The Equality and Human Rights Commission costs the taxpayer £70 million annually.
It’s a government quango that was launched in October 2007. It took over the responsibilities of three legacy Commissions: the Commission for Racial Equality; the Disability Rights Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission which, between them, employed 628 staff at a cost of £23.1 million. The newly formed EHRC employed 525 staff at a cost of £23.6 million. £11.1 million was paid to former members of all three legacy equality commissions for voluntary early severance and voluntary early retirement at least seven of whom, after having received severance pay of £629,276 between them under the early exit scheme, were re-employed as consultants and awarded fees far in excess of what they had originally been paid for doing the same job.
The re-engagement of legacy staff by EHRC was censured by the Government Equalities Office because they felt their salaries were significantly higher than previously paid, it was considered the staff didn’t provide value for money and it was debatable whether there had been a proper break in their contract terms between leaving their previous jobs and joining the EHRC which, according to the Civil Service Compensation Scheme, should have required them to repay their severance packages.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission is a monument to what can be achieved by a relatively small number of dedicated people who are well organised, well financed and who invariably employ professional lobbyists well versed in the art of persuading/corrupting susceptible politicians and officials to help further the objectives of their group.

According to the EHRC, its role is to enforce (yes enforce) equality legislation on age, disability, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation and compliance with the Human Rights Act.In short, anybody who doesn’t toe the equality and diversity line is for it.

I was invited by members of the EHRC to meet and question them. So I did. Unfortunately, they were all such nice people I was unable to be as forthright as I would have liked to have been. But I loved the premises. They’re leasing some of the most expensive riverside property in the City but have, of course, made accommodation available for a prayer room, a maternity room and the obligatory  ‘quite’ room.

Prior to my meeting at the EHRC scheduled for Tuesday 1^st June 2010 I sent them the following email:-

“Equality & Human Rights Commission chairman Trevor Phillips, in the foreword of the EHRC’s September 2009 Report on the financial services sector said that  ‘We initiated this Inquiry in early 2009, largely because we already knew that the financial services sector has a bigger overall pay gap than any other part of the economy and we thought it was vital to arrive at a more detailed and sophisticated understanding of the dimensions and the causes of that gap.’

That sounded good to me. I assumed, after the causes of the pay gap had been identified, constructive suggestions would be made to help correct the imbalance. Instead, the EHRC proceeded to produce a 100-page report that ignored the causes of the problem and exaggerated the effects. Misleading extracts of which were then fed to the Media.

The suggestions in the report merely added additional layers of unwanted bureaucracy upon the business community. It was suggested that companies should appoint a board member to set the tone, champion the issues and drive change; that equality and diversity should be incorporated into organisational and individual objectives; that annual equal pay audits should be undertaken and the results published; that maternity, paternity and parental support schemes should be in place and effective; that the implementation and impact of policy on gender equality should be monitored.

The reason a gender pay gap exists within the finance sector is because the City deals with individuals and companies across many time zones. Anybody seeking promotion within the financial sector with a view to being awarded a massive salary/bonus package will be expected to work long unsocial hours at short notice. A crucial part of the job involves meeting and entertaining clients, mostly men, at male-dominated sporting events and/or hostess bars during evenings and weekends. This makes it difficult for women with childcare and caring responsibilities to properly compete for the top jobs, particularly if they feel uncomfortable entertaining clients in male oriented clubs. Many of them choose not to participate in this particular rat race.

This information was buried deep within the depths of the report. Worse, despite the EHRC accusing employers, rightly so, of discriminating against women of childbearing age, nothing whatsoever was said about the causes of such discrimination.

The reason for this omission relates to the fact that the EHRC would have us believe Britain is a culturally sexist country that refuses to regard women as being equal to men and that employers are wicked ogres preying on and exploiting defenceless women. Nonsense. Truth is, the business community’s reluctance to pay women as much as men (or even employ them at all) has nothing whatsoever to do with sex, discrimination, equality or diversity and everything to do with the fact that employing women is just plain bad news. Sadly, women’s rights activists don’t appear to have spotted that the very rights they’ve fought so long and so hard to bestow upon women have now imposed near pariah status upon all women in the workplace. Who in their right mind wants to pay women of childbearing age, burdened as they are with so many rights, privileges and extra costs, the same as similarly qualified non-pregnant men?

There are 4.8 million enterprises in the UK. 4.3 million of them employ less than 4 staff. Problem is, few if any of the 4.3 million owner-managers who run these companies posses either the knowledge or the skill to properly comply with the mysteries of employment legislation, particularly the procedural complexities related to maternity, discrimination and compensation. Nor can they afford to employ Human Relations experts who do. There’s nothing sexist about these people, they’re just scared stiff to employ women. Accepting less money to secure a job is the price women now have to pay to compensate for all the rights, privileges, risks, trouble, inconvenience and additional outlay companies have to factor in when assessing the true cost of employing them.

Current employment legislation is a boon for the occasional rotten apple in the barrel but isn’t serving the best interests of the majority of decent hardworking women who are more than capable of competing on a level playing field. Unfortunately, women’s rights activists have laboured mightily and very successfully to deny them a level playing field. Women, unlike men, can:-

1) demand to be reinstated in their original position after having been on maternity leave for twelve months. If their employer, with good reason, is unable to offer them the same job they’re entitled to demand an acceptable alternative at the same terms and conditions as their previous job. If their employer is unable to meet this condition they can claim unfair dismissal. If they return to work but don’t get their old job back they can invoke grievance procedures that could result in a sex discrimination or detrimental treatment claim – or they can resign and make a claim for constructive dismissal.

2) demand a year’s maternity leave even if they announce they’re pregnant on the first day of a new job

3) demand, if they become pregnant, their employer conducts risk assessments related to their work and remove all risks (standing or sitting for long periods, lifting or carrying heavy loads or working long hours might be considered a risk). If employers are unable to remove the risk or offer suitable alternative work they should suspend the woman from work on full pay.

4) demand time off on full pay to attend medical examinations, relaxation and parent craft classes. Women undergoing IVF treatment will similarly be entitled to time off on full pay after the fertilized embryo has been implanted

5) demand full maternity benefits if their child is stillborn after 24 weeks of pregnancy

6) demand full maternity benefits if their child is born alive at any time of the pregnancy but subsequently dies

7) demand full statutory annual leave of 4.8 weeks whilst on maternity leave which can be taken before or after their maternity leave

8) demand to receive, whilst on maternity leave, all contractual benefits they would normally receive if they were still working: gym memberships, use of company car etc

9) demand a repeat of all the same rights if they become pregnant again whilst on maternity leave. Their subsequent period of maternity leave can commence as soon as the current one ends

10) demand to change their mind about the time they intend to start and finish their maternity leave

11) demand, when they return to work, their employer seriously considers any request they make to change to a flexible working pattern. Employers are expected to comply and to provide written evidence that such requests have been very seriously considered

12) demand their employer makes suitable breast-feeding and rest facilities available to them. (Toilets are not deemed to be suitable rest facilities)

13) demand an extra four weeks at the end of their maternity leave for parental leave without it affecting their right to return to the same job

14) demand a total of thirteen weeks parental leave for each of their children up to their fifth birthday and a total of eighteen weeks for each disabled child up to their eighteenth birthday.

15) make a very expensive and time-consuming sex discrimination claim against any prospective employer foolish enough to ask them, during a job interview, about the impact existing or future family commitments are likely to have on their work rate, or the frequency and length of time they consider they’ll need to absent themselves from work.

16) omit to mention they have no intention of returning to work after having a child. To do so would lose them benefits.

17) unsettle and create rifts in an otherwise happy team by having their workload distributed amongst other members of the staff whilst employers spend precious time and money advertising, interviewing and training temporary or agency workers to bridge the temporary or possibly permanent gap they’ve created.

Not unnaturally, women with children and family commitments are far more likely to be tired, worried, depressed and distracted at work than men because of the many extra hours each day they have to spend tending to and worrying about their families.

Given the above what employer, large or small, would prefer to employ a woman of childbearing age if given the opportunity to employ an equally qualified non-pregnant man?

Personally, I’d consider it rash for anybody unfamiliar with the complexities of current employment legislation to consider employing women at all. Most women returning from maternity leave are welcomed back with open arms but some will find it more difficult to reintegrate. The company and the friends they used to work with might have changed. Maybe they’ve lost the will to work or have some sort of chip on their shoulder which feeds a self-fulfilling belief that they aren’t welcome. Either way, chances are they’ll blame anybody other than themselves for any problems/setbacks they might experience and be tempted to consider redressing whatever imbalance they feel to exist by plucking one or more of the juicy sex discrimination and compensation fruits dangling temptingly before them. One thing is for sure. They’re in the drivers seat and they know it. They know they can, at the drop of a hat, bring a small company to its knees or ruin it with outrageous sex or discrimination-based compensation claims, real or imagined.

The constant threat of the latter and the fact that procedural errors made by inexperienced managers account for 90% of all claims that end up at Employment Tribunals is what finally persuaded me to cease making risk capital available to fledgling companies.

To the many who would deny companies, particularly the owner-managers of small companies, the right to decide who they should or shouldn’t employ and how much they should pay them I can promise, as a venture capitalist who has funded and co-partnered the launch of over seventy small companies, that their views about employing women will undergo a sudden and radical change should they decide to put their own savings, their own home, their health and the future of their own family on the line to make a 24/7 commitment to launching and protecting their own business.

To the millions of employers the nation holds responsible for creating wealth and jobs for decent hardworking folk I suggest they stop allowing themselves to be intimidated by the politically correct equality and human rights extremists who have priced women out of the market and tell the world, in big bold letters, that yes, they do discriminate against women and no they aren’t prepared to pay women the same as men.

Please forgive the length of this tirade. I’d welcome your comments if you feel it to be inaccurate or unfair.”

Kind regards,

Peter Stokes. Leader of the Grumpy Old Men Political Party