TUC Equality Audit 2020-2021

As is the case regularly in the collective bargaining TUC Equality Audits, unions were asked whether they had found it more or less difficult to get employers to address equality issues in the last two years. Because the question was asked in early 2020, union responses relate roughly to the two years 2018–19 – not only before Covid-19 but also before the 2020 killing of George Floyd in the US and the subsequent rise of the Black Lives Matter movement.

It would seem that the climate overall in that period 2018–19 was a slightly more optimistic one than was reported in the 2016 TUC Equality Audit, although still very uneven across sectors and industries. The aftermath of the 2016 Brexit referendum cast something of a cloud over this picture in some areas.

Thirty-two unions responded to the question in the latest audit, of whom 12 (33 per cent) said it had become easier to get employers to engage with equality bargaining. Meanwhile, just eight (22 per cent) said it had become more difficult, with the rest (33 per cent) saying it had stayed about the same.
While this is not an overwhelmingly positive finding the balance had been the other way in the 2016 audit, when just 15 per cent of responding unions said it had become easier to engage employers on equality and 53 per cent said it had been more difficult.

For example, three unions in the banking and finance sector (Aegis, NGSU and Accord) had found employers more willing to address equality issues. The NGSU said its employer “recognises the business case for embracing the ED&I agenda with a focus on inclusion” and that measures to progress it had been set and publicised. However, the union also said “there is still a long way to go” to ensure the issues are addressed through “the life cycle of an employee from recruitment, induction, performance management, promotions etc“.

Accord found its employers more willing to dismantle some of its hierarchical structures but said there was continuing concern about a change in the system of pay determination. Although the link between pay and performance had been removed, which was positive, some elements of pay were now more devolved, opening up the possibility for abuse and for certain groups to be disadvantaged.

Two unions operating in the rail industry (TSSA and ASLEF) were also among those finding employers more receptive to engaging with equality issues. This was partly to address skills shortfalls, but was also a genuine desire to diversify the workforce. TSSA mentioned that employers are increasingly keen to “benchmark themselves” with awards, processes and tools like the Stonewall index, Inclusive Employers and the union’s own Equality Bargaining Standards.
Health services is another area where there had been some progress. Again, recruitment pressures were cited by the SoR as a driver for growing employer interest in the equality agenda, but awareness of inequality had been helped by the NHS Workforce Race Equality Standard and other data.

The GMB had also experienced an improvement in the NHS, where it said there had been “real engagement” around the “people plan”, which it said has strong content on strands including intersectionality. However, the union cautioned that, while it is agreed nationally, locally it is only recommended, and implementation at either ground or local level was facing more resistance.

In other sectors, the GMB had found that more employers are aware of their legal duties and that there are more resources, support and awareness on equality issues. It said that, broadly, there is more willingness to be at least seen to do the “right thing”, and movement on equality issues is an opportunity for good publicity – “a shareable, demonstrable win for employers”. It is not all so cynical, however. The union said: “In some areas we are seeing employers who genuinely engage with equality issues and see how meaningfully supporting the equality issues and the solutions/policies that as a union we bring to the table, will improve their staff recruitment, retention, productivity and overall worker loyalty and morale.”

While UNISON also noted some improvement in the NHS, the union had found difficulties in other sectors in which it organises. Overall, it said it had found many employers less willing to talk equality, which the union put down in good part to the “toxic” political environment since the 2016 Brexit referendum, including a rise in hate crimes and racist incidents.

Unite had also found equality a more difficult topic to address with employers since the Brexit referendum (and around the US presidential election) as a result of the increase in hate crime, attacks, abusive language and divisive political attacks on equality. Added to this are government policies of austerity, cuts and a race to the bottom on standards, especially with increased agency working, privatisation, contracting and sub-contracting.

Unite did mention improvement in some areas, particularly around sexual and other harassment. This had been taken on board to some extent in the public and non-for-profit sectors, but not in the private sector. In some industries there had been more willingness to address the issues of mental health and period dignity.

In the education sector, financial pressures were cited as the key reason why three unions (UCU, NEU, EIS) said getting employers to address equality issues had been more difficult. The UCU pointed to “the ferocious attacks on education funding” that had “made campaigning and bargaining for equality increasingly more difficult”, while the other unions said employers were ever-more concerned over any initiatives that might add to their costs. And the GMB, while positive about some sectors, was less so about schools, where it said academisation had led to fragmentation of national collective bargaining and increasingly business-oriented employers.

The CWU was also finding it harder to get employers in its sectors to move forward on equality because of the challenging climate they are operating in. Although in some areas (telecommunications and the financial sector) some progress is being made, the resources being committed to the issues were limited.

Usdaw said that, while there had been considerable, if slow, progress in negotiating better-than-statutory family pay and leave agreements, these often do not translate into improvements for members on the ground. This is largely down to local management attitudes and behaviours, which have hardened. This is partly because they are under more pressure to achieve sales and performance targets. In addition, ‘people managers’ had been removed from stores across the retail sector, with day-to-day responsibility handed to store managers, who lack the skills or knowledge to respond well to issues such as staff needing time off as carers or disabled workers requiring reasonable adjustments.

It remains to be seen what effect the seismic events of 2020–21 will have on the steps that have been made in getting equality on the workplace agenda.