Equality: a middle-aged white man writes
To describe the UK government’s latest proposed legislation on discrimination as a dogs’ dinner should not be taken as referring only to male canines. Or to suggest that other animals will not be fed either. But the proposals make a mess messier, however well-meant.
Those groups that have been discriminated against in past generations are to be compensated by being put at the front of the queue for jobs. The idea that discrimination is the best way to counter discrimination highlights the muddled thinking.
But what world does the government live in when it says that, if there are two equally suitable candidates for a job, the post can be given to a woman or black person because of that ethnic/gender status? In the real world, when the shortlist is whittled down to two people, the employer keeps on asking questions until he or she thinks one of the candidates has attributes the other lacks. No one gives up asking questions and decides on the flick of a coin.
Jobs should be given on the employer’s view of merit to people of whatever colour or sex – or height, age, orientation etc – even if views of merit vary.
Another course of this dog’s dinner affects age. Subsidised travel for pensioners will stay because… well, because that sort of discrimination is acceptable. But charging pensioners more for expensive travel insurance is to be questioned as discriminatory, even if older people make more claims. Older people have cheaper motor insurance because they have fewer accidents: will that be in jeopardy too?
We should be wary of interfering with the markets for labour or for services. Pensioners will buy their insurance from the cheapest source and companies will adapt their products and pricing to attract low risks. Bad employers will not only be shunned by savvy employers but by customers who do not share their values.
But if a black girl sets up a hair salon, why shouldn’t she be allowed to employ only black stylists? It ought to be the choice of the owner and her customers: no-one else has a right to demand a job there.
Yet not only will government bodies have to publish their male and female pay differentials, private suppliers will have to provide the same data and other companies are being pressed to follow. Ministers cite the 36 per cent pay difference between full-time male employees and part-time women without realising they are comparing apples and pears. In this dogs’ dinner world, however, it is politically incorrect to discriminate between apples and pears.
