Firstly, to reiterate that I’ve posted this in the ‘Reasonably serious discussion’ forum. Appreciate it’s not that often I’m serious about stuff
For those of you who don’t know, LGBTI stands for Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex. Whilst I was stood having a wee at work this morning, I noticed the new advert on the wall in front of me, telling me that the company I’m currently working at has today launched their LGBTI pride group with the aim of “connecting LGBTI employees and allies across our European offices”. This isn’t the first large company that I’ve worked for that have launched campaigns specifically around this subject.
I find it a bit odd if I’m honest. Not because I have any issues with the subject, but it just strikes me as companies trying to be seen as being inclusive of certain groups of people to make themselves look good, but their actually highlighting these groups of people as different through this special group aren’t they? Don’t we all want to be treated the same, whatever our preferences? So why the need for special groups?
It was a bit like when Barack Obama became president and it only seemed to be the media that made a big deal about his colour, when everyone else was more interested in his policies and the fact he seems to be a decent bloke.
A few years ago I worked at a global investment bank and was surprised to see on their intranet that they’d started up a group to connect and empower black woman in the workplace. Imagine the outcry if there was a group to empower white men!!!
Just wondering if any of you had similar groups at work and what your thoughts were? If I fell into the LGBTI category I’m not sure I’d actually want to see this group in my workplace as I’d feel like it was highlighting me as being different rather than treating me as the same as anyone else.
It’s a bit weird, Spudders. I’ve no idea why your firm sees a need of anyone “not heterosexual” needs to be connected across Europe. It sounds like grindr for the corporate Intranet.
Maybe I’m missing the point here, but work is just a place you go to when you want to make money and pay the rent.
For me, work is not a place for political, social, or any other kind of network. I do the work, you pay me…Stay out of my life in all other matters.
If I want to be totally flaming in any kind of sexuality, I will do it in my own time thank you very much. I don’t go into work flaunting my obvious heterosexuality because it is not important. I expect the same from others. Not because I am bigotted, but because I just do not care about the social lives of my co-workers. Work is for work, leisure time is for doing whatever floats your boat.
I agree with that to an extent, and certainly the extent at which we’re talking about here, but imagine if the only thing people ever talked about in work was work. Many professional relationships are underpinned by a decent personal relationship. I know the names of all of my colleagues wives’ and kids, for example - so I wouldn’t have a problem with someone telling me about their lives if they had a different sexual orientation. I’d have a problem with anyone going into graphic detail about a personal relationship, but that would reflect badly on them more than anything else.
There is a separation, I agree. Most of us cross the threshold and become a slightly more professional version of ourselves, but to leave it all at the door? Nah.
I suspect that the intent behind this campaign is to prevent harrassment, by identifying other employees within the org that may show some solidarity if and when it happens. Sledgehammer to crack a walnut.
And more proactive or progressive employers will recognise that by looking after the health and well being of their staff, they will have a more productive workforce.
The question should probably be - is this something LGBTI groups have asked for, or is this just a top down idea of something that seemed a good idea in a board meeting. If the former, then fair play.
It is more to do with preventing harassment and people being able to share those experiences in a safe place because discrimination still happens. We have three similar groups at work LGBT (apparently my employer is one of the best for employing people in this group), black and ethnic minority group and disabled group. I could be involved in the last group but I haven’t but maybe if I felt my employer wasn’t listening or providing adjustments I’d join. Maye if I wanted to chat to people who may have experienced similar discrimination I’d want to chat to them. Sometimes it is also about helping in recruitment. Sometimes it is tokenism. Maybe the sharing of experience over Europe is to show that there is good practice in some places to aspire to?
I once went to a Labour party conference for women, young people and Europe (heck knows why Europe was in there). Young members were those under 26 and under represented in the party. Also in the union I belonged to there weren’t many. So young members had a seat on the NEC so they could represent other young people. We also had conferences and a national group to work on recruiting more young people. There are women’s conferences even in my predominantly female union because white, heterosexual males are still being voted in as leaders. So sometimes we need these groups to represent and support people to have the confidence to change the status quo.
Well, I’m not going to call you anything, but I’ve been working 19 years in professional industries, including government, design agencies and big corporations, and I’ve worked with loads.
I can’t be too judgemental because I could be a homophobic little twat when I was younger. When I got to Uni, there were gay people everywhere and it was a case of “hey pap, you’re going to have to be a homophobic twat all the time now”. Couldn’t really be arsed (no pun intended) with the effort, so I decided to stop being a homophobic twat. I wasn’t really getting that much out of it, apart from having the occasional titter with other homophobic twats, so it was an easy drop.
And it’s a good job I did, because I’d have probably been fired from many of the jobs that formed an important part of my career afterwards. For being a homophobic twat But that was just me, then.
This is probably the aspect that clouds my judgement. American companies tend to hold the belief that they actually own their employees in their entirety. Therefore anything you think, do, or say is only done with the approval of the company’s mandated policy.
Maybe things are that way in the UK today too these days, I just don’t know. I hope not. I’ve been fired from two jobs here now. Both times it was because of my differing basic principles of what I consider to be matters of fundamental mutual respect.
And more proactive or progressive employers will recognise that by looking after the health and well being of their staff, they will have a more productive workforce.
The question should probably be - is this something LGBTI groups have asked for, or is this just a top down idea of something that seemed a good idea in a board meeting. If the former, then fair play.
This is probably the aspect that clouds my judgement. American companies tend to hold the belief that they actually own their employees in their entirety. Therefore anything you think, do, or say is only done with the approval of the company’s mandated policy.
Maybe things are that way in the UK today too these days, I just don’t know. I hope not. I’ve been fired from two jobs here now. Both times it was because of my differing basic principles of what I consider to be matters of fundamental mutual respect.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean Ohio? Are you equating taking responsibility for the wellbeing of your staff with ‘owning’?
I certainly don’t feel my employer controls what I think, do or say. But, for example, I have pulled up team members in the past when they were having an open conversation on whether or not another team mate was gay. But to me that’s common sense, not company policy.
But given how hard I work (and have over worked) and how much of my life I spend at work, I think its right that an employer be more proactive in looking after its staff rather than just bleeding them dry.
And more proactive or progressive employers will recognise that by looking after the health and well being of their staff, they will have a more productive workforce.
The question should probably be - is this something LGBTI groups have asked for, or is this just a top down idea of something that seemed a good idea in a board meeting. If the former, then fair play.
This is probably the aspect that clouds my judgement. American companies tend to hold the belief that they actually own their employees in their entirety. Therefore anything you think, do, or say is only done with the approval of the company’s mandated policy.
Maybe things are that way in the UK today too these days, I just don’t know. I hope not. I’ve been fired from two jobs here now. Both times it was because of my differing basic principles of what I consider to be matters of fundamental mutual respect.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean Ohio? Are you equating taking responsibility for the wellbeing of your staff with ‘owning’?
Taking responsibility for the wellbeing of your staff is good. Interfering in their private life is bad.
It may be ancient history now, but Henry Ford used to send people round to employee’s houses to make sure they were leading a moral life, not drinking too much (at all) and not sending their wages out of the country.
While I never felt over-reaching into people’s personal lives was ever an issue when I was in the UK, I do feel that in the US, there is still an aspect of the old Ford philosophy. This manisfests itself in random employee drug testing, alcohol testing, and even nicotine testing. This is all done mainly in the interests of reducing insurance costs, but I remain sceptical of any motives they may have for any other concern. If they felt there was a dollar to be saved by eliminating any sociasl behaviour of any kind, they would do it.
Having said all that, my opinion is based on a US perspective, and is probably redundant for this debate.
While I never felt over-reaching into people’s personal lives was ever an issue when I was in the UK, I do feel that in the US, there is still an aspect of the old Ford philosophy. This manisfests itself in random employee drug testing, alcohol testing, and even nicotine testing. This is all done mainly in the interests of reducing insurance costs, but I remain sceptical of any motives they may have for any other concern. If they felt there was a dollar to be saved by eliminating any sociasl behaviour of any kind, they would do it
While I never felt over-reaching into people’s personal lives was ever an issue when I was in the UK, I do feel that in the US, there is still an aspect of the old Ford philosophy. This manisfests itself in random employee drug testing, alcohol testing, and even nicotine testing. This is all done mainly in the interests of reducing insurance costs, but I remain sceptical of any motives they may have for any other concern. If they felt there was a dollar to be saved by eliminating any sociasl behaviour of any kind, they would do it
Really??!! That is out of order!
Yeah really! And this is why I’ve been fired a couple of times. Not for failing any of these tests, but for having a general bad attitude about company philosophy. It runs much deeper, but is impossible to pin down as it is very cleverly written in any contract.
Wifey thinks I’m just a really bad employee, which is true for the US. I start another job next Tuesday…I have a feeling they will be better suited to me…Fingers crossed!!
But that was just me, then.