When Red Ken recently likened a journalist to a ‘concentration camp guard’ the particulars of the Race Relations Act may not have been at the forefront of his mind; Editor’s Comment looks at the state of parity in UK plc.

By Annie Hayes

Political history is dotted with the gaffs of great leaders and the royal family are no exception.

Prince Philip is a classic example of someone who has always had an unfortunate knack of saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, I cringe to recall his ‘slitty eyes’ comment on a royal tour of China and it looks as though Prince Harry is blindly following in his grandfather’s footsteps having recently chosen to adorn a Nazi swastika at a fancy dress party.

But do these acts mean they are racist and is it all just political correctness gone mad?

Not according to Martin Brewer, a partner in the employment law team of Mills & Reeve.

Commenting Brewer said: “The question is, was his comment racist, or merely offensive? If the latter is the case, then he will escape legal censure. To be racist under the Race Relations Act is to treat someone less favourably on the ground of race. It is not sufficient merely to be offensive.

“In the employment field this law is given a broad interpretation and had Mr Livingstone made a similar comment to an employee or work colleague, if his words had caused them distress, then he may have found himself in deep water. Whether this will extend to these circumstances is less clear.”

Whether or not Ken will be found to be in breach of the Act is a matter for the experts but what is in question is what impact these gaffs have on the fragility of race relations in the UK.

If our leaders are prone to ill-advised words then what hope do we have that the workforce are much better and what is all this ill-feeling doing for UK productivity?

In 2000, ethnic minorities accounted for a mere 7.2% of the working population and according to Owen et al white economic activity rates are well above those for people from ethnic minority groups as a whole. Among men of working age, only Black Caribbean and Indian men have economic activity rates (80% and 82% respectively) that are close to Whites (85%).

It is also apparent that those ethnic minority workers who are economically active are less likely than white workers to be employed as managers and administrators.

Mick Marchington and Adrian Wilkinson, authors of People Management and Development say of the figures: “Overall, it is apparent that people from ethnic minorities are disadvantaged, compared with Whites, not just in terms of the type of work they do but also in terms of lower average pay levels (at least 10% less) and crucially in their access to employment.”

To what extent the disadvantage felt by these groups is due to discrimination (overt or covert) by employers as a whole or by individual managers is unclear. What is clear, however, is that with leaders setting the wrong examples the future looks a little bleak. Certainly, the call from the Commission for Racial Equality’s chair, Trevor Philips for ‘beacons’ to show us how change can take place looks to have fallen upon deaf ears.

But does it matter?

Well if you care for the bottom line, it appears as though it does. For individuals it stops people realising their potential, and prevents businesses from using skills and talents to good effect.

The CIPD’s position paper states that ‘managing diversity is based on the concept that people should be valued as individuals for reasons related to business interest, as well as for moral and social reasons. It recognises that people from different backgrounds can bring fresh ideas and perceptions which make the way work is done more efficient and products and services better.’

The CIPD also found that there were powerful business benefits:

• Improved customer satisfaction and market penetration by employing and supporting a diverse workforce whose composition is similar to that of the local population




• Recognition that a diverse workforce brings a range of skills and is the best use of human resources




• Improved supply of labour




• Avoidance of costly discrimination cases

Whether Ken should be branded as a ‘racist’ is a matter of personal opinion but what is certain is that if UK plc is to drive forward having leaders in place that fuel the fires of racial discrimination isn’t a good thing. Being in a position of power is being in a position of influence. Developing our ethics and moral positioning is often drawn from those around us, parents, teachers and leaders and these viewpoints are what we take to work with us – shaping them is a very important job. With the mayor of a multiethnic London dishing out the insults it seems that the path to racial equality is yet to be travelled.

In a brand new series for HRZone, controversial HR critic, Paul Kearns will be looking at the concept of leadership and asks why do we need HR leaders?

Share your views on this topic by posting your comment below.