1 / 14

Managing Competing Equality Claims

Managing Competing Equality Claims. EDF/brap 2010. What are competing equality claims?. Competing equality claims – hard to define?. Why this report ?. The remit of this work. To identify and review available evidence about how to successfully prevent, manage and resolve conflicts

greg
Download Presentation

Managing Competing Equality Claims

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Managing Competing Equality Claims EDF/brap 2010

  2. What are competing equality claims?

  3. Competing equality claims – hard to define?

  4. Why this report ?

  5. The remit of this work To identify and review available evidence about how to successfully prevent, manage and resolve conflicts of this type

  6. Approach

  7. Findings Conflicts of this type tend to be: • Rights based • Identity based • Resource based These characteristics can make conflicts particularly hard to resolve

  8. Case Study 1 Scenario: Pensions advisor didn’t want to provide advice to people in civil partnerships because of her religious beliefs Response: Consultation with relevant equality groups Decision: Providing advice to all, was an essential part of the advisor’s role. Could job role be carried out effectively, if exceptions were made? Learning: Focusing on task /the role in question took the ‘heat’ out of the situation. Advisor felt comfortable enough to bring up the situation with line manager.

  9. Case Study 2 Scenario: Location of a medium secure forensic facility in a majority Pakistani community setting. Local fears of safety, and denial that ‘mental health problems’ affect the community. ‘NIMBY’ Response: Widen consultation base – talk beyond those most vocal. Education of community on issues of mental health. Decision: Still under negotiation, but less conflict. Learning : Staff skills (non-judgmental, listening, clear messages) widening consultation. Clarity around what is negotiable and what isn’t .

  10. Transferable practice

  11. Emerging issues

  12. Decision-Making Tactics When a decision has to be made about whose claim holds most weight: • Use of proportionality – clearer and more transparent process for public decisions • Rights as ‘relationships’: our actions have an effect on others • Use of principles like ‘dignity’ as a benchmark to judge relative merit/ value of claims

  13. Beyond Identity... (sometimes)? Drawbacks to previous equality based advocacy and campaigning and ‘equality’ in the media: • Can prevent recognition of common experiences or causes of discrimination • Representation can exclude diversity and the voiceless Need for a more sophisticated and neutral process for debate and decision-making.

  14. Where to now?

More Related