel and Prahalad, 1993; Porter, 1996) the idea of which can be traced back to Schultz’s Nobel prizewinning work on human capital management (Odiorne, 1985). 3. Managing across borders and cultures. The labour market is more global with employers increasingly recruiting and working across national boundaries. The globalisation of world markets and the increasing access of worldwide travel and communications has created a climate for increasing numbers of employees to work across international boundaries. In Europe, the single market has created a climate in which different employees from different cultures increasingly work together. In 1995 it was estimated that some 600 000 people in the European Union lived in one country and worked in another (Employment in Europe, 1997). These changing demographic patterns provide a rich and diverse labour market in which organisations operate and from which both employees and customers are sourced. For many organisations, it is the need to meet the requirements of diverse customers which provides the most powerful business case for moving diversity forward on the agenda of many managers. Diversity management is interpreted at different levels, and may represent local, companywide, national or international perspectives. For example, many companies engaged with multinational activity are primarily interested in ‘cross-cultural’ management, with issues of language and managing differences of national culture and ethos (Hofstede, 1991; Trompenaars, 1993; Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1989). However, it is arguable that within a national context, crosscultural management is as much, if not more, about managing the different ethnic representatives in the national labour market, as it is about managing cross-national differences associated with cross-border trade. 4. Creating business opportunities and enhancing creativity. The most commonly-stated business case for diversity management relates to

38

Managing Difference Fairly two main areas. The first concerns increasing the customer base to which an organisation sells its goods and services by targeting traditionally diverse groups. This is in part facilitated by drawing on the culturally-specific, often tacit, knowledge that current employees and recruits from these groups may have. The second is that a diversity of groups may add to the intellectual and creative diversity of an enterprise. Different experiences and world views can, it is argued (for example, Kandola and Fullerton, 1994; Roosevelt Thomas, Jr., 1996), provide inputs which may create the environment which moves an enterprise from its ‘norms’ of operation and can add to the ‘innovative edge’ of an organisation. There are limitations to these two popular assertions. They are too often merely aspirational statements which may not be reinforced through clear policy and action. Furthermore, they provide a fairly limited view of a business case, centred vaguely around potential customers and the possible impact of organisational creativity and innovation. Put another way, too often accounts of the ‘business benefits’ err towards the debatable, rather than the direct benefits (Kandola and Fullerton, 1994). Admittedly, both elements are in practice difficult to quantify in terms of links between diversity management action and business outcomes.

Extending the ‘Business Case’ for Diversity: From Potential to Actual Value added While the above approaches are the most commonly identified reasons for managers to be interested in diversity, there is the potential for a much broader and better-grounded business case with better potential for quantification of output. Indeed, Ross and Schneider (1992: 107) suggest that ‘managing diversity grouped the benefits into tangible bottom line benefits which is the hard data and cost savings that will attract management’. One basis on which links between diversity management and the business case centres is around models of a business’s key activities, as represented by its supply chain of key operations for the company (Dyer et al., 1998). Related ways of thinking of key activities include the value chain, in which key primary and support activities are considered from the customers’ perspective (Porter, 1985), or from a more marketing orientation, the demand chain (Rayport and Sviolda, 1995). These concepts are largely based in ‘physical flows’, although others have suggested that such concepts can be extended to include ‘virtual value

Nelarine Cornelius, Larraine Gooch and Shaun Todd

39

flows’ such as knowledge (ibid.). Extending the idea further, Freeman and Liedtka (1997) have suggested that a stakeholder value chain, based around an organisation’s internal and external stakeholders, can be developed. We suggest that a related line of thinking could be applied to diversity management, with the core task the identification of product or service ‘value added’, then locating within specific organisational activities the diversity potential to enhance ‘value added’. For example, organisations may require diversity or equal opportunities criteria to be met by their suppliers. This is in much the same way that quality criteria established through national or European quality standards or quality management programmes may be set by companies as a standard which their suppliers are required to meet. It is, however, diversity management assurance rather than quality assurance that is sought. Some organisations have already established such an approach in relation to ‘ethical behaviour’ of their suppliers (for example, the Co-Operative Bank, Body Shop) and this has provided a strong basis on which to attract new (often younger) customers.

CASE STUDY: DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT AT GREAT WESTERN TRAINS Research Methods The research methodology centred around a field research approach as outlined by Adler and Adler (1987). Specifically, they argue that for this kind of approach researchers have available to them different role categories of organisational membership: peripheral, active and complete. The option available to us was that of the complete membership role, as one of the authors (Shaun Todd) was a member of the key advisory team of the chosen organisation, and was therefore able to gather information with their cooperation. He had connections with all of the key stakeholder groups and so was in a privileged position with regard to access to a broad array of formal and informal data from key stakeholder groups whilst the changes and interventions were being decided on, designed, implemented and evaluated. The benefits of this approach, in particular the rich vein of informal data that one is able to access, has to be counterbalanced by the consequences associated with involvement with and membership in the group studied preceding the decision to pursue research in a complete

40

Managing Difference Fairly

membership role. Specifically, ‘people familiar with a setting [have to] create the space and character for their research role to emerge’ (Adler and Adler, 1987: 69). However, the complete member role allowed for a more proactive evaluation of the study of action, grounded in the early work of Lewin on action learning, of ‘changing (things) and seeing the process . . . in order to gain insight into a process one must create a change and then observe its variable effects and new dynamics . . . ’ (Sanford, 1981: 174). Moreover, Sanford suggests that such action learning approaches are more holistic, representative and result in less ‘fragmentary’ and ‘departmentalistic’ research outcomes (ibid.: 177). In addition to these primary data, secondary data were also gathered. These included non-library-based sources, including the views of experts in the field, recorded company data and records and commercial information services, plus library-based sources (Stewart, 1984). Case Study Background: Company Policy, Strategy and Structure On 4 February 1996, Great Western Trains Company Ltd became the first high-speed train operator to be privatised. Since the late 1940s, it had been part of the UK nationalised railway industry and pre-privatisation was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the British Railways Board. In a series of organisational changes after privatisation, the company moved towards a flatter de-layered organisational structure. As a result of a consultation process it was decided that the most appropriate model for the management of human resources was a partnership between HR specialists, HR managers and managers. A number of activities which were previously conducted by HR staff were designated management responsibilities, including equal opportunities and diversity management. An important feature of companywide policy development was that it was developed by cross-functional management teams facilitated by HR consultants. This companywide approach to policy development provided the opportunity for the exchange of ideas and facilitation of organisation learning. A further key feature of the approach to diversity was that it was built on strong equal opportunities policies and practices which set the boundaries and basic codes of conduct for managing differences fairly. Diversity management incorporated equal opportunities but was also focused on the business case for recruiting from and providing services to customers from the diversity of groups represented in the community.

Nelarine Cornelius, Larraine Gooch and Shaun Todd

41

The stated benefit was that more needs could be met, a greater pool of expertise drawn upon, and more client groups’ needs met or markets developed. The Employee Contribution to Diversity An important element of the partnership was the active participation of employees in diversity management. The key to this approach was achieving a balance between creating new HR policy and practice while building on knowledge and experience gained in a diversity of contexts. These included the different functions of the organisation and also incorporating the diversity of experience of a diverse group of employees. There were numerous activities within the field of diversity within Great Western Trains initiated by senior managers, HR or the employees themselves acting as interventionists and managing initiatives. These included the appointment of 11 employees as ‘Pathfinders’, who were volunteers from within the organisation who were given time by the organisation to provide the first point of contact for providing information on a range of diversity issues; These volunteers were located within different regions and functions of the organisation. Pathfinders were initially appointed as first points of contact for women seeking support in a historically male-orientated environment, but their role was so successful that feedback suggested it could be extended to a range of diversity issues, not just for women. In addition, Pathfinders were encouraged to work with local communities in their particular area of specialist expertise. Some employees were involved with community-based work, an example being the football challenge organised by the communications department with local schools, where all the participating schools had to field half male and half female teams. Other initiatives included the encouragement of fund-raising activities for local charities, and employees doing work with specific organisations such as Gateway – a charity which helps physically and mentally disabled children – and Breakthrough–a group working with the deaf. There was an ongoing process of altering trains and stations to meet the needs of these diverse customer groups based on observations and feedback from Great Western Trains staff, who were encouraged to work closely with their customers in customer service groups in order to forge stronger links with the local community and to identify their specific needs more precisely. Specific improvements have included:

42

Managing Difference Fairly

• Introduction of a ‘Family Carriage’ and baby-changing facilities; • A pocket guide for disabled travellers and services to help them such as toilets for the disabled; • Dedicated telephone lines, ramps to provide better access to trains and induction loops at ticket office and customer service windows; • Better signage for the disabled and elderly; • Dedicated porterage services; • Improved security Communication A key way in which managers and employees shared knowledge and information was through a range of communication channels – formal, informal or incidental. The staff newspaper Great Westerner celebrated successes on a range of diversity issues and community projects; organisation communication material such as posters, leaflets, adverts and candidate packs reinforced the diversity culture of the organisation; and networking systems such as ‘Pathfinders’ enabled information and ideas to be communicated quickly and appropriately around the organisation. Another way in which diversity issues were communicated was through high-profile initiatives relating directly or indirectly to diversity management. The award of the bronze medal by the Equality Foundation was particularly important in this respect as described below. Raising the Diversity Profile – The Equal Opportunities Quality Framework Initiative The Equality Foundation is an independent company formed in 1995 operating nationally and internationally. Its mission is to develop systems to promote the inclusion of people from diverse backgrounds into organisations, and it manages the ‘Equal Opportunities Quality Framework’ (EOQF) a national quality standard for excellence in Equal Opportunities, granting recognition through assessment of serving organisations. The accreditation programme is now internationally recognised as a benchmark of excellence in equal opportunities and diversity. A decision was taken to apply for the bronze award of the EOQF and to work towards the silver and gold awards; the project to achieve the bronze award was championed by the Director of Customer Services. A cross-functional assessment team was established within the organisation, with all areas of the business represented. The team had information from an employee-attitude survey and assessed themselves

Nelarine Cornelius, Larraine Gooch and Shaun Todd

43

in terms of where they were in respect of the EOQF criteria and developed an action plan to achieve the improvement needed to achieve the EOQF award. Individual board members then championed specific diversity objectives in order to work towards the achievement of the diversity action plan. Within these groups, decisions were made about how diversity issues could be delivered locally. One of the actions identified was to set up diversity groups in each area of the business. The marketing and procurement departments had already set up diversity groups, and employees in those departments were looking at what diversity meant to them. For procurement this meant working with their suppliers, asking them to submit their equal opportunities policies and establishing a group with them to see what they might do to review their approach to equal opportunities and diversity. In this way, the procurement group not only looked at their own diversity issues, but also facilitated their suppliers in looking at theirs. Thus, the EOQF award specifically raised the profile of equal opportunities and diversity in the organisation by providing a clear structure, making clear the links between internal capabilities in the guise of activities and values and the business case for diversity management. This EOQF approach provided the base on which a broader diversity management approach could be developed. For example, although the EOQF approach paid particular attention to employee management and customer satisfaction issues, the Great Western Trains approach had been extended to incorporate the entire supply chain in its management of diversity. Evaluating Diversity Management Practice It could be argued that there is a need to map out important elements in order to start to understand what approach to equal opportunities and/or diversity management are in place (or indeed are likely or unlikely to work in a particular organisation). Specifically: • What is in place – equal opportunities, diversity management or some composite? • The culture and structure of the organisation, including its social dynamics. • The sources of motivation and demotivation towards diversity management. • Stakeholder analysis and potential (perceived) stakeholder losses and gains.

44

Managing Difference Fairly

• The nature of HRM policy and practice. • The degree of centralisation or decentralisation of HRM policy and practice. • The management-of-change ‘model’ to facilitate such changes. • The actions likely to sustain and embed changes over time. • Methods of external validation. • Employment relations elements such as the nature of the psychological contract and involvement and participation structures. • Communication structures and strategies. • Links to corporate and business strategy – the explicit business case. • The mechanisms for organisational learning The framework outlined above was used as one of the diagnostic tools for evaluating equal opportunities and diversity management practice in the case-study organisation. From this case study it has been possible to identify seven key issues in managing diversity. 1.

Building diversity on equal opportunities. In the case study, equal opportunities policies and practices were well-established and used as an important foundation on which to build more customerfocused, business-case-driven diversity management. This supports our view stated earlier in this chapter that these approaches are not mutually exclusive but can both be incorporated into more sophisticated systems of managing difference fairly. 2. Systemic and structural embedding of diversity. Systemic changes are important, particularly given that (a) HRM is often an effective internal driver for organisational and cultural change, and (b) the impact of diversity management is often directly or indirectly on HRM policy, strategy and practice. The role of systems such as staff appraisal, remuneration and reward, and training and development are obvious. There are many models of HR practice but what has emerged from the case study is that a ‘partnership’ approach in which responsibility for HR levers for change is shared between management and HR professionals is a powerful vehicle for the embedding of diversity. 3. External validation. Few organisations seek external validation that their policies and strategies are sustaining and embedding equal opportunities or diversity. External assessment which involves strategic and systemic rather than just a bureaucratic assessment could provide vital insights and feedback on action and progress. Thus in the case study, the EOQF award and scrutiny provided an independent external assessment of progress and achievement.

Nelarine Cornelius, Larraine Gooch and Shaun Todd 4.

45

Focus on providing learning rather than policies. In order to remain well-informed, attention must be paid to external and internal information. The quality of external information is important. The best way of keeping in touch is to maintain direct contact with the environment, since it is only through direct information that the company can be sure that it, and its employees, are adequately exposed to what is going on outside (see for example, Pedler et al., 1989, 1991; Easterby-Smith, 1990). The first challenge is to recognise that much of the knowledge relevant to the organisation is outside of it (Rada, 1995). Di Bella et al. (1996) believe that managers need to be concerned with identifying how the organisation learns rather than what it knows that must be unlearned. Formal learning structures must be supplemented by informal structures within the organisation that allow cross-fertilisation across the functions and professional disciplines, placing people in situations where they have to think outside of their normal cultural domain. Diversity of experience, diversity of external contact, and internal employee diversity provides an environment in which challenges to the dominant learning style of the organisation are more likely to happen and be listened to (Cook, 1995; Kandola and Fullerton, 1994). Thus, in the case study, the employee links with the community provided a vital role in informing the choices that could be made within the organisation. In addition, information from internal networks needs to be capitalised on (Rada, 1995); in the case study, the Pathfinders network was a particularly useful for source sharing knowledge and information. 5. A focus on teams not hierarchies. Learning organisations need active support and commitment from the top, but bottom-up strategy and implementation (Cook, 1995 ) is also necessary. The essential educational unit in a learning organisation is the team and not the individual. Cook (op. cit.) believes that it is essential to, ‘move beyond “training” and individual learning to collective learning’. It is the entrepreneurial team closer to the customer and not necessarily the upper management ranks that provide the focus for organisational learning (Rada, 1995). The manager in a learning organisation needs to learn that decisions will reside where there is knowledge, and that is not always where hierarchical power lies. Collaborative learning is better for organisational purposes than individual learning (Di Bella et al., 1996). Thus, in the case study, diversity management was developed and implemented differently according to the needs of different areas

46

Managing Difference Fairly

of the business by cross-functional teams, supported at Director level and advised by HR professionals. These cross-functional teams provided a forum for the exchange of knowledge and information gained from internal and external networks. In addition, change could be facilitated through ‘tailormade’ HR levers as identified by team members. 6. The need for long-term commitment. The learning organisation is much more concerned with the ‘long agenda’ (Cook, 1995). In this sense, diversity and the learning organisation are both dependent on the ‘long agenda’ of commitment to continuous change for success (Cockburn, 1989). However, this is not to say that the short agenda is not relevant. Both diversity and the learning organisation build on good policies and practices that are linked to a long-term agenda but which also have the expectation of rapid short-term gains (for example, equal opportunities legislation, quality programmes such as ISO 9000 and Total Quality Management – see Equality Foundation, 1997; Barry and Bateman, 1996). However, it is the long agenda (Cockburn, 1989; Cook, 1995) which provides the process of transformation that is needed for significant cultural change. 7. Managers are the key to the management of diversity. The schema outlined in Figure 3.1 represents the factors that, based on our research, highlight how we believe an array of factors helps to shape the outcomes of diversity management. In particular, the manager is central to the diagram, as a key factor in the approach to managing diversity. In other words, it was sponsored and driven by the functional activities within top management, to whom all managers were accountable. Moreover, responsibility for diversity management initiatives and their outcomes, and day-to-day diversity management issues rested primarily with managers, not support specialists such as equal opportunities officers, personnel managers or diversity consultants. This is not to suggest that specialists were not used: they provided expertise on which managers could draw, but it was managers who were accountable.

CONCLUSION In this chapter we conclude that with the devolution of HR practices to managers it is they who have responsibility for implementing diversity in organisations, albeit with support from HR professionals. We believe that the use of cross-functional teams and employee participation are

Nelarine Cornelius, Larraine Gooch and Shaun Todd

Employees as strategic asset

Customer focus

Company policy, strategy and structures Building on existing knowledge and experiences

Figure 3.1

Major initiatives, e.g. EOQF

The business case

EU policy and strategy

The Manager

HRM ‘partnership’ model

Communication strategies

47

Sharing knowledge

Community links Organisational learning strategies

Critical factors in managing diversity

key to success. This is because they provide a more robust platform on which to exchange knowledge and information. Good diversity management is likely to be underpinned by good equal opportunities practice which monitors the movement of those from traditionally disadvantaged groups into and within an organisation, with desired behaviour reinforced through codes of conduct. The business case for diversity which is likely to succeed goes beyond the usual boundaries and extends to the entire supply chain. This creates more opportunities for embedding diversity management into a broader range of business strategies and objectives. Core to the development of such approaches is organisational learning, and it is through a diversity of approaches to the acquisition, dissemination and sharing of formal and tacit knowledge in relation to equal opportunities and diversity management that its acceptance is nurtured and grows. Moreover, learning about diversity can be successfully built on knowledge and experience gained in many contexts such as through Total Quality Management or employee participation in the community.

48

Managing Difference Fairly

This holistic approach, illustrated in the model in Figure 3.1, creates an environment in which equal opportunities and diversity issues are more clearly communicated and understood, facilitates employee involvement and creates an organisational environment in which continuous learning strategies allow for widespread dissemination and sharing of knowledge, providing the basis for continuous improvement and development of equal opportunities and diversity strategies. References Adler, P. A. and Adler, P. (1987) Membership Roles in Field Research (Beverly Hills: Sage). Austin, S. and Shapiro, G. (1996) ‘Equality-driven Employee Involvement’, Journal of General Management, vol. 21 (4): 62–77. Barry, B. and Bateman, T. S. (1996) ‘A Social Trap Analysis of the Management of Diversity’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 21 (3): 57–90. Bartlett, C. A. and Ghoshal, S. (1989) Managing Across Borders – the Transnational Solution (London: Hutchinson). Bevan, S. and Hayday, S. (1994) Helping Managers to Manage People, Report 254 (Brighton: Institute of Manpower Studies). Brewster, C. and Hegewisch, A. (1994) Policy and Practice in European Human Resource Management (London: Routledge). Carnevale, A. P. and Stone, S. S. (1994) ‘Diversity: Beyond the Golden Rule’, Training and Development, October: 22–39. Cockburn, C. (1989) ‘Equal Opportunities: The Short and Long Agenda’, Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 20 (3): 213–25. Cook, P. (1995) ‘The Learning Organisation: Rhetoric or Reality?’, Organisations and People, vol. 4 (1): 10–14. Cornelius, N., Gooch, L. and Todd, S. (1998) ‘Managing Differences Fairly – an Integrated “Partnership” Approach’, paper presented to 13th Annual Employment Research Unit Conference, Cardiff Business School, September. Dickens, L. (1997) ‘What HRM Means for Gender Equality’, Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 8 (1). Di Bella, A. J., Nevis, E. C. and Gould, J. M. (1996) ‘Understanding Organisational Learning Capability’, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 33 (3): 361–79. Dyer, J. H., Cho, D. S. and Chu, W. (1998) ‘Strategic Supplier Segmentation: The Next “Best Practice” in Supply Chain Management’, California Management Review, vol. 40 (2): 57–77. Easterby-Smith, M. (1990) ‘Creating a Learning Organisation’, Personnel Review, vol. 9 (5): 24–8. Employment in Europe (1997) (London: HMSO). Equality Foundation (1997) Training Manual (London: Equality Foundation). Freeman, E. and Liedtka, J. (1997) ‘Stakeholder Capitalism and the Value Chain’, European Management Journal, vol. 15 (3): 286–95.

Nelarine Cornelius, Larraine Gooch and Shaun Todd

49

Gentile, M. C. (1994) Differences that Work: Organizational Excellence through Diversity (Boston: Harvard Business Review Books). Gooch, L. and Cornelius, N. (1999) ‘Recruitment, Selection and Induction in a Diverse and Competitive Environment’, in N. Cornelius (ed.), Human Resource Management: A Managerial Perspective (London: International Thomson). Guest, D. (1987) ‘Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations’, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 24 (5): 503–21. Hall, L. and Torrington, D. (1998) ‘Letting Go or Holding On – the Devolution of Operational Personnel Management Activities’, Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 8 (1): 41–55. Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. K. (1993) ‘Strategy as Stretch and Leverage’, Harvard Business Review, March–April: 75–84. Hofstede, G. (1991) Culture and Organisations: Software of the Mind (New York: McGraw-Hill). Hutchinson, S. and Wood, S. (1995) The UK Experience in Personnel and the Line: Developing the New Relationship (London: Institute of Personnel and Development). Jackson, B. W., LaFasto, F., Schultz, H. G. and Kelly, D. (1992) ‘Diversity’, Human Resource Management, vol. 31 (1/2): 21–34. Johnson, W. B. and Packer, A. H. (1987) Workforce 2000 and Workers for the 21st Century (Indianapolis: The Hudson Institute). Kandola, R. and Fullerton, J. (1994) Managing the Mosaic: Diversity in Action (London: Institute of Personnel and Development). Labour Force Survey (1997) (London: HMSO). Labour Market Trends (1997) (London: HMSO). Liff, S. and Cameron, I. (1997) ‘Changing Equality Cultures to Move Beyond Women’s Problems’, Gender, Work and Organisation, vol. 4 (l). McGovern, P., Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., Stiles, P. and Truss, C. (1998) ‘Human Resource Management on the Line?’ Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 7 (4): 12–29. Odiorne, G. (1985) The Strategic Management of Human Resources (San Francisco: Jossey Bass). Pedler, M., Boydell, T. and Burgoyne, J. (1989) ‘Towards the Learning Company’, Management Education and Development, vol. 20 (l): 1–8. Pedler, M. and Boydell, J. (1991) The Learning Company: A Strategy for Sustainable Development (New York: McGraw Hill). Porter, M. E. (1985) Competitive Advantage (New York: Free Press). Porter. M. E. (1996) ‘What is Strategy?’, Harvard Business Review, November– December: 61–78. Rada J. F. (1995) ‘Thoughts on Organisational Utopia’, Journal of Strategic Change, vol. 4: 343–51. Rayport, J. and Sviolda, J. (1995) ‘Exploiting the Virtual Value Chain’, Harvard Business Review, November–December: 75–85. Roosevelt Thomas, Jr. (1993) ‘From Affirmative Action to Affirming Diversity’, in M. Gentile (ed.), Differences at Work (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Books). Roosevelt Thomas, Jr. (1996) Redefining Diversity (New York: Amacom – American Management Association Publication).

50

Managing Difference Fairly

Ross, R. and Schneider, R. (1992) From Equality to Diversity: A Business Case for Equal Opportunities (London: Pitman). Sanford, N. (1981) ‘A Model for Action Research’, in P. Reason and J. Rowan (eds), Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook of New Paradigm Research (Chichester: John Wiley). Sisson, K. (1995) ‘Human Resource Management and the Personnel Function’, in J. Storey (ed.), Human Resource Management: A Critical Text (London: Routledge). Stewart, D.W. (1984) Secondary Research: Information Sources and Methods (London: Sage). Thomas, D. A. and Ely, R. J. (1996) ‘Making Differences Matter: A New Paradigm for Managing Diversity’, Harvard Business Review, Sepember–October: 79–90. Townley, B. (1994) Reframing Human Resource Management (London: Sage). Trompenaars, F. (1993) Riding the Waves of Culture (London: Nicholas Brealey).

4 Diversity, Equality, Morality John Kaler

INTRODUCTION In common with many other trends in management thinking, the diversity approach to employment issues has the status of a product – in the form of a technique – that is sold to managers through consultancy work and instructional books. Consequently, there is the problem of arriving at a clear understanding of what is meant by this talk of ‘diversity’ given that we are dealing here with a concept that has been packaged and repackaged in a search for potential buyers, and so not only lacks any definitive formulation but offers formulations that are none too mindful of very real obscurities and difficulties. The difficulty is arriving at a clear understanding of the concept of diversity given that it is formulated in a way which glosses over or even ignores many potential criticisms and questions. In particular, there is the difficulty of determining the precise relationship to the somewhat older concept of equal opportunity. Here the problem is determining whether diversity has to be considered an entirely different approach from equal opportunity, pursuing different ends by different means, or whether the two overlap to the extent that diversity can be a way of pursuing the same ends as equal opportunity by different but possibly more effective means – a possibility which seems to be at least part of the reason for interest in diversity. On this particular issue I shall conclude that although the two approaches cannot be entirely separated, diversity has little to offer fulfilment of those specifically moral ends which, I argue, are definitive of equal opportunity. As indicated, this chapter is concerned with conceptual analysis rather than the description of practice and, more particularly, with exploring the specifically moral implication of concepts. This focus does not, however, necessarily mean adopting any particular moral stance in relation to the ethical matters raised. All it need mean, and all it will involve here, is examining how well certain concepts work with a given ethical position. Accordingly, I will merely outline what I take to be the mainstream 51

52

Diversity, Equality, Morality

formulation of the moral objectives of equal opportunity (in the next section), take a brief look at the single most important attempt to distinguish diversity from equal opportunity (finding it ill-founded), then ask how well the diversity approach coheres with the moral objectives of equal opportunity (not very well as it turns out). Given that I damn the claims of the diversity approach, it follows that, thoroughly analytic though it is, this chapter has an eminently practical and even somewhat ambitious purpose. It is, very obviously, to persuade those accepting the moral objectives of equal opportunity to reject the diversity approach in working towards the fulfilment of those objectives. (What virtues the diversity approach might have in other ways or even in relation to non-moral aspects of equal opportunity is, of course, another matter. Likewise, given that this chapter is entirely focused upon employment, what might be said about the application of these two approaches in areas other than employment is also another matter.)

THE MORAL OBJECTIVES OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY The first morally significant point to be noted about equal opportunity is that the opportunity in question is that of being given a chance to compete. Hence, equal opportunity is something which can be at issue only when people are in competition with each other. In relation to employment, this means that equal opportunity is directly at issue only in areas such as recruitment and promotion – as well as perhaps transfer and training – where (actual or possible) employees are in competition with each other for organisational positions: areas of employment which, for convenience, I shall lump together as ‘job selection’. Other employment matters not directly concerned with job selection such as harassment and equal pay that raise similar issues are linked to equal opportunity only in the sense that both they and job selection are a focus for anti-discrimination measures. Discrimination and equal opportunity are not, however, synonymous. Equal opportunity issues are that sub-set of discrimination issues involving competition. So as employees are not in competition with each other in harassment and equal pay cases – except in so far as they might indirectly impact upon recruitment, promotion and so on – they are not part of that sub-set. It follows from this first point that equal opportunity does not demand equality of outcome. On the contrary, it is very much involved with unequal outcomes, for competition can prevail only when unequal outcomes are at stake. Consequently, and this is the second morally

John Kaler

53

significant point about equal opportunity, the equality in question is essentially procedural: it is a requirement that people – in this case actual or possible employees – compete on an equal basis for unequal rewards. (As a moral category, equality of opportunity belongs under ‘procedural justice’ along with such things as having a ‘fair trial’. See Chryssides and Kaler, 1996: 45–51.) The equal basis for competition provided by equal opportunity is selection on merit. That is to say, job selection on the basis only of those characteristics relevant to performing that job well. What constitutes merit in these terms is, of course, hotly disputed; but as I seek merely to explicate and not adjudicate in this area, I need only say that merit will typically involve characteristics such as experience, educational qualifications, commitment, and so on. In any case, however defined, it is selection on merit which puts the ‘equal’ in ‘equal opportunity’ and, moreover, constitutes it as an anti-discriminatory measure in that what are deemed to be (generally) irrelevant and, therefore, non-meritorious characteristics such as race or gender are excluded from consideration. As discrimination per se is no bad thing, all anti-discriminatory measures are, strictly speaking, only opposing unfair discrimination (for a discussion, see Noon and Blyton, 1997: 167–86). However, equal opportunity is perhaps unique among such measures in that because it covers competitive situations where discrimination is positively called for, its criterion for excluding unjust discrimination – in the shape of selection on merit – has also to be a criterion for fair discrimination. Consequently, equal opportunity does not merely accept unequal outcomes, it morally justifies them by saying that they are ‘fair’ when decided on the basis of merit. By implication, therefore, this means that there ought to be unequal outcomes when, as is all too possible, merit is unequal. This implication presents something of a dilemma for advocates of traditional mainstream equal opportunity. Though happy enough to accept unequal outcomes for individuals, which is where they part company with thoroughgoing egalitarians, they are far from happy to accept unequal outcomes for groups. Just how unhappy will, of course, vary. For what, I take it, characterises traditional mainstream equal opportunity is an egalitarianism which is not just qualified, but even equivocal. On the one hand, it accepts that job selection must be based on merit; on the other, it is motivated by a desire to lessen, or even abolish, disparities in the workforce representation of men and women, black and white, and so on. To that extent, its ideal outcome is a situation in which every workforce is more or less representative of all the social groupings available to it: an aim which can be inelegantly summarised as that of ‘representativeness’.

54

Diversity, Equality, Morality

It is an aim that is exhibited in various ways and to varying degrees. The most diffuse and perhaps most common way is through a vague attachment to the aim of representativeness: the idea that somehow the whole point of equal opportunity is to lessen, and hopefully even remove, disparities of representation between groups. Less common perhaps, but still capable of yielding examples (BBC, 1995: 2), is an explicit commitment to the aim of representativeness. Somewhere between the two with respect to both instances and explicitness comes the use of targets (‘goals’ in the USA) for increasing the representation of underrepresented groups to specified levels, along with an accompanying inclination to see meeting those targets as the measure of the success of equal opportunity policies (see Straw, 1989: 93–112, and Clutterbuck et al., 1992: 60–91, for examples). Though it is perhaps a mark of the rise of diversity and corresponding decline of traditional mainstream equal opportunity that the use of targets may have grown less common in recent years (Overell, 1997). Targeting exhibits a commitment to the aim of representativeness by specifying a level of group representation which is nearer to, or even approximate to, the available spread of social groupings. That, unlike quotas, those levels are not required to be met means the commitment is not an overriding one (a point to be returned to), but it is, nonetheless, still present. The mere fact of levels of group representation being specified signals this. It might be objected that targeting is less an articulation of the aim of representativeness than merely a means of eradicating the discrimination suffered by underrepresented groups: a discrimination indicated by the fact they are underrepresented. This is, however, an objection which confuses the effects of discrimination – in the shape of that underrepresentation – with the discrimination itself – in the shape of selecting on the basis of irrelevant group characteristics rather than on merit. Targeting might certainly do something about the former, but it can do nothing at all about the latter. The only thing that can is selection on merit. But, and here is the nub of the issue, selection on merit does not specify any particular outcome in terms of group representation. The level of that representation will entirely depend upon the distribution of merit between groups. Given an unequal distribution of merit between groups then, even with all unfair discrimination removed, the resulting workforce will be correspondingly unrepresentative. Indeed, as was pointed out, it is positively required to be unrepresentative given that selection on merit is a principle for fair discrimination. So to specify a certain level of group representation by way of targets, is not to do anything about the elimination of discrimination (as something distinct

John Kaler

55

from its effects). It is to make a quite separate demand: a demand for increased representativeness. It can therefore be concluded that in so far as targeting is a feature of a traditional mainstream formulation of equal opportunity, so also is the aim of representativeness. Here, then, lies the dilemma for that mainstream formulation. For while incorporating the aim of representativeness, it must face the fact that selection on merit offers no guarantee the aim will be fulfilled. As was noted, it all depends on the distribution of merit between groups. Consequently, there is in principle, and quite possibly in practice also, a conflict between accepting the requirement of selection on merit and holding to the aim of representativeness. And it is in response to this conflict that the mainstream position on equal opportunity is formulated as well as, by contradistinction, two flanking peripheral positions. At one extreme is the response which thinks that not guaranteeing a representative workforce is so much the worse for selection on merit (by those standard criteria accepted here). It would give prime or even sole consideration to the aim of securing a representative workforce by making membership of an underrepresented group a deciding or even primary factor over considerations of merit. In so doing, it sanctions some degree of ‘reverse discrimination’ (Chryssides and Kaler, 1996: 91–2). On whether this is a bad thing, opinions vary (Pitt, 1992). What is undeniable, however, is that in so far as merit is being abandoned as the sole criterion for selection, then there is no longer equality of opportunity in its proper sense of competition on an equal basis for unequal rewards. It is, therefore, perhaps more honest of people taking this first stance to accept that, on egalitarian grounds, they are opposing equal opportunity rather than simply offering a particularly strong version of it. This would, for example, be the case for those people advocating what Jewson and Mason (1986) identify as a ‘radical’ against a ‘liberal’ view of equal opportunity. What they really want is equality of outcome not equality of opportunity. (There are, almost needless to say, very sound egalitarian objections to the whole idea of equal opportunity, for example, see Schaar, 1997.) At the other extreme is a response which not only rejects any deviation from selection on merit but also takes a very narrow view of what equality of opportunity requires. All it requires, according to this position, is attention to such standard indicators of merit as experience, qualifications, commitment and so forth, and the ignoring of such irrelevant characteristics as race, gender and the like. This position points out that attending to the representativeness of a workforce means concentrating on just such irrelevant characteristics. Such concentration will, it is suggested, inevitably lead to some degree of reverse discrimination. So

56

Diversity, Equality, Morality

the only secure option for equality of opportunity is to exclude from consideration everything except the possession of meritorious characteristics (Chryssides and Kaler, 1996: 92). Thus, selection on that basis is taken to be not only both necessary and sufficient for equality of opportunity, but also needing to be unsullied by any consideration of the extent to which the resulting workforce is representative of various social groupings. The mainstream position is, predictably enough, somewhere between these two extremes. Like the second and unlike the first, it insists on selection based on the possession of (standardly) meritorious characteristics. Where it parts company with the second position is in taking a wider view of what equality of opportunity requires. It is not enough, this position insists, to simply look to the possession of meritorious characteristics. The potential to acquire those characteristics must also be examined. Only when people have fully developed their potential for acquiring experience, qualifications, commitment and so on, is there full equality of opportunity. And the sad truth, this position points out, is that there is much in the way of people fully developing their potential. Innate ability is not enough. There are factors unrelated to innate ability that are rooted in adverse social conditions and attitudes such as inadequate schooling and social stereotyping which will, even when the innate ability is there, lead on to a lack of qualifications, confidence, ambition and so forth, and a resulting lack of eligibility for jobs. Consequently, there is, so the argument goes, only going to be genuine equality of opportunity when all such obstacles to a full development of potential are removed. Without this, selection on merit in the sense of selecting on the basis of the possession of meritorious characteristics is, to some extent, only a measure of relative social disadvantage and advantage: access to schooling and child care, a supportive or unsupportive family, an encouraging or discouraging social environment, and so on. Hence, avoiding unfair discrimination by only selecting on the basis of the possession of meritorious characteristics is, contrary to the second extreme, not considered enough for full equality of opportunity; the consequences of adverse social conditions and attitudes must also be tackled. There is a need for remedial measures designed to help develop the potential of people belonging to groups such as women and ethnic minorities that have suffered from adverse social conditions and attitudes: remedial measures which in the UK mostly go under the heading of ‘positive action’, and in the USA always go under the heading of ‘affirmative action’. In requiring positive/affirmative action, this third position is rejecting the viewpoint of the second that selecting on the basis of the possession

John Kaler

57

of meritorious characteristics is sufficient for equality of opportunity. What it is not doing, though, is denying that such selection is necessary. It is still requiring that selection be based on the possession of meritorious characteristics (potential alone does not suffice), but supplementing this with the requirement that social impediments to their acquisition be removed. So while necessary and sufficient for equal opportunity is the view of the second position towards selection on merit, necessary but not sufficient is the view of the third. Consequently, in going beyond what the second position requires, this third position can be labelled ‘strong equal opportunity’, while the less-demanding second can be labelled ‘weak equal opportunity’ (Pojman and Westmoreland, 1997: 7). Both warrant being labelled as ‘equal opportunity’ in that both, in their different ways, adhere to the notion of selection via the possession of (standardly) meritorious characteristics. In contrast, because it does not adhere to that notion, the first position does not belong under the ‘equal opportunity’ heading at all. (So the accompanying suggestion of ‘super strong equal opportunity’ – Pojman and Westmoreland, 1997: 7 – has to be resisted.) In making its deciding or even first priority that of achieving a representative workforce, the most accurate description of this first option is ‘equal group selection’. It is not simply in coming between the two extremes that strong equal opportunity represents the mainstream. It is, as I have noted, required of a traditional mainstream approach to equal opportunity that it incorporates the aim of representativeness. With what I am calling ‘equal group selection’ this aim is accepted but not in a way which is compatible with equal opportunity. With weak equal opportunity the aim of representativeness is rejected altogether. With strong equal opportunity the situation is more complex. It is a question neither of explicit rejection nor explicit acceptance, but rather compatibility in the sense that with strong equal opportunity the aim of a representative workforce can, in principle, be pursued to the fullest extent as is consistent with selection on merit and, therefore, with equal opportunity. This holds because the positive/ affirmative action definition of strong equal opportunity will, if it succeeds, maximise the possession of meritorious characteristics among the underrepresented groups it is designed to assist. So when combined with the removal of unfair discrimination through selection on merit, what should result from successful action of this sort is that the representation of those assisted groups will be as high as it possibly could be consistent with selection on merit and, therefore, equal opportunity. It follows that the optimum way of pursuing the aim of a representative workforce within the confines of equality of opportunity is through this

58

Diversity, Equality, Morality

strong version. So for anyone wishing to pursue that aim within those confines, this is the version that has to be chosen. It could, in principle, be chosen purely on the grounds that it is a fuller and therefore more accurate account of equal opportunity than its alternative weak version. If so, then increasing the representativeness of a workforce would have to be dismissed as a merely incidental effect of the strong version. In practice, however, it is very much that effect which commends the strong version to its adherents. What demonstrates this is the fact that, typically at least, while the weak version draws its adherents from those wishing to see competition prevail regardless of inequalities of outcome, the strong version draws its support from those who accept the need for competition but would wish to see the resulting inequalities of outcome kept to some necessary minimum – whatever that might be. So although in principle strong equal opportunity need not be combined with the aim of representativeness, in practice it is. (The tension between wanting to combine an essentially competitive process with some sort of equality of outcome – albeit between groups – is obvious and, of course, much exploited by proponents of weak equal opportunity.) Granted that strong equal opportunity is combined with the aim of representativeness, and granted also that this combining constitutes equal opportunity in its traditional mainstream form, then the moral objectives of equal opportunity come down to requiring representativeness within the limits of selection on merit. More fully articulated, this means aiming to achieve workforces as representative of the social groupings available to them as is consistent with selection based on the possession of such standardly meritorious characteristics as experience, qualifications, commitment, and so on. However, ‘representativeness with selection on merit’ will do.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DIVERSITY AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY The prime difficulty in arriving at a clear understanding of the diversity approach is, I have noted, sorting out its relationship to the concept of equal opportunity. What is unclear is whether they are two entirely separate approaches to employee management or whether diversity is offering a new and potentially more successful way of achieving the moral objectives of equal opportunity. Separateness is said to be the case for several rather complex reasons, but for reasons of space I will concentrate on only one. It is the

John Kaler

59

claim that diversity is distinguished from equal opportunity by being a mechanism for serving organisational self-interest rather than the moral demands of social justice. I shall concentrate on this claim because as well as being perhaps the most pervasive of the proposed distinctions, it is the one with the most direct implications for the issues under discussion here (see next section). Fortunately, it is also the most obviously false. What makes it false is that it has long been a commonplace of arguments for equal opportunity that it is in the interests of organisations to pursue such policies. This, it is said, is not just in order to stay within the law, but also to win the approval of society at large and, perhaps most importantly of all, to draw upon the widest possible range of available talent by not excluding any sector of society through discrimination or a failure to fully develop potential (EOC, 1986: 1; Straw, 1989: 12). In reply, it could be said that while diversity has an exclusive focus on organisational self-interest, for the equivalent equal opportunity argument, organisational self-interest is merely a means to achieving moral ends: specifically, as was noted, the exclusion of unfair discrimination and moves towards a more representative workforce. However, though this is very probably the perspective of most advocates of equal opportunity, in principle nothing prevents equal opportunity being argued for exclusively on the grounds of organisational self-interest (for example, CBI, 1996). Conversely, though arguments based on organisational self-interest might well be the norm amongst advocates of diversity, in principle nothing prevents diversity being argued for as a way of serving the very same moral ends as equal opportunity. For if it is in the self-interest of organisations to achieve a diverse workforce, then it would seem not to be in their interest to discriminate unfairly and in their interest to have a more representative workforce (for example, Echiejile, 1995). On that basis, the issue of the relationship between diversity and equal opportunity is whether, as those accepting this interpretation seem to be suggesting, the diversity approach is a more successful way of achieving those moral objectives than the equal opportunity approach.

ASSESSING THE MORAL EFFICACY OF DIVERSITY AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY Arguments that look to organisational self-interest as a means of fulfilling moral objectives go under the generic title of ‘business case arguments’.

60

Diversity, Equality, Morality

Such arguments are commonplace. They are found not only, as was noted, in relation to equal opportunity and diversity, but also in relation to corporate community involvement (Chryssides and Kaler, 1993: 76–8). More generally, they appear in relation to all aspects of corporate social responsibility and, more generally still, as a justification for ethical business practice: the ‘good ethics is good business’ contention (ibid.: 27). All such arguments are variants on the ‘invisible-hand’ theme of Adam Smith: the idea that the common good is best served by the pursuit of individual self-interest. As Smith was very well aware, invisiblehand mechanisms are contingent upon certain conditions being met. In terms of his general thesis that consumer needs are best satisfied through the pursuit of profit, an essential precondition is competition between businesses to win consumer preferences. That condition is, however, by no means guaranteed to be met, for as Smith was quick to notice, businesses are all too ready to engage in anti-competitive practices in order to protect profits from the ravages of competition (Chryssides and Kaler, 1993: 63–6). Likewise, though the ‘good ethics is good business’ thesis may well be true of business as a whole over the long term, it is by no means true of individual businesses at particular times. Under certain pressing conditions, there will always be much to lose from being ethical and much to gain from being unethical (ibid.: 27–34). So also, then, with business case arguments for diversity and/or equal opportunity. There will all too often be instances in which it will not pay businesses to promote diversity or pursue equal opportunity policies. It could be, for example, that the staffing needs of organisations are perfectly adequately met by drawing on a narrow pool of labour – be it male only, white only, or whatever (Dickens, 1994: 11–12). More generally, where those jobs are of a routine nature there is probably nothing to be gained from attempting to select the very best people available; the merely adequate will suffice. So in such cases, the pool of talent argument simply does not apply. But even if it does, there is the issue of whether the benefits for the organisation outweigh the costs of pursuing policies necessary to widen the pool; and this appears to be not always the case (Holtermann, 1995). Moreover, the circumstances which make it economically worthwhile to pursue those policies can all too easily change. Here the much cited example is when the rising unemployment of the early 1990s meant that the great ‘demographic downturn’ in the number of new entrants to the job market was not going to make equal opportunity the businesses necessity it was confidently predicted to become (Clement and Macintyre, 1993).

John Kaler

61

All in all, then, it can be considered that whether applied to equal opportunity, diversity or anything else, business case arguments are going to rest on somewhat shaky foundations. They might well apply in particular instances under particular circumstances, but not generally and not always. What this unsurprisingly demonstrates, therefore, is how very justified we are in preferring moral objectives being fulfilled from moral motives rather than from reasons of self-interest: that is to say, the right thing being done for the right reason. For what this very obviously adds is reliability in that we are not then so dependent upon the vagaries of circumstance. It follows, therefore, that in so far as it founds itself upon a strictly business case justification, the diversity approach will not serve the moral objectives of equal opportunity as well as a straightforward commitment to those objectives. This is not, of course, to say that business case justifications have no part to play in the fulfilment of those objectives. In the absence of a moral commitment to them, or failing that effective legal compulsion, self-interest is better than nothing and it is, in any case, a useful supplement to moral commitment and/or legal compulsion. This being so, then in terms of such a role for business case arguments, the question is what, if anything, is gained by talk of ‘diversity’ in presenting such arguments rather than the talk of ‘equal opportunity’ that has hitherto prevailed? It is difficult to see that anything is gained by the change. For if we look at arguments couched in terms of ‘diversity’, we see that they are largely a repetition of those expressed in terms of equal opportunity. We find the same claims about improvement in employee satisfaction leading to improvements in quality and productivity – the claim, it has to be said, of nearly all HRM innovations. In addition, there is the same well-established talk of winning the approval of the wider society and widening the pool of talent. (For a summary of the presumed advantages of diversity, see Wheatley and Griffiths, 1997: 3–6. For an indication of the interchangeability of those claims with what can be claimed for equal opportunity, see Ross and Schneider, 1992: 98–109, where a book championing diversity lists much the same advantages under the heading of ‘equal opportunity’ rather than ‘diversity’ – an indication also of a very understandable difficulty in appreciating that the two concepts are supposed to be distinct.) The fact that much the same business case arguments can be produced for equal opportunity as for diversity means that in so far as diversity adds anything to those arguments it can only be by couching them in terms specific to diversity. Here at least three possibilities suggest themselves. Firstly, there could be the claim that an increasingly

62

Diversity, Equality, Morality

diverse customer base might want to see itself reflected in a diverse workforce (Kibazo, 1994). Secondly, there is the possibility that a correspondingly diverse workforce could be a source of insights into the needs and preferences of that increasingly diverse customer base (Kibazo, 1994; Griffith, 1994; Harris, 1997). Thirdly, there can be the suggestion that a diverse workforce might be a source of skills and talents peculiarly concentrated in particular groups. These are, most obviously, language skills (Griffith, 1994; Harris, 1997), but they might also include talents relating to advantageous psychological attitudes or even particular physical or mental abilities. For instance, it might be claimed that Asians are peculiarly gifted in identifying and exploiting market opportunities (a suggestion reported in Harris, 1997). To what extent any of these claims is true is obviously open to question. To what degree are customers concerned to see themselves reflected in a workforce: a lot, a little, hardly at all? To what degree also would a diverse workforce be a source of insights into a diverse customer base? Might not outsiders be sometimes better able to spot what is peculiar about a particular group rather than someone longaccustomed to its ways? And though skills and talents may well be concentrated in particular groups, surely not every member of those groups will have them? And surely they are not entirely absent in members of other groups? In any case, cannot those skills and talents be acquired and developed in those other groups? What, however, is most questionable in these claims about the advantages of a diverse workforce is that they very obviously serve to justify prejudice and discrimination. To allow customer preference to dictate the composition of a workforce can just as easily lead to a demand for a homogenous workforce as a diverse one if, as could be the case, the customer base happens to be homogeneous. Likewise, if insights into a customer base are presumed to stem from belonging to the appropriate group, then there are grounds for excluding anyone not belonging to the appropriate group: grounds that would not only justify reverse discrimination but very traditional forms of discrimination as well. It could be said, for example, that only white people could truly understand the needs of a national market which, as in the UK, was overwhelmingly white. Finally, it is very obvious that any talk of skills and talents being peculiarly concentrated in any particular group lends itself to stereotyping and, as everyone knows, the trouble with stereotypes is that not only are they very often false, but that even when true they can tell you nothing regarding individual cases. More than that, they get in the way of an accurate examination of individual cases, leading to at

John Kaler

63

worst exclusion, and at best pigeonholing: for example, the idea that because of their presumably superior skills in handling human relationships, women managers should be confined to personnel functions. By giving rise to these discriminatory outcomes, the three claims under examination very clearly work against that part of the moral objectives of equal opportunity that requires the absence of discrimination. Moreover, the same would very probably be true of any attempt to mount a business case argument for those moral objectives couched in terms of diversity. The advantages it would lay claim to would be based upon differences between groups, and to see advantages in group differences is always going to be an invitation to exercise preference for one group over another; if not in general, then at least under particular circumstances. (This is not, of course, to disallow all talk of differences between groups on the part of supports of equality of opportunity. It is only those diversity-based claims being linked to organisational advantage that are ruled out. A non-discriminatory acknowledgement of differences is perfectly allowable. Note also that in making that allowance, I am making no particular case for the priority of ‘sameness’ over ‘difference’ or vice versa – see Liff and Wajcman, 1996, for opinions on this matter.) CONCLUSION The general conclusion on the relationship between diversity and equal opportunity is that not only can no very clear distinction be made between the two approaches with regard to the fulfilment of self-interested as opposed to moral objectives (pp. 58–9), but that in so far as this overlap allows for the possibility of a diversity-based approach to fulfilling the moral objectives of equal opportunity, talk of ‘diversity’ will positively detract from the fulfilment of those objectives (pp. 59–63). Diversity is something that is going to happen insofar as a more representative workforce will be a more diverse workforce (hence the overlap), but for anyone supporting the moral objectives of equal opportunity, it is not something that should be actively pursued. For those people, it should be treated as no more than an accompanying phenomenon to equality of opportunity and not as an alternative or even supplement.

References BBC (1995) ‘Equal Opportunities’, section B of document People in Focus (updated 1 January 1997) (London: BBC), pp. 1–4.

64

Diversity, Equality, Morality

CBI (1996) A Winning Strategy – The Business Case for Equal Opportunities (London: CBI). Chryssides, G. D. and Kaler J. H. (1993) An Introduction to Business Ethics (London: Chapman & Hall). Chryssides, G. and Kaler, J. (1996) Essentials of Business Ethics (London: McGraw-Hill). Clement, B. and Macintyre, D. (1993) ‘Employers Prepare to Ditch Equal Opportunities at Work’, Independent on Sunday, 14 February. Clutterbuck, D., Dearlove, D. and Snow, D. (1992) Actions Speak Louder (London: Kogan Page). Dickens, L. (1994) ‘The Business Case for Women’s Equality: Is the Carrot better than the Stick?’, Employee Relations, vol. 16 (8): 5–18. Echiejile, I. (1995) ‘The Business Case for Diversity’, Professional Manager, July: 8–11. Equal Opportunities Commission (1986) Guidelines for Equal Opportunities Employers (Manchester: EOC). Griffith, V. (1994) ‘Outsiders Welcome’, Financial Times, 18 April. Harris, C. (1997) ‘Bleeding Hearts No, Business Heads Yes’, Financial Times, 11 October. Holtermann, S. (1995) ‘The Costs and Benefits to British Employers of Measures to Promote Equality of Opportunity’, in J. Humphries and J. Rubery (eds), The Economics of Equal Opportunities (Manchester: Equal Opportunities Commission), pp. 137–54. Jewson, N. and Mason, D. (1986) ‘The Theory and Practice of Equal Opportunities Policies: Liberal and Radical Approaches’, Sociological Review, vol. 34 (2): 307–34. Kibazo, J. (1994) ‘Black to the Future’, Guardian, 30 November. Liff, S. and Wajcman, J. (1996) ‘“Sameness” and “Difference” Revisited: Which Way Forward for Equal Opportunities Initiatives?’, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 33 (1): 79–94. Noon, M. and Blyton, P. (1997) The Realities of Work (Basingstoke: Macmillan). Overell, S. (1997) ‘Firms Turn Away from Employment Targets’, People Management, March: 19. Pitt, G. (1992) ‘Can Reverse Discrimination be Justified?’, in B. Hepple and E. M. Szyzczak (eds), Discrimination: The Limits of Law (London: Mansell), pp. 281–99. Pojman, L. J. and Westmoreland, R. (1997) ‘Introduction’, in L. J. Pojman and R. Westmoreland (eds), Equality: Selected Readings (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 1–14. Ross, R. and Schneider, R. (1992) From Equality to Diversity (London: Pitman). Schaar, J. H. (1997) ‘Equality of Opportunity and Beyond’, in L. J. Pojman and R. Westmoreland (eds), Equality: Selected Readings (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 137–47. Straw, J. (1989) Equal Opportunities (London: Institute of Personnel Management). Wheatley, R. and Griffiths, A. (1997) The Management of Diversity (Corby: Institute of Management Foundation).

5 Age and Carer Discrimination in the Recruitment Process: Has the Australian Legislation Failed? Lynne Bennington

The importance of equal opportunity and workforce diversity has been advocated for many years both for economic and social reasons. With the imminent aging of the workforce, and the increasing numbers of people with carer responsibilities who need or wish to work, the understanding, detection and subsequent removal of discrimination in employment is of critical importance to an egalitarian society. Despite the fact that discrimination may occur at many points in the employment process, most of the research has focused on the interview stage (Barber et al., 1994). Given that employers regard age as a significant factor in the recruitment phase (Arrowsmith and McGoldrick, 1996), this chapter will examine discrimination on the basis of age as well as carer status in the recruitment process. It will conclude by questioning whether the anti-discrimination legislation in Austrialia has failed. The effectiveness of legislation is always difficult to measure due to the wide range of variables which might act to influence any outcome, but it is particularly difficult when there is limited baseline (or prelegislation) data against which post-legislation data can be compared. The measurement issue is exacerbated in this case because many discriminatory practices do not readily lend themselves to observation (Neckerman and Kirschenman, 1991). A variety of methods have been used to try to establish the existence of discrimination. For example, economists have typically pointed to unexplained differences in compensation or employment between various groups as evidence of discrimination (Ashenfelter and Oaxaca, 1987). Other social science research methodologies have produced indirect evidence from attitude surveys, self-report and qualitative studies 65

66

Has Australian Legislation Failed?

(Hede and Dingsdag, 1994; Reark Research, 1990; Steinberg et al., 1994), company policies (Steinberg et al., 1994), analyses of job advertisements (Arrowsmith and McGoldrick, 1996) and lawsuits (Hassell and Perrewe, 1993). Simulations, mostly using university students (Finkelstein et al., 1995), have also been used but, overall, the experimental research findings on age discrimination have been inconsistent (Avolio and Barrett, 1987). This is possibly due to the limited amount of information available in simulations (Powell, 1987) and due to methodological differences (Paivio, 1986; Stolte, 1996). The validity of many of these studies may also be limited due to their reliance on students rather than managers as subjects (Singer and Bruhns, 1991). To obtain an accurate picture of whether discrimination occurs in the employment process researchers need to study actual situations rather than simulations. The challenge, in countries where anti-discrimination laws exist, is to unobtrusively conduct investigations without breaching ethical responsibilities. Acknowledgement of the difficulties in measuring discrimination and the need for more field-oriented experimental approaches has resulted in the use of either actors (Winston, 1986–87; Yinger, 1986) or correspondence testing (Riach and Rich, 1987 and 1991; Noon, 1993; Hoque and Noon, 1999), but these approaches have not been without their critics either. There are always problems of detection and confounding, due to timing differences of identical (or substantially identical) applications and to whether small points of difference in the résumés provide the differentiating factors for recruiters. In respect to the use of actors, the criticism raised has focused on the lack of control over the actor and the interaction. Both the use of actors and correspondence testing have inherent ethical problems, but it is noteworthy that these direct methods do not appear to have been used to examine discrimination in recruitment on the basis of either age or carer status. This study used a more direct approach but, before describing the design, the background and legislative context of the grounds of discrimination under examination will be outlined.

BACKGROUND AND LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT Parent care, like childcare, is becoming a business issue (Lefkovich, 1992), particularly due to the increasing participation in the workforce of mothers and of those who have responsibility for frail elderly or disabled persons (Skrypnek and Fast, 1996). The research on employees

Lynne Bennington

67

who have carer responsibilities shows that this ‘status’ is disruptive to employers and can be costly (Lechner and Creedon, 1994). Women are more likely to stay home from work to accommodate a sick child or due to a problem with child care arrangements (Fernandez, 1990); 70 per cent of carers report that their work and family duties interfere with each other (work interferences include unscheduled days off, late arrivals, early departures, excessive telephone use related to olderrelative care); productivity and employer health care costs may be affected by employees’ family responsibilities; and, once hired, many employees with dependent family members find it difficult to keep their jobs due to loyalty to the family (Lechner and Creedon, 1994). Thus, it would not be unexpected for employers to discriminate against those with actual or assumed carer responsibilities (Powell, 1987). Since 1990, when Australia ratified the ILO Convention No. 156 relating to workers with family responsibilities, only two states, Victoria and Queensland, have legislated to prohibit discrimination on the basis of carer status. Australia has also ratified the ILO Older Workers Recommendation, which is designed to protect the right of older workers to equality of treatment (International Labour Organisation, 1995). Most Australian states have not only chosen to legislate against discrimination towards older workers, but have gone further to legislate against discrimination in employment on age generally (Bennington and Roberts-Calvert, 1998). Age discrimination has widely been an integral part of many employment decisions ranging from recruitment and selection (Oswick and Jones, 1991), to determining who should be made redundant, and when employees should retire. It has even been suggested that age may be an indispensable criterion for decision-making in employment (Neugarten and Neugarten, 1986), especially when the cost of seeking more relevant information is high (Posner, 1995). Notwithstanding its poor quality as a proxy variable for work performance (Bennington and Tharenou, 1996), and its illegal status, it purportedly continues to be used in decision-making in employment (Patrickson and Hartmann, 1995) and is of concern internationally (Buys and Buys, 1996; Gordon et al., 1989; Takada, 1993; Taylor and Walker, 1994). Although there are few systematic studies to support the numerous anecdotal reports about age discrimination in employment, there is evidence of indirect discrimination in job advertisements whether or not age discrimination legislation exists (Drury, 1993; Kohl and Stephens, 1989; McGoldrick and Arrowsmith, 1993). This should not be surprising given the research evidence indicating that people hold

68

Has Australian Legislation Failed?

well-defined notions as to both gender and age-suitability for particular occupations (Macan et al., 1994). Therefore, this study commenced at the point of a published job advertisement for a single occupational category, that of the secretary, and used it to obtain information about possible sources of discrimination by having pseudo-applicants of different apparent ages and carer status contact the recruitment consultant who placed the advertisement. This choice of occupational category was based on the fact that this is a somewhat neglected occupational category, even though secretaries are located in every part of the economy, and there is at least anecdotal evidence to suggest that secretaries over 35 years of age find it harder to secure positions than younger secretaries (Pringle, 1988). Use of this single category eliminated any confounding from the sex variable because secretarial work is basically a segregated occupation (Silverstone and Towler, 1984). Recruitment consultants were the target group for the study. Employers use recruitment consultants for a variety of reasons including cost efficiency, reduction of the administration associated with recruiting and because it is the normal method in some places. Some employers use consultants to protect the name of their organisation, or to place a protective barrier between discriminatory practices and the organisation (McGoldrick and Arrowsmith, 1993; Tillsley, 1991). Given that most recruiters work on the basis of either a fixed fee, or a fixed percentage of the successful applicant’s final negotiated salary package, the role of the recruitment consultant might be described as one of finding the best person for the job with the least effort. This is a rational profit-maximising approach. Therefore, they need to have access to techniques and methods which support this approach, and reducing the costs involved in screening is an incentive (Neckerman and Kirschenman, 1991). Unless consultants have an extensive database of job applicants, the newspaper advertisement usually provides the first opportunity to contribute to the recruiter’s goal: appropriate wording will not only attract suitable candidates, but will deter unsuitable candidates. Due to the anti-discrimination legislation in Victoria, advertisements may not refer directly to age or carer status.

RESEARCH DESIGN A three (age) by two (carer status) between subjects design was employed in order to mitigate the possibility of detection. Given the criticisms of

Lynne Bennington

69

the more indirect methodologies, a pseudo-applicant approach was adopted for this study as providing the best balance between opportunity to control the information and face validity. Thirty cases per condition were used (N = 180). Independent Variables Age The pseudo-applicants represented one of three ages: 23, 37 or 51 years. The rationale behind the selection of the three different ages representing younger, middle and older pseudo-applicants was based on both McGoldrick and Arrowsmith’s (1993) summary of the research which found that the upper-age limit for positions varied between 40 and 50 years, and their own study which found a mean upper age limit in job advertisements of 37.1 years. Given that the average age of a female secretary in Australia is 36.4 years, it seemed reasonable to nominate 37 years as the middle age point for this study. The upper age limit was set at 51 years (guided by the Taylor and Walker, 1994 study), necessitating that the lower age be set at 23 years. This worked well in practical terms as it allowed for five years’ work experience plus a year possibly taken up by maternity leave or some other activity since completing high-school studies. This was seen to establish a solid base for all pseudo-applicants to present in a realistic manner with sound credentials for almost any secretarial position advertised. Status (as a Carer) In the first condition, non-carer status, the pseudo-applicant had no carer responsibilities. Therefore, there was no reason for any discussion about what time they needed to leave work each day. However, in the second condition, carer status, the pseudo-applicant stated that they had to leave work by 5.00 p.m. each day, and if questioned, the reasons for this varied depending upon the age of the pseudo-applicant, such that the 23 and the 37-year-old had to cover a gap in the provision of child care whereas the 51-year-old had to cover a gap in the care of a disabled or frail member of the family (for example, parent or older child). When carer status applied, the pseudo-applicant was available to commence work very early, return to work after-hours or to work weekends should that have been necessary. Absence was only required for about an hour in the early evening, for example, to collect a child from childcare and take that child home to another carer.

70

Has Australian Legislation Failed?

Dependent Variables Three major dependent variables were examined. They were recruiter preference for age, employer preference for age and chance of success. Other dependent variables included whether or not the recruitment consultant asked a variety of questions relating to the pseudo-applicant’s skill and experience level, motivational characteristics, where they lived and currently worked, why they were leaving their current role, and whether the pseudo-applicant was requested to send a résumé or to attend an interview. Methodology Rather than simply recruit female secretaries who were 23, 37 and 51 years, respectively, who may not have actually ‘sounded’ as if they were these ages on the telephone, voices of potential pseudo-applicants were assessed by panels of 10 raters representing a cross-section of age groups (for example, early 20s to mid-60s). Each rater had some experience in the recruitment of secretarial staff. The raters were not informed about the purpose of the study. They were told that they were simply assisting in a process to select people of varying ages for an experiment. Raters were required to listen to the voices on the telephone (responding to a set of questions designed to be as ‘age neutral’ as possible) and then indicate two things: the age of the person (voice); and whether the voice had any distinguishing features (for example, an accent). The average perceived age was calculated after outlier responses were removed. Voices perceived to be within two years of the required age points were treated as acceptable for the study provided that the voice did not have any distinguishing features. Voices which had similar ‘broad Australian accents’ were selected. Pseudo-applicants were carefully trained. They selected a name they felt comfortable with for the purpose of the study and were assisted in the development of a background that included details of their typing speed, shorthand skills, word-processing and graphics packages and prior experience. For consistency, each had to vary their suburb of residence to within 20 minutes of the employer’s location, assume the age of the role being played, and to assume carer or non-carer status as required. In each case, the pseudo-applicant was briefed to meet all personal requirements specified in the advertisement (for example, energetic, conscientious, and so on), to have a working knowledge of a number of

Lynne Bennington

71

secretarial software packages, a detailed knowledge of the required package, work experience in a similar industry, and to exceed the objective measures of skill required by about 10 per cent. In other words, in each case, pseudo-applicants could not have been rejected on the basis of failing to meet the advertised criteria. All pseudo-applicants had stable employment histories and were loyal employees currently in employment; the only reason they were seeking a new position was because their company was about to either relocate inter-state or to go into liquidation. The pseudo-applicant worked through a series of questions and ‘set patter’ in each telephone call, although, in order to make the role as close to reality as possible, it had to vary depending upon the recruiter’s approach (questions asked and comments made). In some cases it was just not possible for all questions to be asked due to the recruiter’s perceived attitude and the possible risk of unveiling the real nature of the contact. The pseudo-applicants did not have to record any information during the telephone interview but they were asked to complete answers to three questions at the end of each interview. These questions related to ease of access to the recruitment consultant, degree of satisfaction with the quality of information provided about the job, and their overall rating of the encounter with the recruitment consultant. The research assistant who monitored the process also answered parallel questions independently. Again, this process was aimed at improving validity, and having the pseudo-applicant focus on the role as if they were genuinely ‘in the shoes’ of the secretarial job applicant. Ethical Issues There are a number of ethical issues in the conduct of pseudo-applicant studies. These include possible effects on the pseudo-applicant and the research assistant on the one hand, and on the recruitment consultants and the business in which they work on the other hand. Every attempt was made to minimise negative effects on the participants. This was done by involving them in the creation of ‘their’ backgrounds to be used for each call, sensitive training processes, allowing the pseudo-applicants to determine how many contacts they made in any one session so that they worked within their ‘comfort zone’, support throughout each contact (through the use of helpful hints made via brief notes), debriefing after each contact, and providing every opportunity for pseudo-applicants to withdraw from the study. However, the task for pseudo-applicants was still very challenging, having continually to respond to often unpredictable questions in a manner that was consistent with the role being played.

72

Has Australian Legislation Failed?

In order to protect the unwitting participants, no public reporting of names of individuals or agencies resulted although this information was recorded to ensure that no repeat contact occurred. Every attempt was made to keep the length of the telephone contact as brief as possible. Most guidelines for ethical human research require debriefing of participants when there is an element of deception involved (see the guidelines of the American Psychological Association, 1994). In this case the University Ethics Committee agreed that debriefing could lead to severe career consequences for consultants, so the potential harm would outweigh any benefits to be gained; thus, no debriefing occurred.

RESULTS The industries represented varied widely – the most common being banking and finance (19 per cent) and consulting (6 per cent). The employers were located in Melbourne, the capital city of Victoria, where both age and carer status are prohibited grounds of discrimination in employment. The average salary of the targeted positions was $30 800 plus benefits. In 66 per cent of cases the boss was male; in 12 per cent the boss was female; and in 22 per cent of cases the secretary was required to report to both male and female bosses. Most of the positions (85 per cent) required a standard 7.5 hour day to be worked (in 85 per cent of cases), whereas in 15 per cent of cases a ‘non-standard’ day or flexible day was required (although this was not apparent from the advertisements). Overtime work was to be expected in 85 per cent of cases, although, again, this was not apparent from the advertisements. Age Recruitment consultants asked the age of the pseudo-applicants in 18 per cent of cases. Sixty-seven per cent of recruitment consultants stated that employers had no age preference. The illegal nature of age discrimination in employment selection was raised independently by recruitment consultants in 16 per cent of cases. However, in 27 per cent of cases, recruitment consultants stated that employers did have an age preference in respect to the successful person for the advertised position. In 24 per cent of cases recruitment consultants indicated that younger (versus older) candidates were preferred, and in 16 per cent of cases older candidates were purported to be preferred. Specific ages

Lynne Bennington

73

were mentioned by recruitment consultants in 15 per cent of cases; the most common age was 25 years (six cases), followed jointly by 23 years and 30 years (five mentions in each). The range of responses was from 20 years to 45 years, although only two consultants mentioned employer age preferences for candidates who were above 37 years of age. In a further 19 per cent of cases, experience, rather than age, was mentioned as the key determinant, and in 15 per cent of cases maturity was indicated as the key variable. In the same context, skill level rather than age was indicated as the key variable in 13 per cent of cases. Carer Status From the 90 cases with carer status, the recruitment consultant asked about the responsibility either directly, or made an explicit assumption about what the responsibility might be, 40 per cent of the time (for example, with younger pseudo-applicants consultants often suggested that the reason for the early departure would be to attend further education classes). When this occurred the pseudo-applicant told the recruitment consultant the nature of the responsibility and tried to explain that they were flexible apart from the need to be away from the office for up to 1.5 hours; they could return to the office in the evening, come to work very early or work through their lunch-break if necessary, although in many cases this information did not seem to be of apparent interest or value to the recruitment consultant. The research assistant rated consultant reaction to the carer-status condition. In 30 per cent of cases the rating was positive, in 66 per cent of cases it was rated as negative, and in 4 per cent of cases the research assistant did not feel confident in recording either a positive or negative rating. Chance of Success On the basis of the information provided the recruitment consultant was asked what chance the pseudo-applicant might have in getting the position. Their response was interpreted by the research assistant and coded on a 5-point scale with ‘5’ representing a strong chance and ‘1’ representing no chance. A ‘cannot say’ category was also provided and used in 22 out of 146 cases; in the other 34 cases the pseudo-applicant was unable to ask this question directly due to the ‘dynamic of the situation’ and the concerted effort to maintain the ‘deception’. In 16 per cent of valid cases the indication was that the pseudo-applicant had

74

Has Australian Legislation Failed?

a strong chance, in 19 per cent a medium chance, in 12 per cent a fair chance, in 15 per cent little chance and in 23 per cent of cases the indication was that they had no chance. In order to determine which variables might predict the chance of success, this variable was recoded to become a dichotomous variable (that is, some positive chance or little or no chance). A multiple regression analysis revealed that two variables were significant: the status of the applicant (Sig. T = 0.0000) and whether the employer had a preference for the age of the secretary (Sig. T = 0.0045). Together, these two variables accounted for 46.4 per cent of the variance. When just those cases with carer status were selected, the significant predictor of chance, using multiple regression, was the assessed reaction of the consultant (Sig. T = 0.000; adjusted R square = 0.342). In 72 per cent of carer-status cases there was little or no chance that they would be successful in obtaining the position. In 84 per cent of non-carer-status cases there was a positive chance of success recorded. Not surprisingly, a significant difference on chance of success, using a Fisher–Behrans t test, was evident between carer conditions (t′(102.89) = 3.30; p <0.001).

DISCUSSION Notwithstanding the illegal nature of the grounds of discrimination covered here, that is discrimination on the basis of age and status as a carer, it would seem that the law has not eradicated age preferences or dramatically altered stereotypes associated with carer responsibilities. Age discrimination is clearly still prevalent given that recruitment consultants actually asked the pseudo-applicant’s age in nearly 20 per cent of cases, and also stated that employers had an age preference in over 27 per cent of cases, with a tendency towards preferring younger candidates. This seems to be particularly high given that recruitment consultants should know the law in this area, and the assumption must still be made that many others will use age and status as proxy criteria for shortlisting even though they will not make this overt. All pseudo-applicants who expressed interest in the advertised secretarial positions exceeded the stated job specifications; in other words, all pseudo-applicants should have been perceived as suitable if not ideal candidates for the advertised positions. However, this was not the case. In 38 per cent of cases the indication was that they basically had little or no chance of getting the advertised position even though they

Lynne Bennington

75

exceeded the advertised skill specifications, purportedly lived quite close to the workplace or had no difficulty in commuting, were loyal employees, and had already been employed in the same or a similar industry with no blemishes on their employment records. It was also clear that assumptions were made about the responsibilities that required pseudo-applicant’s to leave work at a specified time in the carer-status condition. Interestingly, for younger candidates the expressed assumption was often that the departure was due to further education being undertaken, and the attitude to this did not seem as negative, so it did not appear the issue was simply one of flexibility at the end of the normal working day. There was no evidence that consultants were interested in determining whether the pseudo-applicant had any compensating characteristics or strengths, for example a high level of motivation, a variety of skills, or high work speed. The significant variables in determining whether the pseudo-applicant had any chance of success in obtaining the position were the status of the applicant as a carer and whether or not the employer had an age preference for the position. The actual age of the pseudo-applicant was not significant in determining chance of success. In considering what factors may have affected results in this study, there was no evidence that the recruitment consultant was aware that the pseudo-applicant was not a bona fide candidate. The actual timing of the telephone call in respect to the day which the position had been advertised might have affected the chance of success, however. The calls were generally placed in the early part of the week for positions advertised in the main Saturday newspaper and towards the end of the week in respect to mid-week advertisements. Sometimes, recruitment consultants did not seem interested in the pseudo-applicant because they had already had a sufficient number of telephone calls. However, when this was obvious the telephone call was not included in the data set. The lack of detail in the advertisements may have meant that exact matches did not occur or that insufficient preparation of the part of the pseudo-applicant occurred prior to the telephone call, but this would have been expected to have affected each status and each age condition randomly. The set of advertisements used in this study did not include any overtly discriminative words, but a close analysis revealed that some may have covertly discriminated and some may have been designed to attract people of particular age groups and discourage those from other age groups.

76

Has Australian Legislation Failed?

CONCLUSION This study examined the initial part of the recruitment and selection process, which is not open to public scrutiny: the telephone call between the recruitment consultant and the applicant who responds to a job advertisement. It found evidence of employer preference for younger workers, recruitment consultants directly asking the age of applicants, and a strong emphasis on flexibility of the worker at the end of the working day. Although the variable used was carer status, it is expected that the employer might wish to re-cast this variable in terms of flexibility, rather than think of themselves as discriminating against carers. However, there was a clear suggestion that if the reason for having to depart at a fixed time related to further study, the emphasis to be placed on this restriction might well be different. The issue of flexibility for organisations is an important one though; organisations need staff to be flexible and committed to meet competitive challenges (Kristoff, 1996) – the only question which should be asked is whether a more open-minded approach could be adopted in terms of the type of flexibility which might be of benefit. It might also be that employers have had experience of those with carer status, as described in the American studies (see Lechner and Creedon, 1994) which found that carer status does interrupt the workplace, and create additional costs for the employer. On the basis of this study, there would seem to be clear evidence of the continuing existence of age discrimination in recruitment and selection, at least for secretarial staff in the private sector for positions advertised by recruitment consultants. There was some suggestion that having responsibilities that require a family-friendly employer does not facilitate the success of obtaining work, no matter how skilled or experienced the applicant. To return to the original question posed, has the legislation been effective or has it failed? Given that there is no pre-legislation pseudoapplicant data with which to compare these data, the question is almost impossible to answer with any authority. However, evidence of age discrimination and less direct indications of discrimination on the ground of carer status from the pseudo-applicant study were found, so it could be argued that discrimination on prohibited grounds is ‘still alive and well’. Conversely, it could be argued that the level and degree of obvious consistency of discrimination is so limited that the legislation has had some impact, and thus there has been some success. The difficulty, of course, is that discrimination is so difficult to detect when it becomes

Lynne Bennington

77

illegal that it is not possible to be confident about the success, or otherwise, of the legislation. However, the legislation had only been in existence for about one year at the time of the study so it is possible that the effects will not be really evident for some years yet.

References American Psychological Association (1994) Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 4th edn (Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association). Arrowsmith, J. and McGoldrick, A. E. (1996) ‘Bridging the Theory and Practice Divide through Collaborative Research – the Case of Ageism in Employment’, working paper, British Academy of Management Conference, Lancaster. Ashenfelter, O. and Oaxaca, R. (1987) ‘The Economics of Discrimination: Economists enter the Courtroom’, American Economic Review, vol. 77 (2): 321–5. Avolio, B. J. and Barrett, G. V. (1987) ‘Effects of Age Stereotyping in a Simulated Interview’, Psychology and Aging, vol. 2 (1): 56–63. Barber, A. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., Tower, S. L. and Phillips, J. M. (1994) ‘The Effects of Interview Focus on Recruitment Effectiveness: A Field Experiment’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 79 (6): 886–96. Bennington, L. and Roberts-Calvert, B. (1998) ‘Anti-Discrimination Legislation and HRM Practice’, in M. Patrickson and L. Hartmann (eds), Managing an Older Workforce (South Melbourne: Pitman), pp. 136–53. Bennington, L. and Tharenou, P. (1996) ‘Older Workers: Myths, Evidence and Implications for Australian Managers’, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, vol. 34 (3): 63–76. Buys, L. R. and Buys, N. J. (1996) ‘Older Adults: The Labour Market, Employers and the Role of the Employment Specialist’, Australian Journal on Ageing, vol. 15 (4): 159–62. Drury, E. (1993) Age Discrimination Against Older Workers in the European Community (London: Eurolink Age). Fernandez, J. P. (1990) The Politics and Reality of Family Care in Corporate America (San Francisco: Family Survival Project). Finkelstein, L. M., Burke, M. J. and Raju, N. S. (1995) ‘Age Discrimination in Simulated Employment Contexts: An Integrative Analysis’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 80 (6): 652–63. Gordon, R. A., Rozelle, R. M. and Baxter, J. C. (1989) ‘The Effect of Applicant’s Age, Job Level and Accountability on Perceptions of Female Job Applicants’, The Journal of Psychology, vol. 123 (1): 59–68. Hassell, B. L. and Perrewe, P. L. (1993) ‘An Examination of the Relationship between Older Workers’ Perceptions of Age Discrimination and Employee Psychological States’, Journal of Managerial Issues, vol. 5 (1): 109–20. Hede, A. and Dingsdag, D. (1994) ‘Equity in Staff Selection: Managerial Attitudes and Practices’, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, vol. 2 (1): 37–44.

78

Has Australian Legislation Failed?

Hoque, K. and Noon, M. (1999). ‘Racial Discrimination in Speculative Applications: New Optimism Six Years On?’, Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 9 (3): 71–82. International Labour Organisation (1995) World Labour Report (Geneva: International Labour Office). Kohl, J. P. and Stephens, D. B. (1989) ‘Wanted: Recruitment Advertising that Doesn’t Discriminate’, Personnel, vol. 66 (2): 18–26. Kristoff, A. L. (1996) ‘Person–Organisation Fit: An Integrative Review of its Conceptualisations, Measurements and Implications’, Personnel Psychology, vol. 49 (1): 1–49. Lechner, V. M. and Creedon, M. A. (1994) Managing Work and Family Life (New York: Springer). Lefkovich, J. L. (1992) ‘Business Responds to Elder-Care Needs’, HR Magazine, vol. 37 (6): 103–8. Macan, T. H., Detjen, J. B. and Dickey, K. L. (1994) ‘Measures of Job Perceptions: Gender and Age of Current Incumbents, Suitability, and Job Attributes’, Sex Roles, vol. 30 (1/2): 55–67. McGoldrick, A. E. and Arrowsmith, J. (1993) ‘Recruitment Advertising: Discrimination on the Basis of Age’, Employee Relations, vol. 15 (5): 54–65. McRae, M. B. (1994) ‘Influence of Sex Role Stereotypes on Personnel Decisions of Black Managers’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 79 (2): 306–9. Neckerman, K. M. and Kirschenman, J. (1991) ‘Hiring strategies, racial bias and inner city workers’, Social Problems, vol. 38 (4): 433–47. Neugarten, B. L. and Neugarten, D. A. (1986) ‘Changing Meanings of Age’, in A. Pifer and L. Bronte (eds), Our Ageing Society (New York: W.W. Norton). Noon, M. (1993) ‘Racial Discrimination in Speculative Application: Evidence from the UK’s Top 100 Firms’, Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 3 (4): 35–47. Oswick, C. and Jones, P. (1991) ‘The Age Factor in Work Performance: Ageism or Realism?’, Management Services, vol. 35 (12): 12–15. Paivio, A. (1986) Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach (New York: Oxford University Press). Patrickson, M. and Hartmann, L. (1995) ‘Australia’s Ageing Population: Implications for Human Resource Management’, International Journal of Manpower, vol. 16 (5/6): 34–46. Posner, R. A. (1995) Aging and Old Age (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press). Powell, G. N. (1987) ‘The Effects of Sex and Gender on Recruitment’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 12 (4): 731–43. Pringle, R. (1988) Secretaries Talk: Sexuality, Power and Work (London: Verso). Reark Research (1990) Attitudes of People Aged 55–64 to Employment, Unemployment and Early Retirement (Canberra: Department of Employment, Education and Training). Riach, P. A. and Rich, J. (1987) ‘Testing for Sexual Discrimination in the Labour Market’, Australian Economic Papers, vol. 26 (49): 165–78. Riach, P. A. and Rich, J. (1991) ‘Testing for Racial Discrimination in the Labour Market’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 15 (3): 239–56. Silverstone, R. and Towler, R. (1984) ‘Secretaries at Work’, Ergonomics, vol. 27 (5): 557–64.

Lynne Bennington

79

Singer, M. S. and Bruhns, C. (1991) ‘Relative Effect of Applicant Work Experience and Academic Qualification on Selection Interview Decisions: A Study of Between-Sample Generalisability’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 76 (4): 550–9. Skrypnek, B. J. and Fast, J. E. (1996) ‘Work and Family Policy in Canada’, Journal of Family Issues, vol. 17 (6): 793–812. Steinberg, M., Najman, J., Donald, K., McChesney-Clark, G. and Mahon, C. (1994) ‘Attitudes and Practices of Employers and Employees towards Older Workers in a Climate of Antidiscrimination’ (Brisbane: Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Queensland). Stolte, J. F. (1996) ‘Evaluation of Persons of Varying Ages’, The Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 136 (3): 305–9. Takada, K. (1993) ‘Aging Workers in Japan: From Reverence to Redundance’, Aging International, vol. 20 (3): 17–20. Taylor, P. E. and Walker, A. (1994) ‘The Ageing Workforce: Employers’ Attitudes towards Older People’, Work, Employment and Society, vol. 8 (4): 569–91. Tillsley, C. (1991) The Impact of Age upon Employment, Warwick Papers in Industrial Relations no. 33. Winston, N. A. (1986–87) ‘Sex-bias Response to Telephoned Job Inquiries, Tampa, 1987’, Sociology and Social Research, vol. 72 (2): 121–4. Yinger, J. (1986) ‘Measuring Racial Discrimination with Fair Housing Audits: Caught in the Act’, The American Economic Review, vol. 76 (5): 881–93.

6 Equality and Diversity in Employment in Canada Harish C. Jain

INTRODUCTION Canada has become a multiracial, multicultural and multireligious society (Jain, 1987, 1993), whose growing ethnic diversity includes a large number of non-white Canadians, called visible minorities (VMs). They consist of several non-white groups including Chinese; South Asians (for example, East Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan); Blacks (for example, African, Haitian, Jamaican, Somali); Arabs (for example, Armenian, Egyptian, Iranian, Lebanese, Moroccan); Filipinos; East Asians (for example, Cambodian, Indonesian, Laotian, Vietnamese); Latin Americans; Japanese; and Koreans (Renaud and Norris, 1999). VMs comprised 11.2 per cent of the population and 10.3 per cent of the workforce in 1996. Part of the reason for the growth in the VM population has been rising levels of immigration from non-European countries. For instance, prior to 1961, VMs were only 3 per cent of all immigrants to Canada. In 1971–80, VM immigrant proportions rose to 51 per cent; in 1981–90, to 65 per cent; and in the period 1991–96, to 74 per cent (Norris, 1999). VM population and workforce rates have more than doubled since 1981; they constituted 4.7 per cent of the Canadian population in 1981, increased to 6.3 per cent in 1986, and to 9.4 per cent in 1991. The corresponding workforce rates were 4.7 per cent in 1981; 6.3 per cent in 1986; and 9.1 per cent in 1991.1 This chapter is divided into several parts. The first part consists of a brief review of pre-employment and post-employment job barriers confronted by VMs. In the second part, the legislative environment and federal employment equity (EE) policies such as the Employment Equity Act (EEA) and the Federal Contractors Programme are described and analysed. This is followed by a review of the Canadian literature (empirical studies) relating to employment equity. We then consider VM representation in private and public sector organisations, as well as VM representation in 1987 and 1996 in industrial sectors and selected organisations affected by the EE Act. The final two parts provide an 80

Harish C. Jain

81

EE Index to measure the effectiveness of EE programmes by individual employers, and conclusions and implications.

JOB BARRIERS FACING VM S VMs face a variety of barriers in accessing jobs in the workplace. These include narrow channels of recruitment, credentialism, job interviews and psychological tests, misconceptions and job stereotypes, employee organisations and labour union policies. Two studies in the 1980s documented the lack of access to jobs. In a field study Henry (in Henry et al., 1995) matched pairs of black and white applicants were sent to apply for entry positions advertised in a major newspaper. An analysis of the results of several hundred applicants and interviews revealed that whites received job offers three times more often than black job applicants. In addition, telephone callers with accents, particularly those from South Asia and the Caribbean, were more often screened out when they phoned to inquire about a job vacancy. A follow-up study focused on attitude, hiring and employer practices of large business organisations in Toronto. In recruitment, selection, promotion, training and termination practices, a high level of racial prejudice and discrimination was demonstrated; 28 per cent of the respondents felt that racial minorities did not have the ability to meet performance criteria as well as whites (Billingsley and Muszynski, in Henry et al., 1995). Similarly, in a survey of randomly selected private employment agencies by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association in 1975 in Metropolitan Toronto, in Hamilton, Ottawa and London (Ontario) in 1976, in 1980 in Toronto, and in 1991 in four cities in Ontario, a vast majority said they would screen out persons of colour and accept discriminatory job orders (Galt, 1991a, b; CCLA, 1992). A study by Zuriek et al. (1983) compared the career of VM and white MBA graduates from Ontario universities for five to seven years. The study had a sample of 67 VMs (including blacks, Chinese, South Asians, Japanese and others) and 70 white MBA graduates, who served as a control group. The study found that white (Anglo-Saxon) graduates were hired more often, received greater income and advanced more rapidly than VM applicants, even though VMs submitted more applications, attended more job interviews and held similar qualifications. Other studies have also documented differential and lower earnings by VMs relative to whites and others (Pendakur and Pendakur, 1995; Leck et al., 1995).

82

Equality and Diversity in Canada

A number of studies have found that invalid job interviews and selection tests also pose serious problems of access to jobs for VMs (Wiesner, 1997; Gatewood and Feild, 1998). For instance, in a longitudinal study of 13 large and medium-sized police organisations across Canada, Jain et al. (1999) found that while the interviews counted for 30 to 100 per cent weight in the selection of police officers, only three police agencies had validation procedures for job interviews and four for psychological tests. In fact, in the three police services that provided us with data, all three appear to have adverse attitudes towards either VMs or aboriginals or both (Jain et al., 1999). A serious problem faced by VMs is the lack of recognition of overseas qualifications by licensing and professional associations. Many VM immigrants find their university degrees and trade diplomas of little value in Canada, and such barriers affect medical doctors, nurses, engineers, dentists, pharmacists, teachers, social workers and others. Similarly, labour unions in craft markets may have entry restrictions such as entry fees, tests of ability on entry, high levels of education and training, and so forth (Cumming et al., 1989). Post-employment job barriers consist, in part, of differential earnings and lack of promotions to managerial and other higher-level jobs; the glass ceiling is just as valid for VMs as it is for women and other groups. A ground-breaking human-rights tribunal decision was made in 1997 in the case of National Capital Alliance on Race Relations (NCARR) v. Health Canada. NCARR had alleged that the extremely low proportion of VMs in senior management at Health Canada (a large federal government agency) was evidence of systemic discrimination. The tribunal considered both statistical evidence and testimony by VM and other civil servants, and upheld NCARR’s complaint. The tribunal stated that The essential element of systemic discrimination is that it results from the unintended consequences of established employment systems and practices. Its effect is to block employment opportunities and benefits for members of certain groups. By way of remedy, the tribunal noted the substantial proportion of VM employees in groups that led to senior management and directed Health Canada to meet specific hiring and promotion targets for executive positions. The tribunal also ordered mandatory diversity and employment equity training for all senior managers and directed the Department to tailor its recruitment in order to attract VM candidates (Canadian Human Rights Commission, 1998).

Harish C. Jain

83

THE LEGISLATIVE ENVIRONMENT Systemic discrimination in employment against visible minorities, women and others has resulted in the enactment of human rights legislation at the provincial, federal and territorial level throughout Canada.2 These laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, colour, nationality, sex, religion and several other grounds; and most of these laws also allow for the development of special programmes (for example, voluntary employment equity or affirmative action programmes) to reduce the disadvantages experienced by racial minorities, women and others (such as aboriginal persons and people with disabilities). Canadian employers are largely protected from the charge of reverse discrimination (Tarnopolsky, 1980); section 16(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act explicitly permits the implementation of special programmes that will prevent or reduce disadvantages to minority groups or remedy the effects of past discrimination against those groups.3 Canada further confirmed its commitment to the principles of equality rights and employment equity (EE) in passing the Constitution Act, 1982. Section 15(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which forms part of the Constitution Act, explicitly states that the equality rights guaranteed in section 15(1) ‘[do] not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups’. This section applies to all government agencies across Canada (for example, federal, provincial, territorial and municipal).

Employment Equity Policies The most extensive EE measures in Canada are in the federal jurisdiction. These include the Employment Equity Act (EEA), also known as the Legislated EE Programme (LEEP), and the Federal Contractors Programme (FCP). Both measures were initiated in 1986 and cover four designated groups: women, aboriginal persons, people with disabilities and visible minorities. The EEA was revised by Parliament in 1995 and came into force on 24 October 1996. This Act replaces the EE Act of 1986, and expands coverage to the federal public service for the first time. The Act’s coverage of federally regulated employers in banking, communications and transportation and federal crown corporations continues as before.

84

Equality and Diversity in Canada

Employment Equity Legislation As before, the EE Act applies to federal crown corporations and federally regulated private sector employers with 100 or more employees.4 The legislation requires these employers to file an annual report with Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC). Under the previous Act (1986) employers were required to provide annual information on the representation of the four designated groups by 12 occupational groups and salary range, as well as hires, promotions and terminations. Under the new Act (1996), in addition to this statistical information, employers for the first time are also required to include in their annual reports: (1) a description of the measures taken to implement EE and the results achieved; and (2) the consultations between the employer and its employee representatives concerning EE implementation. Under the new Act, failure to comply with the filing requirement can result in an administrative penalty for three specific reporting violations (for private sector employers only): (a) failure to file an annual report; (b) failure to include the required information; and (c) knowingly filing a report containing false or misleading information. The amount of monetary penalty is $10 000 for a single violation and $50 000 for repeated and continued violations. All records used in the compilation of the annual reports must be retained by the employer for two years following the submission of the report. The annual reports are to be publicly available and will be given to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). The CHRC is given the authority to conduct on-site compliance reviews (such as audits) to verify and ensure employer compliance as of October 1997. The new Act also provides for the final enforcement, where necessary, by an EE Tribunal. The Tribunal is empowered to hear disputes and issue orders enforceable by courts. Close to one million workers are covered by the new Act. The new legislation places the onus to achieve representative workplaces on employers by creating compliance-monitoring through the following obligations. Employer Obligations Although the new Act establishes the same core obligations for developing and implementing EE programmes as in the 1986 legislation, this Act bolsters these obligations with a compliance monitoring process. Employer obligations being enforced by the Canadian Human Rights Commission under the 1995 EEA consist of: workforce surveys and

Harish C. Jain

85

analysis to identify underrepresentation of members of designated groups; reviews of employment systems; identification and removal of job barriers; enactment of positive policies and practices; reasonable accommodation; short-term (one to three years) and long-term (three to five years) employment equity plans with numerical goals and timetables for the hiring and promotion of designated groups to correct underrepresentation; annual or more frequent monitoring and revision of the EE plan by the employer; the duty to consult employee representatives/bargaining agents; and the duty to maintain records (Jain, 1997). Federal Contractors Programme (FCP) FCP was established through a directive of the federal Treasury Board at the same time as the Act was enacted in 1986. It applies to all Canadian firms (mostly provincially regulated) with 100 or more employees who bid on federal contracts worth $200 000 or more. Under this programme, contractors are required to sign a certificate of commitment to design and carry out an EE plan. Contractors that do not meet their commitments may ultimately face exclusion from future government contracts. The contractors are not required to file an EE plan with the government, only a commitment to develop and implement such a plan subject to on-site compliance reviews by EE officers from Human Resources Development Canada.5 The federal contractors requirements, according to the 1995 EE Act, will be equivalent to those of employers under the EE Act.

PREVIOUS RESEARCH As Table 6.1 indicates, the effects of the Employment Equity Act are not uniform: they differ across the designated groups, occupations, hierarchical levels, and within the designated groups. Earlier studies indicated that women have been the main beneficiaries of voluntary employment equity programmes (Blackley and Harvey, 1988; Sloane and Jain, 1990). Leck and Saunders (1993) have confirmed that the federal EEA has had a significant effect on increasing the representation of women. Jain and Hackett (1992), in their study comparing organisations with and without employment equity programmes, found that ‘female representation was higher in several occupational categories (upper/middle management, professional/semi-professional, supervisors) within the EE organisations’, and that VMs did not benefit to the

Studies addressing the effectiveness of the federal Employment Equity Act

Author(s)

Methodology

Sample size

Data source** Focus of study

Jain and Hackett (1989)

Question190 respondnaire survey ents out of 648 (29.3%). The sample was weighted in favour of relatively large (200 plus employees), and public sector organisations

Benimadhu and Wright (1992)

Organisations ImplementaQuestion100 respondcovered under tion of the Act naire survey ents out of Act 360 (Banks were over represented and transportation sector was underrepresented)

Analysis

Percentages Random • Proposed sampling from employment equity index the Canadian Trade Index • Strengths and weaknesses of employment equity programmes

Frequency of employment equity initiatives

86

Table 6.1

Key findings • Few organisations reported keeping record of visible minority status or disability status • There was a lack of specific policies/practices targeted to visible minorities and other designated groups, with women being the focus of most programmes

• The major impetus for organisations to make employment equity initiatives was the Employment Equity Act • By 1990, 96% of organisations had appointed a manager or senior administrator to oversee implementation of employment equity, and 84% had developed an employment equity plan

Leck and • Employer • All organisa- • tions covered equity Saunders under the Act reports (consolidated results)* • Telephone • 294 organisations survey (86% of the • population of all organisations covered under the Act) participated • in a telephone survey

Jain and Hackett (1992)

Question190 naire survey

Effectiveness Employ• Those organisations that • Effective have formalised, features of ment Equity of employment comprehensive and manageemployment equity plans Annual ment support for their equity plans Report employment equity plans (1990) • Correlations are more likely to hire and F-tests Human designated group members Resource • Chi-square Manage• Employment Equity Programmes are having a ment Telesignificant effect on increasing phone the representation of women in Survey organisations covered under the Census Act (1986) • Women are better represented in non-management occupations • White women are better represented than are visible minority women and other designated groups Chi-square

Organisations with employment equity plans are more likely to provide training for recruits, reassess job qualifications to ensure job relatedness, monitor their staffing practices and desex language in documents than are those without such plans

87

Employment Canadian organisations equity plans in five industry groupings with and without employment equity plans

Sample size

88

Table 6.1

Continued

Author(s)

Methodology

Data source** Focus of study

Jain (1993)

All organisaEmployer tions covered equity under the Act employer reports filed with the federal government

Federal Employment Equity Annual Reports (1987–89)

Quantitative progress made by selected prominent employers in the representation of visible minorities in three industrial sectors

Proportional representation of visible minorities

Visible minorities are not wellrepresented in some of the most prominent communications and transportation companies, but are well-represented, compared to the external labour force in the Banking sector

Jain (1994)

All organisaEmployer tions covered equity under the Act employer reports filed with the federal government

Federal Employment Equity Annual Reports (1987–89)

Proportional Effectiveness representation of the Act in terms of improvements in the representation of the four designated group members

Some progress has been made in initiating proactive staffing policies and thereby increasing the numbers of designated group members in various positions in those organisations covered under the Act. However, employers have a long way to go before they achieve equitable representation

Leck, Onge and Lalancette (1995)

• Employer • All organisa- • Employment tions covered equity under the Act Equity employer Annual reports

Effect of the Employment Equity Act on wage-gap

Analysis

Key findings

(1) Propor• Organisations with employment equity plans are slowly closing tion of designated the wage gap group

• Telephone • 294 organisations participsurvey ated in a • telephone survey (sample of 86% of the population of all organisations covered under the Act)

Leck and Saunders (1995)

between the Reports (1989–93) designated groups Human Resource Management Telephone survey

Effect of • employment • equity on visible minority representation and occupational segregation

Proportions • The Employment Equity Act has Occupational had a small positive effect on the representation of visible minoritsegregation ies, and has reduced indices occupational segregation (% visible somewhat minorities employed in organisation “x” occupational

89

• Employ• Employer • All organment Equity isations equity Annual covered employer Reports under the reports (1989–93) • Telephone Act survey • 294 organisations participated in a telephone survey

members • Those organisations that have more formalised, comprehensearning ive and supported employment wages equity plans are closing the wage correspon gap more rapidly than those ding to without such plans each of 13 salary categories (2) analysis of the average wage earned by each designated group including visible minorities

90

Table 6.1 Author(s)

Methodology

Sample size

Data source** Focus of study

(sample of • 86% of the population of all organisations covered under the Act) • Jain and Verma (1996)

All organisaEmployer tions covered equity under the Act reports filed with the federal government

Continued

Human Resource Management Telephone survey Census (1991)

Federal Employment Equity Annual Reports (1987–1994)

Analysis

Key findings

category / % • Those organisations that have more formalised, comprehensvisible minor ive and supported employment ties in the equity plans have achieved external better results than those without labour market for “x” occupational category) Proportional Effectiveness • Although some progress has been made in increasing the of the Employ- representation representation of women, they ment Equity remain ghettoised Act in terms of improvements • Visible minorities have shown some improvement in their in the represoverall representation entation of the four designated group members

8116 individuGunderson, Questionnaire survey als in 1987; Meng and 13 886 in 1988; Smith (1996) and 15 416 in 1989

Data from the Comparison of Regression with a logarithmic hourly wage Labour transformation Market Activ- rates ity Survey, conducted by Statistics Canada, for companies covered under the Federal Employment Equity Act and Federal Contractor’s Programme

Both the Federal Employment Equity Act and the Federal Contractor’s Compliance Programme have raised the wages of designated groups relative to white males. The average wage premiums of designated group members in companies covered by the Act’s programmes compared to those not covered by the acts was 7.2%

Notes: * Consolidated findings from Leck and Saunders (1992a), Leck and Saunders (1992b), Leck and Saunders (1993). These studies used the same data set and looked at similar issues for different designated groups. ** While our focus is on the federal Employment Equity Act, some of the studies reported above have taken a broader scope (i.e., included Federal Contractors Programme data) but are included because their findings are applicable to the Federal Employment Equity Act.

91

92

Equality and Diversity in Canada

same extent from EE programmes. There was a lack of specific policies targeted to VMs and other designated groups. Earnings and EE Effects on Visible Minorities The effects of employment equity differ for white women compared to women who are also visible minorities, aboriginals and/or disabled (Leck and Saunders, 1992). The wage gap in organisations under the EEA has decreased only for white women in jobs other than the top paying salary categories, while the wage gap has actually increased for visible minority women, among others, especially in higher salary ranges (Leck et al., 1995). This supports the contention that minority women suffer from both race and sex discrimination (Leck et al., 1995; Leck and Saunders, 1992). Based on data from the Labour Market Activity Survey, Gunderson, Meng and Smith (1996) have found that the average wage premiums of designated group members, including VMs, was 7.2 per cent in companies covered by the Act and the Federal Contractors Programme relative to non-covered employers. Although they do not directly address the impact of employment equity programmes, Mentzer and Fizel (1992) examined the income from wages and salaries of 63 Canadian ethnic groups in the 1986 Canadian Census, using regression analysis to control for the effects of location, age, nativity, language ability, education, industry and employment status. They found that Filipinos, Koreans, Blacks, Hispanics and West Indians, more than other groups, were subject to earnings discrimination.

VISIBLE MINORITY REPRESENTATION IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR ORGANISATIONS Visible minorities are experiencing significant growth in the workforce and in the population as a whole. As noted previously, the 1996 Census data indicate that the VM population has grown from 6.3 per cent in 1986 to 9.1 per cent in 1991 and 11.2 per cent in 1996. In 1996, VMs constituted nearly one-third of Toronto’s (32 per cent) and Vancouver’s (31 per cent) population. VMs are clustered in Canada’s major cities such as Calgary (16 per cent), Edmonton (14 per cent), Ottawa-Hull (12 per cent), Montreal (12 per cent) and Winnipeg (11 per cent) according to the 1996 Census (Mitchell, 1998). Since commerce and trading with other nations are becoming the mainstay of Canada and global competition is rising, managers of

Harish C. Jain

93

Canadian organisations will increasingly work with their counterparts from different countries, cultures, and ethnic and racial groups. Canadian organisations and management in both the public and private sectors must utilise talent regardless of gender and colour to remain competitive, to survive and to grow. Managing a growing visible minority workforce, therefore, has become an important issue if Canadian organisations are to gain and retain a competitive edge. In this context, VM representation at all levels of management and occupational hierarchy is critical. Research indicates that visible minorities are not represented in public and private sector organisations in proportion to their representation in the labour force. As the Daudlin Committee Report (1984) indicated, visible minorities are absent from key public positions and from senior management of the public service and Crown corporations, and they are being denied full participation in almost all Canadian institutions. In a study of employment equity programmes across Canada in 1985 (prior to the passage of the federal Employment Equity Act in 1986), Jain and Hackett (1989) found that VMs were not employed in significant numbers in 190 public and private sector organisations across Canada. For instance, they found that only 30.8 per cent of employers who claimed to have EE programmes identified VMs as a designated group, whereas 94.2 per cent identified females as a target group. In the second study, an extension of the previous one, the representation of designated groups in organisations with and without employment equity programmes was compared at three points in time (pre-1985, 1985 and 1987). In the employment equity organisations, female representation was higher in several occupational categories including upper and middle management, professional, semi-professional and supervisory positions. However, there was no discernible difference in the representation of visible and other minorities between the organisations with and those without employment equity programmes, and there was no noticeable change in the representation of visible minorities over three years (Jain and Hackett, 1992). In the third study, Jain (1992) did a follow-up longitudinal study of the organisations in the first study (Jain and Hackett, 1989) and found that VM representation had not improved but had gone down somewhat from the 1987 levels. Public sector agencies also show a lack of representation of VMs. In a longitudinal study of the same 13 medium and large police organisations across Canada between 1985 and 1998 (Jain, 1987, 1988, 1994; Jain et al., 1999), it was found that as of 1998–99,

94

Equality and Diversity in Canada

the proportion of visible minority police officers ranged from zero in St Hubert to 7.5 per cent in the Metropolitan Toronto Police Service. Almost all the VM police officers were constables; only a small number (13 VM and aboriginals) had positions at the Inspector level. Similarly, the federal government’s Treasury Board data reveal that as of 1997, only 4.7 per cent of all federal civil servants were visible minorities (CHRC, 1998) compared to 10.3 per cent in the country’s labour force as of 1996. Indeed, the federal public service has a much smaller proportion of VMs overall as well as at the managerial level than the private sector. VM Representation and the Federal EE Legislation Table 6.2 provides the availability data from the 1996 Census and indicates the status of VMs in 1987, the first year following the enactment of the EEA in 1987 and ten years later in 1996. In the banking industry, VMs exceed their external representation, while in transportation their representation has improved somewhat but is less than one-half of their availability in the external labour market. VMs improved their share of representation in the communications sector from 4 per cent in 1987 to almost 9 per cent in 1996, somewhat closer to their external availability in the 1996 Census. Table 6.3 shows the representation of VMs in prominent and selected large organisations in each of the three industrial sectors covered by the federal EEA. VMs were equal to or exceeded their Census representation in the six chartered banks in 1996 relative to 1987. However, except for Table 6.2 Representation of visible minorities by industrial sector in Canada, 1987 and 1996 (percentages), and by Census labour force, 1996 Sector

1987

1996

All sectors

5

9.2

Banking

9.5

Communications

4

8.8

Transportation

2.7

4.8

Other sectors

2.3

7.6

14.1

Note: Representation of visible minorities in the labour force, 1996 = 10.3%. Source: 1996 Census. For sector figures, see Annual Report, Employment Equity Act, Human Resources Development Canada, Ottawa, 1994, 1995, 1997 and 1998.

95

Harish C. Jain Table 6.3

Representation of visible minorities in major companies in Canada, 1987 and 1996, and by Census labour force, 1996

Sector and Company

1987 (%)

1996 (%)

Banking Royal Bank of Canada Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Bank of Montreal Bank of Nova Scotia Toronto-Dominion Bank National Bank of Canada

9.5 7.5 12.2

14.1 10.5 13.9

9.6 10.6 10.9 1.3

15.8 17.0 18.4 9.2

2.6 2.8

4.8 4.7

2.9 1.8

5.8 2.5

Transportation Canadian National Railway Company Air Canada CP Rail, Division of Canadian Pacific Ltd Canadian Airlines International Ltd Greyhound Via Voyageur

2.9

6.6

1.6 4.8 1.5

1.6 8.5 4.7

Communications Canada Post Corporation Bell Canada Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Purolator Courier Ltd CTV CHUM Limited

4.1 4.0 4.1 2.1 1.2 5.7 1.3

8.8 8.6 8.4 5.0 12.6 8.3 4.7

Note: Representation of visible minorities in the labour force, 1996 = 10.3%. Source: Adapted from Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) (1998).

Purolator Courier Ltd (in the Communications sector), they were below census representation in the selected companies in both the transportation and communication sectors. MEASURING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EE PROGRAMMES: AN EMPLOYMENT EQUITY INDEX Legislation and compliance monitoring by employers are helped along by the development of effectiveness criteria. These are set out in the

96

Equality and Diversity in Canada

Employment Equity Index (Jain and Hackett, 1989) developed through a review of research in the United States and Canada. Its purpose is to allow employers to develop ‘best practices’ to enable, implement and evaluate the effectiveness of their EE programmes. It consists of the following factors: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Accountability Numerical Goals and Timetables Monitoring and Control Mechanisms Ongoing Publicity Employment Practice Review Special Target or Designated Group Recruitment and Training Efforts Employment Equity Committee or Coordinator Resources or Budget

Accountability Research indicates that employment equity programmes are more likely to succeed when line managers are incorporated into the planning and implementation of the programme and held responsible. Thus, the performance assessment of line managers and subsequent linkage of success to bonuses, salary increases or promotion facilitate acceptance and adoption of employment equity throughout the organisation. Numerical Goals and Timetables Numerical goals and timetables are instrumental in facilitating the effectiveness of employment equity programmes. Programmes should specify all the designated groups (not just one) and specific goals and timetables ranging from one to five years. Monitoring and Control Mechanisms Effective monitoring is necessary to the implementation of an employment equity programme. Regular evaluations can indicate progress being made towards set objectives and the need for suitable corrective action or adjustment. This should include: periodical reports of progress towards meeting goals, flow information on staffing, and adequate systems for human resource information management.

Harish C. Jain

97

Ongoing Publicity A major step in the development and implementation of an effective employment equity programme is to communicate company policy to employees. Methods include video and/or memoranda sent by senior management; annual reports; workplace posters; communication in several languages in company newsletters and other in-house media. Employment Practice Review One of the critical requisites to an effective employment equity programme is the identification and elimination of unfair discriminatory barriers to employment opportunities. These can include: reviewing and updating job description/specifications; monitoring staffing practices; ensuring job requirements are job-related; interviewer training; validating tests and other staffing procedures. Special Designated Group Recruitment and Training Efforts These include proactive efforts to recruit and train designated group members; ensuring that recruiting teams are represented by members of designated groups; making recruiting material available in several languages; mentoring programmes; as well as special measures in the form of flexitime, internal and external communications, work sharing, child care and educational assistance such as bursaries. Employment Equity Committee or Coordinator Coordinators and committees are helpful in developing, implementing and monitoring employment equity programmes. Workplace forums with equal numbers of employee and management representatives and trade union participation where workplaces are unionised can be very helpful in this respect. However, it is important to have a full-time coordinator from senior management responsible for coordinating the work of the committee. Resources or Budget In their study of employment equity programmes in nine large companies in several industries in the USA, Vernon-Gerstenfeld and Burke (1985) found that most effective programmes are funded from separate budgets designated solely for this purpose. Hence, in order for an employment equity programme to go beyond tokenism, adequate resources must be allocated.

98

Equality and Diversity in Canada

The Jain EE Index has been attempted in Canada and South Africa. In a study of 455 employers (in 1998) in South Africa by employer size (number of employees), geographic region and industry, the survey (South African EE Project Report, 1998) found that while a majority of large employers (500 and more employees) with EE programmes rated high on several of the factors described in the index above, it is a majority of the medium-sized employers (100 to 499 employees) in the survey that had more representative workforces in terms of blacks and women compared to their larger counterparts. This indicates that a mere introduction of some of the factors (in the index) is not sufficient; a company must have top management support and line manager accountability along with hard goals and timetables in order to move towards effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Canada is a multiracial, multicultural and multireligious society. The VM share of the population is increasing substantially, yet numerous job barriers remain. The important features of the new federal EEA have been summarised. As noted, the Act has been strengthened: (1) employers are now required, for the first time, to have mandatory goals and timetables, (2) employment equity plans will be audited by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, (3) employment equity tribunals under the Canadian Human Rights Act have been empowered to adjudicate conflicts in this area, and (4) employers and trade unions are held responsible for jointly preparing employment equity plans. For the first time the new legislation requires employers to report not only quantitative but also qualitative measures taken to implement EE. This will, hopefully, provide a measure of organisational change in implementing EE. Canadian studies on the effectiveness of EE legislation provide mixed results. The effects of EE are not uniform; they differ across designated groups, occupations and hierarchical levels. To date the research has not examined the effect of employment equity legislation within visible minority groups. For instance, visible minorities consist of at least nine different groups; and no attempt (except for the Mentzer and Fizel, 1992 study) has been made to study the differences amongst these groups. VMs are not well-represented in private and public sector organisations across Canada due in no small measure to the absence of EE legislation in most jurisdictions. As the federal example indicates, EE

Harish C. Jain

99

legislation does make a difference. For instance, the data from 1987 to 1996 indicate there has been progress in the overall representation of VMs in the private sector organisations under federal jurisdiction due at least in part to the operation of the EE Act. However, 90 per cent of the workforce falls under provincial jurisdiction. It is clear that such legislation is needed at the provincial level. In order to assist employers to develop ‘best’ EE policies and practices, to implement EE and to evaluate the effectiveness of EE programmes, an EE Index was developed and tested in Canada and South Africa. It has been found to be of practical use to employers in both countries.

Notes 1. Before 1961, about 95 per cent of immigrants to Canada came from Europe and the United States; the figure was about 30 per cent in the 1981–91 period. Asia, the Middle East, the Caribbean, South and Central America, Africa and other parts of the world became the main regions from which immigrants have been coming to Canada in the last two decades (Breton, 1998). Moreover, the size of VMs has increased significantly. They constituted less than 3 per cent of the total population in 1961, but by 1991 the 1.9 million VM adults in Canada represented 9 per cent of the population aged 15 years of age and over, doubling the 1981 proportion. However, the VM population was overwhelmingly foreign born, that is, between 72 and 94 per cent of all VM groups in 1991 (see Breton, 1998). Moreover, the proportion of the total population born outside Canada is significant: 16.1 per cent in 1991 – about twice the proportion in the United States (Breton, 1998). 2. In Canada, employment, health and education are predominantly under the jurisdiction of provincial governments. In employment, federal laws apply to approximately 10 per cent of the nation’s workforce. 3. In two recent legal cases, Canadian Human Rights Tribunals have ordered special programmes involving quotas in order to prevent discriminatory practices from occurring in the future. The Health Canada case (1997) was discussed earlier. In an earlier case, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a unanimous decision in 1987, affirmed the authority of a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to order quotas. In this case the tribunal had ordered the CN Railway company in 1984 to increase to 13 per cent the proportion of women working in non-traditional occupations in its St Lawrence region because of systemic discrimination by CN against women. The 13 per cent figure was based on the estimated availability of qualified women in the labour market; CN was required to hire annually at a rate of 25 per cent until this level was reached. The 1995 EE Act, however, explicitly prohibits the imposition of quotas on employers. Furthermore, tribunals are prohibited, having found patterns

100

Equality and Diversity in Canada

of discrimination under a section 10 complaint, from requiring special programmes or even to set goals. The tribunals can order the employer to cease and desist. The Canadian Human Rights Act has been amended to this effect. Both the CN and the Health Canada cases were decided under the previous EE Act of 1986. 4. The legislation covers about 344 private sector employers and federal crown corporations with a total of 600 000 employees. Federal civil servants constitute another 120 000. 5. Approximately 1295 contractors with a workforce of more than a million (1 118 155) workers were certified under the FCP as of 30 April 1996 (Jain, 1997). A majority of contractors (689) are from Ontario, followed by Quebec (301) as of 30 April 1996.

References Benimadhu, P. and Wright, R. (1992) Implementing Employment Equity (Ottowa: The Conference Board of Canada). Blackley, J. H. and Harvey, E. B. (1988) ‘Socioeconomic Change and the Lack of Change: Employment Equity Policies in the Canadian Context’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 7: 133–50. Bowmaker-Falconer, A. and Jain, H. C. (1998) ‘National Baseline Survey: Employment Equity Project’ (Pretoria: South African Department of Labour). Breton, R. (1998) ‘Ethnicity and Race in Social Organization: Recent Developments in Canadian Society’, in R. Helm-Hayes and J. Curtis (eds), The Vertical Mosaic Revisited (Toronto: University of Toronto Press), pp. 64–7. Canadian Civil Liberties Association (1992) ‘Employment agencies and discrimination’, 4 September: 1–4. Canadian Human Rights Commission (1998) Annual Report, 1997: 20 Years, Celebrating our Progress, Facing our Future (Ottawa: CHRC). Cumming, P., Lee, E. and Oreopoulos, D. G. (1989) Task Force on Access to Professions and Trades in Ontario (Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Citizenship). Galt, V. (1991a) ‘Agencies Willing to Block non-Whites, Survey Finds’, Globe and Mail, 21 January. Galt, V. (1991b) ‘Discriminatory Data Found in Seized Files’, Globe and Mail, 29 March. Gatewood, R. and Feild, H. (1998) Human Resource Selection (Fort Worth, Tex.: The Dryden Press, and Harcourt Brace College Publishers). Gunderson, M., Meng, R. A. and Smith, D. A. (1996) ‘The Impact of Employment Equity Programmes on Wages’, University of Toronto, Centre for Industrial Relations Discussion Paper. Henry, F., Tator, C., Mattis, W. and Rees, T. (eds) (1995) The Colour of Democracy: Racism in Canadian Society (Toronto: Harcourt Brace & Co.). Jain, H. C. (1987) ‘Recruitment of Racial Minorities in Canadian Police Forces’, Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, vol. 41: 790–805. Jain, H. C. (1988) ‘The Recruitment and Selection of Visible Minorities in Canadian Police Organizations: 1985–1987’, Canadian Public Administration, vol. 31, Winter: 463–82.

Harish C. Jain

101

Jain, H. C. (1993) ‘Employment Equity and Visible Minorities: Have the Federal Policies Worked?’, Canadian Labour Law Journal, Spring: 389–408. Jain, H. C. (1994) ‘An Assessment of Strategies of Recruiting Visible Minority Police Officers in Canada: 1985–1990’, in R. C. MacLeod. and D. Schneiderman (eds), Police Powers in Canada: The Evolution and Practice of Authority (Toronto: University of Toronto Press). Jain, H. C. (1997) ‘Employment Equity in Canada’, Human Resources Management in Canada, November: 50043–58. Jain, H. C. and Bowmaker-Falconer, A. (1998) Employment Equity/Affirmative Action Codes of Best Practices in USA, Britain, Canada and other Selected Countries (Pretoria: South Africa Department of Labour). Jain, H. C. and Hackett, R. (1989) ‘Measuring Effectiveness of Employment Equity Programmes in Canada: Public Policy and a Survey’, Canadian Public Policy, vol. 15: 189–204. Jain, H. C. and Hackett, R. (1992) ‘A Comparison of Employment Equity and Non-Employment Equity Organizations on Designated Group Representation and Views towards Staffing’, Canadian Public Administration, vol. 35: 103–8. Jain, H. C., Singh, P. and Agocs, C. (1999) ‘Recruitment, Selection and Promotion of Visible Minorities and Aboriginals in Selected Canadian Police Organizations’ (Hamilton, ON: McMaster University, Michael G. DeGroote School of Business Working Paper no. 435) April: 144. Jain, H. C. and Verma, A. (1996) ‘Managing Workforce Diversity for Competitiveness: The Canadian Experience’, International Journal of Manpower, vol. 17, no. 45: 14–29. Leck, J. D., Onge, S. and Lalancette, I. (1995) ‘Wage Gap Changes Amongst Organizations Subject to the Employment Equity Act’, Canadian Public Policy, vol. 21: 387–400. Leck, J. D. and Saunders, D. M. (1992a) ‘Canada’s EEA: Effects on Employee Selection’, Population Research and Policy Review, vol. 18: 202–20. Leck, J. D. and Saunders, D. M. (1992b) ‘Hiring Women: The Effects of Canada’s Employment Equity Act’, Canadian Public Policy, vol. 18: 203–20. Leck, J. D. and Saunders, D. M. (1993) ‘Increasing the Presence of Single- and Dual-Status Women in Canadian Organizations’, in L. Hammond-Ketilson (ed.), Women in Management, Proceedings of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, vol. 14: 73–81. Mentzer, M. S. and Fizel, J. L. (1992) ‘Affirmative Action and Ethnic Inequality in Canada: The Impact of the Employment Equity Act of 1986’, Ethnic Groups, vol. 9: 203–17. Mitchell, A. (1998) ‘Face of Big Cities Changing: Visible Minorities are Nearly One-Third of Toronto, Vancouver Population Census Shows’, Globe and Mail, 18 February. Norris, D. (1999) Speech delivered at Statistics Canada Annual Conference on Employment Equity, 22 March. Pendakur, K. and Pendakur, R. (1995) Earnings Differential among Ethnic Groups in Canada (Ottawa: Department of Canadian Heritage, Strategic Research and Analysis). Renaud, V. and Norris, D. (1999) ‘The Measurement of Ethnicity and Visible Minorities: Results of the 1996 Census’, paper sent by Mr Norris to the author in March.

102

Equality and Diversity in Canada

Sloane, P. and Jain, H. C. (1990) ‘Use of Equal Opportunities Legislation and Earnings Differentials: A Comparative Study’, Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 21, Autumn: 221–9. South African Employment Equity Project Report (1998) (Cape Town: Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town). Special Committee on Visible Minorities in Canadian Society Report (1984) Equality Now!, R. Daudlin, Chair (Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada). Tarnopolsky, W. S. (1980) ‘Discrimination and Affirmative Action’, in H. C. Jain and D. Carrol (eds), Race and Sex Equality in the Workplace: A Challenge and an Opportunity (Ottawa: Labour Canada Supply and Services), pp. 72–98. Treasury Board (1997) Employment Equity in the Federal Public Service 1996– 97. Annual Report to Parliament (Ottawa: President of the Treasury Board). Vernon-Gerstenfeld, A. and Burke, E. (1985) ‘Affirmative Action in Nine Large Companies: A Field Study’, Personnel, April: 54–60. Wiesner, W. (1997) ‘Interviewing’, in V. Catano, S. Cronshaw, W. Wiesner, R. Hackett and L. Method (eds), Recruitment and Selection in Canada (Toronto: ITP Nelson), pp. 375–411. Zuriek, S. et al. (1983) The Experience of Visible Minorities in the Work World: The Case of MBA Graduates (Toronto: Ontario Human Rights Commission, March).

7 Managing Diversity and Disability Legislation: Catalysts for Eradicating Discrimination in the Workplace? Ian Cunningham and Philip James

INTRODUCTION Two apparently positive and interrelated pressures for change currently exist to reduce discrimination against the disabled at work. The first is the managing diversity movement, which focuses on organisations responding to the individual needs and aspirations of all disadvantaged people in the labour market as a way of eradicating discriminatory practices (Ross and Schneider, 1992). The second is through legislation which, for the first time in the UK, provides a statutory right for disabled employees or job applicants not to be discriminated against on the grounds of their disability. Both approaches emphasise the need to combat discrimination against the disabled through focusing on the individual needs of people who are labelled as having a disability. This chapter consequently explores the extent to which these apparently complimentary approaches to dissolving discrimination can actually achieve their ends. In order to gain an insight into the relative strengths of these two rather different perspectives, this chapter utilises survey and case study data to examine employer policies relating to the treatment of current employees who have (or subsequently contract) a disability. This focus of attention has been taken for three reasons. First, experience in the United States with the Americans with Disabilities Act indicates that over half of the claims made under the Act concern dismissals (Bruyere and James, 1997) – a situation which appears in the process of being repeated under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in the UK (IRS, 1998). Secondly, survey evidence shows that most disabled people in the workforce first contracted their disability whilst in employment 103

104

Managing Diversity and Disability Legislation

(Prescott-Clarke, 1990). Thirdly, the diversity literature emphasises that the problem for disadvantaged groups in the labour market is increasingly not an issue of getting entry into work, but status and progress while in work (Roosevelt Thomas Jr., 1990: 108).

DIVERSITY AND DISABILITY Traditional approaches to equal opportunities stress the importance of treating people equally irrespective of sex, ethnic origin and disability. Individuals are appointed on the basis of job-related criteria, and the policy response is based on a uniformity of treatment for all. In contrast, managing diversity encourages organisations to recognise and value differences among employees. The primary focus of policy development is to evaluate and meet individual needs and desires among employees to ensure people work to their full potential (Roosevelt Thomas Jr., 1990; Liff, 1997). If someone requires training to make a full contribution to the workplace, or faces any other barrier to full participation, then that need should be met. All minority groups are seen as being a source of competitive success, with the disabled identified as being a particularly loyal, hardworking group of employees. The aim of diversity strategies is therefore to add value to the organisation through the strategic use of its workers, as well as being seen to be a ‘good employer’ (Ross and Schneider, 1992: Kandola and Fullerton, 1994). The employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) also focus primarily on individualised solutions to eradicating discrimination in employment against the disabled. The DDA places an obligation on employers not to discriminate against individual disabled people in any aspect of the employment relationship (Thornton and Lunt, 1995).1 In addition section 6 of the DDA requires an employer to ‘take such steps as it is reasonable, in the circumstances of the case, for him to take, to prevent any arrangements or physical features of premises’ placing people at a substantial disadvantage. It goes on to detail a number of actions that may be required to comply with this duty of adjustment. A statutory code of practice provides further guidance on the requirements of the Act (DfEE, 1996). Among other things, this emphasises that it is the responsibility of all employees, management and non-management, to practice non-discriminatory procedures, and for management to educate their workforce accordingly. However, the DDA places no obligation on employers to make all-embracing changes to the workplace or the social organisation of work to accommodate

Ian Cunningham and Philip James

105

disabled people, and consequently only conceptualises disability in ‘social model’ terms to a limited extent (Oliver, 1996; Singh, 1996). As a result the Act’s provisions, other than those requiring reasonable adjustments, is primarily concerned with ensuring that disabled people receive ‘comparable treatment’. The individualistic approach embodied in the DDA, as well as the diversity literature, undoubtedly has potential advantages for advancing the interests of disabled workers; for disability differs in key respects from gender and ethnicity as an equality/diversity issue. The term ‘disabled’ reveals little about the nature of a person’s disability, the consequences that it has for the type of work they can undertake, and the types of support that they require. Moreover, a person’s disability is not necessarily ‘static’ but can change over time, as is the case with such progressive conditions as multiple sclerosis. Indeed, as a result of accidents and the onset of ill-health, workers may be disabled or non-disabled at different times of their lives, and for different purposes and activities (Doyle, 1995: 6). At the same time, however, an overly individualistic orientation towards the handling of disability at the workplace carries a clear risk that those with disabilities will be treated in an essentially ad hoc and hence inconsistent way. In particular, it raises the distinct possibility that the degree of support provided will vary considerably both between and within organisations. It also means that such support is likely to vary over time in response to changes in the financial and competitive environment of organisations (Liff, 1997). To explore the issues raised above, the remainder of this chapter is divided into seven sections. Initially, the research methodology is briefly outlined along with the provision of general background information on the respondent organisations. The next five sections then examine the findings obtained in respect of a number of issues of central importance to the effective management of workplace disability – auditing, return to work policies and practices, line management responsibilities and resources, the training of such managers, and managerial perspectives on the organisational benefits of disability management. Finally, a concluding section draws together the key points emerging from the preceding analysis and discusses their implications.

RESEARCH METHODS We draw on three sources of data. First, questionnaire responses from 77 private and public sector organisations. Secondly, follow-up interviews

106

Managing Diversity and Disability Legislation

conducted with 24 of the survey respondents. Thirdly, questionnaire responses from line managers in two of the participating organisations. The original study of 77 organisations was undertaken utilising Middlesex University Business School’s links with the north London branch of the Institute of Personnel and Development. Fifty-nine per cent of respondents (N = 46) were located in the private sector, while 41 per cent were public sector organisations (N = 31). Between them the organisations covered approximately 183 000 employees. The organisations that participated in the follow-up interviews were equally divided between the private and public sectors, with the largest group being local authorities. During the interviews more detailed information was sought on each of the issues covered in the original survey. In addition, copies of any equal opportunities/disability policies and procedures relating to the management of long-term ill-health and return to work were obtained. In combination the 24 organisations employed approximately 37 000 people. The largest was a local authority employing 9000 people, the smallest was a voluntary sector organisation which employed 17 people. Questionnaires were issued to 144 line managers in two organisations – a local council (114 managers) and a voluntary organisation (30 managers). These organisations, which are referred to here as Lonboro and Nonprofit, employed 9000 and 1400 people respectively. The overall response rate from the questionnaires was 68 per cent (92 returns), with Lonboro having a 60 per cent (N = 68) return and Nonprofit an 80 per cent (N = 24) return. Managers were selected on the basis that they had been delegated to take primary responsibility for the management of disability among their work teams. It should be noted that the 77 organisations that participated in the study varied considerably in terms of how ‘advanced’ they were regarding disability management. Thus, while 80 per cent of respondents (N = 61) indicated that they had a written equal opportunities policy, only 45 per cent (N = 34) stated they had a written policy covering disability. In a similar vein, only 27 per cent of respondents used the disability symbol signifying good practice, and 36 per cent stated they had a manager responsible for disability policy.

AUDITING – MONITORING DISABILITY IN THE WORKPLACE The original study of 77 organisations found that 31 per cent had undertaken a disability access audit and that a further 12 per cent were

Ian Cunningham and Philip James

107

intending to do so. It also revealed that 14 per cent had recently completed a study of the proportion of disabled people in their workplaces and that another 7 per cent were planning to do so in the future. Overall, therefore, the survey’s findings suggest that only limited action had been taken to assess the nature and scale of workplace disability issues. Some insight into the actual auditing activities undertaken is provided by the 24 follow-up interviews. In total, around half of these respondents stated that their organisations had sought to monitor the proportion of disabled staff in their workforces. However, it was clear from the responses given that the scope of these monitoring exercises was frequently limited. Thus, the workforce surveys undertaken tended not to include any evaluation of the proportion of disabled staff participating in general organisational training, and there was also little evaluation of the career paths of disabled employees. It also emerged that disabled employees were often unwilling to volunteer information on their disabilities or admit to being disabled.2 For example, a respondent from the hotel and catering sector reported that: We asked our staff to complete an EO form and on that included questions on disability . . . All of the ones that come back to us have said ‘no’. We know we have got a couple of staff with dyslexia . . . I would turn around and say, it was not a useful exercise. The reasons for the lack of willingness of disabled people to disclose information about their conditions is unclear. However, somewhat disturbingly, there was some indication among those organisations which had so far not conducted any auditing activities that one reason for this was employee distrust as to how the information obtained would be used. For example, one respondent admitted that employees held a general perception that revealing a disability was ‘not a positive thing to own up to’. Similarly, a line manager from Nonprofit stated: This agency has improved but probably haphazardly. I am a dyslexic and have decided to be open about it, but I felt I was taking a risk.

RETURN-TO-WORK POLICIES AND PRACTICE In total, 60 per cent of the original study of 77 organisations had written procedures that guided the return to work of injured, disabled and

108

Managing Diversity and Disability Legislation

long-term sick employees. Similarly, 16 of the 24 respondents had such policies, and three-quarters of these stated that they had made changes to them or intended to do so. These changes typically involved issuing guidance to line managers regarding long-term sick and return-to-work policies, and placing more emphasis on the need to establish continuing contact with employees once absence or disability occurred. The following selection of cases from the 24 follow-up interviews provide useful illustrations of how an individualistic and flexible orientation to managing adjustments for disability can have positive benefits. Illustrative Case 1 A respondent from a Housing Association with a comprehensive set of policies and procedures relating to disability, return to work and rehabilitation outlined how the organisation dealt with an employee with multiple sclerosis: We have a member of staff who works in quite a senior position providing information for our development functions. He has had MS for approximately six years, and been in and out of work, depending on his remissions. We do keep his job open. It may have to be filled on a temporary basis on occasion, but we do keep the post open. Throughout the organisation there are various examples of retaining staff who have got some form of disability, which means they can work regularly and come in and out. Illustrative Case 2 A respondent from a NHS trust, provided an example of how organisations are beginning to be influenced by section 6(3) of the DDA relating to reasonable adjustment. She stated how: The latest case is where a woman is responsible for bathing babies in one of the health centres and she has developed some form of skin condition, and so she is no longer capable of doing that job. So we had to look into it and got her to wear these special rubber gloves. The cost of these was quite high . . . This was one of the instances where we asked ‘what can we do to accommodate her needs’. What we do is look at it from the point of view of the 12 reasonable adjustments you have to do under the Act. Maybe we wouldn’t have thought about how to accommodate so creatively without this guidance.

Ian Cunningham and Philip James

109

Illustrative Case 3 This case involved a small training organisation which contracts work from a large local authority and is subject to its wider equal opportunities/diversity policies and procedures. It provides an example of adjustments that were cost-free and sensitive to the wider needs of the individual: We have somebody who is epileptic, but who did not know she was. We sent her to Occupational Health, who said ‘this is manageable if you go on medication’ . . . We have this ‘female to female’ policy. So that anybody dealing with her after she had had a fit would be female, for adjusting her clothing or things like that. She didn’t want people rearranging her skirt who were not female. We dealt with the practicalities. You know what is coming so you have to plan ahead. That seemed to work quite well and she felt quite comfortable with it. Despite these positive findings, a number of the interview respondents showed signs of inconsistency in their treatment of employees with long-term ill-health or disability problems. These respondents appeared to distinguish between those employees whose absence records were traditionally poor compared to those with good attendance histories. For example, a respondent from the hotel and catering sector stated: [Absence through long-term ill-health/disability] can be very inconvenient. The difficulty any company has, and what we have, is how much truth there is behind the amount of time they are actually taking out and how much they are actually milking the event . . . But we are not a hard company. We do understand that there are times when people are off long-term sick and we can be very understanding to it. If somebody has had a very destructive approach to us – i.e. they are always having time off – we might not be as understanding to them as we would to somebody else who has worked well and all of a sudden come down with something bad. We would be more tolerant of somebody in that situation. Similarly, the manager of a taxi firm stated: There have been three long-term cases [ill-health]. One involved a woman who suffered from depression following the break up of a relationship. The others involved RSI and MS. It was made clear that

110

Managing Diversity and Disability Legislation

we had little sympathy with the woman who suffered from depression . . . she had a poor attendance record anyway . . . Those deserving will get care. In the case of those who don’t we will put up with what we have to.

LINE MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES AND RESOURCES Many of the surveyed organisations were following the trend of devolving responsibility for human resource/employee relations issues from personnel down to the line. This meant that many of them had clearly clarified the roles and accountabilities of line management vis-à-vis disability management by delegating primary responsibility to them, but with support from personnel, facilities, occupational health (where applicable) and health and safety management teams. Irrespective of whether respondents possessed a formal disability policy or not, there was evidence of tensions between the desire to implement effective disability management policies and decentralised management structures which placed operational, budgetary and employee relations responsibilities on the line. Thus, approximately three-quarters of the 24 respondents reported that one of the main reasons for resistance from line managers to the employment of disabled people was the general cost and operational pressures faced by their organisations. For example, within a research organisation, the personnel respondent described the intense pressure on the scientific community when dealing with long-term sick or disabled people, by stating: If you talk to your average, pushed, research scientist at best they would respond by saying ‘can’t we just move these people on’. There is the intolerance which the current scientific climate generates to people who are, as they see it, unable to put in the standard work required to remain competitive . . . people have to be performing. Interview respondents were asked whether they allocated a central budget which line managers could use to pay for adjustments to the workplace and working practices to employ and retain disabled people. Only three respondents allocated such resources to facilitate adjustments. Instead, expenditure on this process usually came from existing budgets allocated to facilities, personnel or line management. Perhaps not surprisingly, therefore, respondents reported reluctance among some line managers to allocate expenditure from their budgets to pay for adjustments.

Ian Cunningham and Philip James

111

Results from the line management questionnaires issued in Lonboro and Nonprofit, organisations which were both facing severe financial pressures, further illustrate the role of such budgetary problems. Lonboro had no centralised budget to pay for adjustments in the workplace, and any accommodations for the disabled consequently had to come out of the staffing budgets of line managers. The personnel respondent spoke of disputes with line managers over allocating even relatively small amounts of money to make adjustments of around £100. Indeed, one line manager from Lonboro expressed his concerns regarding the increasing financial pressures by commenting: My staff and I have a very positive attitude towards colleagues with disabilities, we all go out of our way to create support mechanisms for them – but financial and service pressures are making this tougher and tougher to sustain. At Nonprofit, the personnel respondent indicated a centralised budget for making adjustments did exist, but admitted that it usually got ‘siphoned off’ for other purposes during the course of the year. The respondent also indicated the difficulty line managers were having in facilitating the employment of an individual with a disability when facing ‘stretched resources with limited headcount’. Closer analysis of the overall line management survey adds weight to these points. In total, 45 per cent of the 92 respondents from both organisations were currently managing or had managed in the past a disabled person. Respondents were asked the extent to which they agreed with the statement ‘This organisation provides sufficient financial resources to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate disabled employees’. Table 7.1 compares results for those managers according to whether they were currently or had previously managed a disabled person with those who had no experience of managing disability. Managers who were managing or had experience of managing disabled people were more concerned with the resources available to facilitate adjustments than those who had no experience. Indeed, 43 per cent of the former indicated that insufficient resources were available for this purpose.

TRAINING LINE MANAGERS The importance of training key participants in the aims and objectives of disability policy and also of increasing awareness of issues surrounding

112 Table 7.1

Managing Diversity and Disability Legislation Managers’ attitudes towards resources for reasonable adjustment

This organisation provides sufficient financial resources to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate disabled employees (%)

Respondents who: (a) have previously or currently manage a disabled employee (N=39) (b) have never managed a disabled employee (N = 37)

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

0

21

33

26

17

0

45

28

22

5

disability is stressed both within the diversity literature and the Code of Practice accompanying the DDA. However, there was evidence of only a patchy response from respondents regarding the provision of clear guidelines and awareness training to line managers. Among the original 77 respondents, disability awareness training of recruiters and line managers/supervisors had only been introduced by 34 per cent of organisations, although a further 29 per cent indicated that they intended to introduce such training initiatives. A somewhat similar situation existed in the organisations where follow-up interviews were conducted, with just over half stating that training of this type had either been provided or was to be undertaken in the future. In addition, in around 50 per cent of those where training had been given, it emerged that this had not been made compulsory. Against this background, it is perhaps no surprise that almost half of the respondents from the follow-up interviews indicated a lack of sensitivity and awareness of disability matters among line managers, particularly a lack of flexibility and adaptability when dealing with disabled employees. For example, within a finance company a respondent stated: If someone on the staff became disabled, I think the natural inclination of the line manager would be to say ‘I cannot cope with this situation. If they are not able to do their jobs, you are going to have to get me someone who can’. We would have to resolve this by education, persuasion and a little bit of coercion. The survey of line managers from Lonboro and Nonprofit provides, more generally, some indication of the value to organisations in clearly

113

Ian Cunningham and Philip James

communicating policy to line managers. Both organisations had devolved responsibility for the management of disabled staff to line managers. In the case of Lonboro a comprehensive programme of awareness training to their line managers had been provided through the use of outside external specialist disability trainers, and through the distribution of a series of internally generated training materials. In contrast, at Nonprofit training had been limited to the distribution of a series of written materials on the DDA. In both organisations respondents were asked to outline the extent to which they agreed with statements relating to training and its impact on their role in disability management. Table 7.2 gives the results of their responses and shows that line managers in Lonboro had a far more positive view of the training with which they had been provided and also considered themselves much more aware of their responsibilities under the DDA.

ORGANISATIONAL BENEFITS FROM RETAINING DISABLED EMPLOYEES AT WORK A number of respondents alluded to the potential financial savings of paying greater attention to the management of workplace disability issues, notably through intervening early at the onset of long-term ill-health and disability. In particular, several organisations, mainly local Table 7.2

The impact of disability awareness training

My employer has provided me with sufficient training in disability and employment issues (%)

Lonboro Nonprofit

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither

Disagree

Strongly disagree

10 0

41 17

21 33

24 38

4 13

I am aware of my responsibilities as a manager/supervisor under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (%)

Lonboro Nonprofit

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither

Disagree

Strongly disagree

10 0

68 38

10 17

12 29

0 13

114

Managing Diversity and Disability Legislation

authorities, noted that they were using disability management to ensure that employees came back to work after a long-term illness through rehabilitation, adjusted hours, redeployment or reallocation of work (James et al., 1997). In each of these the line manager was seen as key to this process through their role in establishing early and continuous contact with employees. Respondents also testified to the savings made from the alternative of employees taking ill-health retirement. For example, within the NHS it was noted how the emphasis on keeping staff in work saved on recruitment and training costs, especially in nursing where skill shortages are acute. However, most other respondents did not appear to recognise this benefit. One participant, for example, felt that her company’s whole approach to managing long-term ill-health/disability did not help in fulfilling its wider operational and commercial business objectives. Thus she stated, ‘it’s a cost to the business. But it is something as an organisation we bear’.

CONCLUSION The research findings presented above indicate that some of the organisations studied were taking action to improve their handling of disability issues in the workplace against the backcloth of the DDA. For example, a substantial minority of the surveyed employers had undertaken auditing and provided awareness training to line managers. In addition, a number of positive examples of actions taken to accommodate the needs of disabled workers were reported. Many organisations also appeared to either have formal disability policies or to be considering their introduction. At the same time few of the employers appeared to have put in place comprehensive and proactive disability management arrangements. Moreover, in some organisations it appeared that the approach adopted towards disabled people was being influenced by their past absence records, and it also seemed that line managers often faced resource and operational constraints when seeking to adjust working arrangements to suit their needs. More generally, there was little sign that the business case for adopting a positive approach to the management of disability was widely accepted. Overall, therefore, the research reported here suggests that neither the philosophy of diversity nor the presence of the DDA is persuading the bulk of organisations to adopt precise policy guidelines to manage

Ian Cunningham and Philip James

115

disability at work; to persuade line managers to seriously address the issue of disability; and to provide them with access to the resources and expertise needed to fulfil their responsibilities. As a result it further suggests that current developments are unlikely to radically improve the position of disabled workers, and adds weight to Liff’s ( 1997: 24) assertion that managing diversity has still not emerged from its ‘rhetorical flourishes’ to translate any of its promise into significant action, which could make significant inroads into British corporate culture. It may be argued that this interpretation is too pessimistic and that the situation will improve markedly once a substantial body of case law has developed under the DDA. Certainly there is no question that the Act is being used extensively. Thus, during 1998 there were almost 2000 applications to employment tribunals, most of which related to dismissal. Unfortunately, there are signs that many of these claims may well be unsuccessful. ACAS figures on the cases cleared by it during 1998 show that 1036 (38 per cent) were settled without a hearing, 531 (20 per cent) were withdrawn and 348 (13 per cent) were heard by an employment tribunal. In addition, in relation to the latter category, the evidence from 1997 figures suggests that very few of the claims heard by employment tribunals were successful (IRS, 1998: 7). One reason for this is that claimants appear to be falling at the first hurdle of convincing a tribunal that they fall within the statutory definition of a ‘disabled person’. Another is that the relevant question for ascertaining whether the claimant is disabled is not whether an impairment adversely affects an applicant’s work functions, but whether it has such an impact on their normal day-to-day activities. This means that an employee who is restricted in terms of work activities is only protected by the DDA if the impairment also affects their normal day-to-day activities to the requisite degree (IRS, 1998: 14–15). These problems could be potentially resolved through legislative amendments (Ewing, 1996). Such reforms would, however, leave in place a legal framework based on the view that the prohibition of discriminatory behaviour, and hence the securing of ‘comparable treatment’, provides an effective means of protecting the interests of disabled workers. This viewpoint may be correct. However, the findings provided here suggest that there may well be a need to supplement the discriminatory focus of the current legislation with the provision to disabled workers of more explicit entitlements concerning such matters as job security, access to rehabilitation, and the provision of disability leave.

116

Managing Diversity and Disability Legislation

In the case of job security, a number of possible reforms can be identified. One would be to follow the approach adopted in Germany and the Netherlands whereby workers recognised as disabled can only be dismissed with the permission of a state agency – a situation which places an onus on employers to demonstrate that they have taken adequate steps to try to accommodate the needs of the worker concerned (Albrecht and Braun, 1998; Cuelenaere and Prins, 1998).3 A second would be to amend the legal framework on unfair dismissal to remove the need for employees to have a minimum period of continuous service before bringing a complaint where they have been dismissed on the grounds of ill-health and to further require tribunals to take into account the extent to which employers have pursued the type of adjustments laid down under section 6 of the DDA when considering the fairness of such a dismissal.4 Yet another would be to enable employment tribunals, when considering complaints of dismissal on the grounds of disability, to make temporary reinstatement orders pending the full hearing of the case (Ewing, 1996). Proposals along the above lines may well not receive a warm welcome in the current political climate, given the current Labour government’s concern to avoid the introduction of labour standards which act to hinder labour market flexibility (Gennard, 1998). However, they would make an important contribution to the creation of a more effective framework of law aimed at advancing the interests of disabled workers.

Notes 1. The Act formerly applied to organisations that employed 20 or more employees. Subsequent amendments have led this threshold to be reduced to organisations with 15 employees. At the time of writing this chapter, a Bill was going through parliament to establish a Disability Rights Commission. This Commission is perceived to have substantially greater powers of enforcement than the original National Disability Council. 2. In some cases this was felt to be due to the fact that employees did not recognise that they were disabled for the purposes of the Act. 3. A drawback of this approach is that it would presumably require the reintroduction of some form of registered disabled scheme based on a narrower definition of disability than that provided under the DDA. 4. This last approach would probably not represent an advance for those workers covered by the DDA. It could, though, result in greater protection being provided to those who do not fall within the statutory definition of disability.

Ian Cunningham and Philip James

117

References ACAS (1999) Annual Report 1998, p. 133ff. Albrecht, M. and Braun, H. (1998) International Research Project on Job Retention and Return to Work Strategies for Disabled Workers: Study Report Germany (Geneva: International Labour Organisation). Bruyere, S. and James, P. (1997) ‘Disability Management and the Disability Discrimination Act’, Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 7 (2): 5–17. Cuelenaere, B. and Prins, R. (1998) International Research Project on Job Retention and Return to Work Strategies for Disabled Workers: Study Report Netherlands (Geneva: International Labour Organisation). Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (1996) The Code of Practice for the Elimination of Discrimination in the Field of Employment against Disabled Persons or Persons who have had a Disability (London: HMSO). Doyle, B. (1995) Disability, Discrimination and Equal Opportunities: A Comparative Study of the Employment Rights of Disabled Persons (London: Mansell). Ewing, K. (ed.) (1996) Working Life: A New Perspective on Labour Law, The Institute of Employment Rights (London: Lawrence & Wishart). Gennard, J. (1998) ‘Labour Government: Change in Employment Law’, Employee Relations Journal, vol. 20 (1): 12–25. IRS (1998) ‘Disability Discrimination Update’, Employment Trends: Law Bulletin, no. 595, June: 7–16. James, P., Bruyere, S. and Cunningham, I. (1997) ‘Absence and Disability Management’, Review of Employment Topics, vol. 5 (1): 152–84. Kandola, R. and Fullerton, J. (1994) ‘Diversity: More than just an Empty Slogan’, Personnel Management, November: 46–50. Liff, S. (1997) ‘Two Routes to Managing Diversity: Individual Differences or Social Group Characteristics’, Employee Relations Journal, vol. 19 (1): 11–26. Oliver, M. (1996) Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice (London: Macmillan). Prescott-Clarke, P. (1990) Employment and Handicap (London: Social and Community Planning Research). Roosevelt Thomas Jr., R. (1990) ‘From Affirmative Action to Affirming Diversity’, Harvard Business Review, March/April: 107–17. Ross, R. and Schneider, R. (1992) From Equality to Diversity: A Business Case for Equal Opportunities (London: Pitman). Singh, R. (1996) ‘Commentary on the Disability Discrimination Act 1995’, Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 27 (2): 175–80. Thornton, P. (1998) International Research Project on Job Retention and Return to Work Strategies for Disabled Workers: Key Issues (Geneva: International Labour Office). Thornton, P. and Lunt, N. (1995) Employment for Disabled People: Social Obligation or Individual Responsibility, Social Policy Research Unit, Report no. 2, University of York.

8 Diverse Equality in Europe: The Construction Sector Elisabeth Michielsens, Linda Clarke and Christine Wall

INTRODUCTION In this chapter we examine the definition and nature of gender equality cross-nationally and the obstacles to applying a common integrated framework. It is based on research carried out under a NOW (New Opportunities for Women) programme with partners in Britain, Denmark and Spain, which focused on achieving equality in a highly male-dominated sector – the construction industry. ‘Equality’ assumed different meanings in the different national contexts and equal opportunities policies varied significantly.

DIFFERENT CONCEPTS OF EQUALITY Gender equality has long been on the European agenda: the principle of equal treatment was established in the Treaty of Rome in 1957 and since then the concept has been refined through legislation and action programmes. But gender equality on a European scale is far from established and the European labour force remains highly gender-segregated. A major problem confronting attempts at improvement is the lack of a common understanding of ‘equality’. Equality has been defined as: •

Equal treatment. Originating from the liberal tradition, this is an individual, theoretical and legally-defined concept of equality assuming that no gender discrimination should be made (Peters, 1996). Its weakness is a disregard for different individual starting positions in society. • Equal opportunities goes beyond the equal treatment principle, addressing the issue of equality from a more factual and collective standpoint (Forbes, 1989). Unlike ‘equal treatment’, it has never 118

Elisabeth Michielsens, Linda Clarke and Christine Wall

119

been legally defined by the European Commission (EC). It acknowledges the different positions of men and women in society and implies that each be offered an equal starting chance (through, for instance, positive action programmes). But, though concerned with equal access, it does not challenge existing structures or hierarchies. • Equality in fact. Unequal treatment is justified to achieve an ‘equal’ outcome. • Mainstreaming as a long-term strategic understanding of equality has become the cornerstone of the European Union (EU) equality policy in the late 1990s. ‘The essence of the mainstreaming approach is to seek to identify these hidden, unrecognised ways in which systems and structures are biased in favour of men, and to redress the balance’ (Rees, 1998). The fact that these different concepts of equality are used side by side creates confusions that are ultimately contra-active (Peters, 1996; Barnard, 1997). These confusions are exemplified in the situation created by the Kalanke ruling of 1995. Here, the European Court of Justice ruled in favour of the liberal concept of equal treatment against positive action in the form of unconditional quota provision. In the subsequent Marshall ruling, though, it came out in favour of positive action that is ‘flexible’, not excluding men from the outset. Countries differ historically in the importance attached to the different concepts and in the routes taken to implement them. Several models have been developed grouping countries according to social policy and strongly related to the concept of ‘gender contracts’ (Esping-Anderson, 1990; Lane, 1993; Perrons, 1995a and 1995b; Daly, 1996; Duncan, 1996; Cousins, 1998): •

The sociodemocratic model, whereby men and women engage as equal individuals in the labour market. It is not, however, left to the individual to enforce this right as government intervention and the degree of regulation is high, with a framework of social provision (such as parental leave) built in for men and women. An example is Denmark, with its extensive and centralised approach to equal opportunities and employment policies covering both public and private sectors. Although labour market segregation is not overcome and male roles remain entrenched, the model proves supportive for gender equality, with high female participation rates and low earnings differentials (Newell, 1996). • In the conservative corporatist model (for example Germany), the family, not the individual is the central concept. Men and women

120

Diverse Equality in Europe

are not seen as equal individuals but as group players in the labour market. Social policy measures are designed in a collective and centralised way, as in the previous model. This proves beneficial – to a certain degree – for women in terms of gender equality in the labour market, although their position remains subsidiary to that of men. • In the southern model (for example Spain) the family is similarly at the centre of the labour market but, unlike the corporatist model, social policy measures only relate to a core group in a ‘privileged labour market’ in which women are underrepresented. Next to this core labour market other substantial but less-protected labour markets have formed with an overrepresentation of women. • The collective and centralised approach is absent in the liberal model, exemplified by the UK, in which individuals are responsible for their position in the labour market. The market must be left to regulate itself, so government involvement is marginal and measures are voluntary. It is more difficult to enforce social rights (such as equality of opportunity) as an individual than in countries where collectiveness, social policies and responsibilities have been developed (Rubery, 1992; Perrons, 1994). Gender equality is, therefore, weaker compared with the corporatist and social-democratic models, although some indicators are good (for instance female labour market participation in the UK). To achieve real equality, EU policies need to address these diverse structures, regimes and gender contracts.

THE NOW PROJECT: WOMEN IN CONSTRUCTION IN EUROPE The need to heed such differences have been exemplified in the EU equal opportunity action programme NOW, which funds transnational partnership projects for improving the access of women to the labour market. The project described here focused on the construction sector in Britain, Denmark and Spain, a sector that remains uniformly severely male-dominated throughout Europe: 1.6 per cent of women in employment work in construction in Europe, 1 per cent in Denmark and Spain and 1.5 per cent in the UK, although significantly higher proportions are found in certain trades, for example painters and decorators in Britain, Denmark and Germany (Eurostat, 1996).

Elisabeth Michielsens, Linda Clarke and Christine Wall

121

The British project involved the participation of three London local authorities and two LLiC (Local Labour in Construction) schemes. An in-depth survey of the tradeswomen in the authorities’ building and maintenance departments, or DLOs (Direct Labour Organisations) was used as a basis for designing short training courses (Wall and Clarke, 1996). Running parallel, the Danish project aimed at increasing the number of women training as construction managers. In northern Spain, where small numbers of women had already been trained in construction crafts, the project was to help in their search for employment through further training, whilst a project based in the south – in Cordoba – provided skilled women with the business skills necessary to run their own enterprises. Throughout 1996 and 1997, representatives from the projects organised exchange visits with a view to understanding and comparing their respective situations. Each partner also produced a European Newsletter for Tradeswomen and the overall project culminated in an evaluation of conditions for women in construction in the three countries, with recommendations for change presented to the European Parliament in Brussels. Each of the projects in each country had a particular approach to the common theme of creating more opportunities for women in construction, one greatly influenced by the national economic and labour market situation and by the interpretation of equality. Each was also focused on different segments of the construction labour market, those most likely to produce a positive outcome in terms of employment and equal opportunity for the women concerned. Inspite of this, the structural obstacles confronted were echoed throughout each project.

GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN CONSTRUCTION: THE CASE OF BRITAIN Research for the British project was extensive, involving detailed faceto-face interviews with 46 tradeswomen in three London DLOs, a re-survey a year later of these same women and a postal survey of all DLOs in Britain (Wall and Clarke, 1996; Michielsens et al., 1997). Women in Construction in Britain The most severely male-dominated sector in Britain is the construction industry, with 99 per cent of those in employment male. In the private

122

Diverse Equality in Europe

construction sector, only a very small proportion of women work in craft and related occupations (0.8 per cent) or in professional occupations (CSO, 1997). Several reasons have been given for this: the narrow eligibility criteria of mainstream training (particularly geared at the young, whereas many women enter construction at a later age); lack of child-care facilities; inflexible working structures; and discrimination (Latham, 1994; CIB, 1996). Other barriers – more apparent in the private than the public construction sector – include: the existence of informal recruitment networks; the negative attitude of employers; lack of career development; and harassment. The public construction sector, which is largely composed of the DLOs, was drastically reduced through the establishment of Compulsory Competitive Tendering, which forced competition with private firms. Nevertheless, the DLOs still account for nearly 25 per cent of all directlyemployed operatives in the industry and 13 per cent of the repair and maintenance output (Clarke and Wall, 1998). The Impact of Equality Policies In Britain, the government approach of the last two decades to shaping and implementing equality policies can be described as minimalist, as indicated by the fact that: •

Although the individual right of equality is broadly recognised, legislation to enforce it is minimal. Besides the policy of deregulation, the reason may lie in a tradition ‘where rights are not spelled out and there is a reluctance to use law for this purpose’ (Lovenduski, 1989). However, two important and instrumental pieces of equality legislation have been produced: the Sex Discrimination Acts of 1975 and 1988 and the Equal Pay Acts of 1970 (not enforced until 1975) and 1984. Britain has not yet ventured into other areas found elsewhere in the EU (such as child care), although legislation on the minimum wage, working time, part-time work and parental leave will have a significant impact. • The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) is not part of government but a ‘quango’, whereas in Denmark or Spain similar equality institutions are part of the central administration. Although the EOC has far-reaching legislative and negotiating powers (besides its advisory and educational roles), it has taken a ‘convincing’ rather than ‘enforcing’ route. Nevertheless, several initiatives have been successful and equal opportunity is a widely accepted concept in Britain.

Elisabeth Michielsens, Linda Clarke and Christine Wall

123

Largely because of the market-led rather than social policy approach of the government and the strategy of the EOC, the private sector in Britain has not been at the forefront in the implementation of equal opportunity initiatives. Business initiatives such as Opportunity 2000 have government backing and a broad appeal, but ‘figures on employment, equal pay, and the share of women in management all suggest that progress has been patchy or marginal’ (Forbes, 1996). Innovation has been mainly in terms of training and in local government. In training, success in equalising opportunities has been helped by the fact that positive action measures are legally allowed under the Sex Discrimination Act. In local government success is largely attributable to the more interventionist role taken by some Labour-controlled authorities and the increased participation of women and ethnic groups in the local political process (Coyle, 1989). As regards the construction sector, the same pattern emerges. Within the private construction sector, initiatives such as the Latham report to promote equal opportunities have been of a strictly advisory nature (Latham, 1994). In the public construction sector, while equal opportunity policies have been apparent for over ten years, their effectiveness is difficult to gauge. In the 1980s a relatively large number of tradeswomen were clustered in Labour-run inner-London DLOs (266 in seven authorities alone) (Pyke, 1989). By 1994, budget restrictions had eradicated both new-build training schemes and adult traineeships, with the result that over two-thirds of the women employed had disappeared (LWAMT, 1994). In the survey of DLOs in Britain, successful recruitment and retention of women was analysed (Michielsens et al., 1997). It was found that the presence of a women’s unit or equal opportunity office in the local authority did not automatically ensure that the DLO actively recruited or trained women. A significant increase in the female workforce was observable only when these established close links with the DLO and with construction tradeswomen. Other successful encouragement included specific support structures, taking into account that women were entering a male-dominated workforce and undertaking work traditionally seen as a ‘man’s’ job (for instance, information on entry, childcare, support groups, redeployment in case of pregnancy). Such support was variable and largely an urban phenomenon: none of the councils in Wales and Northern Ireland had measures in place to encourage women into construction, whereas 73 per cent of Metropolitan City Councils, 63 per cent of London Councils and 50 per cent of Scottish Unitary Councils had.

124

Diverse Equality in Europe

Of the seven most ‘successful’ authorities in employing women (that is those employing two or more tradeswomen per 100 tradesmen) in their DLOs, the majority provided flexibility in working arrangements and support for pregnant women, were supportive of childcare arrangements, and gave information on entry for women. Most demonstrated links between the women’s unit and the DLO, all actively encouraged the recruitment and retention of women, six published guidelines on harassment at work and five circulated guidelines on working alone. Five ran training programmes aimed at women and provided for womenonly meetings with elected women representatives. Four had links with women-only training workshops and provided work experience for their trainees. One ran a community training scheme that provided childcare support for adult women trainees and another ran a Taster Day for women. This suggests that it is the way in which equal opportunities policies are interpreted and implemented that results in the successful inclusion of women in the construction workforce. The authorities with the highest number of women employees all implemented targeted recruitment backed up by support and monitoring of women once employed What is assumed is that it is not enough just to provide equal opportunities, but necessary to go beyond this, given the extreme gender discrimination in the sector. Those authorities that do so are also those that anyway put greater value on the development of their workforces, above all through training schemes. The NOW project in Britain was situated within the framework of these most successful DLOs.

WOMEN IN CONSTRUCTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES ELSEWHERE Whilst no detailed survey work was carried out by the Danish and Spanish partners, their research revealed the different concepts of equality applied and the contrasting labour market contexts for achieving equality in construction. Denmark A major characteristic of Denmark is that there is less difference between men’s and women’s positions in the labour market than in Britain or Spain in terms of activity rates, pay and unemployment (Eurostat, 1995). Although the Danish labour market is characterised

Elisabeth Michielsens, Linda Clarke and Christine Wall

125

by the highest percentage of female employees in Europe – 93 per cent – it remains heavily segregated: skilled women in craft and related occupations constitute only 5.7 per cent of the labour force (Eurostat, 1996). The construction industry is male-dominated and overwhelmingly private, with 93.6 per cent of all construction employment in private hands (Danmarks Statistik, 1996). Employment conditions are more highly regulated than in Britain, through the social partners, so that both private and public sectors are similar, including in terms of female employment. However, in certain construction trades such as housepainters the number of women has been rising: female housepainters now constitute 27 per cent of all housepainters (Clarke et al., 1999). It remains a puzzle that, with the important exception of the painters, the proportion of women remains so low – given the high degree of labour market regulation in Denmark, improvements in the social system (for example, childcare and shorter working hours) and the attraction of earning a ‘man’s wage’. One problem is the difficulty in retaining women. To change this, equality policies are critical and these are firmly in the hands of central government. The Equal Status Council (ESC) – whose members represent women’s organisations, trade unions and employers – promotes equal opportunities between men and women in society and is based in the office of the Prime Minister. The Act on Equal Pay for Men and Women (1976, last amended 1992) together with the Equal Status Act (defining the task of the ESC) and the Act on Equal Treatment of Men and Women (established 1978, last amended 1990) assists the ESC in its task. Although the private sector labour market is under no obligation to draw up action plans for equal opportunities, the Danish Confederation of Trade Unions and the Danish Employers’ Confederation have signed a special agreement on equal opportunities in individual companies, giving private and public sectors an almost identical framework. The Act on Equal Treatment provides that men and women be treated equally in terms of recruitment, transfer, promotion, working conditions, and access to vocational and further training. To ensure genuine equal treatment, no special rules protecting women have been introduced. As a result, due to their different starting position, women have remained automatically discriminated against at sectoral level. To compensate for this, an important amendment of 1990 gave the ESC the power to grant positive action exemptions (Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1994). In recent years, too, adult vocational training schemes and special strategies and measures to integrate women into non-traditional sectors have been established. As in Britain, therefore, this demonstrates

126

Diverse Equality in Europe

that to be successful, it is necessary to go beyond the more ‘passive’ policies in place. The Danish NOW project exemplifies this. Although women have access to mainstream training in such male-dominated areas as construction architecture, design architecture and civil engineering, formal qualifications do not solve the problem of finding and retaining work. As part of the positive action approach, the Danish project sought to give extra training (as site managers) and support to enhance the chances of these women. The route was therefore identical to the one taken in Britain, although the situation differed. By increasing the number of women in managerial position on site, it was hoped it would become easier for women to gain employment in the construction industry in general. The project was a success, with almost all women trainees securing jobs. Spain Female labour market participation in Spain is very low (35 per cent) compared with Denmark and Britain, although the level is understated due to the irregular work of women in the informal economy. Construction is the most heavily segregated sector (EPA, 1996). In terms of the professional status of those in employment, Spain differs from the European average, with its high percentage of female employers or self-employed – one in five (Eurostat, 1996). This underlines the importance of entrepreneurship in Spanish society and aggravates the difficulty of finding a place as an employee in the labour market. The major economic concern in Spain is unemployment, especially female and long-term unemployment: in 1995 nearly a third of economically active women in Spain were unemployed (the majority longterm), the highest female unemployment rate in the EU. Younger women form an especially disadvantaged group: in 1995 the unemployment rate for women under 25 was 48 per cent (36 per cent for men), and 26 per cent for those over 25 (15 per cent for men), compared with 13 per cent for women under 25 in Britain and 8 per cent in Denmark (Eurostat, 1996). One solution of the Spanish government is a mainstream training and employment initiative, assisted by EU funding. Policy regarding training and employment issues is decided by central (or regional) government, with employers and trade unions as partners. Equal opportunities are also organised centrally through the ‘Institute of Women’ in the Ministry of Employment and Social Affairs, which places great

Elisabeth Michielsens, Linda Clarke and Christine Wall

127

emphasis on the training of trainers, supporting women during and after training and integrating women’s concerns into collective bargaining (Lyle, 1996). Equal opportunities legislation has been initiated (for example parental leave in 1995) to stimulate women’s entry into underrepresented positions, and positive action plans have been in place since 1988, with a strong focus on stimulating entrepreneurship and women’s access to higher hierarchical levels. The NOW projects in Spain were linked to these initiatives, being connected with regional government mainstream training initiatives funded by the European Social Fund. This training in craft school workshops – in areas most in demand such as construction – was designed specifically for 16–25 year olds. Women were also targeted but found it more difficult to find employment, so the projects supplied support and extra training. Although this was identical to the objectives in Britain and Denmark, there is an important difference: in Spain access to the labour market is the main problem for women, whilst in Britain and Denmark it is segregation. In Britain and Denmark the projects were in an environment where equal opportunity policies and the importance of equal treatment had already been initiated (in public construction work, or through regulated private construction work), but this was not the case in Spain. Neither of the Spanish projects was involved with ‘core’ construction, as this was seen as too difficult to change. Women with construction skills were instead trained further in related trades, such as gardening and archaeology. In Spain the focus of employment policy is not, in the first instance, the issue of equal opportunities for women and men, but resolving the major problem of unemployment and the overrepresentation of women in the informal market. The NOW projects must be seen in this light; their relation to the construction industry was only secondary.

COMMON OBSTACLES TO IMPROVING EQUALITY Both Denmark and Spain represent very different approaches to equality, the former traditionally based on equal treatment and the latter on improving employment chances. The focus of attempts to improve the position of women in construction is also totally different, given these distinct labour market contexts. Britain represents yet a third approach, with its stress on opening up equal opportunities. One implication, therefore, might be that no common transnational approach to combating gender discrimination is possible. However, further consideration

128

Diverse Equality in Europe

suggests that two outstanding common factors did unite the three models: the proportion of women in the sector is similarly low in each case and the obstacles women confront are all remarkably similar, if not the same. This suggests that the focus of a European equality policy should be precisely these obstacles or structural aspects of discrimination. Detailed policy recommendations for improving the position of women in construction in Europe were drawn up from the NOW project, implying some commonality at the transnational level (FORUM/NOW, 1997). All assume the necessity of going beyond policies installed for both men and women. Thus, even though the concept and pursuance of equal opportunities – and therefore examples of good and bad practice – could not be strictly or uniformly defined and the institutions, regulations and initiatives were very different, the project did show that policy can be directed at common obstacles or structural determinants of discrimination in the sector. Recruitment, Training and Promotion Training remains a key obstacle to women entering the sector, irrespective of country. Women are dependent on formal training and qualifications to prove their worth, unlike their male counterparts who can often rely on more informal networks of recruitment and even, especially in countries like Britain, on learning on the job (Clarke and Wall, 1998). The NOW recommendations on training reflected this, including: the same school curricula for girls and boys; no limits on age and race; being responsive to current demands and future prospects, such as ecological building; mixed and women-only; female trainers; positive action facilities and flexible arrangements (for instance hours); paid and recognised work experience in firms; and encouraging women to come together at the transnational level. Women’s Training Centres were an issue of discussion. In the UK, equal opportunities policy has traditionally been very gender-specific, including in relation to training. There are currently 12 women-only training centres in Britain, funded partly by the EC. These train adult women on full-time introductory courses, thus providing a starting point for women to enter into the construction industry. The gender-specific method was seen to be effective for women in non-traditional areas because: •

the provision of positive female role models (the trainers) allows the trainees to see that it is possible to succeed;

Elisabeth Michielsens, Linda Clarke and Christine Wall

129

•

in a mixed training place women end up with a majority of men, ‘All of whom think along with their tutor that she is a joke’ (trainer in women-only training centre); • women can catch up with the male skill level and become more confident before going on a mixed course. In Denmark, in contrast, equal opportunities policies were never genderspecific. Construction training is provided through mainstream institutions of higher education, only indirectly linked to companies in the industry. The route to becoming a tradesperson is to train as an apprentice in a technical school, but within the vocational training programme, 80–90 per cent of apprentices are boys (Nordic Council of Ministers, 1994). Women-only introductory courses have therefore now been established, following amendment of the Equal Status Act (Clarke et al., 1999). Nevertheless, both the Spanish and Danish groups were sceptical about any developments created in the first instance for women, being eager to be ‘equal’ to male colleagues. The fear was that special initiatives would marginalise women, making them less likely to have the same chances and opportunities as men. On this point the principles of equal treatment and equal opportunity through specific measures clashed. Employment and Working Conditions Another key area for EU recommendations was employment and working conditions. Just as training is key to women entering industry, so are employment conditions and the wage structure to retaining them. In our survey work it was apparent that the better the conditions with respect to secure employment, stable hours and wages, short travelling time and a safe working environment, the higher the proportion of women to be found and the more likely they were to stay (Wall and Clarke, 1996). Recommendations included: good working conditions (environment, safety and hygiene, accident prevention); improved technology to reduce heavy work; equal pay for the same tasks and posts; availability of a place for women to meet; the option to train with another woman or under a female supervisor; the opportunity to work as general site managers; the chance to request leave of absence on good conditions; avoiding the isolation of women workers; and placing women in trade union representative posts. Most contentious was the question of flexible hours and contracts, reflecting different approaches to equality. For the Spanish and Danish project members, flexible employment (flexible work time, and so on)

130

Diverse Equality in Europe

is not a positive evolution. Women could be marginalised from male colleagues and perceived as not being interested in a full career – assuming, of course, that men would not seek to use the flexible conditions (Danish ESC, 1995; Newell, 1996). In the UK, in contrast, flexible work can be considered positive, provided suitable conditions are negotiated between employer and employee. Some of the sharpest criticisms to emerge related to the role of the unions in establishing better opportunities for women in construction, especially in Britain and Spain. The organisation of the unions is quite different in each country – in Spain they are organised according to political approach, in Denmark to trade and in Britain to industry or trade. The Danish carpenter union, for instance, has a national mixedsex Equality Committee dealing solely with gender issues whose activities include: providing traineeships in carpentry for women; trying to lower working hours; maternity leave; information about equality legislation; and organising campaigns to incorporate women’s demands into the collective bargaining process. Union initiatives in Britain and Spain were less positive: some union representatives were even convinced that the marginal position of women in construction was their own fault; others that women should not work in the construction sector: ‘it’s bad enough for men’.

DISPARATE EQUALITY AND EUROPE: OPPORTUNITIES AND OBSTACLES Recognition of disparities in European labour markets and in notions of equality does not pave the way for a unified and equal European labour market. While cultural differences between member states and regions within them are seen as an enrichment, socioeconomic differences are potentially harmful and an encouragement to ‘social dumping’. The pursuit of economic and social cohesion is therefore a priority policy ‘as an expression of Europe-wide solidarity and as a prerequisite for economic efficiency and global competitiveness’ (mission statement DGVI). At the level of EU policy, the coordination of gender equality has been through: •

EU-wide equal opportunity legislation within the broader social context of employment policy, from the Treaty of Rome through a series of directives (for example, regarding equal treatment, Directives 1975/117, 1986/613, 1992/85), recommendations and resolutions

Elisabeth Michielsens, Linda Clarke and Christine Wall

131

(for example positive action – Resolution 84/331; childcare and parental leave – Resolution 1992/241; women in decision-making – Resolution 1995/168) to the Amsterdam Treaty (1997). This last included a commitment to equal pay for work of equal value, together with provisions for positive action for ‘an underrepresented sex to pursue a vocational activity’. • Community Action Programmes, under the directorship of DGV, to supplement the effects of employment and equality legislation. The first two (1982–85 and 1986–90) were based on the concept of positive action, while the following two (1991–95 and 1996–2000) increasingly introduced the concept of mainstreaming and integration (Rees, 1998). The NOW projects were part of the third Action Programme, to promote vocational training for women, and are examples of positive action with a high interest in female entrepreneurship. In their recommendations the NOW projects revealed a correspondence at a broad structural level that indicated the feasibility of pursuing equality on a European scale. Several obstacles are, nevertheless, apparent, indicative of a broader gap between EU equality policies in theory and in practice. In the last decade the EU’s approach has developed in the direction of ‘mainstreaming’, a long-term strategy that aims to shake the foundations of unequal structures in all fields (Cockburn, 1991). But while related policies are long-term, they are translated only into short-term actions. As a result, although claiming to be part of a ‘transforming’ agenda, only ‘tailoring’ is achieved (Rees, 1998). In relation to the NOW project’s mainstreaming potential, it is hampered by: •

Obstacles in the partner search The criteria for entry are not strictly defined by the EC centrally, and member states have different selection criteria to reflect national priorities. The programme therefore differs from country to country, although certain eligibility, criteria with the transnational dimension at their centre, have been identical: – a transnational dimension: cooperating with and learning from partner projects in at least one other member state; – to stimulate change and innovation in European labour market policies and practices; – to involve local individuals and organisations; – a multiplier effect, ensuring that the results of the projects have as wide an impact as possible; and – complementarity: creating links with other programmes.

132

Diverse Equality in Europe

Given different national concepts of equality and equal opportunities and different practices stemming from these, setting up transnational learning, ideas and practices is difficult and time-consuming to achieve. The EU action programmes stress their importance for arriving – in the long run – at a European standard, but practical impediments to this evolving were evident. For example, with the NOW programme, since there was no initial cross-country coordination on selecting partnerships as a whole, each country selected projects individually so that many applications lost their original partners: in the UK some 75 per cent of projects selected ended up needing new partners (DfEE, 1996). Many projects had to change their initial transnational plan substantially and construct at short notice new plans with unfamiliar partners. This has a toll on the quality of transnational work, as less compatible partnerships are formed. • Time restrictions NOW funding is for two years and, since projects need time to learn from each other and to establish good practice, recommendations were only written at the end. To achieve anything further, projects need to build on their recommendations and contacts, yet the only way to continue is to submit another proposal, creating discontinuity and entailing redefinition. At a national level, too, achieving a positive impact takes time. The widely different concepts of equality evident in the three countries, the difficult process of finding the right partners and the short-term nature of the partnership also influenced the quality of the good-practice outcomes. Exchange activities provide a first glimpse of the situation in another country, so that recommendations only skate the surface. To create a real difference in labour market policy, to provide specialist knowledge of good practice, to monitor and use this, it is essential to go beyond to defining general concepts related to, for example, training and employment. This requires a long-term rather than a short-term approach, with projects having the opportunity to continue, to consolidate routes opened up, and to utilise the experience and knowledge gained.

CONCLUSIONS This paper shows the very different concepts of equality applied in Europe, themselves deriving from the different position of women in different societies and how this is inscribed and embedded into employment and training. These differences were brought out in our international

Elisabeth Michielsens, Linda Clarke and Christine Wall

133

evaluation of NOW projects for women in construction in Britain, Denmark and Spain. However, in contradiction to its own ‘mainstreaming’ philosophy, the NOW projects are restricted by the EU and only provide the opportunity to change fractional access possibilities for women rather than allowing for a more long-term, in-depth approach to tackle deeply rooted practices that support inequality. Women remain as a group everywhere systematically excluded to a similar degree from the construction industry, even in spite of differences in their role, in the labour market and in policies in different countries. Our work has shown that active measures to combat this discrimination are effective, provided these are clearly directed at areas where positive outcomes are possible. These areas also differ significantly in each country. More than this, measures need to be directed towards weakening the structural factors determining discrimination, including the nature of training, wage structures and employment conditions. These, too, take very different forms in different countries and have a different significance with respect to changing the position of women. What our study points to is the need, in the first place, for more work on structural discrimination and how particular labour relations sustain and undervalue the role of women and, in the second, for the EU to change the parameters of its action programme to accommodate a mainstreaming approach.

References Barnard, C. (1997) ‘The United Kingdom, the Social Chapter and the Amsterdam Treaty’, Industrial Law Journal, vol. 26 (3): 275–82. Central Statistical Office (CSO) (1997) ‘Women in the Labour Market’, Labour Market Trends, March (London: HMSO). Clarke, L. and Wall, C. (1998) A Blueprint for Change: Construction Skills Training in Britain (Bristol: The Policy Press). Clarke, L., Pedersen, E. and Wall, C. (1999) Balancing Acts: Women in LongTerm Employment in Construction; A Study of Women Painters in Denmark and Britain, NORA, Nordic Journal of Women’s Studies. Construction Industry Board (CIB), Working Group 8 (1996), Tomorrow’s Team: Women and Men Working in Construction (London: HMSO). Cockburn, C. (1991) In the Way of Women – Men’s Resistance to Sex Equality in Organisations (Basingstoke: Macmillan). Cousins, C. (1998) ‘Social Exclusion in Europe: Paradigms of Social Advantage in Germany, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom’, Policy and Politics, vol. 26 (2): 127–46. Coyle, A. (1989) ‘The Limits of Change: Local Government and Equal Opportunities for Women’, Public Administration, vol. 67 (1): 39–50.

134

Diverse Equality in Europe

Daly, M. (1996) Social Security, Gender and Equality in the European Union (in series V/D/5 Equal Opportunities for Women and Men) Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Community. Danish Equal Status Council (ESC) (1995) Presentation Brochure ESC (Copenhagen: Ligestillingsredet). Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1994) Equality in Denmark, Danish National Report to the Fourth World Conference on Women (Copenhagen: Ministry of Foreign Affairs). Danmarks Statistik (1996) Statistisk Erbog – Statistical Yearbook (Copenhagen: Danmarks Statistik). Department of Education and Employment (DfEE) (1996) Employment Great Britain, 1995 Annual Report (London: HMSO). Duncan, S. (1996) ‘Obstacles to a Successful Equal Opportunities Policy in the European Union’, The European Journal of Women’s Studies, vol. 3: 399–422. Encuesta de Poblacion Activa (EPA) (1996) webpage http://194.179.55.36/bel/ EPA/ Esping-Anderson, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (Cambridge: Polity Press). Eurostat (1995) Women and Men in the European Union, Luxembourg. Eurostat (1996) Labour Force Surveys 1995: Results, Luxembourg. Forbes, I. (1989) ‘Unequal Partners: The Implementation of Equal Opportunities Policies in Western Europe’, Public Administration, vol. 67 (1): 19–38. Forbes, I. (1996) ‘The Privatisation of Sex Equality Policy’, Parliamentary Affairs, vol. 49 (1): 143–61. FORUM/NOW Projects (1997) Final Report (Asturias: Centro de Formacion en Nuevas Tecnologias de la Information). Lane, C. (1993) ‘Gender and the Labour Market in Europe – Britain, Germany and France Compared’, Sociological Review, vol. 41 (2): 274–301. Latham, M. (1994) Constructing the Team, Final report of the joint governmental/industry review of procurement and contractual arrangements in the UK construction industry (London: HMSO). London Women and Manual Trades (LWAMT) (1992–95) European Newsletter for Tradeswomen, all issues. Lovenduski, J. (1989) ‘Implementing Equal Opportunities in the 1980s: An Overview’, Public Administration, vol. 67 (1): 7–18. Lyle, I. (1996) ‘Encouraging the Access of Women to the Construction Trades: The Limitations of Policies in the UK and Spain’, Second European Newsletter for Tradeswomen (London: London Women and Manual Trades), pp. 17–20. Michielsens, E., Wall, C. and Clarke, L. (1997) A Fair Day’s Work – Women in the Direct Labour Organisations (London: London Women and Manual Trades; and Manchester: Association of Direct Labour Organisations). Newell, S. (1996) ‘The Superwoman Syndrome: A Comparison of the ‘Heroine’ in Denmark and the UK’, Women in Management Review, vol. 11 (5): 36–41. Nordic Council of Ministers (1994) (I. Boynton and C. Osterberg, eds), Women and Men in the Nordic Countries – Facts on Equal Opportunities Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, Copenhagen. Perrons, D. (1994) ‘Measuring Equal Opportunities in European Employment’, Environment and Planning A, vol. 26 (8): 1195–220, Pion Publications.

Elisabeth Michielsens, Linda Clarke and Christine Wall

135

Perrons, D. (1995a) ‘Economic Strategies, Welfare Regimes and Gender Inequality in Employment in the European Union’, European Urban and Regional Studies, vol. 2: 99–120. Perrons, D. (1995b) ‘Gender Inequalities in Regional Development’, Regional Studies, vol. 29 (5): 465–76. Peters, A. (1996) ‘The Many Meanings of Equality and Positive Action in Favour of Women under European Community Law – A Conceptual Analysis’, European Law Journal, vol. 2 (2): 177–96. Pyke, C. (1989) Women in the Trades 1980–1988, Lambeth Directorate of Construction Services. Rees, T. (1998) Mainstreaming Equality in the European Union – Education, Training and Labour Market Policies (London: Routledge). Rubery, J. (1992) ‘Pay, Gender and the Social Dimension to Europe’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 30: 605–21. Wall, C. and Clarke, L. (1996) Staying Power: Women in Direct Labour Building Teams (London: London Women and Manual Trades).

9 Gender Equality and Trade Unions: A New Basis for Mobilisation? Trevor Colling and Linda Dickens*

The promotion of employment equality by trade unions is especially important in the UK. Although legal regulation of the employment relationship has increased, the individualised, private law model characteristic of the UK means legal rights can often remain merely formal entitlements. In the absence of a general labour inspectorate for monitoring and enforcing legal protections, the UK system largely leaves employers and trade unions to translate statute and case law voluntarily through collective bargaining. The recent history of such equality bargaining, and the prospects for it, are the core themes of this chapter. Unionised workforces are generally characterised by less-marked inequalities than non-union ones, yet collective bargaining and equality historically have not been linked in a wholly positive way. The process of bargaining generally has been male-dominated and agreements have tended to formalise and perpetuate gendered inequalities rather than challenge them. Through the 1980s a paradox emerged. With public policy prioritising deregulation and individualisation of the employment relationship, the scope and depth of collective bargaining diminished with adverse implications for equality overall. This hostile environment for trade unions, however, fostered a greater willingness to address the interests of women members, both current and potential. Unions, it could be said, ‘discovered’ the need to act effectively on behalf of women at a time when their ability to do so was particularly constrained. The change in government in May 1997 brought a new approach to joint regulation (including collective bargaining) and to gender equality.

*This chapter is informed by our previous investigations of trade unions and equality (for example, Colling and Dickens, 1989); research undertaken as part of a Europe-wide study of equal opportunities and collective bargaining (Colling, 1997; Dickens, 1998; Colling and Dickens, 1998); as well as by review of secondary materials.

136

Trevor Colling and Linda Dickens

137

Influenced by the developing social agenda in Europe, notions of partnership working have been imported implying an expanded role for trade unions in their relations with employers and the state. New individual and collective rights, whilst not unproblematic in their formulation, provide a stronger platform for unions than they have had for some time. This chapter explores the nature and implications of this changed context and assesses union preparedness to exploit it in ways positive for equality. We examine the extent to which the necessary change in trade unions is taking place, and the likelihood of gender equality providing a basis for union mobilisation.

EQUALITY BARGAINING IN A COLD CLIMATE, 1979–97 Policy Context This was a difficult period for equality measures, for trade unions and for joint regulation. The equality law framework was maintained and even strengthened in some respects to meet European obligations, but the underpinning for equality measures was weakened. In accordance with the UK’s voluntarist tradition of industrial relations, regulatory bodies have been afforded a minor role relative to other European states. There is no general labour inspectorate, for example, with the power to enter workplaces and require compliance with statutory measures. Investigative powers available to the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) have been compromised by judicially imposed protections for employers and used rarely. Operationalising legal and good-practice measures has therefore fallen principally to the ‘social partners’ with trade unions prosecuting this through their involvement in collective bargaining. The state in this period, however, influenced by the ‘New Right’ ideology, saw collective bargaining as imposing undesirable labour market rigidities and acted to diminish its coverage and depth. Structural shifts in industry and labour markets, facilitated by state policy, expanded pools of weakly organised or non-unionised employment with particular consequences for women. Firstly, sectors of traditional union strength contracted. Between 1979 and 1992, employment in manufacturing fell by more than a third (Howell, 1996: 512). Hardest hit were those areas characterised by male employment such as coal, car manufacture and engineering. Employment growth was concentrated in the expanding service sector where union organisation was precarious or non-existent and where women predominate. Some 86 per cent

138

Gender Equality and Trade Unions

of working women were employed in services in 1997, constituting the majority of the workforce in such areas as retail, hotels, restaurants, and parts of banking and finance (Sly et al., 1998: 118). Secondly, this new employment was more precarious, not least with the growth of ‘non-standard’ or ‘flexible’ work. Women comprise the vast majority (81 per cent) of part-time workers. Nearly two-thirds (61 per cent) of women with dependent children work part-time (as against 32 per cent of women without dependent children), and a quarter of these women work fewer than 15 hours per week (ibid.). Unions’ ability to organise in these changing workplaces was weakened by legal policy which actively promoted non-unionism and the marginalisation of collective bargaining (Dickens and Hall, 1995). Supports for collective bargaining were dismantled and duties upon public bodies to encourage it were removed. Mechanisms which had extended the coverage of collective bargaining by proxy were abolished, such as the Fair Wages Resolution and the Wages Councils. Residual inclinations within some public bodies to promote good employment practice amongst suppliers and contractors were thwarted by the Local Government Act 1988. Statutory procedures to achieve trade union recognition were abolished and the capacity of unions to mobilise members in support of such objectives was diminished by restrictions on industrial action and picketing. Individualised employment relations were promoted. Inducements to employees to shift from collective bargaining to individual employment contracts was sanctioned by the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993, and government acted to extend performance-related pay across public workforces. These economic and legal developments left a much diminished level of union membership and collective bargaining coverage. By 1997, trade union membership had fallen to 7 117 000 (under 30 per cent of those employed) from a peak of over 13 million in 1979. Adjusting data from the Workplace Industrial Relations Surveys, Brown (1993: 191) calculated that the proportion of the workforce covered by collective bargaining fell from 64 per cent to 47 per cent between 1984 and 1990. More recent findings, based on Labour Force Survey data, suggest that this had declined to around 36 per cent by 1997 (Cully and Woodland, 1998: 361). Various ‘deregulation’ measures further weakened the underpinning for equal opportunities and had a disproportionately adverse impact on women. Access to employment protection rights was narrowed by increasing the period of continuous service required to two years, disproportionately excluding women who tend to have shorter service

Trevor Colling and Linda Dickens

139

lives than men (Sly et al., 1998: 101). Given the significant influence of the presence of dependent family members on women’s employment, cutbacks in state-provided care for the elderly and the lack of state provision for childcare hampered equality in the workplace. Deregulation in the area of equality was constrained by the need to fulfil European obligations, but successive Conservative governments refused requests from the EOC to act to overcome well-documented inadequacies in the existing legislation (EOR, 1993). Where European Directives forced improvements to British law, adjustments were made in a grudging and minimalist way, often coupled with new deregulationary measures and with some levelling down for equality. As we have argued elsewhere, this amounted effectively to a privatisation of equality (Colling and Dickens, 1998). The state stood back wherever possible from any regulatory role in the equality area and, by also undermining the capacity for collective regulation, cleared the ring for unilateral employer action. At the same time, however, it had weakened the contextual (including regulatory) pressures likely to foster such action. Union Responses Women’s contribution to labour history is more substantial than often acknowledged (Boston, 1987), but for most of the postwar period women’s increasing economic activity was hardly championed by the union movement as a whole. As recently as the late 1970s, unions colluded in employer attempts to avoid newly-enacted equal-pay legislation (Snell, 1979). They were dilatory about recruiting in private sector services, particularly in those areas characterised by low pay and insecure work (Cockburn, 1987: 7). Disinterest in part-time workers in some cases extended to opposition to them and continued long after they had become an established feature of the workforce. Many women were thus excluded from the protection of union membership and collective bargaining altogether. Where they were covered, they were rarely involved in the process of negotiating, and agreements formalised and perpetuated tacit discrimination rather than challenged it (Colling and Dickens, 1989; Walby, 1986). The organisational and political philosophies which fostered such orientations, however, were weakened by the changes just outlined. Firstly, structural changes in the economy also impacted upon the distribution of power and authority across the union movement. Maledominated unions, which had been numerically and symbolically important within the TUC (Trades Union Congress) to this point, fared

140

Gender Equality and Trade Unions

badly through the 1980s. The TGWU (Transport and General Workers’ Union), AEEU (Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union), UCATT (Union of Construction Allied Trades and Technicians) and the RMT (Rail, Maritime and Transport) lost well over half their memberships and the NUM (National Union of Mineworkers) was nearly wiped out altogether (Waddington and Whitson, 1995; Howell, 1996). Predominantly public sector unions, which organised greater proportions of women, remained relatively stable and therefore assumed more prominent positions within the TUC. This process was epitomised in 1993 by the merger of COHSE (Confederation of Health Service Employees), NALGO (National and Local Government Officers’) and NUPE (National Union of Public Employees) to create UNISON, the UK’s largest union with women comprising nearly three-quarters of the membership. Secondly, the balance of forces within unions was also affected. In industrial unions organising across industries, women’s voices emanating from service groups in the public sector, for example, were amplified by the relative decline of previously powerful male-dominated groups. Other unions were obliged to acknowledge through competitive pressures the relative success of organisations able to cater effectively for women. These parallel and mutually reinforcing processes produced something of a paradox. At a time when their capacities to act in support of their members was actively undermined, unions adjusted their public stances on equality issues and the promotion of women’s interests became more pronounced and consequential over time. In a brief overview, we highlight first internal change within unions and, second, changes in their external behaviour and tactics. Internal Change Changes in the composition of the TUC both prompted and facilitated further attempts to improve the representation of women within the union movement. A series of aims and Charters were developed looking at the issue of women’s equality within the movement, and acknowledging the need for positive action (Ellis, 1988). The TUC’s Equal Rights Unit was upgraded to full departmental status in 1988, and the Charter for Equality for Women within Trade Unions was updated in 1990 to include a commitment to proportionality, that is mechanisms to ensure that women’s representation within internal structures was proportionate to their presence in the wider membership. In the same year, the TUC adopted a new Charter for Women at Work which

Trevor Colling and Linda Dickens

141

acted as both a policy statement and a platform from which to develop negotiating and policy guides for member unions. Change within individual unions was prompted in part by reform of this sort but internal factors were also at play. Extended legal controls over union governance and industrial action prompted shifts in authority within unions towards their administrative centres. Though not inevitably liberalising in itself, this did strengthen the hand of those leaderships determined to advance changes beneficial to women. In the GMB (General, Municipal and Boilermakers’ union), for example, a new national leadership pushed through its Fair Deal for Women programme (Colling and Dickens, 1989). Equality officer positions were established at national, regional and branch level through changes to the rulebook, collective agreements were audited and targets set for the initiation of equality measures which were monitored subsequently by the National Equal Rights Advisory Committee. By 1997, six unions had introduced reserved seats for women on their executive lay structures; 20 unions had developed equality committees and 14 of these had committees for women specifically; and 13 unions had equal rights or women’s conferences (SERTUC, 1997). The kind of change this occasioned cannot be appreciated from figures alone; these new structures fostered approaches to the task of organisation and administration which were new to British unions. Women’s structures and conferences have developed new forms of administration, operating workshops, for example, in addition to standard debates around pretabled motions (USDAW, 1995). They have pioneered campaigns beyond the workplace, on women’s health issues for example, and liaison with community groups (Cunnison, 1995). Finally, they have questioned the traditional structure of union work such as the isolation and long hours worked by full-time officers (ibid.). External Behaviour Excluded from policy-making forums at national and employer level and facing widespread membership collapse, the TUC attempted to ‘relaunch’ itself and redefine the trade union movement (Heery, 1998a). A broader constituency was sought, encompassing the mass of working people (and not just those in trade unions) with a recognition and accommodation of the diversity of that constituency. This, it has been suggested, led to hitherto marginal concerns for trade unions being pushed towards the mainstream (ibid.: 342, 355). Signs began to emerge of more inclusive unionism embracing ‘world of work’ issues, including

142

Gender Equality and Trade Unions

those of importance to women. TUC and individual union campaigns supported, for example, rights for part-time workers (Heery, 1998b). Proactive approaches to recruitment were advocated including targeting growth areas of managerial and professional workers, young workers and women (TUC, 1989). The TGWU Link-Up campaign, launched in 1987, aimed to recruit part-time workers: alongside increased resources for local recruitment initiatives, the campaign promoted a model collective agreement covering the use of part-time and temporary workers and incorporating rights to union representation and prorata pay and conditions of service (Snape, 1994). Unions’ education and training initiatives developed with consequences for women. Training for negotiators expanded and deepened, for example in such areas as equal pay, reflecting both recognition of the potential for equality bargaining and the complexity of the legislation supporting such initiatives (see for example Labour Research Department, 1998a: 21). Training in specific skills related to union work were augmented increasingly by general schemes designed to boost women’s participation within the workplace and within union structures. Womenonly events, such as the GMB’s Women’s Workplace Projects were intended to support women potentially willing to participate in union work. Possibly the most important indication of changed union behaviour, however, was an increased willingness to incorporate equality demands within collective bargaining. Explicable in part by recruitment and retention pressures, and the consequent need to be seen promoting women’s interests, the generally hostile negotiating context also played a critical part. Unable to rely straightforwardly on membership mobilisation, unions looked increasingly to employment law (and European law specifically) to provide a ‘floor of rights’ upon which they could build. In this context, anti-discrimination measures offered relatively powerful levers with which to re-engage employers in bargaining relationships. Unions had two objectives in developing their use of the law. Firstly, to buttress collective bargaining, for example by supporting multiple equal pay tribunal claims in the hope of encouraging employers to agree to joint reviews of pay structures (see for example Gilbert and Secker, 1995). Secondly, to clarify and extend the law. Following decisions from the European Court of Justice in 1994 the TUC coordinated action amongst a number of affiliated unions who encouraged part-time workers to submit tribunal claims for compensation in respect of occupational pension rights denied to them and 60 000 did so (Heery, 1998b). Applications to employment tribunals and the related ACAS (Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service) conciliation caseloads

Trevor Colling and Linda Dickens

143

indicate the growth in use of the discrimination law. Claims for equal pay, for example, increased at twice the rate of those under other jurisdications, from 513 in 1985 to 2075 in 1996 (ACAS Annual Reports various years). Whereas 22 per cent of the equal pay claims made to tribunals in 1976 were sponsored by unions (Lovenduski and Randall, 1993: 209), by 1990, claims for equal pay for work of equal value originated only from unionised workplaces (Millward, 1995).

EQUALITY BARGAINING AND PARTNERSHIP, POST-1997 Policy Context Recent changes in policy following the election of a Labour government in May 1997 hold out opportunities for the promotion of equality; the promotion of joint engagement and, potentially, opportunities for the combination of these – joint engagement for equality. The changes lie both in a different attitude to the European agenda, signalled by the ending of the previous government’s opt-out from the Maastricht social chapter, and in the developing national agenda. We look first at the changed public policy approach to joint engagement and then at the approach to equality which emerge from the new national agenda and ‘signing up to Europe’. Promotion of Joint Engagement European social policy has not produced any legislation dealing directly with trade union rights or supporting collective bargaining. An important part of the European agenda, however, is the promotion of joint engagement in the form of social partnership and social dialogue (O’Hara, 1996). While the 1979–97 UK national approach centred on individualising employment relations, the European model sees an important role for collective worker representation and includes institutionalised support for labour–management cooperation. EU member states are expected to have a system for designating worker representatives for the purpose of receiving information and for consultation over redundancy, transfer of undertakings, and on health and safety and joint engagement in multinational companies promoted through the 1994 European Works Council Directive. In keeping with this approach, the ‘social partners’ (unions and employer bodies) have been given a pivotal role in law-making at the European level by the Maastricht

144

Gender Equality and Trade Unions

Social Protocol, a role reemphasised in the Treaty of Amsterdam. Employers and unions can negotiate legally-binding European Framework Agreements, which may lead to Directives (which require member states to introduce legal and administrative provisions to implement the principles therein). These European requirements have helped shift the context in favour of joint engagement and contributed to a new national agenda favourable to joint regulation. This was symbolised by the restoration, soon after Labour attained office, of the right to join trade unions at GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters) and outlined further in the 1998 White Paper Fairness at Work (Cm 3968) and the consequent Employment Relations Bill 1999. Emphasis on ‘partnership’-working echoes not only these European themes but also the model promoted by the TUC (TUC, 1998). Many of the legislative restrictions on union activity will remain in place (for example no general repeal of industrial action legislation; no return to the closed shop), but other anti-union measures dating from the previous administrations will be eased and protections will be enacted against union blacklisting. Fairness at Work displayed some reluctance to privilege trade unions and collective bargaining over other (non-union) representational mechanisms in its vision of partnership, but trade union organisation is legitimised through a new individual right to be represented by a trade union officer and a new statutory procedure for trade unions to seek employer recognition for collective bargaining where they enjoy substantial support. Promotion of Equality The new receptivity to the European agenda carries particularly powerful consequences for equal opportunities (Walby, 1997: 204). Equality between women and men has been at the forefront of social policy since the beginning of the European Community in the 1950s: Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome required equal pay for equal work between men and women; the 1970s saw important directives on equal pay and equal treatment; in the 1980s equal treatment directives required equality in state and occupational benefits and in the treatment of women in family businesses; a directive protecting pregnant workers was adopted in the early 1990s; and more recently there have been directives on parental leave, part-time workers and the burden of proof in sex discrimination cases. The ending of the ‘opt-out’ means that these recent directives will now be implemented in UK law. This long-standing commitment to equal treatment has been strengthened further by recent

Trevor Colling and Linda Dickens

145

policy developments. The Treaty of Amsterdam includes an emphasis on substantive equality (equality of outcomes) rather than just formal equality (equality of treatment), and the principle of positive action is recognised (EIRR, 1997). National positive action measures are now permitted to aid the underrepresented sex, although they are still not mandatory. The Treaty attempts to get equality mainstreamed into all the Community’s policies and activities. The mainstreaming approach, found also in the Commission’s Fourth Action Programme 1996–2000, is ‘intended to promote integration of equal opportunities in the process of preparing, implementing and monitoring all policies, measures and activities at Community, national, regional and local level’. This provides the potential for bringing a gender perspective into EU economic and labour market policy which has often failed to identify the interaction between gender equality and employment (Rubery and Maier, 1995). ‘Strengthening equal opportunities’ is one of the four pillars for member states’ employment policies set out in the 1998 European Employment Guidelines. The 1999 Guidelines strengthened the equal opportunities pillar and advocated the adoption of a gender-mainstreaming approach in implementing the other pillars of the guidelines, namely measures to improve employability, to develop entrepreneurship and encourage adaptability of businesses and their employees (European Commission, 1999). Governments are required to supply annual national action plans demonstrating, and quantifying, their progress. No new national legislative agenda on equality has yet been indicated, as opposed to implementing the European-driven agenda, apart from some amendments designed to simplify and improve the currently complex maternity provisions. It might reasonably be expected that the EOC’s modest legal reform agenda (EOC, 1998) will be received more favourably by the present government than its predecessors, although the ‘Better Regulation Task Force’ appointed by the government in September 1997 came down against major legislative overhaul in its review of anti-discrimination legislation (Better Regulation Task Force, 1999). Nonetheless, it suggested some simplification and clarification of the law and proposed a number of other, non-legal measures in support of equality to which the government response is broadly positive. Comparative research has indicated that general regulatory measures can be more important than specific legislation in promoting pay equality (for example, Rubery, 1992), and here the introduction of a national minimum wage in the UK for the first time is clearly a major development. Because of their predominance among low-paid workers,

146

Gender Equality and Trade Unions

women stand to gain disproportionately from this measure which came into effect in April 1999, even though the adult, non-trainee rate is only £3.60 per hour. In contrast to the policy of the previous administration which regarded childcare as a private matter and devoted no resources to it, the present government has announced a National Childcare Strategy. The 1998 green paper Meeting the Childcare Challenge outlined plans which aim to ensure good-quality, affordable childcare for children up to the age of 14 (EOR, 1998). However, critics argue that the concern is not so directly with providing quality, affordable care for children of parents in work already, but rather see the strategy as linked to Labour’s Welfare to Work approach of encouraging lone parents into work, training or education. Obviously more could be done to support joint regulation and to promote equality. For example, the failure to give any role to the trade unions in the National Minimum Wage Act is notable (Simpson, 1999: 31) as is the absence of measures which explicitly integrate the promotion of joint engagement with the promotion of equality. Unions could be written into the operationalisation and monitoring of equality measures, while measures designed to promote joint engagement could specify equality as a key area for action. Nevertheless, the contrast between the pre and post-1997 context is clear. The new public policy approach offers greater support for joint engagement and levers for equality action which appear good, particularly when viewed against the foil of what preceded it. There is thus a more hospitable context for equality bargaining. We now assess the preparedness of the unions to take advantage of it, examining changes in representation internally and in unions’ external behaviour. Union Responses Internal Change We look first at constitutional change and women’s representation in key parts of the union movement. Women’s representation is important firstly, and obviously, for reasons of democratic principle but also because of the link between internal and external equality. Women are more likely to be attracted into a movement which has self-evidently benefited other women. Conversely, where women are absent or underrepresented, the breadth, depth and durability of equality agenda are likely to be affected adversely (Kelly and Heery, 1994).

147

Trevor Colling and Linda Dickens

The following tables highlight the pace and direction of change within leading TUC-affiliated unions. Figures for 1990 and for 1998 are compared giving some indication of the extent to which early progress towards equality of representation has been continued. Table 9.1 reveals the growing importance of women as a constituency in the five largest trade unions. As a proportion of the overall membership, women’s presence within these unions increased in all but one, USDAW, where it remained stable at nearly two-thirds. In Unison and MSF, increases were particularly marked. Women also improved their proportion of seats on the unions’ national executive committees. Although this has often been from a markedly unrepresentative position, progress has been faster in most cases than increases in womens’ membership and thus proportionality has improved. In two unions, GMB and MSF, women are overrepresented slightly. The picture is less rosy when it comes to staffing. Figure 9.1 compares the proportion of female national and regional officers with women’s membership for the ten largest unions. Discrepancies are apparent in every case, with the exception of MSF where the number of national officers who are women is more or less proportionate to women’s share of membership. These figures may flatter the true picture. Even where they have a presence at national and regional level, women are particularly underrepresented in senior positions. That women are absent from UNISON’s senior management team, for example, is clearly incompatible with their important commitments to proportionality (Campbell, 1993).

Table 9.1

Proportion of women in five of the largest trade unions, 1990 and 1998 UNISON TGWU GMB MSF USDAW 1990* 1998 1990 1998 1990 1998 1990 1998 1990 1998

% women in membership

68

78

17

20

31

36

21

31

59

59

% women on NEC

46

65

8

13

29

41

22

32

31

53

−22

−13

−11

−7

−2

+5

+1

+1

−28

−6

% disprop.

Note: *Unison’s 1990 figure arrived at by combining NUPE, (National Union of Public Employees), COHSE (Confederation of Health Service Employees) and NALGO (National and Local Government Officers’ Associations). Source: Based on figures from Labour Research Department, 1992, 1998b.

148

Gender Equality and Trade Unions

80 70 60

% Membership

50

% National

40

Fulltime Officers

30

% Regional

20

Fulltime Officers

10 NASUWT

GPMU

NUT

CWU

USDAW

MSF

GMB

AEEU

TGWU

UNISON

0

Women by proportion of membership, of national officers and regional officers of the largest 10 unions, 1998 Source: Based on figures from Labour Research Department, 1992 and 1998b. Figure 9.1

Designation as a national or regional officer does not necessarily imply responsibility for negotiating, since women are often confined to specialist positions, for example in legal or equal-rights functions. To take the TGWU as an example, of the 22 officers who were women in 1995, only 7 had a direct role in negotiations (internal documents). Table 9.2 illustrates trends in the pattern of staffing at national and regional levels for five key unions between 1990 and 1998. Women’s representation amongst union staff was either stable or actually in decline. In four of the five unions, the proportion of national full-time officers who are women declined, as was the case with regional fulltime officials in two of the five unions. The figures in Table 9.2 are best understood in the general context of financial stringency, employment decline, and organisational change affecting British unions. Income, diminished already by membership losses, has been further affected by reluctance to raise subscriptions for fear of undercutting by competitor unions or deterring potential members. Employment within unions has declined steeply from 8000 in 1995 to 6200 in 1998 (Taylor, 1998), and development and promotion opportunities for women have been generally bleak in this context. Union mergers have also had a significant impact. These have been beneficial for some aspects of equality bargaining, for example by facilitating harmonisation of terms and conditions of employment for different workgroups (Day, 1998). But the central rationale of reducing unit costs has had a disproportionate impact on women’s employment within unions.

149

Trevor Colling and Linda Dickens Table 9.2

Women by proportion of membership and proportion of national and regional officers in five key unions, 1990 and 1998 UNISON 1990* 1998

TGWU 1990 1998

GMB MSF USDAW 1990 1998 1990 1998 1990 1998

% women in membership

68

78

17

20

31

36

21

31

59

59

% women national fulltime officers

41

38

3

4

12

8

21

30

20

25

% women regional fulltime officers

16

24 24**

8

4

13

5

16

23

24

0

−1

−39 −34

−16 −15

−36 −35

% disproportionate national fulltime officers

−27

−40

−14

−16

−19

−28

% disproportionate regional fulltime officers

−52

−54

+7

−12

−27

−23

Notes: *UNISON’s 1990 figures arrived at by averaging those for COHSE, NALGO and NUPE. **1991 figure. Source: Based on figures from Labour Research Department, 1992 and 1998b.

It has retarded women’s progress into senior management positions, for example. This progress tended to occur in smaller unions and these have the least bargaining leverage when it comes to merger negotiations. Of the five women general secretaries featured in Dorgan and Grieco’s 1993 study, three were displaced by men as a direct consequence of union mergers. New women general secretaries have appeared since, but these tend to be in still smaller unions. The four women general secretaries in 1994 had responsibility for 70 000 members between them. There are currently six, but they share responsibility for only 47 000 members. Furthermore, support functions in which women have been concentrated have been hit disproportionately hard. According to Ledwith and Colgan (1996), 14 unions had full-time women’s officers in 1987; by 1994, nine of these had merged or amalgamated and the number of women’s officers had declined to nine (ibid.: 158).

150

Gender Equality and Trade Unions

External Behaviour The renewed legitimacy granted to unions by current public policy combined with the extensions of individual and collective rights, arguably consolidate the changed orientation, particularly towards women, outlined earlier. There is some evidence of a strengthening platform for collective bargaining. A recent survey reveals 35 per cent of respondent TUC affiliated unions believe they are likely to win new recognition agreements, compared to 11 per cent three years ago (Labour Research Department, 1999: 19). Awareness of the importance of recruiting women can be seen in the Organising Academy, the TUC initiative for training recruiters set up in 1998. Most of the 36 young recruitment specialists trained in the Academy’s first intake are women, facilitating the policy of ‘like recruiting like’ (Labour Research Department, 1998c). Individual unions, too, are shifting resources to invest increasingly in specialist recruiting and organising officers. UNISON, for example, has reinstigated the oldNALGO officer grade of Organising Assistant, specifically to work with existing Regional Organisers on recruitment (Colling, 1999). Those unions which have discovered the potential power of mounting legal challenges are unlikely to abandon this part of their collective bargaining armoury. If anything, the changing legal context may encourage more ambitious claims. Having led equal value claims by NHS speech therapists, for example, MSF is currently threatening to escalate legal action if progress is not made on pay and grading reviews. Developing case law now allows the union to make comparisons across the NHS rather than merely within hospital trusts as previously (Gow, 1998). These positive developments need to be judged objectively against the legacy of the previous 18 years. Partnership working is still far from deeply rooted and, though important, current policy changes do not go as far as they might to support joint engagement. The changes likely to be wrought by a statutory recognition procedure should not be overestimated (Dickens and Bain, 1986; Wood and Godard, 1999), particularly as this one contains some serious hurdles for unions to surmount. Furthermore, firms with fewer than 20 workers are exempt leaving 5 million workers, the majority of them women, with no mechanism for achieving statutory union recognition (Ball, 1998). Evidence suggests that employers’ conceptions of partnership working are restricted and may not embrace unions. Guest and Peccei (1998) found that just over half of the managers they questioned in ‘partnership’ organisations felt that they and their employees were on the same side, and

Trevor Colling and Linda Dickens

151

39 per cent felt that successful partnership effectively eliminated the need for trade unions. Outside the public sector, recruitment and retention remains extremely difficult for most unions (Cully and Woodland, 1998). Only 20 per cent of private sector employees are now union members and this varies by occupation, job and workplace characteristics. Women continue to predominate in those occupations historically difficult to organise, and part-time workers are still less likely to be union members (20 per cent) than full-timers (34 per cent). Workplace characteristics are significant, too, with union density of just 16 per cent in workplaces with fewer than 25 employees compared with 38 per cent elsewhere. Only 9 per cent of those working in small private sector workplaces are union members compared with 52 per cent in similar sized public sector establishments. The Organising Academy notwithstanding, the employment trends within unions highlighted earlier cast some doubt on their capacity to make serious inroads into the areas where women work. Unions reducing their paid officer corps have tended to drive recruitment activity through their lay structures. This is problematic for women’s membership for two reasons. Firstly, women union representatives face greater difficulties in securing release for such activities than men. Lawrence (1994), for example, found women stewards in local government working in smaller workplaces and in more dispersed workforces than men and consequently less able to engage in union activity beyond their workplace. Secondly, women are less likely than men to work in areas where there are effective lay structures. Surveys of new members (Waddington and Whitson, 1995) found that women were less likely than men to have been recruited by shop stewards; recommendations to join made by employers were more important for women than men, as was contact with full-time officers.

CONCLUSION Faced with significant legal and organisational challenges between 1979 and 1997, the union movement set about recomposing and reorienting itself. Recognising that women working in the developing sectors of the economy provided the key source of new members, unions embarked upon programmes of internal reform and altered their external tactics and behaviour. Of importance in terms of the latter was a changed approach to using the law. In a hostile environment, and

152

Gender Equality and Trade Unions

less able to rely upon membership mobilisation, legal rights provided unions with a lever with which to pressure employers to come to the bargaining table. Potent amongst these were equal opportunity measures developing under the influence of the European Union. The consequence of this shifting operational context was a union movement more supportive and representative of women than had been the case for most of the previous century. The election of a Labour government in 1997 carried potentially significant implications for these developments. A different orientation towards Europe promises to further strengthen the legal supports for equality. Notions of ‘partnership’ have also been imported requiring renewed public policy support for trade unions and collective bargaining. As indicated, this contains the potential for equality bargaining which developed in the cold climate pre-1997 to flourish further. For this to happen, however, the positive change in trade unions developed in ‘bad’ times needs to be retained and furthered during the relatively good times (cf Campbell, 1993). The evidence reviewed here suggests the possibility of a mixed picture. For some unions the new provisions supportive of collective bargaining may constitute a green light to resume (male-focused) ‘business as usual’. Unions operating in male dominated, craft environments have lost members but may now remain viable if they can continue to defend their niche through cooperation with employers in matters like access to skills training. The new recognition procedures, overlain with notions of partnership working, may suffice for these unions and actually undermine any imperatives they may have experienced towards diversifying their memberships and reorienting their agendas. Even here, however, developments such as the legal right to parental leave may be expected to influence bargaining agendas with indirect implications for furthering equality. For the leading unions with large female memberships the momentum towards internal and external equality can be expected to continue. Supported by sympathetic internal reforms, women have made significant inroads into the democratic structures of these organisations and still provide the main source of new members for the foreseeable future. These unions enjoy relatively secure bargaining relationships, often in the public sector, which provide the platform for recruitment activities and are robust enough to mount significant legal challenges when these are deemed necessary to stimulate or underpin equality bargaining. There is a third category, operating between these two, within which the likely outcomes for women are more difficult to judge. Smaller

Trevor Colling and Linda Dickens

153

unions, often operating in the private sector where the restricted notion of partnership working is prevalent among management, have limited capacity to invest in the infrastructure of professional and support staff necessary to recruit women and gain significant new recognition agreements. Similarly, the likelihood of significant legal challenges emerging here is low, given their financial cost and possibly adverse implications for insecure bargaining relationships. Any bargaining leverage from the law may come only indirectly from union achievements in other areas. Gender equality does provide a basis for union mobilisation and modernisation, and the current context is more propitious for this than that pre-1997. But the extent to which this potential is acknowledged and grasped may be expected to vary across the union movement.

References Ball, C. (1998) ‘Right to Union Recognition Fails to Give many Women a Voice at Work’, The Guardian, 30 May. Better Regulation Task Force (1999) Review of Anti-Discrimination Legislation (London: Central Office of Information). Boston, S. (1987) Women Workers and Trade Unions (London: Lawrence & Wishart). Brown, W. (1993) ‘The Contraction of Collective Bargaining in Britain,’ British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 31 (2): 189–201. Campbell, B. (1993) ‘Women on the Verge of a Breakthrough’, New Statesman and Society, vol. 6 (3): 18. Cockburn, C. (1987) Women, Trade Unions and Political Parties, Fabian Research series 349 (London: Fabian Society). Colling, T. (1997) Collective Bargaining and Equal Opportunities in Europe: The Case of British Gas in the United Kingdom (Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions). Colling, T. (1999) ‘Reallocating Responsibility and Resources for Organising in UNISON’, IRRU seminar, University of Warwick, May. Colling, T. and Dickens, L. (1989) Equality Bargaining – Why Not? Equal Opportunities Commission (London: HMSO). Colling, T. and Dickens, L. (1998) ‘Selling the Case for Gender Equality: Deregulation and Equality Bargaining in Britain’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 36 (3): 389–413. Cully, M. and Woodland, S. (1998) ‘Trade Union Membership and Recognition 1996–7: An Analysis of Data from the Certification Officer and the LFS’, Labour Market Trends, July. Cunnison, S. (1995) ‘Trade Unions and Women’s Ways of Organising: A Case from Northern Ireland’, Journal of Gender Studies, vol. 4 (3): 327–32. Day, K. (1998) ‘New Pay Scheme may Include Bonus Redesign’, Municipal Journal, 6 February.

154

Gender Equality and Trade Unions

Dickens, L. (1998) Equal Opportunities and Collective Bargaining in Europe: Illuminating the Process (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities). Dickens, L. and Bain, G. (1986) ‘A Duty to Bargain? Union Recognition and Information Disclosure’, in R. Lewis (ed.), Labour Law in Britain (Oxford: Blackwell), pp. 80–108. Dickens, L. and Hall, M. (1995) ‘The State: Labour Law and Industrial Relations’, in P. K. Edwards (ed.), Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice in Great Britain (Oxford: Blackwell), pp. 255–304. Dorgan, T. and Grieco, M. (1993) ‘Battling Against the Odds – the Emergence of Senior Women Trade Unionists’, Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 24 (3). EIRR (European Industrial Relations Review) (1997) ‘Social Policy under the Treaty of Amsterdam’, no. 283, August: 14–18. Ellis, V. (1988) ‘Trade Unions and Occupational Segregation’, in S. Walby (ed.), Gender Segregation at Work (Milton Keynes: Open University Press), pp. 135–57. EOC (Equal Opportunities Commission) (1998) Equality in the 21st Century: A New Approach (Manchester: EOC). EOR (Equal Opportunities Review) (1993) ‘Government responds to EOC proposals for reforming SDA’, no. 52: 29–39. EOR (Equal Opportunities Review) (1998) ‘Childcare Green Paper Published’, no. 80, July/August. European Commission (1999) European Employment Guidelines (Luxembourg: EC). Gilbert, K. and Secker, J. (1995) ‘Generating Equality? Equal Pay, Decentralisation, and the Electricity Supply Industry’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 33: 190–207. Gow, D. (1998) ‘Equal Pay Bill Could Hit £1bn: Health Service Warning for Government’, The Guardian, 11 March. Guest, D. and Peccei, R. (1998) The Partnership Company: Benchmarks for the Future (London: Involvement and Participation Association). Heery, E. (1998a) ‘The Relaunch of the Trades Union Congress’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 36 (3): 339–61. Heery, E. (1998b) ‘Campaigning for Part-time Workers’, Work, Employment and Society, vol. 12 (2): 351–66. Howell, C. (1996) ‘Women as the Paradigmatic Trade Unionists? New Work, New Workers and New Trade Union Strategies in Conservative Britain’, Economic and Industrial Democracy, vol. 17 (4): 511–43. Kelly, J. and Heery, E. (1994) Working for the Union (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Labour Research Department (1992) ‘Challenging the Men in Suits’, Labour Research, March: 7–9 Labour Research Department (1998) ‘Equal Pay Cases – a Rep’s Job?’, February: 21–2. Labour Research Department (1998b) ‘Are Women out of Proportion?’, March: 12–14. Labour Research Department (1998c) ‘Organise, Activate and Motivate’, September: 13–15. Labour Research Department (1999) ‘Climate Warms to Union Deals’, June: 19–20.

Trevor Colling and Linda Dickens

155

Lawrence, E. (1994) Gender and Trade Unions (London: Taylor & Francis). Ledwith, S. and Colgan, F. (1996) ‘Sisters Organising – Women and their Trade Unions’, in S. Ledwith and F. Colgan (eds), Women in Organisations: Challenging Gender Politics (London: Macmillan), pp. 152–86. Lovenduski, J. and Randall, V. (1993) Contemporary Feminist Politics; Women and Power in Britain (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Millward, N. (1995) Targetting Potential Discrimination, Equal Opportunities Commission Discussion Series, no. 11 (Manchester: EOC). O’Hara, J. (1996) Worker Participation and Collective Bargaining in Britain: The Influence of the European Agenda (London: Institute of Employment Rights). Rubery, J. (1992) ‘Pay, Gender and the Social Dimension to Europe’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 30: 605–21. Rubery, J. and Maier, F. (1995) ‘Equal Opportunity for Women and Men and the Employment Policy of the EU: A Critical Review of the European Union’s Approach’, Transfer, vol. 1 (4): 521–32. Sly, F., Thair, T. and Risdon, A. (1998) ‘Women in the Labour Market: Results from the Spring 1997 Labour Force Survey’, Labour Market Trends, March: 97–119. Simpson, B. (1999) ‘A Milestone in the Legal Regulation of Pay: The National Minimum Wage Act 1998’, Industrial Law Journal, vol. 28 (1): 1–32. Snape, E. (1994) ‘Reversing the Decline? The TGWU’s Link-Up Campaign’, Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 25 (3). Snell, M. (1979) ‘The Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts: Their Impact in the Workplace’, Feminist Review, vol. 1. South East Regional Trades Union Congress (SERTUC) (1997) Inching Towards Equality (London: SERTUC). Taylor, R. (1998) ‘Cash-Strapped Unions Step Up Recruitment Drive’, Financial Times, 30 July. Trades Union Congress (TUC) (1989) Organising for the 1990s: The SRB’s Second Report (London: TUC). Trades Union Congress (TUC) (1998) Partners for Progress: Next Steps for New Unionism (London: TUC). Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW) (1995) Information Pack, National Women’s Conference, (Manchester: USDAW). Waddington, J. and Whitson, C. (1995) ‘Trade Unions: Growth, Structure and Policy’, in P. K. Edwards (ed.), Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice in Great Britain (Oxford: Blackwell), pp. 151–228. Walby, S. (1997) Gender Transformations (London: Routledge). Walby, S. (1986) Patriarchy at Work (London: Polity Press). Wood, S. and Godard, J. (1999) ‘The Statutory Union Recognition Procedure in the Employment Relations Bill: A Comparative Analysis’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 37 (2): 203–44.

10 Towards a Relevant Theory of Age Discrimination in Employment Cliff Oswick and Patrice Rosenthal

INTRODUCTION Ageism is not simply another ‘ism’. It is similar to other prominent forms of discrimination in so far as ageism, sexism and racism ‘are three philosophies that we find offensive and which we would expect ordinary, liberal, tolerant, intelligent people to be against’ (Bytheway, 1995: 9). There are also, however, significant points of dissimilarity. Age discrimination is both pervasive and dynamic. It is pervasive in that it is likely to affect everyone at some point or another during their life whether within or outside of the work context. Not everyone will have the same sort of direct personal exposure to either racism or sexism. It is dynamic because ageing and therefore ageism is an ongoing process of change. As Bytheway points out: ‘With rare exceptions, the way in which we are affected by sexism and racism has a degree of continuity throughout our lives’ (1995: 10). Someone who is born a woman does not slowly become a man or vice versa, equally a black person does not gradually become white, but a young person will gradually become an old person. Or as Bytheway succinctly puts it: ‘No one is born old’ (1995: 10). Here we seek to challenge several taken-for-granted assumptions about the nature of age discrimination in the workplace. There are three main parts to the chapter. In the first section, the predominant conceptualisation of ageism is outlined and the appropriateness of projecting contemporary theories of discrimination onto the phenomenon explored. In the second section, we report relevant results from an empirical study of employers’ attitudes towards ageism. In the third and final part of the chapter, the critique of existing conceptualisations and the empirical findings are used as a basis for developing an alternative theory of age discrimination in employment. 156

Cliff Oswick and Patrice Rosenthal

157

AGEISM AND CONTEMPORARY THEORIES OF DISCRIMINATION The term ‘ageism’ is believed to have been first coined in 1969 by Robert Butler, a psychiatrist, who championed the cause of the elderly regarding the proposed building of a block of highrise flats in Maryland. This initiative was reported in the Washington Post and was purported to be ‘the first time the word “ageism” appeared in the mass media’ (Bytheway, 1995: 30). Ageism, according to Whitehouse (1978), is ‘discrimination against people on the basis of chronological age’. A more extensive definition has been provided by Butler and Lewis. They suggest: Ageism can be seen as a process of systematic stereotyping of and discrimination against people because they are old, just as racism and sexism accomplish this for skin colour and gender. Old people are categorised as senile, rigid in thought and manner, old fashioned in morality and skills . . . Ageism allows the younger generations to see older people as different from themselves, thus they subtly cease to identify with their elders as human beings. (Butler and Lewis, 1973: 9) In this account, the role of discriminator and discriminatee are clearly delineated: the discriminators are ‘the younger generation’ and those who are disadvantaged are ‘older people’. This type of distinction is typically drawn within definitions of ageism provided by gerontologists (see for instance Butler, 1975, 1980; Comfort, 1977; de Beauvoir, 1977; Whitehouse, 1978; Woodward, 1988). Indeed, the notion of ‘differentness’ between the purveyors and recipients of discrimination is poignantly illustrated in Simone de Beauvoir’s observation that older people are often treated as if ‘they belong to an entirely different species’ (1977: 9). This perspective on ageism is reinforced and perpetuated within the management literature where contributions have concentrated upon the plight of older workers (see for example Arrowsmith and McGoldrick, 1997; Bytheway, 1995; Naylor, 1990; Taylor and Walker, 1994; Thompson, 1991; Warr and Pennington, 1993). This ‘own group/different group’ view of ageism seems to draw heavily on early academic contributions on discrimination in general, and on Festinger’s (1954) theory of social comparison, in particular. It is consistent with Festinger’s assertion that people attempt to locate themselves within their social milieu, which facilitates direct comparisons with other members of the same reference group. This psychological process gives rise to prejudice when the standards ascribed to one’s own group are

158

Age Discrimination in Employment

used to compare oneself to someone in another group. Moreover, such standards tend to be used unfairly because one’s own-group identification is generally seen as the positive pole in the comparison process. The problem with the ‘social comparison theory’ of discrimination, and for that matter Butler and Lewis’ definition, rests on the notion of different reference groups. This is potentially problematic. As Schonfield reminds us, we have to ask: ‘Who is stereotyping whom and why?’ (1982: 270). It is possible that a significant proportion of those who discriminate against older workers are in fact older workers themselves, and therefore members of the same reference group. In order to consider the uniqueness of ageism it may be helpful to consider the relevance of some of the other mainstream theories of discrimination. Through their analysis of the position of women and minorities in management, Morrison and Von Glinow (1990) developed a three-part classification of discrimination. First, they identified a set of theories which claim that particular characteristics of underrepresented groups are largely responsible for their differential treatment (difference theories). A second theoretical perspective addressed discrimination by individuals within the majority population arising from stereotyping and bias. The third set of theories focused on ‘structural, systemic discrimination as the root cause of differential treatment rather than actions or characteristics of individuals’ (1990: 201). Morrison and Von Glinow’s work provides a useful framework to structure the discussion of ‘discrimination’ theories. It is important to establish that many of the theories of discrimination are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, in some instances the distinguishing features between certain theories are more to do with contrasting interpretations than substantive differences. At a broader level, the difference between Morrison and Von Glinow’s (1990) first two theoretical perspectives appears to rest upon the distinction that Noon and Blyton (1997) make between ‘fair’ and ‘unfair’ discrimination. They comment: discrimination is about applying various criteria to choose between people, so the key issue becomes the fairness of the criteria upon which the discrimination is based. Fair criteria lead to discrimination that is justifiable (fair discrimination), whereas unfair criteria lead to unfair discrimination, which is unjustifiable and about which something needs to be done. (1997: 168) On the one hand, ‘difference theories’ – which espouse that discernible differences exist between groups – suggest that the process of matching

Cliff Oswick and Patrice Rosenthal

159

prevalent characteristics with appropriate job criteria results in a form of workplace discrimination which can, to a greater or lesser extent, be regarded as fair. On the other hand, theories of discriminatory treatment suggest an ‘unfair’ process wherein, for example, characteristics are inaccurately ascribed to individuals, based on their membership of a social group. ‘Difference theories’ of discrimination can be subdivided into two further subgroupings: theories which focus on socio-psychological and physiological differences (Riger and Galligan, 1980), and those concerned with an economic explanation (Blau and Ferber, 1987). It could be argued that theories based on psychological and physiological differences are pertinent to age discrimination. In particular, the way in which the ageing process leads to physical and mental deterioration may inform work-related judgements about older and younger workers which could be construed as being either fair (based on genuine differences) or unfair (based on unwarranted stereotypes). A key economic explanation of differences between groups is ‘human capital theory’ (Blau and Ferber, 1987) which suggests that individuals are rewarded for their investment in education and job training. Differential treatment arises because some groups (for example, women) choose to accept a wage while others (for example, men) invest in acquiring skills and knowledge to qualify for higher-paying jobs. The extent to which criteria such as ‘recently qualified’ and ‘outdated knowledge’ are applied as judgements in determining the employability of older and younger workers is an aspect of age discrimination which perhaps resonates with aspects of ‘human capital theory’. The second theoretical perspective, focusing on discriminatory treatment, can also be reduced to an economic and a socio-psychological perspective. Economic theories of discrimination are linked to a process of market substitution (Becker, 1957) in which women and minorities are hired ‘at a wage discount large enough to compensate for the loss of utility or level of discomfort associated with employing them’ (Morrison and Von Glinow, 1990: 202). This dual labour market explanation may be relevant to the employment of older and younger workers, particularly in unskilled occupations where younger and older workers are prevalent (for example, ‘fast food’ outlets for younger workers and night porters/security for older workers). The psychological perspective on theories of discrimination suggests that bias results from the stereotyping of groups (Davis and Watson, 1982; Powell, 1988). Over the past four decades a considerable volume of research has sought to establish the existence of stereotypical images

160

Age Discrimination in Employment

of older and younger workers (see for example Bird and Fisher, 1986; Hassell and Perrewe, 1995; Rhodes, 1983; Jerdee and Rosen, 1976a, 1976b; Waldman and Avolio, 1986). A number of such stereotypes have been established that, compared to their younger counterparts, older workers are, for example, change-resistant (Hayward et al., 1997), riskaverse (Jerdee and Rosen, 1976a; Oswick, 1991), more difficult to train (Coulson-Thomas, 1989), and less-motivated and ambitious (Craft et al., 1979; Doering et al., 1983). The third, and final, grouping of theories identified by Morrison and Von Glinow (1990) is concerned with systemic barriers and structural discrimination. ‘Intergroup theory’ (Alderfer, 1986; Thomas and Alderfer, 1989) suggests that organisations contain ‘identity groups’ (based upon race, ethnicity, gender or age) and ‘organisation groups’ (based on common work task, work experiences and position in the hierarchy). Alderfer argues that because certain groups predominate in high-status positions, and due to the patterns of group relations which reflect society as a whole, members of disadvantaged groups are systematically deprived of opportunities and resources. Given that age is one of the identity groups highlighted by Alderfer, it seems reasonable to suggest that it may have some bearing on access to resources in a similar manner to race and gender. A further set of systemic barriers are encapsulated in ‘secondary labour market theories’ of discrimination. This grouping shares some common ground with ‘human capital theory’; however, it argues that disadvantaged groups’ access to training and education is not one of personal choice via an investment decision, but rather is structurally determined (Thurow, 1969). Moreover, as Larwood and Gartiker (1987) point out, there is a market consisting of a set of primary wellpaid jobs and a set of secondary jobs with little mobility between the two. Although there is a certain amount of overlap between this theory and the earlier one regarding labour market substitution, the main difference is that the ‘secondary labour market’ theory can be seen as a macro-structural phenomenon (Osajima, 1988) while the ‘labour substitution’ theory is more of a premeditated micro-level strategy utilised by managers to discriminate by attempting to employ certain groups at lower rates of pay. A common feature of the discrimination theories outlined above is the heavy reliance upon the ‘own group/different group’ perspective. This artefact arises because the theories have largely been developed and applied within more established areas of discrimination (sexism and racism) where the power relationship between privileged and marginalised

Cliff Oswick and Patrice Rosenthal

161

groups (blacks and whites, men and women) is generally more static and transparent. The lack of theoretical and empirical work on ageism has limited understanding of its nature and outcomes within organisations. To begin to address these gaps, we present relevant data from a study investigating employers’ attitudes to use of age preferences in employment decisions. We then evaluate the results against the extant literature on discrimination. We argue that Heilman’s (1983) ‘lack of fit’ model provides the most promising avenue for development of a theory of ageism.

ATTITUDES TOWARDS AGEISM: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY Research Design, Method and Sample The aim of the empirical study was to further understanding of the nature of ageism in organisations, through investigation of its perceived legitimacy among decision-makers. We explored both the extent to which employers believed age preferences to be justifiable, and stated reasons for their legitimacy. In the section below we briefly present the study and its findings. A short survey questionnaire was posted to named individuals in 120 different organisations, including 60 personnel/HR practitioners and 60 line/general managers. These two populations were deliberately matched in order to test whether the views of line managers as employers differed significantly from personnel practitioners. The sample was selected from a database of local employers held by the Business and Management facility of a London university. In addition to demographic questions, the respondents were asked: ‘Do you think age discrimination is justifiable? Why?’ Responses to the first part of the question were measured on a five-point scale (1 = always; 2 = often; 3 = sometimes; 4 = rarely; 5 = never). The second part of the question was open-ended, inviting respondents to state reasons for the legitimacy (or illegitimacy) of age preferences in employment decisions. The question was framed in a broad manner to allow respondents to articulate a personal view, rather than respond to prescribed positions. Forty-eight personnel managers and 49 line managers returned completed questionnaires, a response rate of 81 per cent. The age range for the sample as a whole was 20 to 57 years, with a mean age of 32.78. The ‘personnel’ and ‘management’ cohorts were found to be highly comparable in terms of age (mean = 32.85 and 32.71, respectively). The gender

162

Age Discrimination in Employment

distribution of the total sample was 45 per cent male and 55 per cent female. The breakdown for the personnel sample reflected the typical overrepresentation of women in the function (62.5 % female and 37.5 % male). The management sample was more balanced, at 53 per cent male and 47 per cent female. Data Analysis and Results Structured Responses Analysis of the closed question asking whether age discrimination is justifiable revealed that a large majority of managers and personnel officers consider it to be legitimate at least some of the time. Only 11 per cent of decision makers decisively reject the use of age preferences in employment decisions, believing them ‘never’ to be warranted. Just over half (52%) of the 93 respondents regard age discrimination as ‘sometimes’ justifiable, while 35 per cent believe it to be ‘rarely’ warranted. 2 per cent of respondents endorsed age preferences as ‘often’ legitimate, but no one defended them as ‘always’ warranted. The mean ‘legitimacy’ rating was 3.56, with a standard deviation of 0.72. ANOVA analysis indicated there was no significant relationship between the gender, age or job category of respondents and their ratings of the legitimacy of age discrimination. Open-ended Responses A total of 63 respondents (or 65%) of the sample offered legitimating reasons for the use of age preferences in employment decisions. Analysis of these data was initially approached using a framework established by Slater (1973) in a study of employers’ rationales for the statement of age limits in job advertisements. This four part classification included ‘personal reasons’, where the focus is the individual (for example intrinsic abilities and personal circumstances); ‘structural reasons’, or factors concerning the organisation (for example the age balance within the firm, succession planning); ‘work reasons’, or characteristics of the task (for example nature of the job and aspects of the work environment); and ‘other’, or miscellaneous justifications. A number of findings emerged from the analysis. First, none of the responses was clearly synonymous with Slater’s category of ‘personal reasons’. For example, no one identified personal circumstances such as family commitments, marital status or social stability as justifications for age preferences. Nor did any employer justify discrimination on the

Cliff Oswick and Patrice Rosenthal

163

basis of intrinsic abilities or characteristics ascribed to an age category (such as younger workers being open to change) which would be relevant to all jobs. Second, beyond the absence of any stark or obvious invocation of such ‘personal reasons’, analysis revealed the problematic nature of Slater’s division of ‘personal’ and ‘work-related’ justifications. Responses suggest that it is the perceived ‘fit’ of task and personal characteristics that is the issue. A total of 84 per cent of reasons could be described as ‘job-specific’. Typical illustrations of responses in this category were: Age discrimination is only justifiable when there are genuine reasons for applying age limits – for example when a person is unlikely to have the necessary experience for a job below a certain age. Even so, should think very carefully before setting age limits [B3]. Some jobs do not suit certain age groups, e.g. heavy work (physical) for older people [B4]. There may be some occupations which require particular physical strength or like a Genuine Occupational Qualification may be a job where building relationships with peers is essential [B5]. You sometimes want people to be able to do certain jobs that require a young person or an older and mature person, someone who would stay and not go too quickly [B7]. Depends on the type of job e.g. where innovation etc. is an essential criterion for the job [B12]. Occasionally the physical aspect determines the age. Sometimes a skill is gained by experience and in some roles the skill is essential to the task for example, professional jobs [B22]. Some jobs may require the age barriers in relation to a particular job e.g. graduate opportunities, managers between certain ages feel more mature and more able [B42]. Impairment of faculties eg judgements over sight and hearing, reactions for drivers. Necessary to relate to certain age groups e.g. bouncers/stewards at pop concerts. Degree of fitness needed for some jobs, etc. [B54]. Some professions (for example, air hostess) require a certain youthful attractiveness and appearance. Also some jobs require physical/mental alertness (e.g. pilot) which the ageing process undermines [B57].

164

Age Discrimination in Employment

Certain jobs require long hours at a fast rate, with much travel and little sleep – characteristics which I believe would better suit a young man 20–45 [B74]. In comparison, only 16 per cent (n = 10) of the legitimating conditions for ageism were organisationally-specific, and thus applicable to Slater’s ‘structural’ category. Among these reasons, ‘financial considerations’ dominated. In particular, the return on investment in relation to training costs was cited in six of the ten instances: Can the person perform the work. If so employ. If high levels of training are required the useful working life needs to be considered [B10]. If the company are going to invest in training they will of course want to recover some of their investment [B11]. Where a post requires training I feel age discrimination can be justified as training is expensive and is better spent on younger people [B36]. Could involve organisation in excessive cost – pension, training, etc. [B40]. Will depend on type of duties covered and whether re-training that person would add any value to person/employer [B75]. Maybe because of the length of training that may have to be given [B86]. Of the remaining four ‘organisationally-generic’ responses, two seemed to be concerned with ‘succession planning’: One shouldn’t assign a stereotype to an individual. If someone however is approaching retirement age and the post involves a minimum of more than 1 yrs work then it may be justifiable [B32]. If you intend the person to remain as a long-term prospect [B93]. And, the final two reasons related to ‘age balance/cultural fit’: If the person is older or younger than the average in the company it’s not their work ability I would be concerned about but their general attitude [B26].

Cliff Oswick and Patrice Rosenthal

165

It depends on the nature of the organisation, its culture and the kind of people working there and the image it promotes and what its aims are [B29]. The qualitative results presented here clearly show that, overall, ‘jobspecific’ reasons for age preferences were held to be more acceptable than ‘organisationally-generic’ ones. Of 63 responses which sought to provide justifications for age discrimination, 84 per cent were found to be ‘job-specific’, compared to only 16 per cent which had clear ‘organisationally-generic’ connotations. The implications of these findings for a theory of ageism are discussed in the third and final part of the chapter.

AGEISM: AN ATYPICAL FORM OF DISCRIMINATION Unlike racism and sexism which are experienced throughout one’s life, ageism is dynamic. We move in and out of disadvantaged age groups during the course of our working lives. Ironically, because an individual shifts between advantaged and disadvantaged groups – and the fact that it affects most people at some point in their lives – gives this particular form of discrimination an air of legitimacy. After all, what could be fairer than more or less everyone having a turn at being disadvantaged for a period of time? As one pro-ageism respondent put it: ‘it’s a case of swings and roundabouts’. The transient nature of ageism has implications for the way in which we conceptualise the ‘discriminators’ and the ‘discriminated’ as stakeholders in the process. The dominant view of ageism in general – and within the work context in particular – is that it is something which younger people do to older people. However, the claim that it is younger workers (as employers) who are doing the discriminating is not supported by the research findings. Employers’ age was not found to have any significant effect upon their attitudes towards age discrimination. A major implication of the findings is that the status of ‘discriminators’ and ‘discriminated’ is not as clearly delineated as the extant literature on ageism would have us believe. Both older and younger workers may be significantly affected by the ageist behaviour of both older and younger employers. This creates a complicated network of dependency in so far as the boundaries between advantaged and disadvantaged groups become blurred and the purveyors of ageism are also in other circumstances its recipients.

166

Age Discrimination in Employment

The rather complex pattern of stakeholder relationships brings into question the appropriateness of the traditional conceptualisation of discrimination in two ways. First, the typical schism between a privileged group of power holders and a marginalised and disadvantaged group observed in most forms of discrimination (such as whites vs blacks, men vs women, able bodied vs people with disabilities, and so on) is absent with ageism. Second, social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) suggests discrimination arises in situations where the discriminator casts the person(s) being discriminated against as a member of a different group to his/her group. Therefore, this conception of discrimination relies upon an immutable difference between the ‘discriminator’ and the ‘discriminatee’ as the focal point of the prejudice. Once again, this ‘own group/different group’ perspective does not appear to fit with the actuality of ageism, that is an older manager may be as likely to discriminate against older workers as a younger manager and vice versa. Other mainstream theories of discrimination also fail to adequately capture the nature of ageism. For example, ‘intergroup theory’ (Alderfer, 1986; Thomas and Alderfer, 1989) suggests that discrimination in organisations arises out of the interplay between one’s ‘identity group’ (based on race, gender, age and so forth) and one’s ‘organisation group’ (based on common work tasks, work experiences and position in the hierarchy). Membership of certain groups which tend to occupy lower-level positions in the hierarchy results in limited access to resources and fewer opportunities. In effect, we find that ‘intergroup theory’ relies upon the same central tenet as social comparison theory: an ‘own group/different group’ separation of privileged (identity) groups and marginalised (identity) groups. Equally, economic explanations of discrimination – such as ‘human capital’ theories (Blau and Ferber, 1987; Thurow, 1967), ‘labour substitution’ theories (Becker, 1957) and ‘secondary labour market’ theories (Osajima, 1988) – are based upon the premise of a group of privileged discriminators and an entirely separate group who are marginalised and discriminated against. The problem with many contemporary theories of discrimination is not just to do with their heavy reliance upon the existence of a discernible imbalance of power between groups. It is also the arbitrariness and inflexibility of their general application which does not seem to square with the actuality of age discrimination. The majority of legitimating responses in our study suggest that age discriminators do not consistently discriminate. That is, the application of age preferences is seen to be justifiable if it is job-specific. Therefore, in order to provide a

Cliff Oswick and Patrice Rosenthal

167

meaningful explanation of age discrimination in employment, we have to move towards embracing a contingency model of discrimination. Towards a Job Contingent Theory The findings reported in this chapter point to ageism being dependent on the nature of the job under consideration. Eighty-five per cent of respondents who provided short written responses to an open question about the justification for age discrimination cited ‘job-specific’ reasons. The fact that employers condone the ‘job-specific’ enactment of age preferences, but do not generally believe the broad and arbitrary use of age criteria to be legitimate, supports the view that a selective contingent form of ageism is in operation. Heilman (1983) has sought to explain sex bias in work settings through the development of a model in which she posits a ‘lack of fit’ between the perceptions held of the characteristics of women and particular jobs. Two fundamental elements lie at the core of the model: sex stereotypes and the sex-typing of jobs. Sex stereotyping involves ascribing attributes to an individual or group based upon generalisations about gender, while the ‘sex-typing of jobs is based upon the perceived content of the job and the sex-related attributes linked with it’ (Heilman, 1983: 277, emphasis added). There have always been some positions and occupations that are considered female in sex-type: librarian, nurse, secretary and elementary school teacher, to name a few. By and large, such jobs are believed to require the skills and talents that society attributes to women – nurture, social sensitivity and service. Occupations of higher status, however, apparently are the province of men. They not only have fewer women in their ranks but also are thought to require an achievement-oriented aggressiveness that rarely is associated with women. (Ibid.) The ‘lack of fit’ model draws on a process of cognitive dissonance, and according to Heilman (1983: 280), ‘it asserts that rational information processing, not some irrational imperative, underlies occupational sex bias’. Expectations about how successful or unsuccessful an individual will be at a particular job are determined by an assessment of the degree of congruity, or fit, between the individual’s attributes (based upon sex stereotypes) and the perceived job requirements (based upon the sex-typing of the job). The better the fit the greater the expectation

168

Age Discrimination in Employment

of success. Inevitably, instances where there is a distinct ‘lack of fit’ are the ones which offer the greatest potential for discrimination to arise. The ‘lack of fit’ model appears to be highly applicable to ageism. In addition to clear evidence of ‘age stereotypes’ found in the extant literature (Hassell and Perrewe, 1995), the data on ‘reasons for age preferences’ also suggests that ‘age-typed jobs’ exist. In other words, some jobs can be classified as ‘older jobs’ while others can be seen as ‘younger jobs’. Hence, employers are likely to discriminate in favour of older workers in instances where a particular job requires stability, loyalty and maturity on the basis of a good fit between the nature of the job and their stereotypical views of older workers. By contrast, older workers are likely to be disadvantaged and discriminated against in instances where there is a ‘lack of fit’ between the job and the employers’ perception of older workers (for example, where the task is physically demanding). The same ‘good fit/poor fit’ process of assessment and evaluation is equally applicable in the case of younger workers. This model has considerable explanatory power. It resonates with the job-contingent findings of research into age stereotypes and reasons for ageism. Moreover, it offers a highly plausible connection between these two areas in so far as the reasons offered for age preferences arise out of the age-typing of jobs (technical constraints, fitness, need for innovation, and so on) and they provide the conduit by which age stereotypes are mapped onto a particular job. Ageism is not something that ‘younger employers’ do to ‘older workers’. Consequently, most socio-psychological and economic theories of discrimination fall short of adequately explaining ageism in employment. Here the dominant ‘own group/ different group’ perspective is rejected in favour of an organisationally situated explanation which locates ageism within a job-contingent framework of routine social action. Our analysis raises a number of questions for future research. First, we need a better understanding of the kinds of jobs perceived as strongly age-typed, and the bases for these perceptions. Second, research might usefully focus on understanding the processes by which age-typing of jobs is initiated and sustained within organisations, and the circumstances under which it might come to be challenged. Finally, researchers might explore the importance of the wider socioeconomic context in ageism. One issue here may be the changing nature of certain job roles, and accompanying implications for their age-typing. For example, high quality customer service has, for various reasons, been elevated in importance as a competitive issue. The pursuit of quality strategies by a growing number of organisations suggests a changing role for front-line

Cliff Oswick and Patrice Rosenthal

169

service workers. New importance is placed on responsible autonomy, communication and interpersonal skills, and a strong commitment to satisfying customers (Rosenthal, Hill and Peccei, 1997). Will the association of these qualities with older workers which has been publicly professed by some service firms (for example B&Q) ‘catch on’, and change the stereotype of the ideal service worker? Finally, although the ‘lack of fit’ model may accurately capture the nature of age discrimination in the workplace it does not legitimise it. The use of age stereotypes in employment-related decision-making is still problematic: Stereotyping can be a work-saving, efficient, cognitive enterprise, serving to simplify and organise the complex world we encounter. And, indeed, in many instances it is. Knowing that rocks are hard, for instance, and that they do not melt when submerged in water enables us to act upon our environment far more effectively than if we had to test for these qualities every time we chanced upon a rock. The problem is that stereotypes about groups of people often are overgeneralisations and are either inaccurate or do not apply to the individual group member in question. (Heilman, 1983: 271) Instead of looking for a fit between age-typed jobs and age stereotypes, endeavouring to match genuine job requirements with particular abilities seems more appropriate. A key direction for future research is to identify and validate more reliable criteria than age for selection decisions.

References Alderfer, C. P. (1986) ‘An Intergroup Perspective on Group Dynamics’, in J. Lorsch (ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behaviour (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall), pp. 190–222. Arrowsmith, J. and McGoldrick, A. E. (1997) ‘A Flexible Future for Older Workers?’, Personnel Review, vol. 26 (4): 258–73. Becker, G. (1957) The Economics of Discrimination (Chicago: Chicago University Press). Bird, C. P. and Fisher, T. D. (1986) ‘Thirty Years Later: Attitudes Toward the Employment of Older Workers’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 71 (4): 515–17. Blau, F. D. and Ferber, M. A. (1987) ‘Occupations and Earnings of Women Workers’, in K. S. Koziara, M. H. Moskow and L. D. Tanner (eds), Working Women: Past, Present and Future (Washington, DC: BNA Books), pp. 37–68.

170

Age Discrimination in Employment

Butler, R. N. (1975) Why Survive? Being Old in America (New York: Harper & Row). Butler, R. N. (1980) ‘Ageism: A Foreword’, Journal of Social Issues, vol. 36 (2): 8–11. Butler, R. N. and Lewis, M. I. (1973) Aging and Mental Health (St Louis, MD: C. V. Mosby). Bytheway, B. (1995) Ageism (Buckingham: Open University Press). Comfort, A. (1977) A Good Age (London: Mitchell Beazley). Coulson-Thomas, C. (1989) ‘Too Old at 40?’, British Institute of Management Report (Corby, Northamptonshire: BIM). Craft, J. A., Doctors, S. I., Shkop, Y. M. and Benecki, T. J. (1979) ‘Simulated Management Perceptions, Hiring Decisions and Age’, Aging and Work, vol. 2: 32–47. Davis, G. and Watson, G. (1982) Black Life in Corporate America (Garden City, NY: Anchor Press). de Beauvoir, S. (1977) Old Age (Harmondsworth: Penguin). Doering, M., Rhodes, S. R. and Schuster, M. (1983) The Aging Worker: Research and Recommendations (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage). Festinger, L. (1954) ‘A Theory of Social Comparison Process’, Human Relations, vol. 7: 117–40. Hassell, B. L. and Perrewe, P. L. (1995) ‘An Examination of Beliefs about Older Workers: Do Stereotypes Still Exist?’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 16: 457–68. Hayward, B., Taylor, S., Smith, N. and Davies, G. (1997) Evaluation of the Campaign for Older Workers, Report no. RS36 (London: Dept. of Education and Employment). Heilman, M. E. (1983) ‘Sex Bias in Work Settings: The Lack of Fit Model’, Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 5: 269–98. Jerdee, T. H. and Rosen, B. (1976a) ‘The Nature of Job-related Age Stereotypes’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 61 (2): 180–3. Jerdee, T. H. and Rosen, B. (1976b) ‘The Influence of Age Stereotypes on Managerial Decisions’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 61 (4): 428–32. Larwood, L. and Gartiker, U. E. (1987) ‘A Comparison of the Career Paths Used by Successful Women and Men’, in B. A. Gutek and L. Larwood (eds), Women’s Career Development (Newbury Park, CA: Sage), pp. 129–56. Morrison, A. M. and Von Glinow, M. A. (1990) ‘Women and Minorities in Management’, American Psychologist, vol. 45 (2): 200–8. Naylor, P. (1990) Age No Barrier (Solihull: METRA Publications). Noon, M. and Blyton, P. (1997) The Realities of Work (London: Macmillan). Osajima, K. (1988) ‘Asian Americans as the Model Minority: An Analysis of the Popular Press Image in the 1960s and 1980s’, in G. Y. Okihiro, S. Hune, A. A. Hansen and J. M. Liu (eds), Reflections on Shattered Windows: Promises and Prospects for Asian American studies (Pullman: Washington State University Press), pp. 189–204. Oswick, C. (1991) ‘The Age Factor in Work Performance’, Management Services Journal, vol. 35 (12): 12–15. Powell, G. N. (1988) Women and Men in Management (Newbury Park, CA: Sage). Rhodes, S. R. (1983) ‘Age-related Differences in Work Attitudes and Behavior: A Review and Conceptual Analysis’, Psychological Bulletin: vol. 93.

Cliff Oswick and Patrice Rosenthal

171

Riger, S. and Galligan, P. (1980) ‘An Exploration of Competing Paradigms’, American Psychologist, vol. 35: 902–10. Rosenthal, P., Hill, S. and Peccei, R. (1997) ‘Checking out Service: Evaluating Excellence, HRM and TQM in Retailing’, Work, Employment and Society, vol. 11 (3): 481–503. Schonfield, D. (1982) ‘Who is Stereotyping Whom and Why?’, The Gerontologist, vol. 22 (3): 267–72. Slater, R. (1973) ‘The End of the Road at 40’, Personnel Management, vol. 5 (5): 31–4. Taylor, P. and Walker, A. (1994) ‘The Ageing Workforce: Employers’ Attitudes toward Older People’, Work, Employment and Society, vol. 8 (4): 569–91. Thomas, D. A. and Alderfer, C. P. (1989) ‘The Influence of Race on Career Dynamics: Theory and Research on Minority Career Experiences’, in M. Arthur, D. Hall and B. Lawrence (eds), Handbook of Career Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 107–52. Thompson, M. (1991) ‘Last in the Queue? Corporate Employment Policies and the Older Worker’, Institute of Manpower Studies Report, no 209. Thurow, L. (1969) Poverty and Discrimination (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute). Waldman, D. A. and Avolio, B. J. (1986) ‘A Meta-Analysis of Age Differences in Job Performance’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 71 (1): 33–48. Warr, P. and Pennington, J. (1993) ‘Views about Age Discrimination and Older Workers’, in Age and Employment: Policies, Attitudes and Practice (London: Institute of Personnel Management), pp. 75–106. Whitehouse, A. (1978) ‘The Gray Panther Rides Again!’, New Age, vol. 5: 7–8. Woodward, K. (1988) ‘Reminiscence, Identity, Sentimentality: Simone de Beauvoir and the Life Review’, Journal of Gerontological Social Work, vol. 12 (3): 25–46.

11 Beyond Racial Dualism: Racial Disadvantage and Ethnic Diversity in the Labour Market Andrew Pilkington

Marx’s famous dictum that history is made by human beings but not under conditions that they choose is widely accepted by social scientists. Its attraction stems from the fact that it succinctly expresses the need to give due weight to both agency and structure. Social change is only possible because of human action but such action is in turn constrained by social forces. And yet when we examine research on race and ethnicity, we find that it tends either to highlight the structural forces which result in the social exclusion of particular racially defined groups or to celebrate the actions of human beings in sustaining distinct ethnic cultures. Marx’s dictum seems to have been forgotten. In the case of British Sociology, a particular framework has been dominant for much of the postwar period. This framework can be characterised as one of racial dualism, in which society is pictured as divided ‘racially’ into two groups – white and black – with researchers seeking to delineate and explain the disadvantages faced by black people. More recently, however, there has been a greater recognition that non-white people are not in the same situation, that there is significant ethnic diversity and that the actions of minority groups have resulted in significant social changes. What this chapter seeks to do is to give due weight to both structure and agency by adopting a particular problematic for examining research on race and ethnicity in Britain. I have labelled this problematic ‘racial disadvantage and ethnic diversity’ (Pilkington, 2000). The term ‘racial disadvantage’ has been used in recognition of the fact that groups defined as non-white still face considerable disadvantages and that these stem at least partially from racism. The term ‘ethnic diversity’ has been used in recognition of the fact that groups defined racially as identical neither usually see themselves as sharing a common identity nor 172

Andrew Pilkington

173

indeed, apart from being subject to racism, share much in common at all. This chapter in short attempts to remain loyal to Marx’s dictum in proposing this approach as a way of exploring race and ethnicity in Britain.

CHANGING CONCEPTUALISATIONS OF RACE AND ETHNICITY We have been reminded by one of the foremost theoreticians in this area that ‘an agreed paradigm for race and ethnic relations research’ has never existed (Rex, 1986: ix). This is not surprising. Different disciplines tend to focus on different issues and even within disciplines a disparate range of theories is manifest. The coexistence of competing perspectives in short remains a characteristic feature of the study of race and ethnicity. Such theoretical profusion does not mean, however, that in the practice of a discipline at the local level one problematic does not become dominant. What is evident when we examine the way British sociologists have approached the issue of race and ethnicity is in fact a succession of hegemonic problematics: race relations; racism; and, most recently, racial disadvantage and ethnic diversity. None of these problematics has ever been completely dominant, but each in turn has emerged to become the major framework guiding research. What initially prompted sociological interest in the issue of race and ethnicity was the postwar migration of people from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan and the realisation that migrants and their children face racial discrimination. Recognition of the difficulties minority groups faced in assimilating did not, however, lead British sociologists to follow some of their American counterparts and highlight the issue of ethnic diversity as well as racial disadvantage. Instead, they tended to conceptualise the key issue as one of race rather than ethnicity. Drawing on the pioneering work of Park and other American sociologists, ‘what Banton and others have called “the race relations problematic” became the dominant approach’ during the 1960s (Solomos and Back, 1996: 6). Race relations are pictured as a specific form of social relationship, in which relations between groups are predicated on people’s belief in the existence of race. Accordingly, the relationship in Britain between whites and non-whites is characterised as an example of race relations, one structured in terms of the significance attached to differences in skin colour. The role of the sociologist is to study such

174

Racial Disadvantage and Ethnic Diversity

relations, paying attention to both the power of the ethnic majority group to discriminate and the struggle by ethnic minority groups to resist domination (Rex, 1970). Although the race relations problematic remained dominant in the 1970s and still has adherents (Banton, 1991), it was subject to mounting criticism in the 1980s. In particular, use of the term ‘race’ was considered misleading since it legitimised a discredited idea and implied that there are naturally occurring populations between whom there are relations. An ‘alternative problematic of racism’ emerged to become dominant until very recently (Miles, 1993: 6). This approach rejected any notion of race as given, but sought instead to understand the process of racialisation whereby particular populations are identified as distinct races within the capitalist world economy. Accordingly, the relationship in Britain between whites and non-whites is characterised as an inherently unequal one, with the latter being subject to racism. The role of the sociologist is to analyse the origins and consequences of different forms of racism within modernity, paying attention to both the power of the majority ethnic group to racialise others and the struggle by ethnic minority groups to combat such racism. Recently, the racism problematic has in turn been challenged with critics arguing that it fails to account for ethnic diversity (Modood, 1992). Despite the differences between the race relations and racism problematics, what is more evident, in the light of developments in social theory which have sensitised us to acknowledge difference and recent evidence from large databases which highlight ethnic diversity, is what they share. Both recognise that race is socially constructed; both realise that the relation between the ethnic majority group and ethnic minority groups is unequal, with minorities subject to (but also resistant to) both racism and discrimination; and both emphasise as a result the racially defined/racialised nature of this relation. Such an approach tends to foreground a colour division between whites and the rest and downplay ethnic diversity. The prevalence of this approach is apparent in the titles of the first three PSI surveys: Racial Discrimination in England; Racial Disadvantage in Britain; Black and White Britain. By contrast a new problematic has emerged in the 1990s which, while acknowledging continuing racial disadvantage, also focuses on ethnic diversity. A form of dualism persists since the ethnic diversity of whites continues to be ignored, but this no longer entails seeing minority groups as in the same position. Far from it. Ethnic diversity is fully recognised and is evident in the title of the most recent PSI survey: Ethnic Minorities in Britain.

Andrew Pilkington

175

CLASS AND RACIAL DUALISM Class has been a central preoccupation of British sociology, and it was therefore inevitable that attention would eventually be given to the class position of ethnic minorities. An examination of different approaches to this issue serves to illustrate the distinctiveness of the new problematic. Those writing within both a race relations problematic and a racism problematic have highlighted the common disadvantages faced by ethnic minority groups, representing them as an underclass or racialised class fraction. Two phenomena in particular are emphasised. Firstly, fundamental economic changes entail a process of social polarisation, whereby those at the bottom of the class structure become cast adrift and experience increasing social exclusion (Hills, 1995). Secondly, evidence continues to accumulate that ethnic minority groups in Britain still face considerable racial discrimination of both a direct and indirect nature (Wrench and Solomos, 1993). In the light of these phenomena, it is argued that the class position of ethnic minority groups will tend to be distinct from that of the indigenous population. For the economy generates disadvantaged positions in the class structure and racial discrimination ensures that ethnic minority groups fill many of them. Two analyses (Rex and Tomlinson, 1979; Phizacklea and Miles, 1980) serve to illustrate this approach. The first, within a race relations problematic, draws on Weberian theory to argue that ethnic minority groups comprise an underclass. The second, within a racism problematic, draws on Marxist theory to argue that ethnic minority groups comprise a racialised class fraction. Different theoretical leanings entail that the two analyses adopt a somewhat different conceptualisation of the class position of ethnic minority groups. Rex and Tomlinson (1979) working within a Weberian tradition, are not tied to the notion that there are two major classes and therefore readily identify a new class – the underclass – with different interests from the working class. By contrast, Phizacklea and Miles (1980) working within a Marxist tradition identify the conflict between capital and labour as the fundamental class division and therefore are reluctant to identify a new class with different (long-term) interests from the working class, preferring instead to point to a new division within the working class. Despite disagreement as to whether to characterise the class position of ethnic minority groups as an underclass or a fraction of the working class, what is more significant for our purposes is the considerable agreement that ethnic minority groups still constitute a ‘replacement population’ – employed (if at all) in predominantly non-skilled manual

176

Racial Disadvantage and Ethnic Diversity

work; with few chances of promotion; subject to poverty; and substantially segregated from the white working class.

THE SOCIOECONOMIC POSITION OF ETHNIC MINORITY GROUPS REEXAMINED To acknowledge the plausibility of what we shall label for convenience the underclass thesis, and to recognise that its substantive predictions are shared by a substantial number of sociologists of different theoretical persuasions operating within different problematics, does not mean that it is well-corroborated. In order to evaluate the thesis we need to turn to empirical data. Here we shall address two key questions. Firstly, what is the current position of ethnic minority groups in the labour market? Are they, as the underclass thesis suggests, overwhelmingly concentrated in a secondary labour market either in non-skilled jobs or among the unemployed? Secondly, what changes have taken place in relation to their position in the labour market? Are they, as the underclass thesis suggests, finding it well-nigh impossible to be upwardly mobile? We shall draw upon three major sources of data to answer these questions: the Census, the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and the Policy Studies Institute (PSI) survey. Although these surveys were not designed to test the underclass thesis and only one makes fleeting reference to the thesis, they nonetheless provide data pertinent to an evaluation of the thesis. They comprise the most reliable national data we have and their conclusions point in the same direction. Although they acknowledge the persistence of racial disadvantage, they emphasise – in comparison to most previous studies – ethnic diversity. Hence it is that the major authors conclude that ‘the socio-economic position of the nine [Census] ethnic categories differs significantly’ (Peach, 1996: 22); that ‘growing differences between the position of different ethnic minorities’ are evident (Jones, 1993: 151); and that the ‘study of the six main groups of immigration-based minorities shows that the differences are even more important’ than any similarity in their circumstances (Modood et al., 1997: 356). As such, the Census, LFS and PSI survey concur in challenging the notion that ethnic minority groups are in a homogeneous situation. We shall draw predominantly on the PSI survey below because – relative to the Census and the LFS – it provides more recent data, includes in its sample ‘hard to find’ respondents, employs the most

Andrew Pilkington

177

appropriate ethnic categorisation and provides a wider range of information. Our confidence in this data source is enhanced by the fact that the other data sources present a broadly similar picture of the broad contours of racial disadvantage and ethnic diversity. The Current Position of Ethnic Minority Groups in the Labour Market To discover whether the situation of ethnic minority groups is characterised by persistent economic marginality, we need to examine, firstly, their current position in the labour market. We shall examine in turn here two variants of the underclass thesis. Do most members of ethnic minority groups experience long-term unemployment? And are most members of ethnic minority groups in employment in the most undesirable jobs so that, taking both those unemployed and those in jobs, we can conclude that they are concentrated in a secondary labour market? Long-Term Unemployment The PSI survey confirms the results of previous surveys: ethnic minorities in general have a higher rate of unemployment than whites. Such a finding needs to be placed in context, however. Ethnic minority unemployment tends to be ‘hyper-cyclical’ (Jones, 1993: 112), rising faster and further during economic contraction and falling quicker during economic recovery than among white people. Since the 1994 survey coincided with the peak of a recession, differences between the ethnic minority groups and the ethnic majority group are likely to be larger than at any other point in the cycle. As it is the unemployment rate of ethnic minority groups is not uniformly higher. For the first variant of the underclass thesis, what is central is not unemployment per se but long-term unemployment. What is disturbing here is that ‘members of all the main minority groups, men and women, experienced much longer periods of unemployment than white people’ (Modood et al., 1997: 97–8). While white men had been typically unemployed for nine months, the duration of unemployment of minority men was usually over a year and for both Pakistani/Bangladeshi and Caribbean men typically two years. Among women, unemployment tended to be shorter but the gap was even more striking, with white women typically unemployed for six months and ethnic minority women for 18 months. Such differences, which can only be partially explained in terms of non-ethnic factors, clearly point to considerable racial disadvantage. Even so, when we take the most disadvantaged groups and

178

Racial Disadvantage and Ethnic Diversity

calculate the proportion of the economically active among them who were long-term unemployed, we find that only about a quarter of Caribbean men and a third of Pakistani/Bangladeshi men had been out of work for a year or more, and that the proportion unemployed for three years or more falls to 11 per cent in the case of the former and 15 per cent in the case of the latter. While these figures testify to considerable disadvantage, they do not indicate, even among the most disadvantaged groups, the presence of anything like a majority who experience persistent unemployment. The first variant of the underclass thesis is not confirmed. Employment and the Secondary Labour Market A comparison of the job levels of people in work confirms the finding of both the LFS and the Census. There is no longer any simple white/black divide, with the job levels of ethnic minority groups uniformly skewed towards lower levels. Among men, whites, Indians and African Asians are evenly divided between manual and non-manual work. By contrast, two-thirds of Chinese are in non-manual work and two-thirds of Caribbeans, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are in manual work. Although women tend, because of child care responsibilities, to be less economically active than men, there are significant differences between ethnic groups, with a marked contrast between the high rate of economic activity of Caribbean women and the extremely low level of economic activity of Pakistani and especially Bangladeshi women. It is possible that the economic activity rates of the latter two groups are underestimated, given the reported reluctance of women to declare ‘homeworking’ in one-off interviews (Phizacklea and Wolkowitz, 1995), but – even when this is taken into account – ethnic differences in levels of economic activity among women remain evident. What is apparent when we compare the job levels of women is that roughly half the women in each ethnic group are concentrated in intermediate or junior non-manual work: The differences between women of different ethnic origins [are] considerably less than the differences among men, and there [is] not the division between minorities. This suggests that gender divisions in the labour market may be stronger and more deeply rooted than differences due to race or ethnicity. (Modood et al., 1997: 104) This may indeed be the case, but it is also possible that an occupational classification, designed to ‘differentiate finely between levels of male

Andrew Pilkington

179

work’ obscures ‘differences in the actual employment position of women’ (Bruegel, 1989: 53). As it is, there are clear ethnic differences between women in their propensity to work full or part-time, with ethnic minority women much more likely to be employed full-time than ethnic majority women. What is more, and like their male counterparts, ethnic minority groups tend to be both underepresented in the top occupational category among employers and managers of large establishments and find that their qualifications do not always allow them access to the more desirable jobs on the same terms as whites. For the second variant of the underclass thesis, what is central is not long-term unemployment per se, but location in the secondary market. But is it true, as a recent analysis claims, that ‘black and Asian workers [are] largely restricted to secondary labour markets where jobs are low paid, unskilled and subject to severe unemployment during periods of recession’ (Moon and Atkinson, 1997: 268)? If we use non-skilled work (comprising both semi-skilled and unskilled jobs) along with unemployment as an indicator of location in the secondary labour market, we discover in fact only one group where the majority of workers are mainly in this market: Bangladeshis. Among this group over half of the men in jobs are employed in non-skilled work and indeed almost threequarters of men are either doing non-skilled work or are unemployed. An analysis of the LFS reaches a similar conclusion: Using a rough definition of the secondary sector . . . only one of the ethnic minority groups (Bangladeshis) is markedly concentrated there; the proportions of the other ethnic minority groups that are within the secondary sector are either about the same as for whites, or lower. (Jones, 1993: 86) What both these pieces of evidence challenge is any notion that ethnic minority groups en bloc constitute a racial underclass. The second variant of the underclass thesis is not confirmed. Disaggregating the Data Our analysis so far has been confined to a comparison of job levels. It is possible, however, as we have already hinted above, that the occupational classification on which we have relied is so crude that ‘the aggregate data are . . . deceptive’ and camouflage key differences between occupations which are grouped together (Hudson and Williams, 1995: 184). To ascertain whether this is the case, we shall compare ethnic

180

Racial Disadvantage and Ethnic Diversity

groups in terms of their distribution by industry, their likelihood of being supervisors, their earnings from employment and their reliance on self-employment. Although the PSI survey indicates that among men each ethnic minority group has ‘a more restricted [industrial] distribution than white[s]’ (Modood et al., 1997: 109), and the Census indicates that some ethnic minority groups are overrepresented in declining industries (Karn, 1997), more significant is the spread of minorities across different industrial sectors. Little segregation is evident and the overall picture is similar to the one drawn on the basis of a comparison of job levels: there is no longer any simple white/black divide. When we turn to supervisory responsibilities and earnings, we find as expected that those in non-manual jobs are more likely to be supervisors and earn more than those in manual jobs, and that within these broad job levels men are more likely to be supervisors and earn more than women. There are, however, differences between ethnic groups. Among men, whites are more likely to be supervisors than members of any ethnic minority group in non-manual work and, with the exception of Caribbeans, manual work. They are also more likely to earn more as non-manual workers, though not as manual workers. Among women, however, there is not a uniform tendency for whites to be more likely to be in supervisory positions than ethnic minorities and, indeed, when we compare full-time employees, the latter, with the exception of Pakistanis/Bangladeshis, tend at each job level to be earning more than whites, a differential which, given that whites work slightly more hours, increases when an hourly pay analysis is undertaken. While the greater likelihood, at least among men, of whites having supervisory responsibilities at different job levels suggests that members of ethnic minority groups may be disadvantaged compared to whites who are seemingly at the same level, the same cannot be said of earnings. For different ethnic groups, with the exception of Bangladeshi men, ‘with similar qualifications doing the same types of jobs in the same areas are paid the same amounts’ (Modood et al., 1997: 120). In short, the evidence on supervision and earnings again does not substantially qualify our contention that there is no simple white/black divide. Academic approaches to ethnic minority self-employment differ considerably. For some researchers, entry into self-employment is a response to racism in the labour market and self-employment itself is an economic dead-end, entailing long hours for very little return (Ram, 1992). For other researchers, concern for status in their own ethnic community

Andrew Pilkington

181

motivates people to move into self-employment and the resultant business is often successful, providing a healthy economic return and some independence for family members (Srinivasan, 1992). Most research on ethnic minority self-employment, however, has tended to focus on specific geographical areas and assumes that its findings are generaliseable to Asians as a whole. The most recent PSI national survey of ethnic minorities in 1994 and the follow-up survey of South Asian self employed people in seven areas across the country a year later in 1995 by contrast point to ‘different kinds of self-employment among South Asians’ (Modood et al., 1997: 129). We must not assume that self-employment for minorities is invariably a second-best option which ‘disguises the continuing reality of economic disadvantage’ (Ward and Cross, 1991: 129). For Asian selfemployment is more likely than white self-employment to involve having no supervisor, having employees and having separate business premises. What is more, not only do self-employed members of ethnic minority groups generally earn more than their employed counterparts but, ‘taken as a whole, self-employed ethnic minority men’ and women earn ‘more than whites’ (Modood et al., 1997: 121). It is true that some forms of self-employment are dependent on a niche market, which comprises primarily members of their own ethnic community in the inner city, but this is exceptional. The highest rate of self-employment for ethnic minorities is not in the inner city but in areas of below average ethnic minority density and ‘most minority businesses are more dependent on customers from outside than from within their ethnic group’ (Modood et al., 1997: 126). All in all, comparison of ethnic majority and minority self-employment does not warrant revision of our earlier conclusion that ethnic minority groups are not en bloc in the most undesirable jobs. Indeed, evidence that the financial rewards from self-employment differ among Asians confirms the importance of ethnic diversity. For the differences in earnings between different groups indicate that Pakistanis and especially Bangladeshis gain fewer financial rewards from self-employment than other groups, thus reinforcing their disadvantaged position in unemployment and paid employment. Our overall analysis of the current position of ethnic minority groups in the labour market confirms analyses of previous PSI surveys (Pilkington, 1984 and 1997), the Census (Karn, 1997) and the LFS (Modood, 1992) in challenging the notion that ethnic minority groups constitute a racial underclass. Empirical evidence instead indicates that some ethnic minority groups are not even confined to the working class but

182

Racial Disadvantage and Ethnic Diversity

‘are now well represented amongst the higher-statused occupations’. At the same time, ‘the overall picture is one not of unconditional entry to the middle class, but of reluctant admission’ (Phillips and Sarre, 1995: 82). It is noteworthy, for example, that all the ethnic minority groups are underrepresented in senior positions and that ‘Britain’s elite remains virtually impregnable to non-whites’ (Adonis and Pollard, 1997: 248). Our critique of the underclass thesis (and sensitivity to ethnic diversity) does not, in short, entail a failure to recognise persistent racial disadvantage. The Changing Position of Ethnic Minority Groups in the Labour Market Although empirical evidence challenges the notion that ethnic minority groups are overwhelmingly unemployed or concentrated in non-skilled work, the question arises as to whether their situation has deteriorated over time so that they increasingly find themselves in a disadvantaged class position. Ethnic minorities may not currently constitute an underclass, but is there any evidence that they are forming an underclass? Studies on the changing position of ethnic minorities in the labour market generally involve a comparison of the relative position of ethnic groups at different points in time. Although such data are fraught with difficulties, especially when comparisons are made over a long period, there is widespread agreement that migration initially entailed downward mobility but that the employment position of ethnic minorities has not deteriorated since (Robinson, 1990). While earlier studies (Field, 1986) are hesitant about detecting a significant improvement in the employment situation of ethnic minorities relative to whites, the same cannot be said of more recent studies, which point unequivocally to declining differentials between the ethnic majority and minority groups. One analysis, which mainly uses LFS data to examine the pattern of change over a quarter of a century from 1966 to 1991, argues that the three main ethnic minority groups distinguished – West Indians; Indians; and Pakistanis/Bangladeshis – have all experienced upward collective mobility and ‘have made considerable progress over this time-span relative to whites’ (Iganski and Payne, 1996: 113). Other studies are keener to emphasise that ‘within the ethnic minority population there is an increasing disparity between the circumstances of specific groups’ (Jones, 1993: 151) with ‘the Indians’ achieving ‘a considerably greater degree of upward social mobility’ than most other groups (Peach, 1996: 140). Nonetheless, there is widespread

Andrew Pilkington

183

agreement that the 1980s witnessed significant progress being made by at least some ethnic minority groups in the labour market in comparison with whites. The most recent data available in this area derive, from the PSI and involve a comparison of the job levels of ethnic groups in 1982 and 1994. When we look at male employees, we find that all groups have improved their occupational position over the period. While the Chinese and African Asians have moved to a position where their profile is not dissimilar to whites, the group which made the most progress over this period were Indians. Although the position of minority groups still does not generally match that of the majority group, disadvantage has lessened over time. When we turn to female employees, we find that Caribbean women made the most progress, closely followed by whites and African Asians, with Indians lagging a little behind. Ethnic minority groups did not all then make progress in comparison with whites. Once we bear in mind, however, the fact that, among male employees, Indians made the most progress and examine the situation overall, it is clear that all ethnic minority groups made important advances, both absolutely and relative to whites. A decline in the earnings differential over the same period, coupled with a growth in self-employment, which further reduces the earnings gap, confirms this picture of declining disadvantage. The evidence, in short, not only challenges the claim that ethnic minority groups already constitute an underclass, but also questions the contention that the position of ethnic minority groups is deteriorating and that they are therefore in the process of forming an underclass. The third variant of the underclass thesis is not confirmed.

A NEW PROBLEMATIC: BRINGING CULTURE AND AGENCY BACK IN Once it is acknowledged that ethnic minority groups do not constitute an underclass, the question arises as to why so many commentators continue to maintain that the minorities are ‘at the bottom of the occupational scale’ (Anthias and Yuval-Davis, 1992: 62) and ‘are becoming increasingly locked into an underclass’ (Hudson and Williams, 1995: 192). Implicit in many accounts is a model of power which depicts society as divided into oppressors and oppressed. Drawing on a particular interpretation of American society – where arguably the major division

184

Racial Disadvantage and Ethnic Diversity

is a racial one – British society is portrayed as divided ethnically into two main groups: white oppressors and black oppressed. What lends credence to this picture is evidence that ethnic minorities continue to face racial discrimination. For this suggests that whatever differences there may be between ethnic minority groups, these are less relevant than their common treatment as non-white. According to this way of thinking, to focus on cultural differences is at best a diversion from the real problem – racism – and at worst a form of victim-blaming. Once a picture of society as divided into white oppressors and black oppressed has grown in this way, it is a short step to conclude that the oppressed in a racist society are forced to be at the bottom of the occupational and income scale, are increasingly locked into an underclass and need to turn to collective action to redress the situation. What such a perspective overlooks is that power is a social relation and that in the case of ethnic relations in Britain, the majority ethnic group is not completely dominant and the ethnic minority groups invariably resist domination. Neither the majority nor minority populations in fact constitute homogeneous groups. The former consist of diverse groups, many of whose members do not wholeheartedly subscribe to racist beliefs. Thus, while a significant, though declining, minority admit to racial prejudice, most say that they do not mind mixed marriages and express support for legislation to combat racial discrimination (Young, 1992). The ethnic minority populations comprise (partially) distinct communities, whose members have little in common other than being subject to racial discrimination. Although they sometimes unite – under the umbrella of sharing a common black identity – to resist racism, this is rare. Asians (unlike Caribbeans) do not usually identify themselves as black and indeed are more likely than whites to express disapproval of mixed marriages with Caribbeans (Modood et al., 1997). Generally, ethnic minorities draw on the resources of their own communities to resist racial discrimination. And far from being irrelevant, cultural differences are central. For, it is precisely through . . . their skilled and creative redeployment – both individually and collectively – of the alternative resources of their imported cultural traditions that Britain’s new minorities are not only beginning to circumvent racial exclusionism, but to do so with ever increasing success. (Ballard, 1992: 487) Recognition that there are significant cultural differences between ethnic groups is not of course a new phenomenon. However, writers

Andrew Pilkington

185

within either a race relations or racism problematic tend to be reluctant to admit that cultural differences are critical. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, they argue that racial discrimination/racism rather than culture is fundamental in determining the life chances of ethnic minority groups. Secondly, they believe that representations of minority cultures frequently amount to little more than stereotypes, which moreover portray ethnic minority groups in pathological terms and implicitly hold such groups responsible for their own disadvantage. What has been termed the ‘cultural turn in social theory’ (Chaney, 1994) has encouraged a reconsideration of the significance of culture and, at the same time, a reconceptualisation of culture itself. Cultures have often been depicted as discrete systems with clear boundaries separating one from another; represented as integrated wholes with members sharing fundamental beliefs and practices in common; and characterised by distinct traditions which are passed from generation to generation. Such a picture entails seeing members of ethnic groups as products with unambiguous identities. This conceptualisation of culture and identity has, however, been criticised as both deterministic and essentialist. Social constructionism, for example, has pointed to the fact that societies are not insulated from each other, that all involve social divisions, and above all that culture entails a process of production (Ranger et al., 1996). Such a reconceptualisation implies that members of ethnic groups are producers and do not have fixed identities. A plethora of studies exemplify this new approach and as a result point to people’s multiple shifting identities in a world characterised by globalisation. The sociology of race and ethnicity has been at the forefront of this development, discovering ‘new ethnicities’ which are fluid and dynamic (Hall, 1992). Thus young Caribbean people may share a common neighbourhood identity with young white people whom they have grown up with, and yet in other contexts where racism is more evident, draw on a wider black identity (Back, 1996). Young Asian people also ‘create not one unitary cultural identity, but rather multiple cultural identities’ as they traverse the ‘cultural fields’ of the temple, home, shopping centre, school and disco (Hall, 1995: 253). They are aware of moving between different worlds (Asian and British) and shift identities accordingly, but in the process often produce new identities, utilising the mass media and popular culture to fuse different cultural traditions (Gillespie, 1995). This emphasis on people as cultural producers rather than cultural products enables sociologists of race and ethnicity to acknowledge the

186

Racial Disadvantage and Ethnic Diversity

significance of culture without falling into the trap of essentialism. We do need to bear in mind, however, two points. Firstly, individuals do not have the autonomy to create any identities they wish. Contrary to the view of some postmodern theorists, we cannot shop around a cultural supermarket and try on whatever we fancy. Racial discrimination/racism, for example, severely constrain the possibilities of identity construction for members of ethnic minority groups. Secondly, a recognition that people have multiple shifting identities in a world where ‘cultures overlap’ does not mean that we cannot distinguish ‘several cultural communities with their overlapping but nonetheless distinct conceptions of the world, systems of meaning, values, forms of social organisation, histories, customs and practices’ (Parekh, 1997: 166–7). Individuals are cultural products as well as cultural producers. Members of ethnic minority groups – socialised, albeit to varying degrees, into distinct cultural communities – have thus been able to draw on the cultural capital of their own communities to resist racial discrimination/racism. Clearly some minority groups have been more successful than others, but once we acknowledge that people are not merely victims but active agents, the coexistence of racial discrimination and ethnic minority progress becomes explicable. In this context ‘to speak of “the Black experience” to signify all the richness of the Diaspora is both to oversimplify the everyday processes of exclusion and to minimise the creativity of response’ (Cross, 1991: 311). In contrast to previous problematics, the new problematic emphasises both racial disadvantage and ethnic diversity.

CONCLUSION Sociologists concerned with race and ethnicity in Britain have tended to work within either a race relations or a racism problematic. While there are significant differences between the two problematics, what is more evident is their similarities. In particular, they foreground a colour division between Whites and the Rest and downplay ethnic diversity. By contrast, a new problematic has emerged in the 1990s which, while acknowledging continuing racial disadvantage, also focuses on ethnic diversity. A form of dualism persists since the ethnic diversity of whites continues to be ignored, but this no longer entails seeing ethnic minority groups as in the same position. Far from it. Ethnic diversity is conceptualised as significant as racial disadvantage. Two developments underpin the emergence of this new problematic: firstly, the cultural turn in social theory, which entails a critique of

Andrew Pilkington

187

essentialism and challenges us to recognise difference; secondly, new empirical evidence which draws on large data-sets to point to significant ethnic diversity. This chapter has focused in particular on the second of these developments. Drawing on three main data sources – the LFS, the Census and the PSI survey – we have examined the thesis, put forward by proponents of both the race relations and racism problematics, that racial discrimination/racism entail for ethnic minority groups concentration at the bottom of the class structure. We have been struck by the extent of economic diversity, both between and within ethnic minority groups. While all continue to face racial discrimination and experience some racial disadvantage, it is notable that all are making important advances relative to whites, and that on a number of measures some (especially the African Asians and Chinese) are doing as well as, if not better, than whites. Others (especially the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis), it is true, are still extremely disadvantaged, but even here there is evidence of some improvement. The analysis here, in short, points to too much ethnic diversity and relative progress to warrant talk of a racially defined underclass. Such a conclusion may initially seem surprising, given the emphasis in much of the literature on the deprivation of non-white people. Once we appreciate, however, as the new problematic does, the way that different ethnic minorities have drawn on their cultural capital to resist racial discrimination, their progress becomes explicable and the rebuttal of the underclass thesis less surprising.

References Adonis, A. and Pollard, S. (1997) A Class Act: The Myth of Britain’s Classless Society (London: Hamish Hamilton). Anthias, F. and Yuval-Davis, N. (1992) Racialised Boundaries: Race, Nation, Gender, Colour, Class and the Anti-Racist Struggle (London: Routledge). Back, L. (1996) New Ethnicities and Urban Culture (London: UCL Press). Ballard, R. (1992) ‘New Clothes for the Emperor? The Conceptual Nakedness of the Race Relations Industry in Britain’, New Community, vol. 13 (3): 481–92. Banton, M. (1991) ‘The Race Relations Problematic’, British Journal of Sociology, vol. 42 (1): 115–30. Bruegel, I. (1989) ‘Sex and Race in the Labour Market’, Feminist Review, vol. 32: 49–65. Chaney, D. (1994) The Cultural Turn (London: Routledge). Cross, M. (1991) ‘Editorial’, New Community, vol. 17 (3): 307–11. Field, S. (1986) ‘Trends in Racial Inequality’, Social Studies Review, vol. 1 (4): 29–34.

188

Racial Disadvantage and Ethnic Diversity

Gillespie, M. (1995) Television, Ethnicity and Cultural Change (London: Routledge). Hall, K. (1995) ‘ “There’s a Time to Act English and a Time to Act Indian”: The Politics of Identity among British-Sikh Teenagers’, in S. Stephens (ed.), Children and the Politics of Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press), pp. 243–64. Hall, S. (1992) ‘New Ethnicities’, in J. Donald and A. Rattansi (eds), Race, Culture and Difference (London: Sage), pp. 252–9. Hills, J. (1995) Inquiry into Income and Wealth, Volume 2. A Summary of the Evidence (York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation). Hudson, R. and Williams, A. (1995) Divided Britain (Chichester: Wiley). Iganski, P. and Payne, G. (1996) ‘Declining Racial Disadvantage in the British Labour Market’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 19 (1): 113–33. Jones, T. (1993) Britain’s Ethnic Minorities (London: Policy Studies Institute). Karn, V. (ed.) (1997) Ethnicity in the Census, Volume 4. Employment, Education and Housing among the Ethnic Minority Populations of Britain (London: HMSO). Miles, R. (1993) Racism after ‘Race Relations’ (London: Routledge). Modood, T. (1992) Not Easy Being British: Colour, Culture and Citizenship (Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books). Modood, T., Berthoud, R., Lakey, J., Nazroo, J., Smith, P., Virdee, S. and Beishon, S. (1997) Ethnic Minorities in Britain (London: Policy Studies Institute). Moon, G. and Atkinson, R. (1997) ‘Ethnicity’, in M. Pacione (ed.) Britain’s Cities: Geographies of Division in Urban Britain (London: Routledge), pp. 262–76. Parekh, B. (1997) ‘National Culture and Multiculturalism’, in K. Thompson (ed.), Media and Cultural Regulation (London: Sage), pp. 163–94. Peach, C. (ed.) (1996) Ethnicity in the 1991 Census, Volume 2. The Ethnic Minority Populations of Great Britain (London: HMSO). Phillips, D. and Sarre, P. (1995) ‘Black Middle-class Formation in Contemporary Britain’, in T. Butler and M. Savage (eds), Social Change and the Middle Classes (London: UCL Press). Phizacklea, A. and Miles, R. (1980) Labour and Racism (London: Routledge). Phizacklea, A. and Wolkowitz, C. (1995) Homeworking Women: Gender, Racism and Class (London: Sage). Pilkington, A. (1984) Race Relations in Britain (Slough: University Tutorial Press). Pilkington, A. (1997) ‘Is there a British Underclass?’, in A. Giddens (ed.), Sociology: Introductory Readings (Cambridge: Polity Press), pp. 251–8. Pilkington, A. (2000) Racial Disadvantage and Ethnic Diversity in Contemporary Britain (London: Macmillan). Ram, M. (1992) ‘Coping with Racism: Asian Employers in the Inner-City’, Work, Employment and Society, vol. 6 (4): 601–18. Ranger, T., Samad, S. and Stuart, O. (eds) (1996) Culture, Identity and Politics (Aldershot: Avebury). Rex, J. (1970) Race Relations in Sociological Theory (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson). Rex, J. and Tomlinson, S. (1979) Colonial Immigrants in a British City (London: Routledge).

Andrew Pilkington

189

Rex, J. (1986) ‘Preface’, in J. Rex and D. Mason (eds), Theories of Race and Ethnic Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Robinson, V. (1990) ‘Roots to Mobility: The Social Mobility of Britain’s Black Population, 1971–87’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 13 (2): 274–86. Solomos, J. and Back, L. (1996) Racism and Society (London: Macmillan). Srinivasan, S. (1992) ‘The Class Position of the Asian Petty-Bourgeoisie’, New Community, vol. 19 (1): 61–74. Ward, R. and Cross, M. (1991) ‘Race, Employment and Economic Change’, in P. Brown and R. Scase (eds), Poor Work. Disadvantage and the Division of Labour (Milton Keynes: Open University), pp. 116–31. Wrench, J. and Solomos, J. (1993) ‘The Politics and Processes of Racial Discrimination in Britain’, in J. Wrench and J. Solomos (eds), Racism and Migration in Western Europe (Oxford: Berg), pp. 157–76. Young, K. (1992) ‘Class, Race and Opportunity’, in R. Jowell, S. Witherspoon and L. Brook (eds), British Social Attitudes: The 9th Report (Dartmouth: Dartmouth Publishing), pp. 175–93.

12 Disabled People, (Re)Training and Employment: A Qualitative Exploration of Exclusion Gillian Reynolds, Phillip Nicholls and Catrina Alferoff

INTRODUCTION Work is essential to all societies: it produces the means of sustaining life, and those excluded from work are also excluded from vital social relationships (Oliver, 1991). Despite concerted efforts by some employers to seek equality of opportunity for disabled people, and notwithstanding recent growth in technology as an enabling resource (Roulstone, 1998), criticism remains concerning high levels of unemployment for this particular social group (for example, Morrell, 1990; Oliver, 1991; Reynolds, 1994). The national picture concerning employment and impairment is fairly well documented, if in some instances rather dated. National surveys revealed an estimated two million disabled people of working age living in Britain (Martin et al., 1988–9). Relatively few are employed, and those who are employed often experience lower wages, poorer working conditions, and longer hours of work (Oliver, 1991). Underutilisation of skills and training, and barriers to promotion are rife (RADAR, 1993, cited in Thornton and Lunt, 1995). Desire for work may be stronger among disabled groups than among the able-bodied population (Prescott-Clarke, 1990; Thornton and Lunt, 1995). In terms of social policy, the quota scheme for employing disabled people in the UK – in force since the 1940s but largely ignored by governments and many employers since the 1970s – was unsuccessful in promoting reasonable employment opportunities for disabled people. Perhaps perceiving the pointlessness involved, registration fell from 190

Gillian Reynolds, Phillip Nicholls and Catrina Alferoff

191

936196 in 1950 to 374182 in 1994. Government-backed research called for abolition of the quota scheme; disability lobby groups campaigned for its strengthening (Thornton and Lunt, 1995: 12). In 1995, with policy options constrained by the then government’s ideological commitment to free market forces, the Disability Discrimination Act was passed (see Painter et al., 1998, for a review). Under this Act, those employing 20 or more people must not discriminate against disabled applicants or employees. It is salutary to note, however, that these employers represent only 65 per cent of the employed population, and only 4 per cent of all employers. In Australia and Canada, for example, those employing fewer than 20 people are not exempt from legislation (Thornton and Lunt, 1995: 21). Since then, the Labour government has marginally strengthened the Act by signalling a shift in responsibility for action against discrimination from the individual disabled person to a Disability Rights Commission. This chapter explores ways in which disabled people remain excluded from the social relationships which exist in the context of paid employment. Economic and social policy are clearly important to take into account, but there are also other issues immanent to the analysis of disabled people’s circumstances: • some conditions are clearly more restricting than others of physical functions, and therefore more socially visible; • the task of defining causal factors is cross-cut by other issues such as age, gender, ethnicity and illness or health trajectory for the future.

EXPERIENCES OF DISABLED PEOPLE The experiences of disabled people regarding employment and the labour market take place within the wider context outlined above. Six factors stand out as relevant, irrespective of general or local employment conditions. • There is overwhelming evidence that disabled people experience a substantially poorer quality of life than their able-bodied peers. • Widespread discrimination, institutionalised into the very fabric of our society, is largely responsible for this quality of life. • Probably a majority of disabled people of working age have tried unsuccessfully to find work.

192

Disabled People, (Re)Training and Employment

• Disabled people who do find work are – regardless of qualifications or experience – more likely to find themselves ‘underemployed’: doing work which is poorly paid, low-skilled, low-status, unrewarding, undemanding, and which has little or no security or opportunity for advancement (Barnes, 1992). • Compared with those born disabled or who become disabled in childhood, there are likely to be many more people who have become disabled in adulthood. This situation demands changes, not just in social policy but in wider social attitudes towards the concept of ‘normality’ (Finkelstein, 1980). • Disablement is relatively neutral and indiscriminate: those who are able-bodied can claim this only as a temporary status. Although poverty, age and class are clearly implicated, it can strike anyone instantly, from the highly-skilled managing director to the unskilled labourer. Successive politicians and economists have identified a ‘skills gap’ for the UK. The implication here is that high levels of unemployment are caused not by a shortage of jobs, but by a dearth of new or different skills now required for changes in production or occupations. Social policy in this area has been therefore progressively geared towards training those perceived as ‘hard-to-employ’ because they lack the required skills. Disabled people have historically been categorised not only as those unable to work, but also as those who are ‘hard-to-employ’. The introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act should, in principle, mean that disabled people have equal opportunities in all areas of (re)training and employment. This ideal, however, would require massive investment in the workplace, transport, the built environment and education of the able-bodied population. Political decisions to target for training and retraining programmes those disabled people perceived as ‘hardto-employ’ fail to take into account social reactions to disability which are predicated upon (a) a prescriptive notion of ‘normality’; (b) a labour market built on restricted physical and communication access; and (c) attitudes built on prejudice, ignorance and fear. A narrow – and, to some extent, misplaced – definition of ‘skill’, in which many people are unjustly assessed as ‘hard-to-employ’, can be identified in social policy. What, then, are the experiences of disabled people in relation to re/training and employment? This was the question addressed by a study undertaken in 1997 in one north-Midlands county. Geographically, the county comprises dead or dying industrial areas in its extremities, a more prosperous county town in the centre, and mixed semi-rural ‘sweeps’

Gillian Reynolds, Phillip Nicholls and Catrina Alferoff

193

between these centres of buoyant or declining employment. Approximately 100 people were interviewed, individually or in groups. Respondents comprised people with impairments, representatives of disabled groups, ‘employment professionals’ who – directly or indirectly – mediate between disabled people and the labour market, and representatives of 20 employers or potential employers. Additionally, a survey of the current workforce in the county took place, using postal questionnaires (see Reynolds et al., 1997). The purpose of the study was to illustrate some of the human accounts behind statistics, percentages and the depersonalising tendencies of social policy. The authors of the report were committed to a ‘dialogue between social science and the community based on a recognition of their different starting points rather than upon a facile acceptance of topics defined by what are taken to be “social problems”’ (Silverman, 1997: 1). Epistemologically, the methods encompassed the social model of disability emphasised by disabled sociologists (for example, Oliver, 1990). Whilst perceptions of problems almost inevitably varied between the different groups of respondents, three major issues emerged from the findings: (a) marginalisation occurs in all dimensions of the working world; (b) problems of access (to buildings, facilities, communication, information, human support and physical resources) are rife; and (c) prejudiced, negative, paternalist, or simply fearful attitudes towards disability remain obstinately prevalent in society. Marginalisation Marginalisation is an insidious process, often carried on in a half- or sub-conscious way. It is the process by which disabled people find themselves, in various ways, on the edges of social life, only being considered as a ‘side’ issue, or as a necessary ‘extra’ problem. At School and College Preparation for work begins in the education system. Although some efforts at integration have begun, young disabled children are still often separated from mainstream social groups by being sent to ‘special’ schools. This not only marginalises their own experiences, but also narrows the perspectives of both able-bodied children and teachers. It does much to establish, and confirm as ‘natural’, the general social attitudes towards disabled people.

194

Disabled People, (Re)Training and Employment

In this study, disabled respondents felt that both Disability and Deaf Awareness education could usefully be included in a variety of youth organisations. This could help to break down some of the perceived barriers at an early stage of people’s lives, when prejudices are still being formed. Deaf respondents felt that BSL (British sign language) should be offered as a language subject in all schools. Particularly among mature disabled adults we found a significant proportion who were doing everything they could to improve their academic qualifications and practical skills. A number were taking college courses in the evenings or in their spare time. For the Deaf, the paucity of BSL skills among trainers and educators presents a problem: ‘I’m on an English refresher course, but the tutor has only got Stage 1 (BSL). I feel a lot of time is wasted because of the lack of communication’ (disabled person). English was, indeed, a popular subject but other disciplines were also being studied, such as computing, word-processing and other aspects of information technology. These latter subjects were a particular source of frustration because of the length of time it took for people to find work, and the speed at which the programmes in which they were skilled were outdated by newer software. Training and Work Experience Although marginalisation continues well beyond the school years, its form and content changes. Disabled people find themselves in a labyrinth of processes organised by ‘employment professionals’: careers officers, training agencies, social services, mainstream job-centre staff, and disability employment advisors (DEA). Indeed, some disabled respondents felt they were on a ‘conveyor belt’ of short-term training and work experience courses, punctuated by attempts to improve their education at colleges: ‘They keep fobbing me off with work experience and training, and I just want to get a job’ (disabled person). Some people did not know categorically whether they would be paid for any work experience, or could claim their travel expenses, or if the training and assessment they received would ‘count’ for their DEA. Others were attempting to cram two years’ study into one, because they could only be sure of one year’s funding. Some respondents felt they received contradictory messages from the different employment professionals with whom they were involved; that a tension existed between exhortations to be independent, and a reluctance to concede that disabled people were ever ready to be so:

Gillian Reynolds, Phillip Nicholls and Catrina Alferoff

195

They want me to try and help myself to find a job . . . but when I said ‘Well, I’ll go and find myself a job’, they would say, ‘No, you can’t, not yet’. They felt that I would be wasting the employer’s time. (Disabled person) People with learning disabilities are often excluded from training for work, as distinct from training for social life. One intermediary noted that, ‘Social Services don’t acknowledge that people with learning disabilities might be interested in employment’. Among intermediaries who work with this group, there was a feeling that the concept of ‘independence’ has a specific and peculiar meaning when applied to people with learning disabilities. Barriers to Career Progression Although disabled people in employment, both nationally and locally, are concentrated in the skilled non-manual and semi-skilled manual groups, issues emerged in this study around their marginalisation when it comes to career progression. Some of these issues were further related to continuing experience and training – something which applied quite widely, but affected the Deaf differently from other groups because of a regional shortage of qualified sign-supporters. A number of people had excluded themselves from further in-service training because they had not wanted to ‘come out’ as dealing with a disability: others found that they were simply ignored when people were being invited to take up short courses. Some felt that leaders of in-service training were insufficiently trained in disability and deaf awareness skills. A major barrier to career progression undoubtedly lies in the perceived lack of support people receive from their line managers; indeed the importance of supportive managers was cited by many disabled respondents as the main resource for survival in a hostile workplace. Whilst several people clearly had very committed and supportive managers, the majority were not so fortunate. One person, who had taken a three-year course on factory management, and applied for promotion as a section manager, was turned down on the grounds that they couldn’t run around the factory floor. Other misconceptions among potential employers and/or managers included a belief that disabled people ‘never’ produce as much work as able-bodied people; that they will ‘necessarily’ have a worse sickness record than most other employees; and that other employees will ‘definitely’ have to ‘carry’ their disabled colleagues.

196

Disabled People, (Re)Training and Employment

Whilst recruitment of disabled people was being monitored by some organisations, we found little evidence that existing employees are monitored for promotion or career progression. In addition to the lack of promotion, the study identified a widespread practice of ‘ghettoisation’ of disabled people. This occurred in two ways: (a) they were often ‘expected’ to know all about issues relating to disability: ‘If anybody wants to know anything about disability legislation . . . who do they run to? Me! And that’s not my specialist area, any more than it is anybody else’s’ (disabled person); and (b) they were often asked to work alongside or support other disabled people, thus marginalising themselves and each other in the workplace. It was typically felt by this group of disabled people that employers do not fully understand the principle of support workers: ‘They think they can pick someone off the street and ask them to do support work . . . they don’t grasp the practicalities of what we need’ (focus group participant). The oft-cited possibility of having support workers who work on a voluntary basis was unacceptable to these respondents because this would leave disabled people powerless to dictate the best methods (for them) of undertaking tasks. They felt that the Employment Service and employers could cooperate better with disabled employees to develop a more satisfactory arrangement for the funding of support workers. Sliding to the Edges People who become disabled whilst in employment often experience a gradual process of marginalisation, beginning with colleagues who no longer seek their expertise, but look elsewhere for it. In some instances this amounts to victimisation, in which the disabled person finds that: ‘I’m now invisible, and I’m not part of the team any more’ (focus group participant). According to the postal survey of the workforce, most workers are now placed into teams for achieving organisational objectives. Because of this, misconceptions about the working capacity of disabled people become interwoven with the ‘sidelining’ of their expertise; indeed, a number of respondents to the survey commented that a disabled person could not operate as a full team member. This suggests that, despite these changes in the way that tasks and jobs are carried out, the ‘team’ is seen mainly as a collection of individuals, all of whom are expected to have similar skills and abilities, rather than as a generic and flexible resource for achieving particular goals.

Gillian Reynolds, Phillip Nicholls and Catrina Alferoff

197

Victimisation by colleagues is matched by reported marginalisation by managers and employers. A number of people claimed unjust and unfair practices, such as oppressive tactics. Others reported that their employers had simply ‘dragged their feet’ over seeking information about resources, or that appeal was made to employers’ insurance costs as a way of encouraging people to take early retirement or ill-health pensions. The public sector was sometimes singled out here: ‘With the range of . . . jobs they have to offer . . . they too often discharge people, saying there is no alternative employment suitable for them. You do have to query that after a while’ (intermediary). One person who had worked in the manufacturing sector reported visits from a personnel manager whilst still suffering a nervous breakdown, and – without anyone else present – being ‘encouraged’ to sign away any possibility of returning to work. They felt they had been dissuaded from contacting their union representative. The cumulative anecdotal evidence here suggests that – through paternalism, fear, ignorance or prejudice – many employers, and their representatives, engage in questionable practices in order to push employees who become disabled, to the margins of the workplace. Denial of Access The term ‘access’ covers a number of different issues apart from the obvious one of physical access into and around buildings: access to the labour market, to information on jobs and resources, and to resources which enable the disabled person to take a job or retain a position. Problems of access were reported by all participants in the research. They occurred at all stages from preparing for work, to holding on to a position when the person becomes disabled whilst in employment. Preparation for Work At the stage of preparing for work, almost all respondents with mobility impairments encountered problems of access. Sometimes this was access into and around further or higher education buildings and training establishments. At other times, the issue was about access to training which would lead ultimately to jobs instead of being an end in itself; or to communication for further education or training, such as an interpreter or sign-supporter. A complex network of organisations exists to help disabled people in their preparation for work, but this complexity itself produces problems.

198

Disabled People, (Re)Training and Employment

One disabled respondent, for example, had clearly become entangled in an unhelpful pattern of communication between the careers service, training agencies and the DEA: They work separately, the careers office and the DEA . . . the DEA said that all my work experience hasn’t told her anything properly – that anybody could say that I’m good at this or good at that – and that she couldn’t do anything until I’ve finished this training course . . . Sometimes I feel like piggy-in-the-middle. (Disabled person) Looking for Work The way in which any individual carries out their job search is linked to the level of information acquired on available resources. The DEA plays a crucial role in supplying information on jobs and employers. This may, or may not, be to the advantage of job-seekers since disabled people are dependent on the relationship between the individual DEA, other job-centre staff, and local employers. According to one intermediary, another particular obstacle lies in the length of time for which good jobs are actually advertised on job-centre boards: ‘A good job will come off the board within three minutes’. In terms of access to real work, issues relate to application forms and interviews, equal opportunities, and job-design. An ongoing debate exists among disabled people concerning the optimum time to disclose their disability: in application forms, or at an interview (although clearly, some people have no option here). The debate emerged because of doubts about getting access to an interview if a disability had already been acknowledged in the application form. Since some employers have begun to guarantee interviews to suitably qualified disabled applicants, disclosing a disability has become a tactical decision. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requires that reasonable adjustments are made to the workplace so that a disabled person is not substantially disadvantaged in recruitment or employment, compared to a non-disabled person. ‘Reasonable adjustments’ include access to (and within) buildings, facilities, equipment and materials, communication and additional training where necessary. Disabled respondents reported that the reality of adaptations, and provision of resources such as equipment and support workers did not live up to the formal definition of that resource. Generally speaking, we found that employers, and also the current workforce, were ill-informed concerning the availability

Gillian Reynolds, Phillip Nicholls and Catrina Alferoff

199

of specialised equipment for disabled people, and the mechanisms for obtaining it. Perhaps inevitably, there were also very different ideas about what constitutes reasonable adjustment in the workplace. For some employers it was a health and safety issue; for others it was a financial one. Costs, however, cannot be the only reason why disabled people find it difficult to get work: ‘Lots of disabled people don’t need money spending on them . . . it leads you to think that there are other reasons why it is that in every other office that you look in, where are the disabled people?’ (focus group participant). Access to work is also framed by the design of jobs. Different employment sectors were markedly different in their approaches to this issue: ‘To me the Act has brought home that it’s not about the job and slotting somebody into it, it’s about thinking that the job could be altered to actually fit the best person to do the job’ (employer, service). The service sector demonstrated, on the whole, a thoughtful approach; the manufacturing and distribution sectors, however, were generally less sympathetic: ‘My work is timed and demands immediate solutions’ commented one respondent to the postal survey. Disabled respondents, on the other hand, felt there was a basic logic to having a flexible job-structure which could accommodate the needs of both the employing organisation and the employees: ‘It seems to me to make sense to be able to adjust things within the working environment. But if you’ve got a disability and you want something adjusting, that seems to be different’ (disabled person). Some disabled respondents also felt that extra resources for disabled people are sometimes seen by employers as (inadmissible) positive discrimination. This contrasts strongly with the situation for able-bodied people where such extra costs are often regarded as simply the price of obtaining the best candidate. In these cases: ‘an employer will move heaven and earth to get it right. I’ve seen able-bodied candidates who were right for the job and I’ve sat there staggered at what has been accommodated’ (employer, service). The DEA is a crucial intermediary between employers and disabled people looking for work. Their working relationship with employers, however, is largely dependent on their past record of finding ‘good’ employees for them. Where this relationship has in some way been spoiled, detrimental consequences for other disabled people in the future may follow: ‘Some people let them go for any job. It wastes everybody’s time and it doesn’t make you look good in the eyes of the employer. So I choose the people and the jobs very carefully’ (intermediary).

200

Disabled People, (Re)Training and Employment

It can be seen, therefore, that although the role of the DEA is to enable disabled people to become financially independent, the structure of that process continues to depend upon a degree of collusion between the DEA and local employers. Disabled people must ‘perform well’, not only for the benefit of their employers and their own survival, but also to preserve the good relationship between the employer and the DEA for future disabled people. This means disabled people carry a significant extra burden of expectations and responsibilities compared to other employees when they begin work. Access Issues at Work Access issues at work depend upon a number of factors in addition to physical access to and within buildings. According to disabled respondents, barriers to career progression, for example, included misconceptions on the part of middle management about the abilities of disabled employees. Some employers felt that their able-bodied employees had generally positive attitudes to disabled colleagues, and were cooperative in any necessary changes to work-routine or job-design, whereas others were aware of resentment amongst their workforce. Some recognised the problems but felt they were unlikely to put a solution into practice: ‘We would like to provide disability awareness training, but it is well down the priority list – no current plan’ (employer, manufacturing). Other barriers were lack of access to in-service training, demands for mobility across sites, lack of resources to support employment, and the costs to the employer of such resources. Staff appraisals were seen by disabled respondents as a procedure which had been formally designed to ensure equality of access to promotion. The experience of some people, however, had been that the appraisal may be used as a persuasive tactic to ease them out of the organisation altogether. When Someone Becomes Disabled Whilst in Employment Those who become disabled whilst in employment find the crucial issue is about retaining access to the labour market. This requires an accommodating employer, who is willing and able to rearrange work or redeploy individual employees: ‘We have a policy of finding people alternative work, and amending work, jobs and machinery to try to fit their needs. We have organised work so they can continue working’ (employer, manufacturing).

Gillian Reynolds, Phillip Nicholls and Catrina Alferoff

201

The willingness of employers to retain and redeploy recently disabled employees varied according to both the nature of the industrial sector and the type of disability. Few employers had a clear company policy on retention and redeployment but, rather, cited possibilities for such action: these possibilities depended upon the perceived attitude of the disabled person, obligations to other employees, and costs which might be incurred. The role of the DEA at the stage of providing information on retraining and resources to enable recently disabled people to retain their jobs or retrain for other tasks, is not well-understood by employers in the county. There is a need for education and training of employers and their managers: They don’t always understand what exists . . . If someone is developing a health problem, it’s probably not in their mind that there may be someone at the job centre that could help them to keep their job – the job centre is seen as a place where you find work, rather than retain a job. (Intermediary) Finding out about the resources available to enable disabled employees to retain their jobs can be a lengthy process, and difficult or unwilling employers contribute to the problems for their disabled employees. Most of the disabled respondents were knowledgeable about what DEAs could do, but this information had often only been acquired once that person had become unemployed, or had slipped downwards in their employment status. They felt that the burden of finding out about resources had fallen upon them, rather than the employer: A hearing device [a portable loop system] was available from the DEA that would have helped when I was going to meetings. I’m not invited to meetings now. Had I known about that probably ten years ago, I might not be in the position I am in now at work. (Disabled person) Societal Attitudes Disabled people’s experiences regarding employment are framed within, and articulated through, prevailing social attitudes towards disability (Morris, 1993). At best, these attitudes embody an individualist view of disability: that it is an individual problem, a tragedy; they are people who need protecting and looking after, but that the circumstances

202

Disabled People, (Re)Training and Employment

remain the disabled person’s ‘problem’. At worst, social attitudes are blatantly prejudiced and ablist, in a similar way to racism or sexism, in which the disabled person is viewed as abnormal and not quite ‘human’ (Oliver, 1990). Preparing for Work Segregation of disabled children into special schools is at least partially responsible for influencing social attitudes in the formative years. In the survey of the current workforce, most people believed that disabled people were generally not accepted in the world of work. Men were proportionately more likely to see the reason for this as functional – the disabled person’s ‘problem’ – whereas women seem more alerted to relational problems created by poor attitudes among able-bodied workers. Depressingly, those working in education were particularly identifiable as being sympathetic but having strong reservations about the feasibility of disabled colleagues. Looking for Work Disabled respondents reported encountering negative or paternalist attitudes day after day. Some employers recognised the place of these attitudes in the general culture of the labour market: ‘It is disappointing that we haven’t got a higher proportion of the workforce from the disabled. Perhaps it’s something to do with our culture as an organisation’ (employer, service). Disabled people looking for work must overcome attitudinal hurdles connected with application forms and letters, and must then face interviews. Many narratives were told about interview experiences, indicating a situation in which ignorant attitudes, prejudices and discrimination are rife: ‘Ignorance makes me very angry, but I just sit through it all at interviews . . . People who have been in personnel for years don’t know, and I think they should be getting their act together’ (disabled person). Enlightened employers acknowledged that everyone has prejudices, and that keeping a ‘watching brief’ is essential at all levels. The effectiveness of equal opportunity monitoring for all disabled applicants depends also, of course, on the cooperation of interviewees – especially in terms of disclosure of disability by those who are physically able to conceal it. Yet few of the employers in this study had even got as far as introducing such systems: ‘I must admit we did some interviewing . . . and I never did ask if they had a disability . . . It’s on the front page of the application form, and it’s never stopped us going any further’ (employer,

Gillian Reynolds, Phillip Nicholls and Catrina Alferoff

203

distribution). The application form in question, like most of those observed in the course of this study, would not have been acceptable under the DDA. Again, retraining is needed on the design of application forms. Recruitment practices varied between different organisations and occupational sectors. Less-than-stringent monitoring practices in some sectors means that unspoken assumptions and prejudices can remain unchallenged and unacknowledged: ‘We are equal opportunity employers . . . we always ask our employees if they have any family, friends or neighbours who are out of work’ (employer, distribution). Some intermediaries thought that employers were frightened to take responsibility for employing disabled people, worried that in the event of further harm, they may be sued. Disabled people, on the other hand, were often more critical, believing that employers pay lip-service to the principle of employing disabled people, without the parallel commitment once those people are recruited: I think the main thing for employers is to stand by their policies and not just pay lip service to them . . . Training of the workforce is necessary. It’s not good enough to say, ‘We want people to come’. They’ve got to make it possible for people to come. (Disabled person) Attitudes at Work Paternalist attitudes emerged from the postal survey in terms of views about the workplace as being ‘too hazardous’ for disabled people. Both intermediaries and disabled people expressed frustration at what they perceived to be immoral and exploitative practices of employing disabled people because they were disabled. Examples cited here were that autistic people are useful for computing, because they are less inclined to relate to each other, that deaf people work well on assembly lines because they don’t talk to other people, and that people with learning disabilities ‘enjoy boring jobs’. There is a grave danger that the so-called ‘business argument’ for employing disabled people – that employers can generate further profit from the nature of their disability – will encourage increasing exploitation in this way. This study identified disabled people’s experiences of employer attitudes as overwhelmingly negative, although there was a small number of notable exceptions. Whilst expressing sympathy, however, these exceptions also tended to collude with prevailing attitudes in which disability is perceived as a personal tragedy: ‘Sometimes disabled people will have a “chip” on their shoulder. Our staff need to understand this and to work with it’ (employer, manufacturing).

204

Disabled People, (Re)Training and Employment

In a minority of cases, disabled workers found themselves on the receiving end of outright bullying or harassment; more often, however, employer practices constituted less blatant discrimination: ‘Under the DDA they have to make reasonable adjustments and that includes . . . swapping round your duties. But they refused steadfast to do that’ (disabled person). Deaf people seemed to be a group particularly singled out for unfair practices by employers, such as refusals to pay for BSL interpreters for important meetings or in-service training. Again there were notable exceptions, such as a manufacturing company which brings in interpreters for every meeting with the workers. Although some disabled respondents stated that their colleagues had very negative attitudes towards them, the survey of the current workforce suggested that the idea of working alongside disabled people brought out fear more than outright hostility: ‘Not knowing whether to help them sometimes or see them struggle – trying hard to ignore their disability then ending up patronising them’ (male, workforce survey). Respondents to the postal survey often blamed poor attitudes among managers: that reduced expectations of management, a general lack of concern for all employees, and a ruthless determination to maintain profits were organisational preoccupations which damaged any prospect of a supportive work environment for disabled people. The majority of physically disabled people nowadays comprise those who have become disabled in adulthood, either as a direct result of their employment, or as a consequence of accident, illness or failing health (Oliver, 1990). Attitudes experienced in the workplace – with very few exceptions – were those of social exclusion by their colleagues, and increasing surveillance of their work and activities but without a parallel willingness to learn from disabled colleagues or employees. Many disabled people in this study had already experienced the kind of prejudice which eventually prevails in this situation, and had found themselves being ‘eased out’ of the organisation altogether, and effectively ‘de-skilled’. Their next step was often to begin looking for work as a disabled person, with its attendant likelihood of a further descent of the occupational ladder into work for which they were overqualified and intellectually overskilled.

CONCLUSION Substantially, this study confirmed the findings of previous sociological studies of disabled people’s experiences in the UK. Despite differences

Gillian Reynolds, Phillip Nicholls and Catrina Alferoff

205

in individual circumstances, the overwhelming reality obstinately remains an experience of being pushed to the ‘edges’ of society: in the built environment; in access to resources and information; and in social attitudes that see disability as a ‘natural’ personal tragedy which necessarily structures a person’s whole life experience. The ignorant attitudes, the marginalisation, the exclusion from places, transport, resources, communication, information and support are experienced at all points of the life course. Because most people see these issues as individual problems caused by individual gaps in skills, rather than as a societal problem caused by constitutional, structural, cultural and social myopia, disabled people are perceived as being ‘hard-to-employ’. In one sense, of course, this is the reality. Disabled people are more likely to be unemployed, more likely to be labelled as ‘discouraged workers’, and more likely to be employed in a job which does not fully utilise their skills. Those who are born disabled, or who become disabled in childhood, are less likely than their able-bodied peers to begin their search for work with adequate social and technical skills. In relation to continuing training and education, there is anecdotal evidence here to suggest that the mushrooming of publicly-funded training agencies and companies has occurred on a somewhat haphazard basis. An impression remains of a muddled scramble for funding, unrelated to local disabled people’s requirements and aspirations. Some people are caught up in the middle of breakdowns in communication between those who advise on a career, those who carry out the training, those who pay the benefits and the funding, and those whose task it is to match skills and available occupations. The client is aware of the difficulties, but is powerless to change their own circumstances: sometimes they don’t even know what kind of training they are going into, how long it will be funded for, whether they can even claim their travel expenses to the training providers (a substantial cost to those who are denied access to all transport but taxis), or the likely outcomes in terms of employment. If and when they do find employment, they must still negotiate and fight against poor physical access, poor communication skills, ‘sidelining’ by employers and colleagues, and general negative and prejudiced attitudes. People who begin their work-life as disabled, however, are in a minority. The majority of disabled people are those who have become disabled in adulthood: through accident or illness, as a result of better survival rates through technological developments, or as a consequence of hazardous occupational or working conditions. These people cannot be described as ‘hard-to-employ’ in the same way. On the contrary, this

206

Disabled People, (Re)Training and Employment

label can only be applied here to employers who find it ‘hard-to-employ’ them. This begs the question: who are the ‘unskilled’ who need ‘skilling’? We have argued in this chapter that the ‘unskilled’ are the able-bodied population: employers, managers and their workforce. Whilst disability awareness training schemes appear to be gathering momentum in some regions, such as London and the south of England (Cunningham and James, 1998), there remains a dire need for more significant investment in the training of employees (at all levels) in disability and deaf awareness. Those involved in recruitment and personnel – sitting on interview panels, creating application forms, staff training and development, equal opportunities issues – would also benefit from more sustained training on the spirit as well as the letter of the Disability Discrimination Act. Disablement does not automatically remove a ‘skill’ from someone. Where this occurs in a functional sense, there is a wealth of technological resources available to compensate for body parts which work less well. Even here, people frequently learn for themselves, over a period of time, new ways of compensating for functional impairment. Most importantly, however, the experience and intellectual expertise, or skill, is rarely damaged. Politicians and economists must recognise that if the current investment in welfare-to-work were matched by investment in training of the able-bodied population, significant savings could be achieved in retraining of – and compensatory benefits to – disabled people.

References Barnes, C. (1992) ‘The Education, Training and Employment of Disabled People’, Personnel Review, vol. 21 (6): 55–73. Cunningham, I. and James, P. (1998) ‘Managing Diversity and the Disability Discrimination Act: Catalysts for Eradicating Discrimination against Disabled People in the Workplace?’, paper presented to the 13th Annual Employment Research Unit Conference – Disadvantage and Discrimination in Employment, Cardiff University, September. Finkelstein, V. (1980) Attitudes and Disabled People (New York: World Rehabilitation Fund). Martin, J., White, A., Meltzer, H. and Elliot, D. (1988–9) OPCS Surveys of Disability, vols 1–4 (London: HMSO). Morrell, J. (1990) The Employment of People with Disabilities: Research into the Policies and Practices of Employers; research paper no. 77 (London: Employment Department). Morris, J. (1993) ‘Prejudice’, in J. Swain, V. Finkelstein, S. French and M. Oliver (eds), Disabling Barriers – Enabling Environments (London: Sage/Open University), pp. 101–6.

Gillian Reynolds, Phillip Nicholls and Catrina Alferoff

207

Oliver, M. (1990) The Politics of Disablement (Basingstoke: Macmillan). Oliver, M. (1991) ‘Disability and Participation in the Labour Market’, in P. Brown and R. Scase (eds), Poor Work: Disadvantage and the Division of Labour (Buckinghamshire: Open University Press), pp. 132–46. Painter, R., Puttick, K. and Holmes, A. (1998) Employment Rights: A Reference Handbook, 2nd edn (London: Pluto). Prescott-Clarke, P. (1990) Employment and Handicap (London: Social and Community Planning Research). Reynolds, G. (1994) ‘Work, Charity and Physical/Sensory Impairment: Biographical Accounts of the Re-negotiation and Subversion of Dominant Ideologies’, Staffordshire University: PhD thesis, unpublished. Reynolds, G., Alferoff, C. and Nicholls, P. (1997) ‘ “It’s the Job that’s Wrong, Not the Person that’s Wrong to do the Job” Disabled People and Employment’, Staffordshire: Housing and Community Research Unit, Staffordshire University. Roulstone, A. (1998) Enabling Technology: Disabled People, Work and New Technology (Buckingham: Open University). Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation (1993) Disability and Discrimination in Employment (London: RADAR). Silverman, D. (1997) Qualitative Researching: Theory, Method and Practice (London: Sage). Thornton, P. and Lunt, N. (1995) Employment for Disabled People: Social Obligation or Individual Responsibility?, Social Policy Reports no 2. University of York: Social Policy Research Unit.

13 The Full Monty: Men into Women’s Work? Irene Bruegel1

INTRODUCTION Ed Balls, the advisor to the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, saw British men as having lost ‘the battle of the sexes’ for jobs by the mid-1990s (Balls, 1994; Coward, 1999). Indeed, in certain areas of Britain, women are as likely to have a job as men (Benn, 1998). Unemployment trends, especially for the less-qualified, certainly give the impression that men in Britain are losing out in the share of all the jobs available. Feminisation of employment does not spell the feminisation of power, but some writers have suggested it means the feminisation of men (McDowell, 1991), whilst others argue that it may signal a shift in gender relations (Bradley, 1998). The British Equal Opportunities Commission have increasingly taken up complaints from men about sex discrimination (EOC, 1996). This chapter examines the case for seeing individual men as potential victims of the sex stereotyping that otherwise structures male labour market advantage in Britain. The discussion is divided into two parts: first, the gender restructuring process in Britain in the 1980s and 1990s is analysed; and, second, the attributes of the men who have been able to enter jobs that are generally type-cast as female are considered. The barriers to working across the gender divide are such that those that do so are in some ways atypical. An examination of their characteristics should demonstrate something of the barriers to ‘genderincongruent’ working. The raw picture of women holding an ever greater proportion of jobs needs to be qualified, of course. Men still hold the bulk of the full-time jobs, the better-paid jobs and the jobs that offer both status and power.2 Moreover, the growing female proportion of the labour market active population has not generally implied any forced displacement of men from paid work. There is equally no reason to suppose that there is a fixed quota of jobs, such that those held by women are held at the expense of men. 208

209

Irene Bruegel

It is, however, possible to argue that current processes of feminisation are different, that female labour is not only sought when male labour becomes scarce or for jobs that men avoid, but because women are seen to offer skills and attributes that are increasingly positively valued. Table 13.1 shows how the ‘masculinisation’ of unemployment is particularly strong for those lacking qualifications. At the same time, countervailing forces to feminisation are to be expected, as the supply of women begins to reach limits imposed by the division of domestic work and the limited availability of childcare. Equally, as male unemployment rises relative to female, and as stiffer availability for work conditions are implemented, some men at least can be expected to be priced into work at female rather than male rates of pay. Indeed, Table 13.1 shows that the rate of ‘masculinisation’ of unemployment began to slow towards the end of the 1990s. It is possible to ask, in these circumstances, whether the change in gender relations might herald a breach in the sex-typing of jobs from the male side, with increasing numbers of men willing to take, and be accepted for, traditionally female types of work.

UNDERSTANDING FEMINISATION We can identify four different models of feminisation with very different assumptions about the rigidity with which jobs are sex-typed, and Table 13.1

Females as a proportion of those in the UK labour market

Females as a % of

1983

1988

1991

1995

1996

1997

All employees and self-employed Unqualified employees and self-employed All registered unemployed All ILO unemployed All ILO unqualified unemployed

39.5

43.7

44.3

44.2

46.2

46.2

43.3

48.1

49.5

53.5

54.7

54.4

28.1

32.4

32.1

23.7

24.0

23.4

35.3

38.8

36.5

34.7

35.6

37.3

31.3

36.1

33.7

32.7

33.9

32.6

Notes: Data compiled from Labour Market Trends and unpublished Labour Force Survey data.

210

The Full Monty

very different predictions about the short and long-term impact on men’s employment: 1. The first, most common understanding of feminisation focuses on structural change at level of the economy as a whole and assumes a rigid sex-typing of jobs. Feminisation occurred as ‘female jobs’ expanded relative to male, both with the shift from manufacturing to services and from blue-collar to white-collar work. In this sense, sex stereotyping has afforded women a measure of job protection compared to men (Rubery and Fagan, 1994). Even within occupations, feminisation can be seen to proceed along traditional sexstereotyped lines, with female sub-areas of work expanding at the expense of male. This structural argument which treats male and female labour markets as if they were entirely independent and employers as merely responding to autonomous shifts in demand and/or technological change, stands in marked contrast to other accounts of feminisation which assume a degree of potential substitution. 2. The second theorisation of feminisation rests on the degree of competition for jobs and for labour. Reserve-army theory and Thurow’s queuing model suggest that women tend to be employed when shortages of male labour become apparent (Thurow, 1984). In this account, feminisation leaves male structures of power intact. However far women enter male employment domains, the stratification of occupations and the assigning of individuals to jobs remain dominated by the interests of men as owners, managers and, sometimes, as workers (Strober, 1984; Cockburn, 1985). Similar processes can be seen to operate at the industrial and occupational level; as men left clerical jobs for better-paid work, women entered (Cohn, 1985). Within this model, feminisation is associated with occupational upgrading for men, rather than displacement of men. Even if ‘male flight’ from any given occupation is initially stimulated by a downgrading of conditions of work and pay for men, feminisation results in upward social mobility for men, relative to women, at the least. A queuing model is seen as operating within occupations, to produce patterns of ghettoisation; men shift up to, and hold on to, the better jobs within any occupation: as surgeons rather than GPs, as teachers of postgraduates rather than first-year undergraduates, as accountants and lawyers in the private sector rather than in the public or voluntary sectors. The model operates with a fixed set of

Irene Bruegel

211

employer preferences, implying that men will re-enter feminised jobs as the economy contracts. In practice the pattern of increasing male unemployment vis-à-vis women through the 1980s and early 1990s, and of declining pay for certain groups of men, suggests that women are no longer viewed as a second-best alternative, only to be employed when men are not available. The process of feminisation has then been more like a ratchet, than a simple queuing process. 3. The third form of theorisation is associated with the substitution of female for male labour within different types of enterprise, where women are brought in for their supposedly female attributes. This would include ‘traditional’ explanations for feminisation, the use of women as cheap, deskilled mass production labour and as a flexible labour force. More interesting is where this analysis stresses positive female attributes, for example where new ‘more female’ management styles are said to be in demand (Wajcman, 1998) or where neo-Fordist changes in the work ethic suggest a shift from lifelong commitment to a career or trade, towards a briefer but closer personal identification with the product or service (Hochschild, 1983; Leidner, 1991; Tomlinson et al., 1997). These formulations imply a degree of sex stereotyping. Instead of considering how gendered labour market skills, like nimble fingers, are developed, they are taken as inborn. (Glucksman, 1990; Pearson, 1985). More sophisticated queuing models allow for the queues to be reordered, such that women may come to be preferred (Reskin and Roos, 1990). The change in the structure of employment is no longer autonomous, or strictly demand-driven, but highly gendered; feminisation is intrinsic to the change in the form of production. Jobs can be downgraded because women are available to work. Male flight is then a consequence rather than a cause of feminisation, and may well not involve upward social mobility. 4. A fourth form of feminisation relates to changes at the level of the state and in social norms. The impact of equal opportunity legislation and the women’s movement may have been slower than was first expected, but can be said to have produced a general recognition that discrimination is both unfair and uncompetitive. Even if discrimination is still rife, it is rather less overt. Much of the feminisation at the top end of the labour market probably reflects greater educational achievement amongst young women. The relative improvement in women’s qualifications can, however, be seen as a second-round effect of greater opportunities for women in work. But the assumption that women’s employment has increased as

212

The Full Monty a result of equal opportunities legislation sits unhappily with the analysis of continued wage discrimination in the UK labour market. Harkness (1996) shows, for example, that women’s qualifications, experience and hours of work are underpaid, relative to the male norm.

The processes of feminisation can be seen to be cumulative. If feminisation is associated with a decline in male pay and employment conditions within an industry or occupation, such deterioration of condition will also fuel feminisation, depending on patterns of opportunities elsewhere in the economy. If feminisation shifts employers’ perceptions of female skills and opens up opportunities, women may gain more training, narrowing, or even reversing, the skills gap over time. Equally, if feminisation reduces the number of prejudiced male gatekeepers, it will be self-fuelling, at least to an extent. Thus, while some limits to feminisation can be expected, particularly if barriers to the participation of women in full-time work persist, there is no simple equilibrating mechanism. Certainly, change in pay for men and women relate poorly, and extremely slowly, to changes in the demand for male and female labour. The four models, based as they are in different views of the malleability of sex-typing of jobs, offer rather different prognoses for the prospects for men. If there are two entirely independent labour markets, feminisation will only be counteracted by the generation of more ‘male’ jobs, or with the distribution of male working hours more evenly between men. Even this may require a cut in male income and a renegotiating of gender relations in the home. If feminisation is merely a cyclical phenomenon, defeminisation can be expected with every downturn in the economy, particularly if childcare provision fails to meet need. If, on the other hand, women are coming to be the preferred workforce, gaining jobs because they have skills that men lack, the implication is that new programmes of education and training are required, including the organisation of male-only training for skills that go against the grain of male upbringing, notably caring skills. In practice the issue for employers tends to be the attitudes and maturity of male, as against female, applicants, suggesting a need for reprogramming male attitudes and expectations. If women are effectively undercutting male wages, however unwittingly, an adjustment in the relative price of male and female labour would seem to be required to reverse any negative effects of feminisation, raising the question of why market processes have sustained the imbalance so long.

Irene Bruegel

213

Similarly, if equal opportunity policies are chipping away at male privilege, however slowly, the adjustment cost needs to be spread across all groups of men, rather than to be borne unduly by workingclass men, otherwise one form of inequality is simply being swapped for another.

PATTERNS OF GENDER RESTRUCTURING IN BRITAIN SINCE THE 1970s None of these models of feminisation provides an adequate account of gender restructuring in Britain over the last 15 years. Despite the fact that they are based on quite different basic assumptions about the immutability of sex-typing of jobs, each can nevertheless be said to contribute something to an analysis of change. Structural Change in the Economy There can be little doubt that the shift from manufacturing to services and from blue-collar to white-collar work was responsible for the shift in Britain from an economy in which men held 70 per cent of all jobs in 1954 to one in which women hold some 48 per cent. The shift in women’s share of all employees from 41.7 per cent to 46.8 per cent between 1981 and 1991 (5.1 percentage points) can be decomposed into two parts. Even if a fine level of disaggregation – to 166 occupations – is used, over half the change (3 percentage points) comes from feminisation within individual occupations, and nearly half (2 percentage points) from the shift in the economy towards white-collar service occupation in that period. Shifts in the structure of the economy are therefore part of the explanation for feminisation, but only part. Analysis of feminising occupations at a relatively fine scale, suggests that sex-typing is by no means fixed. Feminising jobs in Table 13.2 refer to all those in which the increase in the proportion of women was greater than average, treating part-time and full-time jobs as equivalent. Table 13.2 looks at shifts in gender composition for occupations that were feminising between 1981 and 1991, selected to include only those occupations in which women’s employment share increased faster than average, in which at least 45 000 women worked in 1991. These occupations are ranked according to the scale of the shift towards female employees, from a more than doubling for accountants, to the average shift – that is an increase of 12 per cent in the proportion of women

214

The Full Monty

amongst hospital orderlies and laboratory technicians, the first a highly feminised occupation. Table 13.2 identifies quite large shifts in the proportion of women employed in relatively regulated occupational categories like accountants and lawyers. This suggests that the change in gender composition was real, and not merely a compositional effect or a reflection of a change in the nature of the work. Queues and Reserve Armies At the same time, Table 13.2 shows that feminising occupations in the period 1981–91 grew faster than average, in line with the predictions of Table 13.2

Feminising occupations, 1981–91*

Proportion female 1981 Accountants, valuers, finance specialists Personnel/industrial relations managers Marketing/public relations managers, etc. Sales representatives/ agents Teachers in higher education Office managers Vocational/industrial trainers, etc. All other managers Supervisors: clerks, civil service All other prof. supporting management Managers: wholesale/ retail distribution Laboratory/engineering technicians/etc. Ambulancemen, hospital orderlies Total (all occupations)

1991

Total employment index (1981 = 1)

Male employment index (1981 = 1)

10.92

24.38

1.59

1.20

29.17

57.07

1.31

0.56

15.90

31.01

1.69

1.16

14.37

24.99

0.96

.71

26.13

42.92

1.79

1.01

25.44 27.85

41.68 44.55

2.07 1.51

1.21 0.83

31.26 49.90

45.94 64.98

1.84 1.06

0.99 0.74

44.85

56.85

1.81

1.40

27.21

34.28

1.14

0.75

22.46

28.20

1.13

0.81

76.67

88.48

2.72

1.34

41.75

46.82

1.12

.97

Notes: *Excludes those employing less than 45 000 women, 1991. Source: Census of Population, 1981 and 1991.

Irene Bruegel

215

queuing theory. The pattern of occupational growth for occupations included in Table 13.2 shows that male employment rose faster /declined less than average for most feminising occupations; but some decline in male employment was evident in occupations such as personnel and industrial relations managers, vocational trainers and wholesale and retail managers. How far this decline was associated with ‘male flight’ to better jobs, as queuing models suggest, cannot be discerned from census data of this kind. In Table 13.3, occupations are divided into five types, with feminising occupations divided into two: those with an above average proportion of men in 1981 and those with more females than average for all occupations. The former are referred to as ‘m.f.os’ in what follows. The latter are classed as ‘female consolidating occupations’. In 1981–91 they included supervisors of clerks, professionals supporting managers and hospital orderlies. As in 1981–91, some male jobs were lost in ‘m.f.os’ but the loss was small when set against job loss in other ‘male occupations’. The last two columns of Table 13.3 relate to males in each type of occupation in 1995, analysed by whether they left their job because they were sacked or made redundant in the period to 1996, and whether they were still in employment in 1996. The results suggests that not all male job loss from ‘m.f.os’ was voluntary, or to jobs offering men better prospects, as queuing theory tends to suggest (Reskin and Roos, 1990).The rate of involuntary movement was lower than from other types of occupations, but it suggests that male flight to better jobs does not invariably precede feminisation. Female Labour as Attractive to Employers More broadly, the pattern of increasing male unemployment vis-à-vis women, suggests that women are no longer viewed as a second-best alternative, only to be employed when men are not available. Feminisation can be linked to the growth of part-time and short-term employment. Many of the barriers to men entering expanding sectors of the labour market relate to the organisation of work on a part-time basis. Although male part-time work has increased at a much faster rate than female throughout the 1990s, analysis of cases taken by men to industrial tribunals show that employers frequently refuse to consider men for part-time jobs, because – aside from students – they are considered to be waiting to move on to a full-time job (Bruegel, 2000). Flexibilisation may be related to feminisation at the economywide level, but the rate of flexibilisation, as measured by the increase in

Occupation type

Exclusively male Maleconsolidating Defeminising No change Feminising m.f.os Femaleconsolidating All

216

Table 13.3

Rates of employee growth, 1981–91 and 1991–96, by types of occupation

1981–91

1991

1991–96

% employment change all men

% workforce

% employment change all men

Men employed 1995 % men left involuntarily 1995–6

% men not employed 1996

−18.5 −27.5

−19.5 −27.0

4.3 26.6

−22.9 −12.2

−21.9 −8.5

4.0 3.2

7.2 5.6

−2.5 −7.5 13.3

4.0 −12.5 −1.0

14.2 17.1 25.7

5.9 −1.6 −4.2

25.7 0.5 −6.8

5.3 2.8 2.3

11.5 5.2 4.6

5.2

−14.8

13.4

3.3

−9.5

2.8

5.4

−2.19

−10.69

100

−4.3

−4.3

3.1

5.8

Notes: Exclusively male occupations are those with more than 97% men in 1991 and 1996; male-consolidating are occupations in which men are a majority and in which the male share increased by more than 1% point between 1991–96; defeminising occupations are those with a disproportionate number of women in 1991 (more than 45% of labour force) in which the male share rose by more than 1 % point; no change are occupations in which the share of men and women changed less than 1% point; feminising occupations are male occupations in which the female share increased; female-consolidating are female occupations in which the female share rose. Larger feminising and defeminising jobs are listed in the Appendix. It is important to note that each of the categories: feminising, defeminising, consolidating etc. apply to different occupations in the two periods, for two reasons. First the occupational classification system was different and, secondly, some occupations moved from one category to the other. For further discussion of this data see Bruegel (2000).

Irene Bruegel

217

part-time, in temporary work and in jobs with fluctuating weekly hours, was not consistently greater in feminising jobs in 1991–96 than in other jobs (Bruegel, 2000). Deskilling Compared with other male occupations, ‘m.f.os’ are more often graduate occupations. There is certainly no evidence of a relative decline in the qualifications held by those in these jobs, but that does not say much about changes in skill requirements. This question is looked at in detail elsewhere, using different data-sets (Bruegel, 2000). The pattern of change within the economy as a whole has narrowed the advantage unqualified men once had over unqualified women, but this would seem to reflect ‘deindustrialisation’, rather than any deskilling process within occupations. Equal Opportunities and Qualifications An important aspect of feminisation is demographic turnover in the labour force and in individual occupations. Feminisation in ‘m.f.os’ occurs largely through younger, more-qualified women taking the place of older, less-qualified men as they retire or are made redundant. In that sense feminisation is associated with an overall shift towards a more qualified workforce. At the top end of the labour market it is clear that improvements in women’s qualifications have shifted patterns of access to high-paying jobs, without overturning the gender wage gap within many of these occupations. The trend of rising women’s entry into higher-level jobs is associated with the rising qualifications profile of young women, identified by Crompton and Sanderson (1990). Whereas in 1974–76 at every age group, women in full-time employment were less likely to be graduates than men, by 1990–92 women below the age of 35, employed full-time, were more likely to have degrees than employed men of that age. Part of this is a creaming process; there remain large numbers of women without qualifications without jobs, or working only part-time. The gender qualifications gap has been narrowing, but remains large across the labour force as a whole. While the entry of highly-qualified women into higher-grade jobs can be seen to reflect the implementation of equal opportunity policies in education and in entry to jobs, the lower pay of female graduates in such jobs demonstrates continuing, or even increased, wage and promotions discrimination. Female managers in male-dominated occupations

218

The Full Monty

were more often graduates than their male counterparts. Nevertheless their average hourly pay, according to the LFS, was around £9 an hour, compared to £14.40 for male managers in equivalent occupations. Defeminisation: Across the Great Divide Comparing the two periods 1981–91 and 1991–96, using the Labour Force Survey (LFS), rather than the Census for the second period, it would seem that the scale of feminisation in ‘m.f.os’ slowed in the later period (Table 13.3), and that there was some increase in the numbers of men in defeminising occupations. Most of these occupations are in fact integrated occupations where men and women have traditionally been employed relatively equally, often as first jobs: as bar staff, kitchen hands and sales assistants. Telesales would appear to be an addition to this group. Others are occupations which are found in a wide range of industries, such as assemblers and packers. There was, however, some evidence of men beginning to enter traditionally female low-paid work: as cleaners, educational assistants and care assistants. Numbers remain very small; though men were 13 per cent of cleaners in 1995–96 as against 11 per cent in 1991, they were less than 8 per cent of care assistants and less than 3 per cent of educational assistants in 1996. It is nevertheless worth considering how far any such defeminisation reflects the tendency of men to wield greater power in the labour market. There is a range of feminist research which shows that far from being discriminated against, men entering traditionally female jobs are on a fast track to managerial status (Williams, 1993). Feminists adopting forms of queuing theory have also shown that men only entered female jobs when these were restructured to offer improved rewards. Cockburn (1985) gives the example of radiographers in Britain, and Strober (1984) cites the unionisation of school-teaching in the USA in the postwar period as raising pay and simultaneously provoking defeminisation. Though the rate of feminisation slowed after 1991, it is still far more common, involving a much higher proportion of the labour force, than any countervailing defeminisation.

EXPLAINING PATTERNS OF GENDER-RESTRUCTURING IN BRITAIN It is evident that feminisation and defeminisation can, and do, occur side by side, just as occupational desegregation occurs alongside resegregation

Irene Bruegel

219

(Reskin and Roos, 1990). There are a number of ways of seeking to explain this conjuncture. It could reflect different patterns of demand, or different patterns of skill change and flexibilisation in different sectors or regions of the economy, issues we are not concerned with here. Or, as is discussed below, it could reflect complex patterns of change and continuity in relative pay for different types of work and different types of worker. Or it could reflect differences between different groups of men, as well as between different groups of women. To consider these last two issues, the differentiation developed earlier is augmented. In addition to comparing male jobs that were feminising and those that were not; and female jobs that were defeminising and those that were not, men working in feminised (that is female jobs) are compared to men working in male jobs and women working in male jobs are likewise compared to those in female jobs. These categories were established by ranking all 600 occupation units included in the LFS, by their gender composition, selecting the top and bottom occupations to the point where at least 1500 of the sample were of the atypical gender. Around 4.5 per cent of all men and women in work were in gender-incongruent jobs measured in this way. Integrated occupations were ignored in this analysis, the comparison being between men in highly female and highly male occupations, and between women in those two types of occupation (see Appendix). The double set of comparisons give both a static account, as at 1995–96 of those in gender-incongruent jobs and some dynamic account of those in jobs that were changing their profile over the period. Given that the period 1991–96 used in this analysis is relatively short, ‘m.f.os’ never transfer from the male to the feminised or female pole. Gender Restructuring and Pay Trends Queuing theory, drawing on the feminisation of clerical work through the century (Cohn, 1985), sees a relative decline in male pay in feminising occupations as a spur to male flight. In practice, in the short-term, patterns of pay change in feminising occupations in Britain today are rather more complex. Elias and Gregory’s (1994) analysis of occupational and pay trends over 15 years, confounds any simple picture of feminisation as undercutting (Table 13.4). They found that some occupations that were falling down the pay hierarchy were becoming more masculine – unskilled and semi-skilled industrial plant operatives for example – and that jobs which women were entering faster than men (or leaving less fast), fell into two groups: occupations where men’s

220

The Full Monty

Table 13.4

Change in sex ratios 1981–90 and change in relative pay UK 1975–91

Increasing 1981–90 Decreasing 1981–90

Occupations with female employment share

Occupations with relative male pay Rising 1975–91

Falling 1975–91

corporate managers (2) other professionals (5) other associate professionals (3) health professionals (1)

teachers (6) clerical (19) personal service (20) science and engineering professionals (8)

secretarial (13) industrial plant operators (15) other skilled trades (16)

Notes: Figures in parentheses are the modal rank of gross male earnings 1975–91. Source: Based on data from Elias and Gregory (1994).

wages were high and rising relative to others, and jobs where men’s wages were relatively low and falling. In the first group were health professionals and corporate managers, and in the second personal service work. This pattern is not surprising given the multitude of factors that structure relative pay, and the slow adjustment to any change in the gender composition of any workforce. But it would seem that men’s pay can be protected from erosion in some circumstances. It was possible to analyse the overall change in male pay between 1991 and 1996 for 19 of the occupations in the ‘m.f.o’ group, using New Earnings Survey (NES) data.3 A cross-sectional analysis showed the weighted average pay for men in these 19 occupations to be higher than the average for the male workforce as a whole, at £410 a week in 1991, as against £310 across the economy as a whole. Despite the decline in male jobs in some of those occupations and the feminisation of the occupations in question, the average pay for men in ‘m.f.os’ kept pace with the average, increasing by 26 per cent between 1991 and 1996 against an overall average increase of 24 per cent. This suggests that

221

Irene Bruegel Table 13.5

Pay in feminising and defeminising jobs, 1991–96 and in male and female jobs, 1996 Source

Male pay Hourly pay/ LFS95/6 male jobsa LFS95/6 Hourly pay/ female jobsa Ratio (female jobs= 1) Weekly pay 19 feminising NES96 jobsb 6 defeminising NES96 jobsb All jobs NES96 Female pay Hourly pay/ LFS95/6 male jobs Hourly pay/ LFS95/6 female jobs Ratio (female jobs= 1) Notes:

a

1991

1996

1991–96 increase

n/a

£8.55

n/a

n/a

£6.55

n/a

1.31

£410.40

£519.00

26.5%

£189.90

£209.90

10.5%

£310.00

£385.00

24.2%

n/a

£6.83

n/a

n/a

£5.83

n/a

1.17

listed in Appendix; blisted in Appendix and marked with *.

the decline in male employment was not primarily induced by deteriorating conditions for those in work, relative to those elsewhere in the economy. The picture for ‘m.f.os’ contrasts markedly with the fortunes of those men who entered the defeminising group of female occupations (Table 13.5). Numbers are so low that pay data is only available from the NES for men for six of these occupations. Pay in defeminising occupations was well-below average, at £210 for a full-time week in 1996, and was deteriorating. This is in line with findings of low hourly pay for men in feminised occupations (England and Herbert, 1993; Sloane, 1994), but presents a rather different picture to that of Strober (1984) Cockburn (1985) and Reskin and Roos (1990). As a whole, those men who remained in ‘m.f.os’ were able to protect themselves from loss of pay associated with feminisation, again at variance with the queuing perspective. This may have been because for the most part ‘m.f.os’ remained predominantly male. There was little

222

The Full Monty

evidence of any shift by men to higher paying niches within ‘m.f.os’, but changes in the system of pay, for example the introduction of performance-related pay, could have enhanced their pay relative both to women and to men in other occupations. Cross-sectional analysis using the pay data in the LFS suggested that pay levels in feminising areas were higher than average even after allowing for the grade of the job and the educational qualifications of the men in those jobs. Combing pay data for 1995 and 1996, male graduates in feminising jobs averaged £660 a week, compared to a rate of £590 for male graduates as a whole; managerial and professional men in feminising occupations had an average weekly pay of £516 against an overall rate for that category of work of £501.50 a week. It would appear, by contrast, that men in manual jobs in feminising areas did worse relative to the average manual male, earning £225.90 compared to £244.50. Numbers are too small even for two years to be reliable, but they do point to a possibility that some groups of men were better able to protect their conditions in the face of feminisation than others. From this analysis it would seem to be clear that poor pay in female occupations limits men’s willingness to take such employment, irrespective of any problems of gender identity, though as Table 13.5 also shows, men in female jobs still earn considerably more than women in these jobs. Indeed, the scale of difference is greater between women in female and women in male jobs. This goes some way to explaining why feminisation is more prevalent than defeminisation. Differences between Men The low pay afforded to men working in female areas of work can be seen as both a cause and effect of the characteristics of men in such jobs. The comparison between those working in gender-congruent jobs and others, suggests that pay is an important factor protecting women’s work from male encroachment. Relatively few male heads of households are to be found in female-dominated jobs (Table 13.6), and when they are they are very rarely sole household breadwinners (Bruegel, 2000). This reflects a tendency for men to graduate over the life-course from mixed occupations like retail to more male areas of employment. This is evident in the high proportion of males in female jobs who are under 30, and the more general tendency of female jobs to employ younger people. The disproportionate numbers of ethnic minority men in female areas of work reflects the relatively poor pay and fits a queuing perspective which puts racial minorities at the back of any queue. But a restructuring

Irene Bruegel

223

framework may also be helpful. Penn et al. (1994) provide an interesting case study of the defeminisation of textile work in Rochdale in the 1970s. The survival of the mills was seen to depend on investment in expensive high-technology plant, and necessitated night-shift working for which employers drew on a male immigrant labour force. Probably because they tend to be young, men in female jobs are both less likely to be in a managerial job and more likely to be graduates. They are more likely than women in female jobs to have managerial responsibilities, in line with feminist perceptions. The LFS data suggests, however, that entering a female job is not necessarily a fast route to management (Williams, 1993). It also suggests that women in male areas of work also readily enter management jobs. This reflects the high educational profile of women who are able to enter male areas of work, and the tendency for male white-collar jobs to have a high managerial content. There is the marked tendency of unemployed people who succeed in getting a job to stick to gender-congruent areas of work. This is true for all groups of men, but recently unemployed young men are particularly unusual in female jobs. While 30 per cent of all men aged 16–21 were in the ‘defeminising’, generally non-professional, areas of women’s work in 1996, only 13 per cent of the recently unemployed of that age obtained this type of work. Similarly, men lacking qualifications were disproportionately in male rather than female jobs. The explanation for this is complex. Recently unemployed women also stick to women’s work, in this case probably for lack of qualifications. The benefits system probably contributes something towards the low proportions of older unemployed men in female jobs, but the pattern for young men and women suggests it is not the full story. Gender-incongruent working is found more often in some regions than others, not necessarily reflecting different levels of unemployment (Table 13.6). There was, however, a clear gender asymmetry in the impact of working in gender-incongruent jobs. In respect of pay, the proportion in temporary jobs, headship, ethnicity and age, the difference between women who worked in female jobs and those who worked in traditionally male jobs was small; but differences between men were large; the cost and atypicality of taking a job in a female-dominated field was rather greater for men than the equivalent advantage to women of taking a job in a male-dominated area. The influence of youth, lack of qualifications and ethnicity on the likelihood that a man will be working in an occupation traditionally associated with women, in conjunction with the pay penalty, suggests that – except for students – these jobs remain unattractive to those who have much choice. Sometimes, it is the threat to young men’s sense of

224 Table 13.6

The Full Monty Characteristics of jobs and households by gender composition of job and own gender, 1995–96

Characteristic

Gender of person

Gender composition of job Male

Female

Ratio

% Head of household

Man Woman

82 18

67 15

1.22 1.20

% Age under 30

Man Woman

23 29

40 26

0.58 1.12

% Graduates

Man Woman

10 17

14 7

0.8 2.4

% Unemployed previous year

Man Woman

17 1.5

2.2 18.7

7.7 0.08

% Working in met areas outside London (high unemployment)

Man Woman

19.1 17.5

17.2 19.2

1.11 0.91

% Working in north outside met areas (high unemployment)

Man Woman

11 9.3

9.9 10.1

1.11 0.92

% Non-white

Man Woman

2.7 3.1

6.9 4

0.39 0.77

% With full-time job

Man Woman

96 76

75 48

1.28 1.58

% With managerial job

Man Woman

17 21

7 4

2.43 5.25

themselves that constitutes the barrier to entry into the jobs that are nominally available. More often it is the combined stereotyping of men and women that limits male entry, despite the evidence from the British Social Attitudes Survey that a large majority of people, especially those

Irene Bruegel

225

under the age of 40, are in mixed jobs or in jobs which they believe could be done by someone of the opposite sex.4

CONCLUSION This analysis has shown that men who enter already feminised jobs are at a considerable disadvantage relative to other men, but men in jobs that were feminising were able to hold their own. This suggests that feminisation is not associated with a prior degradation of male status. Despite the possibility of self-reinforcing, accelerating feminisation, the picture for Britain in the 1990s is not one of galloping feminisation within occupations. Most feminising occupations remained predominately male or female (female-consolidating) over the 15-year period 5 and left male pay relatively untouched. In others, like pharmacy and printing, periods of feminisation were followed by periods of stability or of defeminisation, brought about partly through inequalities between men. Thus the feminisation of pharmacy appears to have stabilised in Britain, with the entry of ethnic minority men (Hassell et al., 1998). The analysis shows female jobs to be particularly unattractive to unemployed men; or employers to be particularly wary of employing unemployed men to traditionally female jobs. In the case of female professional jobs, this may be explained by the qualifications profile of the unemployed, but the cases of personal service, office and retail jobs raise a series of questions. Older unemployed men with family responsibilities may continue to be ‘priced out’ of female jobs by the benefit system, but unlike younger men they are not able to get traditionally male jobs instead. Indeed, they are proportionately more likely than the young unemployed to take female jobs. Gregg and Wadsworth’s (1995) analysis of re-entry jobs which showed that unemployed men were being priced back into work, also suggests that ‘male’ reservation wages are no longer an overriding obstacle to men entering women’s work, particularly with the tightening of the benefit regime in the period since 1990. The limited entry of unemployed men to feminised jobs remains something of a paradox; regional, age and ethnic differences point back to issues of male identity and cultural norms. Certainly a short-term income-maximising model cannot explain the lower propensity of young unemployed men to be found in ‘female’ jobs, compared to young men as a whole. It may be that , as in the film, to go ‘The Full Monty’ into roles saturated with femininity, requires men not only to be desperate, but also to be fully confident in their own sexuality.

226

The Full Monty

Appendix

Larger ‘m.f.os’ Male feminising occupations

Male %1996

*General managers Production, works managers

82.9 87.9

*Marketing and managers *Computer systems managers Farm owners *Service industry managers *Other managers Solicitors *Chartered accountants *Underwriters Authors, writers *Artists, graphic designers *Vocational trainers Motor mechanics

68.8 82.2 84.6 62.9 59.3 63.2 76.8 69.8 52.2 56.5 51 95.6

*Gardeners, groundsworkers NCOs and other officers *Police officers *Technical sales representatives *Other sales representatives Bus and coach drivers Cab drivers *Messengers, couriers

94.1 93.3 86.1 81.5

Male jobs 1996 Ship and hovercraft officers Plasterers Floor, carpet layers Lathe, capstan operators Radio, TV and video repair Carpenters and joiners Mechanical plant operators Crane driver *pay data available.

56.1 92.7 94.2 80.6

Defeminising jobs Physiotherapists Medical, dental technicians Matrons, housekeeper Reception telephonist *Bar staff Hospital ward orderlies Care assistants Educational assistants Domestic housekeepers *Sales assistants Retail cashiers Merchandisers *Telephone sales *Bakery etc. process workers Electrical assemblers *Packers, bottlers Kitchen porters *Catering assistants Cleaners, domestics

Female jobs 1996 Dental nurse Beauticians Other secretaries Midwives Medical secretaries Legal secretaries

Female %1996 83.8 77.6 78.8 97.1 64.0 75.6 92.3 97.2 84.3 76.6 87.0 68.4 75.8 50.5 61.6 65.8 67.9 84.6 86.8

Irene Bruegel

227

Notes 1. 2.

3. 4.

5.

This work has been undertaken within the ESRC Future of Work Research Programme ref. no. L21225201. Financial support from the ESRC is gratefully acknowledged In terms of the hours worked, the British economy is far from ‘feminised’. While women had 46% of all jobs, including self-employed, they accounted for only 35% of all hours worked. Hakim (1993) discusses this point in more detail. The published New Earnings Survey figures omit occupations with low sample sizes. Of the 2517 workers asked 58% of all men and 70% of all women described their jobs as ‘male or female’. Less than 1% of women thought men could not do their jobs; though rather more doubted whether men would do such a job. Older people, manual workers and those living in Scotland and the North were less likely to see their jobs as open in principle to members of the other sex. (Calculated from data made available from the British Social Attitudes Survey through the ESRC Data Archive.) As the Appendix shows; solicitors, writers and artists, bar staff and kitchen porters, and unskilled bakery and packing jobs emerge as integrated occupations (Hakim, 1998).

References Balls E. (1994) ‘No More Job for the Boys’, in J. Michie and J. Grieve Smith (eds), Unemployment in Europe (London: Academic Press), pp. 116–29. Benn, M. (1998) ‘The Future is Female’, Observer, Review section 4, August. Bradley, H. (1998) Gender and Power in the Workplace; Analysing the Impact of Economic Change (Basingstoke: Macmillan). Bruegel, I. (2000) ‘Men and the Feminisation of Paid Work in Britain’, Capital and Class, Forthcoming. Cockburn, C. (1985) The Machinery of Dominance (London: Pluto). Cockburn, C. (1991) In the Way of Women (London: Macmillan). Cohn, S. (1985) The Process of Occupational Sex-Typing: The Feminisation of Clerical Labour in the UK (Philadelphia: Temple University). Coward, R. (1999) Sacred Cows: Is Feminism Relevant to the New Millenium? (London: HarperCollins). Crompton, R. and Sanderson, K. (1990) Gendered Jobs and Social Change (London: Unwin). Elias, P. and Gregory, M. (1994) The Changing Structure of Occupations and Earnings in Great Britain, 1975–1990 (London: Department of Employment). England, P. and Herbert, M. (1993) ‘The Pay of Men in Women’s Occupations’, in C. Williams (ed.), Doing Women’s Work: Men in Non-Traditional Occupations (London: Sage), pp. 28–48. Equal Opportunities Commission (1996) Annual Report (Manchester: EOC). Glucksman, M. (1990) Women Assemble (London: Routledge). Gregg, P. and Wadsworth, J. (1995) ‘Short History of Labour Turnover’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, vol. 11 (1): 73–91.

228

The Full Monty

Hakim, C. (1993) ‘The Myth of Rising Female Employment’, Work Employment and Society, vol. 7 (1): 97–120. Hakim, C. (1998) Social Change and Innovation in the Labour Market (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Harkness, S. (1996) ‘The Gender Earnings Gap: Evidence from the UK’, Fiscal Studies, vol. 7 (2): 1–36. Hassell, K., Noyce, P. and Jesson, J. (1998) ‘White and Ethnic Minority SelfEmployment in Retail Pharmacy in Britain: A Historical and Comparative Analysis’, Work Employment and Society, vol. 12 (2): 245–71. Hochschild, A. (1983) The Managed Heart (Berkeley: University of California Press). Leidner R. (1991) ‘Selling Hamburgers, Selling Insurance; Gender, Work and Identity in Interactive Service Jobs’, Gender and Society, vol. 5: 154–77. McDowell, L. (1991) ‘Life without Father and Ford: The New Gender Order of Post Fordism’, Transactions Institute of British Geographers, vol. 16: 400–19. Pearson, R. (1985) ‘The Greening of Women’s Labour’, in K. Purcell (ed.), The Changing Experience of Employment (London: Macmillan), pp. 79–94. Penn, R., Martin. A. and Scattergood, H. (1994) ‘Gender, Technology and Employment Change in Textiles’, in A. M. Scott (ed.), Gender Segregation and Social Change (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 301–28. Reskin, B. and Roos, P. (1990) Job Queues, Gender Queues: Explaining Women’s Inroads into Male Occupations (Philadelphia: Temple University Press). Rubery, J. and Fagan, C. (1993) ‘Occupational Segregation of Women and Men in the European Community’, Social Europe, vol. 3: 1–142. Sloane, J. (1994) ‘Gender Wage Differential in SCELI’, in A. M. Scott (ed.), Gender Segregation and Social Change (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 157–204. Strober, M. (1984) ‘Towards a General Theory of Occupational Segregation: The Case of Public School Teaching’, in B. Reskin (ed.), Sex Segregation in the Workplace (Washington DC: National Academy Press), pp. 144–69. Thurow, L. C. (1984) Dangerous Currents (London: Viking). Tomlinson, F., Brockbank, A. and Traves, J. (1997) ‘The Feminisation of Management? Issues of Sameness and Difference in the Roles and Experiences of Female and Male Retail Managers’, Gender, Work and Organisation, vol. 4 (4): 218–29. Wajcman, J. (1998) Managing Like a Man: Women and Men in Corporate Management (Cambridge: Polity Press). Williams, C. (ed.) (1993) Doing Women’s Work: Men in Non-traditional Occupations (London: Sage).

Author Index ACAS 115 Adler, P. 39, 40 Adler, P. A. 39, 40 Adonis, A. 182 Aitkenhead, M. 17, 19 Albrecht, M. 116 Alderfer, C. P. 160, 166 Allen, I. 23, 28 American Psychological Association 72 Anthias, F. 183 Arrowsmith, J. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 157 Ashenfelter, O. 65 Atkinson, R. 179 Avolio, B. J. 66, 160 Back, L. 173, 185 Bain, G. 150 Ball, C. 150 Ballard, R. 184 Balls, E. 208 Banton, M. 174 Barber, A. E. 65 Barnard, C. 119 Barnes, C. 192 Barrett, G. V. 66 Barry, B. 46 Bartlett, C. A. 37 Bateman, T. S. 46 BBC 54 Becker, G. 159, 166 Benimadhu, P. 86 Benn, M. 208 Bennington, L. 67 Better Regulation Task Force Bevan, S. 23, 35, 36 Billingsley, P. 81 Bird, C. P. 160 Blackley, J. H. 85 Blau, F. D. 159, 166 Blyton, P. 53, 158 Boston, S. 139 Bradley, H. 208

145

Braun, H. 116 Breton, R. 99 Brewster, C. 35 Brown, W. 138 Bruegel, I. 179, 215, 216, 217, 222 Bruhns, C. 66 Bruyere, S. 103 Burke, E. 97 Business in the Community 15, 16, 22 Butler, R. N. 157, 158 Buys, L. R. 67 Buys, N. J. 67 Bytheway, B. 156, 157 Cameron, I. 34, 35, 36 Campbell, B. 147, 152 Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) 81 Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) 82, 94, 95 Carnevale, A. P. 36 CBI 59 Central Statistical Office (CSO) 122 Chaney, D. 185 Chryssides, G. D. 53, 55, 56, 60 Clarke, L. 121, 122, 125, 128, 129 Clement, B. 60 Clutterbuck, D. 54 Cockburn, C. 4, 16, 17–18, 25, 26, 33, 46, 131, 139, 210, 218, 221 Cohn, S. 210, 219 Colgan, F. 149 Colling, T. 136, 139, 141, 150 Collinson, D. 20, 21, 29 Comfort, A. 157 Construction Industry Board (CIB) 122 Cook, P. 45, 46 Cornelius, N. 33, 34 Coulson-Thomas, C. 160 Cousins, C. 119

229

230

Author Index

Coward, R. 208 Coyle, A. 123 Craft, J. A. 160 Creedon, M. A. 67, 76 Crompton, R. 217 Cross, M. 13, 181, 186 Cuelenaere, B. 116 Cully, M. 138, 151 Cumming, P. 82 Cunningham, I. 206 Cunnison, S. 141 Daly, M. 119 Danish Equal Status Council (ESC) 130 Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs 125 Danmarks Statistik 125 Davis, G. 159 Day, K. 149 de Beauvoir, S. 157 Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) 104, 132 Department of Health 23, 28 Di Bella, A. J. 45 Dickens, L. 2, 5, 15, 35, 60, 136, 138, 139, 141, 150 Dingsdag, D. 66 Doering, M. 160 Dorgan, T. 149 Doyle, B. 105 Drury, E. 67 Duncan, S. 119 Dyer, J. H. 38 Easterby-Smith, M. 45 Echiejile, I. 59 Elias, P. 219–20 Ellis, V. 140 Ely, R. J. 33 Employment in Europe 36, 37 Encuesta de Poblacion Activa (EPA) 126 England, P. 221 Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) 23, 24, 28, 59, 145, 208 Equal Opportunities Review (EOR) 139, 146

Equality Foundation 34, 46 Escott, K. 27 Esping-Anderson, G. 119 European Commission 145 European Industrial Relations Review (EIRR) 145 Eurostat 120, 124, 125, 126 Ewing, K. 115, 116 Fagan, C. 210 Fast, J. E. 66 Feild, H. 82 Ferber, M. A. 159, 166 Fernandez, J. P. 67 Festinger, L. 157, 166 Field, S. 182 Finkelstein, L. M. 66 Finkelstein, V. 192 Fisher, T. D. 160 Fizel, J. L. 92, 98 Forbes, I. 118, 123 FORUM/ NOW 128 Freeman, E. 39 Fullerton, J. 3, 33, 36, 38, 45, 104 Galligan, P. 159 Galt, V. 81 Gartiker, U. E. 160 Gatewood, R. 82 Gennard, J. 116 Ghoshal, S. 37 Gibbon, P. 20, 21 Gilbert, K. 142 Gillespie, M. 185 Glucksman, M. 211 Godard, J. 150 Gooch, L. 33 Gordon, R. A. 67 Gow, D. 150 Gregg, P. 225 Gregory, M. 219–20 Grieco, M. 149 Griffith, V. 62 Griffiths, A. 61 Guest, D. 35, 150–1 Gunderson, M. 91, 92 Hackett, R. 85, 86, 87, 93, 96 Hakim, C. 227

Author Index Hall, K. 185 Hall, L. 35, 36 Hall, M. 138 Hall, S. 185 Hamel, G. 37 Hancock, C. 23 Hansard Society 22 Harkness, S. 212 Harris, C. 62 Hartmann, L. 67 Harvey, E. B. 85 Hassell, B. L. 66, 160, 168 Hassell, K. 225 Hayday, S. 35, 36 Hayward, B. 160 Hede, A. 66 Heery, E. 141–2, 146 Hegeswisch, A. 35 Heilman, M. E. 161, 167, 169 Henry, F. 81 Herbert, M. 221 Hill, S. 169 Hills, J. 175 Hochschild, A. 211 Hofstede, G. 37 Holtermann, S. 60 Hoque, K. 66 Howell, C. 137, 140 Hudson, R. 179, 183 Hutchinson, S. 35, 36 Iganski, P. 182 International Labour Organisation 67 IRS 103, 115 Jackson, B. W. 36 Jain, H. C. 80, 82, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 93, 96, 100 James, P. 103, 114, 206 Jerdee, T. H. 160 Jewson, N. 3, 4, 15, 16–17, 21, 22, 24, 29, 55 Johnson, W. B. 36 Jones, P. 67 Jones, T. 176, 177, 179, 182 Kaler, J. H. 53, 55, 56, 60 Kandola, R. 3, 33, 36, 38, 45, 104

231

Karn, V. 180, 181 Kelly, C. 99 Kelly, J. 146 Kibazo, J. 62 Kirschenman, J. 65, 68 Kohl, J. P. 67 Kristoff, A. L. 76 Labour Force Survey 36 Labour Research Department 142, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 Lalancette, I. 88–9 Lane, C. 119 Larwood, L. 160 Latham, M. 122, 123 Lawrence, E. 151 Lechner, V. M. 67, 76 Leck, J. D. 81, 85, 87, 88–90, 91, 92 Ledwith, S. 149 Lefkovich, J. L. 66 Leidner, R. 211 Lewis, M. I. 157, 158 Liedtka, J. 39 Liff, S. 2, 17, 19, 34, 35, 36, 63, 104, 105, 115 London Women and Manual Trades (LWAMT) 123 Lovenduski, J. 122, 143 Lunt, N. 104, 190, 191 Lyle, I. 127 Macan, T. H. 68 Macintyre, D. 60 Maier, F. 145 Martin, J. 190 Mason, D. 3, 4, 15, 16–17, 21, 22, 24, 29, 55 McDowell, L. 208 McElroy, W. 21 McGoldrick, A. E. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 157 McGovern, P. 35, 36 Meng, R. A. 91, 92 Mentzer, M. S. 92, 98 Michielsens, E. 121, 123 Miles, R. 174, 175 Millward, N. 143 Mitchell, A. 92

232

Author Index

Modood, T. 9, 174, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 184 Moon, G. 179 Morrell, J. 190 Morris, J. 201 Morrison, A. M. 158, 159, 160 Muszynski, M. 81 Naylor, P. 157 Neckerman, K. M. 65, 68 Neugarten, B. L. 67 Neugarten, D. A. 67 Newell, S. 119, 130 NHS Executive (NHSE) 28 NHS Management Executive (NHSME) 28 Noon, M. 53, 66, 158 Nordic Council of Ministers 129 Norris, D. 80 Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council 25 Oaxaca, R. 65 Odiorne, G. 37 O’Hara, J. 143 Oliver, M. 105, 190, 193, 202, 204 Onge, S. 88–9 Osajima, K. 160, 166 Oswick, C. 67, 160 Overell, S. 54 Packer, A. H. 36 Painter, R. 191 Paivio, A. 66 Parekh, B. 186 Patrickson, M. 67 Payne, G. 182 Peach, C. 176, 182 Pearson, R. 211 Peccei, R. 150–1, 169 Pedler, M. 45 Pendakur, K. 81 Pendakur, R. 81 Penn, R. 222–3 Pennington, J. 157 Perrewe, P. L. 66, 160, 168 Perrons, D. 119, 120 Peters, A. 118, 119 Phillips, A. 11

Phillips, D. 182 Phizacklea, A. 175, 178 Pilkington, A. 172 Pitt, G. 55 Pojman, L. J. 57 Pollard, S. 182 Porter, M. E. 37, 38 Posner, R. A. 67 Powell, G. N. 66, 67, 159 Prahalad, C. K. 37 Prescott-Clarke, P. 104 Pringle, R. 68 Prins, R. 116 Pyke, C. 123 Rada, J. F. 45 Ram, M. 180 Randall, V. 143 Ranger, T. 185 Rayport, J. 38 Reark Research 66 Rees, T. 7, 119, 131 Renaud, V. 80 Reskin, B. 211, 215, 219, 221 Rex, J. 173, 174, 175 Reynolds, G. 190, 193 Rhodes, S. R. 160 Riach, P. A. 66 Rich, J. 66 Richards, W. M. 16, 19–20, 22, 24, 27 Riger, S. 159 Roberts-Calvert, B. 67 Robinson, V. 182 Roos, P. 211, 215, 219, 221 Roosevelt Thomas Jr., R. R. 33–4, 36, 38, 104 Rosen, B. 160 Rosenthal, P. 169 Ross, R. 3, 38, 61, 103, 104 Roulstone, A. 190 Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation (RADAR) 190 Rubery, J. 120, 145, 210 Sanderson, K. 217 Sanford, N. 40 Sarre, P. 182 Saunders, D. M. 85, 87, 89–90, 91, 92 Schaar, J. H. 55

Author Index Schneider, R. 3, 38, 61, 103, 104 Secker, J. 142 Silverman, D. 193 Silverstone, R. 68 Simpson, B. 146 Singer, M. S. 66 Singh, R. 105 Sisson, K. 35 Skrypnek, B. J. 66 Slater, R. 162 Sloane, J. 221 Sloane, P. 85 Sly, F. 138, 139 Smith, A. 60 Smith, D. A. 91, 92 Snape, E. 142 Snell, M. 139 Solomos, J. 173, 175 South African Employment Equity Project Report 98 South East Regional Trades Union Congress (SERTUC) 141 Srinivasan, S. 181 Steinberg, M. 66 Steinberg, R. J. 11 Stephens, D. B. 67 Stewart, D. W. 40 Stolte, J. F. 66 Stone, S. S. 36 Straw, J. 54, 59 Strober, M. 210, 218, 221 Sviolda, J. 38 Takada, K. 67 Tarnopolsky, W. S. 82 Taylor, B. 11 Taylor, P. E. 67, 69, 157 Taylor, R. 148 Tharenou, P. 67 Thomas, D. A. 33, 160, 166 Thompson, M. 157 Thornley, C. 23, 27 Thornton, P. 104, 190, 191 Thurow, L. 160, 166, 210 Tillsley, C. 68 Tomlinson, F. 211

233

Tomlinson, S. 175 Torrington, D. 35, 36 Towler, R. 68 Townley, B. 35 Trades Union Congress (TUC) 142, 144 Trompenaars, F. 37 Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW) 141 Verma, A. 90 Vernon-Gerstenfeld, A. 97 Von Glinow, M. A. 158, 159, 160 Waddington, J. 140, 151 Wadsworth, J. 225 Wajcman, J. 63, 211, 228 Walby, S. 139, 144 Waldman, D. A. 160 Walker, A. 67, 69, 157 Wall, C. 121, 122, 128, 129 Ward, R. 181 Warr, P. 157 Watson, G. 159 Westmoreland, R. 57 Wheatley, R. 61 Whitehouse, A. 157 Whitfield, D. 27 Whitson, C. 140, 151 Wiesner, W. 82 Williams, A. 179, 183 Williams, C. 218, 223 Winston, N. A. 66 Wolkowitz, C. 178 Wood, S. 35, 36, 150 Woodland, S. 138, 151 Woodward, K. 157 Wrench, J. 175 Wright, R. 86 Yinger, J. 66 Young, K. 184 Yuval-Davis, N. 183 Zuriek, S.

81

Subject Index access: problems for disabled people 81–2, 197–201 ‘access and legitimacy’ paradigm 33 accountability 96 Act on Equal Pay for Men and Women 125 Act on Equal Treatment of Men and Women 125 action learning 40 actors 66 see also pseudo-applicants adjustments, reasonable 104, 108–9, 110–11, 112, 198–9 advertisements, job 67–8, 70–1, 75 Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) 142–3 AEEU 140 affirmative (positive) action 56–7, 125–6 African Asians 178, 183 age 223, 224 stereotyping 11, 159–60, 167–9 ageism/age discrimination 8–9, 156–71 attitudes towards 161–5; data analysis and results 162–5; research methodology 161–2 atypical form of discrimination 165–9 and carer discrimination in recruitment 5–6, 65–79 and contemporary theories of discrimination 157–61 job contingent theory 167–9 agency 183–6 Americans with Disabilities Act 103 Amsterdam, Treaty of 144, 145 ancillary staff 27–8 annual reports 84 application forms 202–3 Asians 179, 181, 182, 184, 185

attendance record 109–10 attitudes employers’, towards ageism 161–5 societal and disabled people 201–4 attractiveness of female labour 211, 215–17 auditing (disability issues) 106–7 Australia 191 age and carer discrimination in recruitment 5–6, 65–79 awareness training, disability 111–13, 194, 206 Bangladeshis 177, 178, 179, 181, 182 banking 94–5 bias 159–60 Breakthrough 41 British sign language (BSL) 194 budget see resources business case 12–13 diversity management 35, 37–8; extending the business case 38–9 morality 5, 59–63 retention of disabled employees 113–14 Canada 6, 80–102, 191 employment equity index 95–8 job barriers facing VMs 81–2 legislative environment 83–5 previous research 85–92 VM representation 92–5 Canadian Human Rights Act 83 Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) 84 Career Development Register 28 career progression 81 barriers for disabled people 195–6, 200 women in construction 128–9 carer discrimination 5–6, 65–79

234

Subject Index Caribbeans 177, 178, 182, 183, 185 Census 176, 178, 181 chance of success 70, 73–4 Charter for Equality for Women within Trade Unions 140 Charter for Women at Work 140–1 childcare 66–7, 146 see also carer discrimination Chinese 178, 183 circumvention by manipulation 21, 29 class and racial dualism 175–6 see also underclass thesis clerical staff 27–8 closed questions/responses 161, 162 COHSE 140 collective bargaining 137, 138, 142–3 see also trade unions Commission for Racial Equality 21 commitment, organisational 19–21, 24–7, 46 communication 42 communications sector 94–5 Community Action Programmes 131 community links 41 competition 52, 60 complete membership role 39–40 compliance monitoring 84–5 compulsory competitive tendering (CCT) 27, 122 conservative corporatist model 119–20 Constitution Act 1982 83 construction sector 6–7, 118–35 common obstacles to improving equality 127–30; employment and working conditions 129–30; recruitment, training and promotion 128–9 gender discrimination in Britain 121–4 NOW project 120–1 women and equal opportunities 124–7; Denmark 124–6; Spain 126–7

235

contingency model of ageism 167–9 control mechanisms 96 corporatist model 119–20 correspondence testing 66 creativity 37–8 cross-boundary management 37 cross-cultural management 37 cross-functional teams 45–6 cultural fit 164–5 culture 183–6 customer base 36–8, 62 Danish Confederation of Trade Unions 125 Danish Employers’ Confederation 125 Deaf, the 194, 204 debriefing 72 defeminisation 218 defeminising occupations 216, 218, 221, 226 defining the disadvantaged group 8–10 Denmark 7, 119 construction sector 120, 121, 124–6, 127, 129, 129–30 deregulation 138–9 deskilling 217 difference theories 158–9 direct labour organisations (DLOs) 121, 122, 123–4 disability 6, 9, 103–17, 190–207 diversity and 104–5, 114–15 experiences of disabled people 191–204; denial of access 197–201; marginalisation 193–7; societal attitudes 201–4 line managers: responsibilities and resources 110–11; training 111–13 monitoring in the workplace 106–7 organisational benefits of retaining disabled employees 113–14 return-to-work policies and practice 107–10 stereotyping 10–11, 203

236

Subject Index

disability awareness training 111–13, 194, 206 Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) 103, 104–5, 114–15, 191, 192, 198 disability employment advisors (DEAs) 194, 198, 199–200, 201 Disability Rights Commission 191 disadvantage analysing 8–13; defining the disadvantaged group 8–10; gatekeeping 12–13; stereotyping 10–12 racial 172–3; see also race and ethnicity discrimination 156 ageism and contemporary theories of 157–61 evidence of 65–6 indirect 67–8 ‘discrimination and fairness’ paradigm 33 dismissal 116 diversity 51 analysing 2–8 and disability 104–5, 114–15 ethnic 172–3, 174; see also race and ethnicity in the labour market 36 moral efficacy 59–63 relationship to equal opportunities 58–9 diversity groups 43 diversity management 1, 32–50, 103 changing workforce patterns and customer base 36–8 critical factors 47 equal opportunities vs 2–4, 32–9 at Great Western Trains 39–46 management involvement in 34, 35–6, 46 value added 38–9 earnings gender restructuring and pay trends 219–22 low pay 22–3 race and ethnicity 92, 180

economic structure: shifts in 210, 213–14 economic theories of discrimination 159, 166 education 193–4 see also training employees contribution to diversity management 41–2 maximising employee potential 36–7 employers age preference 70, 72, 74, 75 attitudes towards ageism 161–5 and disabled people 197 obligations in Canada 84–5 employment conditions 129–30 Employment Equity Act (EEA) 6, 83–5, 98–9 effects 85–92 VM representation and 94–5 employment equity committee 97 employment equity coordinator 97 Employment Equity Index 95–8 employment equity (EE) plan 85 employment practice review 97 Employment Relations Bill 1999 144 employment tribunals 115, 116, 142–3 entitlements 115–16 equal group selection 55, 57 equal opportunities/opportunity 1, 51–64, 118–19 assessing moral efficacy 59–63 building diversity on 44 Denmark 124–6 vs diversity management 2–4, 32–9 evaluating equal opportunities policies (EOPs) 15–31; glass ceiling and stone floor 21–3, 27–8; Opportunity 2000 and NHS 23–8; radical vs transformative agenda 16–21 feminisation 211–12, 217–18 impact of policies in UK 122–4 moral objectives 52–8 relationship with diversity 58–9 Spain 126–7

Subject Index Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) 21, 122, 137 Equal Opportunities Quality Framework (EOQF) 42–3 Equal Pay Acts 122 Equal Status Act 125, 129 Equal Status Council (ESC) 125 equal treatment 118 equality analysing 2–8 common obstacles to improving in EU 127–30 different concepts 118–20 disparate and EU 130–2 promotion of 144–6 equality in fact 16, 55, 119 Equality Foundation 42 ethical issues 71–2 see also morality ethnic diversity 172–3, 174 see also race and ethnicity European Court of Justice 119 European Employment Guidelines 1998 145 European Framework Agreements 144 European Union 37 different concepts of equality 118–20 disparate equality and 130–2 NOW and the construction sector 6–7, 118–35 trade unions and equality 7, 139, 143–5 evaluation diversity management practice 43–6 equal opportunities programmes 15–31 expenditure cuts 27 exploitation 203 external information 45 external validation 44 fair discrimination 158–9 Fair Wages Resolution 138 Fairness at Work 144

family responsibilities 22–3 carer discrimination in recruitment 5–6, 65–79 childcare 66–7, 146 Federal Contractors Programme (FCP) 83, 85 feminisation 11–12, 208–28 defeminisation 218 explaining patterns of gender restructuring 218–25; differences between men 222–5; pay trends 219–22 and gender restructuring 213–18 models of 209–13 field research approach 39–40 financial considerations 164 flexibilisation 215–17 flexibility age and carer discrimination in recruitment 73, 75, 76 EU 129–30 gatekeeping 12–13 Gateway 41 GCHQ 144 gender 8, 22 construction sector see construction sector equality and trade unions see trade unions Opportunity 2000 and NHS 23–8 restructuring see feminisation see also sex-stereotyping; sex-typing of jobs gender contracts 119–20 Germany 116, 119–20 ghettoisation 196 glass ceiling 21–3, 27–8 GMB 141, 142, 147–9 goals, numerical 96 Great Western Trains 39–46 communication 42 company policy, strategy and structure 40–1 employee contribution to diversity 41–2

237

Subject Index

238

Great Western Trains – continued EOQF 42–3 evaluating diversity management practice 43–6 research methodology 39–40 Great Westerner 42 Health Canada 82 human capital theory 159 human resource (HR) managers 35–6, 161–5 Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) 84 identities, multiple shifting 185–6 individuals 19, 25 ILO Convention 67 ILO Older Workers Recommendation 67 Indians 178, 182, 183 indirect discrimination 67–8 industrial sectors 180 information 45 ‘Institute of Women’ 126–7 integrated ‘partnership’ approach 3–4, 32–50 intergroup theory 160, 166 intermediate agencies 12–13 internal information 45 intervention vs voluntarism 4–8 interviews 82, 202–3 ‘invisible hand’ 60 job advertisements 67–8, 70–1, 75 job contingent theory 167–9 job design 199 job search 198–200, 202–3 job selection morality and equal opportunity 52–8 see also recruitment job-specific reasons 162–5 joint engagement 143–4 Kalanke ruling

119

Labour Force Survey (LFS) 176, 178, 179, 181, 182 labour market diversity in 36 position of ethnic minority groups 176–83; changing position 182–3; current position 177–82 labour market substitution theory 159, 160 ‘lack of fit’ model 167–9 learning 45 learning disabilities, people with 195 Legislated EE Programme (LEEP) see Employment Equity Act legislation 5–8 Australian and age and carer discrimination 5–6, 65–79 Canada 6, 83–5, 94–5, 98–9 EU 7, 130–1, 143–5 UK: disability legislation 6, 103, 104–5, 114–15, 191, 192, 198; reforms 115–16; trade unions and legislation 137–9, 143–6, 151–2 liberal approach 16–18 liberal model of social policy 120 line managers 13, 20, 21 attitudes towards ageism 161–5 devolution of HR to 35–6 and disability 106, 195; organisational benefits of retaining disabled employees 113–14; responsibilities and resources 110–11, 112; training 111–13 see also managers/management local authorities 123–4 Local Government Act 1988 138 ‘long’ agenda 18–19, 46 see also transformative agenda long-term commitment 19–21, 24–7, 46 long-term unemployment 177–8 low pay 22–3

Subject Index Maastricht Social Protocol 143–4 mainstreaming 119, 131, 145 male feminising occupations (m.f.os) 215–18, 220–2, 226 managers/management impact of feminisation on men 223, 224 involvement in diversity management 34, 35–6, 46 NHS and women in management 28 race and ethnicity in Canada 82 see also human resource (HR) managers; line managers; personnel managers marginalisation 11, 193–7 Marshall ruling 119 medical profession 23, 28 men: differences between 222–5 merit, selection on 53–8 minimum wage 145–6 monitoring compliance 84–5 disability in the workplace 106–7 EE index 96 morality 4–5, 51–64 assessing moral efficacy of diversity and equal opportunity 59–63 moral objectives of equal opportunity 52–8 relationship between diversity and equal opportunity 58–9 MSF 147–9, 150 multiple sclerosis (MS) 108 multiple shifting identities 185–6 NALGO 140 National Capital Alliance on Race Relations (NCARR) v. Health Canada 82 National Childcare Strategy 146 National Health Service (NHS) 23–8, 29 glass ceiling and stone floor 27–8 organisational commitment 24–7 national minimum wage 145–6 Netherlands 116 NHS Executive (NHSE) 26, 28

239

NOW (New Opportunities for Women) programme 6–7, 118, 120–1, 131–2, 133 see also construction sector NUM 140 numerical goals 96 NUPE 140 occupational groups 28 feminising and defeminising 213–18, 220–2, 226 open-ended questions/ responses 161, 162–5 opportunity, equality of 16 see also equal opportunities/ opportunity Opportunity 2000 3, 15–16, 22–8, 29, 123 and the NHS 23–8 organisational commitment 19–21, 24–7, 46 organisational needs/self-interest see business case organisationally-generic reasons 162–5 Organising Academy 150 outcome, equality of 16, 55, 119 overseas qualifications 82 ‘own group/different group’ perspective 160–1, 166 Pakistanis 177, 178, 181, 182 parent care 66–7 see also carer discrimination part-time employment 142, 215–17 partnership integrated ‘partnership’ approach to diversity management 3–4, 32–50 search in NOW programme 131–2 ‘Pathfinders’ 41 pay see earnings personal reasons 162–3 personnel managers 20, 21, 35–6, 161–5 policy context 137–9, 143–6 Policy Studies Institute (PSI) surveys 174, 176–7, 177, 180, 181 pool of talent 60, 61

240

Subject Index

positive action 56–7, 125–6 potential development of 56 maximising employee potential 36–7 power 166, 183–4 preparation for work 197–8, 202 private sector Canada 92–5 construction 121–2, 123, 125 procedural justice 52–3 procedural mechanisms 19–21 promotion 128–9 see also career progression pseudo-applicants 68, 69, 70–1 ethical issues 71–2 psychological and physiological perspective 159–60 public sector Canada 92–5 construction 122, 123–4 publicity 97 qualifications feminisation and 211–12, 217–18 recognition of overseas qualifications 82 queuing theory 210–11, 214–15 quota scheme 190–1 race and ethnicity 9–10, 13, 172–89 Canada see Canada; visible minorities changing conceptualisations 173–4 class and racial dualism 175–6 culture and agency 183–6 equal opportunities policies and 19, 20, 22 feminisation 222–3, 224 socioeconomic position of ethnic minority groups 176–83; changing position 182–3; current position 177–82 Race for Opportunity 22 race relations, problematic 173–4

racial dualism 172 class and 175–6 racism problematic 174 radical agenda 16–21 reasonable adjustments 104, 108–9, 110–11, 112, 198–9 recruitment 25, 97 age and carer discrimination 5–6, 65–79 race and ethnicity 81–2 trade unions and 142, 150 women and construction sector 123, 128–9 recruitment consultants 5–6, 12, 68–76 redeployment 200–1 regional differences 223, 224 regulation see legislation representation VMs in Canada 92–5 women: NHS Trust boards 24–5; trade unions 146–9 representativeness 53–8 reserve armies 210–11, 214–15 resources disabled people 110–11, 112, 199 EE index 97 retention 25 disabled employees 107–10, 113–14, 200–1 women 123–4 return-to-work policies 107–10, 200–1 reverse discrimination 55 RMT 140 Rome, Treaty of 118, 144 secondary labour market race and ethnicity 178–9 theories of discrimination 160 secretarial jobs 68–76 selection on merit 53–8 see also recruitment self-employment 180–1 self-interest, organisational see business case Sex Discrimination Acts 122 sex stereotyping 11–12, 167–8

Subject Index sex-typing of jobs 167–8, 210, 213–14 ‘short’ agenda 17–18 skills gap 192 social comparison theory 157–8, 166 social justice 4, 52–8 social policy models 119–20 societal attitudes 201–4 sociodemocratic model 119 South Africa 98 southern model 120 Spain 7, 120, 121, 126–7, 129–30 statutory union recognition 144, 150 stereotyping 10–12, 62–3 age 11, 159–60, 167–9 disability 10–11, 203 sex 11–12, 167–8 stone floor 21–3, 27–8 strong equal opportunity 56–8 structural change 44 in the economy and feminisation 210, 213–14 UK and trade unions 137–8 structural discrimination 160 structural reasons 162–5 succession planning 164 supervisory responsibilities 180 supply chain 38–9 support workers 196 systemic barriers 160 systemic change 44 targeting 54–5 teams 45–6 temporary employment 215–17 TGWU 140, 147–9 Link-Up campaign 142 time restrictions 132 timetables 96 Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 138 trade unions 7, 136–55 equality bargaining 1979–97 137–43 equality bargaining post-1997 143–51 external behaviour 141–3, 150–1 internal change 140–1, 146–9 policy context 137–9, 143–6

241

staffing and women 147–9 union responses 139–43, 146–51 women in construction 130 Trades Union Congress (TUC) 139–40, 141–2, 150 training 13, 97 line managers and disability policy 111–13 marginalisation of disabled people 194–5 trade unions and 142 women in construction 124, 126, 126–7, 128–9 transformative agenda 4, 16–21, 46 NHS 24–7 transportation sector 94–5 treatment, equal 118 tribunals, employment 115, 116, 142–3 UCATT 140 underclass thesis 10, 175–6 socioeconomic position of ethnic minority groups 176–83 unemployment 126, 190 long-term 177–8 recently unemployed and gender congruence 223, 224 unfair discrimination 158–9 unfair dismissal 116 UNISON 140, 147–9, 150 United Kingdom 8, 120 construction sector 120, 121–4, 127; impact of equality policies 122–4; training 128–9; women in construction 121–2 DDA 103, 104–5, 114–15, 191, 192, 198 NHS 23–8, 29 trade unions see trade unions USDAW 147–9 value added 38–9 victimisation 196 visible minorities (VMs) 6, 80–102 earnings and EE effects 92 job barriers facing 81–2 representation 92–5 voluntarism 4–8

242

Subject Index

Wages Councils 138 weak equal opportunity 55–6, 57–8 Welfare to Work 146 West Indians 177, 178, 182, 183, 185 women in construction 121–2, 124–7 race and ethnicity 178–9 representation 24–5, 146–9 staffing in trade unions 147–9 see also construction sector; feminisation; gender

women’s conferences and structures 141 women’s training centres 128–9 work experience 194–5 work reasons 162–5 workforce patterns 36–8 working conditions 129–30 workplace access issues 200 attitudes to disabled people 203–4