The British Labour Market - Essay Example

The British labour market is a highly diverse one. According to available statistics, it is constantly moving towards greater diversity. According to 2005 statistics released by the Office of National Statistics, 5.4% of the British labour force is foreign, with EU and former Commonwealth migration statistics, among other non-British sources of labour inflow, indicating a continual increase. The previous year, 2005, saw the largest ever influx of foreign workers to Britain, totalling approximately 400,000 (Salt and Miller, 2006). In addition to that, diversity statistics indicate that ethnic minority groups comprise approximately 8% of the current workforce; 25% are non-Christian; and around 12% are disabled. Statistics relating to gays and lesbians are indeterminate, largely because of a lack of national surveys but, are estimated to stand between 5-7% (Salt and Miller, 2006). What these statistics and figures tell us is that the British labour force is an extremely diverse one and that the concern over diversity management and equality within organisations needs to be understood from this perspective. Recognising the importance of equality and diversity issues in both the workplace and British society, the Guardian Unlimited has, in just the past week, published several articles on the topic. Of these articles, one in particular stands out. Published in the Money section of the newspaper, under the category of "the gender gap," this article, entitled "Equalising Opportunity" stands out for a number of reasons. Indeed, despite its extremely short length, this article, published on 5th January 2007, sheds light on a number of interesting facts and an important policy development regarding gender equality in the workplace. As regards the facts reported, the article mentions that even though the Equal Opportunity Commission has been attempting to close the pay gap ever since its foundation over three decades ago, the gap between male and female pay stands at a quite large 17%. In other words, despite legislature and in spite of the work of the EOC, female employees are still paid 17% less than their male colleagues for the same type of work and the same working hours. A second important fact which the article sheds light on is the conflict between work and family. The economic stress and pressure on females is extremely severe and this means that, in the majority of cases, females seek employment out of necessity. Despite the fact, however, that female employees work full-time, they have additional duties imposed upon them by cultural gender stereotypes. Among these duties, as the article mentioned, is caring for elderly family members and housework responsibilities. This means that females besides holding full time jobs, British female employees have additional responsibilities which their male colleagues do not have. Accordingly, more and more British working women are putting off having children and families and some have decided against having children altogether. This decision is based on two facts. The first is that considering their lower pay, women, especially single women, cannot afford to have children and raise a family. The second is that considering their work responsibilities and the tasks that are traditionally assigned to them as women, housework and care for other family members, women do not have the time to have children and raise families. As the article quite clearly emphasises, "women are delaying having children, or giving up the idea altogether" (Equalising Opportunity,' 2007). In other words, there are far-reaching social consequences to pay inequality. The article, as discussed in the above paragraphs, focuses on the consequences of pay inequality and the failure of the Equal Opportunity Commission to enforce the equal pay for equal work principle across Great Britain. Additionally, by highlighting the fact that the EOC has been reorganised and renamed the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, the article is emphasises gender equality as a human rights issue and is directing readers to evaluate it from that perspective. In critiquing the article, the first thing that strikes the reader is that it concisely summarises, not just the issue of gender equality in the workplace but the consequences of the failure to establish equal pay for equal work and the persistency of the gender gap. However, the fact is that a close and critical reading of this article, which is written by the Guardian Unlimited staff, indicates that it is a bit biased. Initially, the bias is difficult to detect since the article is composed as a news piece and not as an opinion piece. From its opening line, onwards, the article is presents itself as a news piece whose primary intention is to summarise the EOC's findings in its last report, entitled "Sex and Power." This claim, in itself, establishes the impression that the article in question is an objective summarisation, or representation, of the Equal Opportunity Commission's findings on gender and equality n the workplace for 2006. However, upon considering the impression that the article leaves readers with, a suspicion of bias begins to form in the reader's mind. In brief, "Equalising Opportunity" (2007) effectively informs readers that wage and promotion discrimination against female employees persists throughout the united Kingdom and since this is currently affecting the decision of women to have children, has serious social consequences which affect the future of Britain herself. Even while conceding to the fact that the article is not making unwarranted claims and is, indeed, simply reporting the findings of the EOC, a consideration of the impression that the article gives readers indicates bias. The article does not report on any positive development, does not make any mention any advances which may have been made in the implementation and application of employment equality regulations and, indeed, seems to communicate that none have been made. For example, the article mentions that gender gap stands still at 17% despite thirty-two years of effort on the part of the EOC. Readers may interpret this as meaning that over a period of 32 years and despite legislature outlawing gender discrimination in the workplace and in spite of the activities of the Equal Opportunity Commission, there have been no significant improvements in size of the gender gap. Actually, this is a misrepresentation of facts which clearly indicates a bias in the writing. The fact of the matter is that there have been significant advances and improvement in the area of diversity and equality in the workplace over the past three decades. As Anderson (1999) reports, over the past thirty years, legislature has effectively acknowledged the reality of the nation's existent and, ever-increasing, gender, ethnic, racial, religious and cultural diversity and has sought its positive address. From 2003 to 2006, Employment Equality regulations addressed the issues of all of age, religion/belief and sexual orientation, effectively establishing the legal and regulatory framework for both the prevention of direct and indirect discrimination against minority group employees while, at the same time, outlining the imperatives of equity. Prior to that, all of the Equal Pay Act (1970), the Sex Discrimination Act (1975), the Race Relations Act (1976) and the Race Relations Amendment Act (2000), among others, sought to ensure against both direct and indirect discrimination in the workplace (Anderson, 1999). If these facts are contrasted against those presented in the article, it becomes apparent that over the past thirty years, significant legal steps have been taken to ensure equality, including equal pay, in the workplace. Therefore, contrary to the impression which the article gives, there have been significant achievements in the area of gender equality in the workplace. In addition to the fact that public policy and legislature have established gender equality and outlawed gender discrimination and unequal pay in the workplace, there have also been significant improvements as regards the gender gap. According to Wise and Tschirhart(2000), thirty years of anti-discrimination, diversity and equality policy and legislature have significantly reduced unequal pay levels. Just thirty years ago, women were paid practically half the wages that men were paid for the sane work and for the same number of working hours. This gap was, through the passage and subsequent implementation of relevant legislature gradually reduced until today where the gap stands at an average of 17% (Wise and Tschirhart, 2000). Certainly, the Guardian Unlimited article does quote this same figure but it mentions it in a different context, subsequently giving the impression of little, if any improvement over the past three decades. In other words, the 17% gap, if understood within the historical context explored by Wise and Tschirhart (2000) is proof of significant development in the reduction of pay inequalities and testifies to the increasing success of gender discrimination, diversity and equality policies. As reported in the article, however, the mentioned 17% appears to be proof of failure, not success. In addition to the mentioned areas of bias, the article further fails to mention that one of the challenges to the implementation of anti-discrimination policies and the equal pay principle is the female employees themselves. As Gordon (1995) points out, empirical studies have persuaded organisational leadership that diversity can be an important key to organisational success if diverse groups within an organisation were treated with equality. In other words, equal treatment is a motivation for the maximisation of employee productivity and the realisation of individual employee potentials. Therefore, some organisations, at least, are determined to implement anti-discrimination, equality and diversity principles and practices (Gordon, 1995). In doing so, however, organisational leadership often confronts a challenge in the form of female employees who, either do not want to assume additional career responsibilities due to family commitments or, who fail to file complaints to management should they experience discrimination within the organisation itself. Therefore, on the one hand, some female employees do not want to the added responsibilities which come with promotion and pay raises and, others fail to assert themselves if they are mistreated or discriminated against by their immediate supervisors, for example (Gordon, 1995). The consequence is that discrimination at some levels within UK public and private sector organisations persists despite legislature, public and organisational policies. Indeed, as Polzer, Milton and Swan (2002) argue, the only way that complete gender equality can be established within public and private organisations is that if female employees participate more fully in the implementation of these policies and in reporting their violation. What becomes evident at this point is that gender discrimination in the workplace remains an issue in Great Britain. Contrary, however, to the impression which the article in question gives its audiences, part of the problem lies with female employees themselves. "Equalizing Opportunity" makes no mention of this at all. Similarly, and as early argued, it makes no mention of positive developments and, indeed, even paints a rather pessimistic picture of the state of gender discrimination in the British workplace. This indicates that the article is somewhat biased and is not presenting the situation as objectively as it should have. In concluding this analysis, it is important to mention that the reason why "Equalizing Opportunity' was ethically obliged to provide its readers with a non-biased and objective assessment of the situation is that it is presented as a news piece and not as an opinion piece. As a news piece, it should have summarized the EOC's findings for 2006 in a more balanced manner, citing both the positive and the negative. The fact that it chose to focus on the negative and, indeed, to communicate the impression that the EOC has been unable, after 32 years of effort, to close the gender gap, suggests that this is the author's own interpretation of the situation and his/her own reading of the EOC's 2006 findings. As such, the article should have been clearly presented as an opinion piece, signaling to readers that it contains a prejudiced/subjective analysis of the state of gender equality in the workplace. The fact that it was not is not simply misleading but suggests that the author deliberately misleads readers in order to incite greater support for gender equality in the workplace, not just support from female readers but from male ones as well. It is, thus, that he article takes great care to mention the larger social ramifications of discrimination; the increasing tendency to delay childbirth or to eliminate the idea altogether. Bibliography Anderson, E. (1999) What's the point of equality' Ethics, 109(2), 287-337. Equalising opportunity' (2007) Guardian Unlimited. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1983391,00.html Gordon, A. (1995) The work of corporate culture: Diversity management..' Social Text, 44., 3-30. Kossek, E.E. and Zonia, S.C. (1993) Assessing diversity climate: A field study of reactions to employer efforts to promote diversity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(1), pp. 61-81. Recascino, L. and Wise, M. (2000) Examining empirical evidence on diversity effects: How useful is diversity research for public-sector managers' Public Administration Review, 60(5), 386-394. Polzer, J.T., Milton, L.P., and Swann, W.B. (2002) Capitalizing on diversity: Interpersonal congruence in small work groups.' Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2), 296-324. Read More