As expected Harriet Harman is to introduce a bill permitting positive discrimination in employment. I have discussed previously the senses in which I think this is a good idea, and the senses in which it is not.
Today I want to emphasize a certain aspect. The government's position as of today is that firms will be permitted to engage in positive discrimination, but not forced to do so. This is unsustainable. In practice firms will eventually be forced to engage in positive discrimination, and any organisation of more than a few people will need to engage in efforts to have a workforce of a balance very similar to the labour force as a whole. Why? Because if your workforce is ethnically or sexually "imbalanced", and you do not engage in positive discrimination to "correct" this, then the question will arise as to why. And the answer that you don't mind that your workforce is "imbalanced" will not be adequate. Not to engage in positive discrimination will be seen as an act of perpetuating inequality, and firms will not be permitted to act in this way.
This takes us in exactly the opposite direction from the free market's solution to unbased racial and sexual prejudice - for it is perfectly plausible that teams of people of particular age groups will be more efficient for certain tasks if they work together, or that certain groups of women would be prepared to work for lower wages in environments in which they were working with only other women (because they enjoyed it more), or that certain ethnic groups operating as a sales team might appear more professional by delivering a more uniform image for their pitches.
It is not required, for there to be no barriers to achievement and advancement for women, older people, or ethnic minorities, that all firms offer equal opportunity to people of all types. What is required, rather, is that the system as a whole offers free opportunity to people of all types. Given competitive labour markets and low unemployment, can someone tell me what is supposed to be the problem with an all-women firm, or an all-under-30s firm, or an all-Polynesians firm?
[Incidentally, in case anyone is in any doubt, my comments above about the sustainability of the government's stated position represent a political opinion, not a legal opinion on the legislation - which I would be neither competent nor authorised to offer.]
