Lawyers’ gender pay gap grows!
May 27, 2008
There has been some research into how much women and men get paid in the legal industry recently and the results are rather shocking.
Men are now getting paid 32% more than women, this is more than double 12.5% which is the official national gap.
The research which was done by the Law Society, the professional association in England and Wales showed that a male solicitors average annual pay was £60,000 compared to a females which was £41,000.
I am certainly against paying different wages for men and woman and beleive that gender should not have a part to play within a role.
The results however didn’t shock me too much as this is probably going on in a lot of work places where they have stuck to their old fashioned ways and has been going on for years.
Katherine Rake, the director of Fawcett Society which is a group that campaigns for sexual equality has said:
“The paucity of senior flexible roles, the long working hours culture, and plain old fashioned discrimination all conspire to shut women out of the boardroom and reduce their wage packet.”
Korean bank faces discrimination claim
May 19, 2008
Woori Investment and Securities International, the UK arm of a large Korean bank, is facing a discrimination claim for £400,000 from a HR and Office Manager who claims she was paid up to £20,000 less than her Korean female counterparts and up to £50,000 less than male Korean colleagues. Christine Jones claims that she has been a victim of both racial and sexual discrimination, and is also claiming for constructive dismissal as she felt she had little choice but to resign after her complaints went unresolved and she felt she was “banging my head against a brick wall”. The bank is contesting her claim, and the case should be heard later in the year.
I will look forward to the outcome in this unusual case.
Record breaking claim for sex discrimination
April 22, 2008
Yesterday I commented that claims under the Sex Discrimination Act have no upper limit on the compensation that can be awarded, and what better way to demonstrate this than with the recent record breaking claim by Gill Switalski, formerly a lawyer for City firm F&C Asset Management. Switalski won her claim last month, and was awarded £13.4 million, but is has now emerged that she is more likely to be awarded £19 million, which will be the biggest ever sex discrimination payout. The figure is based on loss of earnings, pension payments, career opportunities and the psychiatric damage she suffered as a result of the bullying she was subjected to.
It was found that Switalski had been subjected to an 18 month period of harassment by Senior Management in her £140,000 per year job. She had been treated less favourably than her male colleague, and “bullied, harassed and belittled” by her manager Marrack Tonkin, apparently because he felt threatened by her.
The company is now set to appeal against the decision: so the case looks set to become a historical benchmark, and one that will probably appear in future employment law textbooks. It just goes to show how crucial the area of equality and fair treatment of all staff is in an organisation, and the consequences that can be faced when the behaviour of a manager is not dealt with properly.
Important ruling in part time workers’ terms and conditions
April 5, 2008
A recent employment tribunal: Matthews v Kent and Medway Town Fire Authority has brought new clarity to the differences in pay and terms and conditions between full and part time workers. The claimant argued that under the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, he was entitled to equal terms and conditions on a pro rata basis as his work was comparable to that of his full time colleagues. After the case going to the House of Lords and back to the Tribunal for re-consideration, the claim was upheld.
The key factor in this decision was the similarities in the key duties of the part time firefighter in comparison with the full timers. The original tribunal hearing, it was found, had placed too much importance on areas of the role that were deemed ‘peripheral’ in finding the roles to be incomparable. As the second tribunal found that the roles of the full and part-time firefighters were similar enough, there could be no justification in treating the workers differently in terms of their pay and conditions.
Going forward, employers will need to address these issues to ensure they are not in breach of the legislation. The correct approach would be to look at all the terms and conditions that will differ for a part time worker one by one, and check that the remuneration or other benefit was paid on a pro rata basis in comparison to the full time pay and benefits they would be entitled to. If there are differences and the remuneration was not calculated pro rata, then this would need to be carefully justified in order to avoid the risk of a claim.
Another point to remember is the additional risk of discrimination in the unequal treatment of part time workers. A large proportion of part time workers are women, and so the issue relating to parity of treatment for part time workers could lead to a claim of sex discrimination if the full time worker that was effectively receiving more favourable terms was a different sex.
As always, if you have part time workers that you do not feel are entitled to pro rata terms and conditions, but you’re not certain how you can justify it, you need to liaise with an employment law advisor to ensure you are not taking any risks.
Flexible working for senior managers
March 5, 2008
Last night I was chatting to my friend on the phone and she was having a moan about her manager not being available enough in work time. My friend is a ‘trainee’ sales consultant, although she hasn’t had any formal training as such, it’s been more a process of shadowing other consultants and mentoring sessions with the manager. The point is she’s still at the stage where she needs to be able to constantly ask questions and bounce ideas off her manager, but the manager only works three days a week due to family commitments. There have been a number of issues with slow decision making and conflicts within the workplace due to the fact that the manager has not kept up with developments when she wasn’t in work.
This illustrates the point that flexible working arrangements cannot simply be put in place without due consideration to the processes and people the change will affect, and throws up the question of whether part time work or other flexible working practices are even appropriate for people in a senior position. I’ve just read a bit of research that was done on work/life balance in a major Irish organisation which found that Senior Managers were restricted from finding work/life balance due to the long hours culture which is associated with senior posts. Both men and women in senior management recognised that their own careers would be seriously jeopardised by taking up work/life balance arrangements.
This issue probably contributes to the gender pay gap which still remains today: if it is not possible for workers to stay in senior positions and manage family life then one parent will have to take a lower position. If the father earns more (which may be the case), the mother will probably be the parent that sacrifices the senior role: and so the vicious cycle continues.
I think that it is possible for senior managers to take up flexible working options in order to achieve a better work/life balance or to manage family commitments. However it is not simply a matter of offering the opportunity of flexible working. Planning needs to take place to ensure workplace processes can run smoothly when the manager is not in, and consideration needs to be taken in respect of any staff who report to the manager. Finally, the manager needs to understand that actions still need to take place when they are not in work, and should not expect decisions to be delayed until they are in if this will affect the efficiency of the work.
Alan’s outburst
February 15, 2008
Following up on yesterday’s post about the gender pay gap, I’ve read a surprising bit of news about Sir Alan Sugar’s opinions on sex discrimination in the recruitment process.
Sir Alan thinks that it is Equality Law itself which hinders women’s chances of getting jobs – as employers cannot ask women things like “how would you cope with the pressure of balancing family life with work?” He reckons lots of employers still disregard applications before they even get to interview stage simply because the applicant is female. Apparently, employers would rather not employ a woman because they would be concerned about her family commitments interfering with work, but if employers could question them about how they would cope, then interviewees could give an explanation which would reassure the employer and increase the chances of them offering the job. To quote directly “if I am employing you to do a job, I want to be sure you can be there so I want to be able to ask what provision you have for children”.
This has got to be the most bizarre opinion I have heard in a long time – and quite worrying considering Sir Alan’s reputation and influence in the business world.
Firstly, his outburst indicates a completely old fashioned view of employment and social norms – assuming that only women have childcare commitments is something only a very narrow minded and quite frankly foolish employer would do. Yes, the majority of childcare responsibilities are probably still with mothers rather than fathers – as indicated by the report on the gender pay gap – but to only ask women about childcare provision in an interview is a bit if a wild assumption. My most recent request for flexible working arrangements under the statutory right has actually come from a man who needs to contribute to childcare arrangements in his family.
Secondly, the assumption that it is not possible to balance work and family commitments is a bit of an insult to many parents and carers, male and female, who do just that, and very well.
Sir Alan also implies that it is entirely the individual’s responsibility to make provisions for managing the dual responsibilities. If this is so, then why do lots employers introduce family-friendly arrangements such as flexible working, childcare vouchers and enhanced maternity / paternity policies to attract a wider range of people? If you only employ people who do not have obvious or potential commitments outside of work then you are not only indirectly discriminating against certain applicants, but you are greatly limiting the pool of talent to select from, and creating a workforce which is lacking in diverse work and life experience.
Considering my post from yesterday about the gender pay gap, this view from a prominent business figure is quite frightening. If there are lots of employers out there with this view, then what chance is there that the gender pay gap will be overcome?
I agree that there is still a lot of discrimination in the workplace which hinders many women’s chances of having a successful career. However, the idea that being able to ask women directly what their intentions are in terms of children will help to overcome this, is assuming that a) men don’t do childcare, b) all women have children, and c) you can’t have a job and manage childcare. This assumption, to me, is just ludicrous.
The gender pay gap
February 14, 2008
The pay gap between women and men is still very wide – and according to a Select Committee of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), the government is not doing enough to tackle it. In 2004 the Women and Work Commission was set up to try to reduce the pay gap, which was then 18% for full time workers and an enormous 40% for part timers.
The report by the Select Committee said the Commission had made several good proposals to deal with this problem, but had not done enough to implement them. It pointed out that one of the reasons for the continuation of the pay gap is that women tend to work in a small number of occupations, which tend to be low paid, and that many women work part time.Many women experience gaps in their careers, or end it completely as a result of starting a family. The need for flexible or part time working due to childcare arrangements can be very limiting on career prospects. The Select Committee recommends the Government extending the right to request flexible working as a measure to help improve women’s chances of increasing their salaries. Allowing women to work flexibly helps them to balance work and family commitments and retain the higher paid positions they have previously worked in, rather than having to give up their career and take jobs that fit around their lifestyle better, but are lower paid.One measure the report proposed was to introduce mandatory auditing of companies’ pay by gender; which is already done in the public sector. Would this lead to more “quota” issues, with companies making poor recruitment decisions in order to comply with required levels of female employees? Possibly in some companies, although for many it may force them to create workplaces where a diverse range of employees are able to contribute at every level.
Going green or going to court
February 8, 2008
I’ve just read an article about discrimination and environmental policies which I’m really not sure what to make of. The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations came into force in 2003. This made it unlawful to discriminate directly or indirectly against an employee on the grounds of their “religion, religious belief or similar philosophical belief”. This was tested recently in Harris v NKL Automotive Ltd and Matrix Consultancy Ltd, where it was conceded that Rastafarianism was a religious belief within the regulations. Fair enough.
Now, according to this article (People Management Magazine 7th Feb 2008), it is possible that employees could make a discrimination claim in the future if they were prevented from following their environmental beliefs! This is because the Equality Act 2006 removed the requirement for the “philosophical” belief to be similar to a religious belief; it just has to be a strongly held belief that affects an employee’s lifestyle. So for example, an employee could request that the company only use recycled paper, or provides recycling facilities, and a refusal could amount to indirect discrimination in the same way that refusal to allow an employee time off to attend a religious festival could do.
Of course, “discrimination” could be justified if it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, however this would probably relate to costs, and it is fairly easy to achieve a more green operation in many establishments, before the costs start to become unreasonable. There are loads of ways to do this, some of which are:
- Recycling
- Using recycled and less environmentally damaging materials
- Policies to encourage less wastage of resources (don’t print everything, turn off PCs etc
- Setting printers / photocopiers to double sided
- Implementing a travel policy that promotes the most environmentally friendly modes of transport
- Reducing the number of external meetings or planning them close together to reduce the need to travel
- Incentives for car sharing or using public transport
- Flexible working to reduce traffic around rush hour times
Because of the obvious benefits of workplaces becoming more environmentally friendly, part of me welcomes the possibility of discrimination law relating to environmental beliefs, as it might make many employers reduce their carbon footprint just to avoid a claim. Another part of me thinks that this is a ridiculous addition to the wrong part of the law; when the government will be introducing more and more environmental legislation anyway in the coming years. I just don’t see being environmentally friendly as a philosophical belief, even though clearly for many people it is a major contributing factor in their lifestyle. There has been no case law on this issue yet, and I wouldn’t want to be on the tribunal panel of the first case that’s brought forward; their decision will shape the way “green” people are regarded within UK organisations going forward. For the time being we’ll have to watch this (polluted) space.
Confusion over discrimination
January 29, 2008
Discrimination is such a tricky subject in the workplace, and something I often debate with colleagues. It can be very hard to determine what is discriminatory, and what is a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”, i.e. what can be justified in order to maintain the effective running of the business. This is a particularly grey area when it comes to the ability to speak English clearly, as the requirement to speak and write English could indirectly put people of a certain race, ethnic origin or national origin at a disadvantage.
In my organisation, all employees are required to speak regularly over the phone to customers, communicate over email, and generate documents such as reports. I think it can be assumed that the need to speak and write clearly in English is a genuine requirement. However, the decision over what constitutes an acceptable level of English is subjective and could be argued. What if an interviewer thinks “I can just about understand the candidate but I know some of our customers won’t like it if they have trouble understanding them…”?
Having a very clear job description and person specification helps in this situation, as there are many factors to consider in the candidate’s skills and experience, with the use of English being just one factor. Balancing all the needs of the job against each other helps to establish the candidate’s all round suitability, and also helps interviewers to consider other options; for example if the candidate had excellent skills and experience but was lacking in English language abilities, could they carry out the job without the client-facing aspects? Many people might say no: no matter what they can do, if they can’t communicate effectively in English, they can’t work in this company. However, could we be missing out on a large pool of highly skilled workers with this attitude? I suppose it depends on how much of an adjustment to the workplace or the job role would be required to accommodate this type of worker.
I have been asked several times in my HR career why employers have to treat people differently if they’re from a minority group. The idea is we don’t have to treat people differently; we have to give everybody a fair chance, an “equal” opportunity. The “difference” is that certain groups are protected from discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, sex, age and other aspects. I do agree that sometimes it can feel like employers have to do a lot more to accommodate these differences, when I think the overriding idea is that the legislation is supposed to make employers treat all employees as equal. I know the legislation is there to penalise unscrupulous employers, but for others it can sometimes feel difficult to make decisions on recruitment, discipline etc without feeling nervous about the possibility of legal consequences if there is a protected group involved.
The more I read about and handle issues of discrimination, the more I find it a scary minefield. Given the unlimited compensation available for successful discrimination claimants, I just hope I don’t one day find out the hard way how best to handle these issues.