Scottish Trades Union Congress

STUC Response To The Equalities Review: Interim Report for Consultation.

1 Introduction

1.1 The STUC is Scotland’s Trade Union Centre. Its purpose is to coordinate, develop and articulate the views and policies of the Trade Union Movement in Scotland reflecting the aspirations of trade unionists as workers and citizens.

1.2 The STUC represents around 630,000 working people and their families throughout Scotland. It speaks for trade union members in and out of work, in the community and in the workplace. Our affiliated organisations have interests in all sectors of the economy. Our representative structures are constructed to take account of the specific views of women members, young members, black/minority ethnic members, LGBT members, and members with a disability, as well as retired and unemployed workers.

1.3 We welcome the opportunity to comment on the Equalities Review’s Interim Report, indeed the STUC participated in the Equalities Review Team’s consultation event in Glasgow on 2 May 2006. Promoting equality and tackling discrimination wherever it occurs is central to the STUC’s mission. This is reflected in our representative structures, aims and objectives, and our work programme. We are, therefore, keen to support effective levers to eliminate discrimination and to promote equality. We have engaged with the process of establishing one single equality body, the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, and strongly support the introduction of a Single Equality Act.

1.4 This response first sets out some general comments on the content on the Report, and then responds directly to the three questions posed by the Equalities Review Team.

2 General Comments

2.1 The STUC welcomed the establishment of the Equalities Review to look at chronic and persistent inequalities in the UK. However, we do have some concerns that the interim report of the Review focuses more on individuals and their own personal circumstances or failures to make the “right” choices, rather than discrimination and in particular the structural discrimination that so many people still face in daily life. Whilst there may be some merit in adopting the “trigger” approach in certain instances, we do not feel this should be to the detriment of an analysis on grounds of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, age, and religion and belief. The Scottish trade union movement is clear that much discriminatory behaviour is either directly or indirectly based on the grounds of identity, and it is crucial that this is strongly recognised by the Equalities Review.

2.2 The “trigger” approach may be helpful to describe what happens to a person at certain stages of their lives. The Equality Review focuses on the stage of a woman having a first child. Clearly this has an impact on that woman’s life, in terms of potential pregnancy discrimination, and reduced pay and or opportunities. However, the “trigger event” of having a baby is far from extraordinary. Instead of seeing the stage of having a baby as triggering reduced life chances, the STUC would prefer the Equalities Review to address the structural discrimination that is inherent in the workplace against pregnant women, new mothers and fathers, and part time workers.

2.3 The “trigger event” and “vulnerability” analysis that is inherent in the Report, tends towards blaming people for their failures to progress or for simply being victims of discrimination. This tends to overlook the blatant and underlying discrimination that many people face. The discriminator or discriminating structures should be tackled, rather than the victim or target of that discrimination.

2.4 The STUC believes that the Interim Report does not consider current legislation and its better enforcement. The STUC recognises the deficiencies of current legislation but would argue for more effective legislation to ensure workers and citizens receive vital protection in the workplace and in society. For the STUC, much equality legislation offers workers and citizens vital protection in the workplace and in society. It is the failure to ensure legislation is effectively implemented, or the absence of appropriate support measures that is hindering progress. Strong anti-discrimination legislation is required to underpin equality in society and in the workplace. The STUC very much welcomes the new public sector equality duties, and would have liked to have seen these duties to promote equality extended to the private sector too.

2.5 The STUC has concerns about the lack of focus on the issue of gender based violence within the Equalities Review. Much discrimination and inequality is rooted in abuse of power relations, and in particular domestic abuse and sexual violence. We feel that there needs to be far greater consideration given to the impact of gender based violence and abuse on those who are affected by it, along with actions to tackle these forms of abuse and support for those who are vulnerable to it.

2.6 The Report makes little reference to other key areas of challenge such as homophobia, Islamophobia and other forms of prejudice and hatred. In addition, the STUC would wish to see greater consideration of disability issues, as there is no mention of mental health issues, and the impact that discrimination and inequality can have on a person’s mental health and general well being.

2.7 The STUC is concerned at the comments expressed in the Review on the role of equality movements and campaigns. Equality movements and groups, many rooted in the trade union movement, have in the past and continue to play a vital role in terms of raising awareness, offering support and advocacy, and advising decision makers. The vast majority of such bodies draw on the experiences of those affected by inequality and discrimination. In the trade union movement this is very much the case, with self organised groups and committees of women, black workers, young workers, and disabled workers, setting and developing the agenda on the issues that are important to them. It is wrong to dismiss this activity, and to express concerns about those who “shout loudest”. Equality groups and organisations are vital to inform the work of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, and policy development in a whole range of areas.

3 Question 1: Has the analysis addressed the factors that are most important for life chances across the life cycle?

3.1 The STUC has some concerns on the evidence base used and the approach used to analyse this and devise conclusions. For example, the Review questions the value of looking at pay inequality on grounds of gender, given that it involves tens of millions of people. This appears bizarre when we do know that a gender pay gap exists whether using statistics that consider the mean or median figure. Additionally, Walby and Olsen’s model of the pay gap suggests that sex, as a factor distinct from women’s unequal caring responsibilities, horizontal occupational segregation, women’s propensity to participate in the labour market on a part-time basis, and women’s propensity to work for smaller and less unionised employers, is the largest single cause underpinning the gender pay gap. This suggests that the pay gap causes cannot wholly be explained by a ‘trigger point’ analysis, and that a gendered analysis is necessary if pay inequalities are to be addressed. Women are still paid on average 13% * less per hour than men in Scotland, with an even bigger gap when hourly rates of women working part time are compared with men working full time. It is most alarming that the Review seems to suggest that an analysis of the gender pay gap does not help us to identify where inequality is located. Equal pay audits in workplaces are clearly identifying equal value claims for thousands of women workers, both at high and low income levels.

3.2 The STUC notes that the Equalities Review Team indicates it will give a proper consideration of the Women and Work Commission report. The STUC has many concerns with the report from the Women and Work Commission as published in February 2006, not least that it failed to recommend that employers carry out equal pay audits to identify discriminatory practices. We feel that there are similarities between the Equalities Review Interim Report, and that of the Women and Work Commission. The Women and Work Commission tends to “blame” women or their teachers or careers advisors for choosing the wrong subjects at school and therefore making the wrong career decisions, rather than identifying the structural discrimination that is endemic in pay and values systems; just as the Equalities Review focuses on individuals and their life choices, rather than the institutionalised inequalities and barriers people face.

3.3 Whilst it may be useful to identify key life stages and analyse life chances at each point, the STUC believes that this has to be done at the same time as considering the structural inequalities and barriers that people face. We consider it is more the duty of the Equalities Review, and that of government, to address the structural inequalities and discriminatory actions of key agents, such as employers or service providers, which are preventing people from achieving their potential, rather than blaming individuals for their own life choices.

4 Question 2: Do you agree with the priorities for action set out at page 62? If not why not?

4.1 The STUC feels that some of the priorities set out, may be important issues to address, but has concerns about others, and the manner in which they have been framed. The Report makes much of the home learning environment, and clearly this is important. However, this is a complex and sensitive issue to address, and the STUC would not wish this debate to result in restrictive and authoritarian recommendations. Rather, we would want to consider what helps to make a positive early years experience that is conducive to a child’s development and engagement with society throughout his or her life. For the STUC, good early years education and care services are essential, along with legislation that supports parents in the workplace to balance their work with caring commitments. It is about looking at the structures that the state can put in place to support early years development that is important, not about dictating to parents on how to raise their children.

4.2 The STUC notes that many of the challenges affect a vast number of people, and this should be clearly stated in the report. For example, the challenge of “job prospects of lone and partnered women after having children” will mean most women at some point in their lives; and the “job prospects of some disabled people” is quite an understatement as the Disability Rights Commission has stated that 1.2million disabled people in the UK are out of work but want to work.

4.3 As noted above, the STUC considers there are many pressing challenges on equality, not least that of closing the gender pay gap, reducing the ethnic penalty in employment, ensuring disabled people are supported into work where they are able, and tackling the prejudice and discrimination many people face at work and in society because of their gender, race, sexual orientation, age, religion or belief, and disability. There is also a need for change at the level of social policy and culture, along with the need to challenge stereotypes and prejudice. Clearly these are challenging areas to address, but the STUC considers these challenges should be set out and identified.

5 Question 3: Is the frame work for defining and measuring equality, set out at Chapter 5, an appropriate way of thinking about equality? What might constitute a basket of indicators?

5.1 The Report sets out interesting commentary on defining equality, however, the STUC is not entirely comfortable with the definitions as set out. Equality is about opportunities, outcomes and abilities. It is also about fairness, equity and justice, and these latter concepts seem to be absent in the analysis. The STUC also has concerns that a “basket of indicators” approach is far too simple a way to think about equality, and that this type of tick box approach cannot encompass the complexities of inequality and discrimination that needs to be addressed.

5.2 The STUC believes that it is important to think of the legislative framework of equality, and the mechanisms that can be used to promote greater equality in all policy areas, along with tackling institutional barriers and discrimination.

5.3 The Report makes reference to socio-economic status and the impact this has upon life chances and equality. It is therefore disappointing that the Review was not able to make recommendations to address issues of poverty and wealth inequality, which has a massive impact upon education, health, employment and life span.

STUC June 2006