Another road to ruination…
Harriet Harman’s flagship legislation to tackle inequality cleared the Commons tonight, amid protests that it promoted positive discrimination.
MPs gave the Equality Bill a third reading by 338 votes to eight, majority 330. It now goes to the Lords after being carried over from the last Parliamentary session.
The bill was savaged by Shadow business minister John Penrose who claimed the could mean employers discriminating in favour of minority applicants rather than handing out jobs purely on merit.
Political parties will be allowed to use positive action to boost the number of black and Asian candidates and permission to use all-women shortlists will be extended.
Critics also claimed there had not been enough time for debate at its earlier report stage.
And in the latest round of voluntary, to become mandatory, measures:
The Bill requires certain employers to produce a ‘gender pay report’ each year to reveal the level of pay discrimination.
Private sector firms will initially be part of a voluntary regime, but a legal requirement will be imposed to force companies employing more than 250 people to produce a report if ‘sufficient progress’ has not been made by 2013.
Which is likely to impact upon my pay rises, because my female colleagues are at liberty to spend half their time reading Heat magazine and the other half on maternity leave, massaging their piles.
Critics fear businesses already hit by the recession could be landed with the extra cost of implementing the measures.
Employers will be allowed to take on candidates who have a ‘protective characteristic’ in preference over someone else as long as they have the same qualifications.
The legislation will make it illegal to force breastfeeding mothers out of public places such as coffee shops, restaurants and galleries, and bans private clubs from discriminating against women members.
Well, I thought it right to find out exactly what the implications of this, so I went to the government website, and found this:
So, if I don’t agree, it’s because I don’t understand, yeah? It’s gonna get a whole lot worse before it gets better:
This is a government leaflet. Or is it the school project of a 10 year old girl?
No – I’m not making this shit up.
Here are some of the proposed outcomes:
Right.
What’s in it for me, motherfuckers?
AJ
Al Jahom's Final Word 
Like I said before, if I had my own business, what fucking beeswax is it of the gummint to tell me who I can hire or fire?
The cuntology of this is amazing.
I have my own business and I take on the best staff that I can (plus, I have to actually LIKE the person). I don’t care where they come from or what sex they are. I want my business to succeed! In my humble opinion if you wanted to practise true equality, then gender, age, ethnic origin, etc.. wouldn’t be part of the CV. Just ability, experience and qualifications!
It’s interesting to read that it’s discrimination if “you are a woman or a man” and “married or a civil partner”
How come the government says I am not eligible for support of any kind since losing my job solely because other half has a job. If I was single or divorced I would be entitled to some help, including financial support, but as it stands the local jobcentre staff refused to even help me fill in newfangled forms because OH works more than 16 hours a week.
Is this equality, or is it state-sanctioned discrimination?
Pingback: Fucking Get On With It Woman! « Al Jahom’s Final Word
Pingback: Eekwality: Ur doin it wrong « Al Jahom’s Final Word
Pingback: Harebrained Hattie puts entire nation in a Gordian knot « Al Jahom’s Final Word
Pingback: Wait, what? « Al Jahom's Final Word
Pingback: Better late than never « Al Jahom's Final Word