"Worker Protection Bill" - ludicrous overreach?
Discussion
The first I've heard about this but it sounds like a scary amount of overreach here. Taking this at face value (as it is the DM)... how many companies will simply ban patrons from off-topic talking on the premises to avoid being sued?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1193502...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1193502...
The usual Daily Mail frothing.
https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/49735/doc...
https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/49735/doc...
The actual Bill says said:
The Equality Act 2010 is amended as follows.
(2)
In section 40 (employees and applicants: harassment), after subsection (1)
insert—
“(1A)
The circumstances in which A is to be treated as harassing B under
subsection (1) include those where—
(a)
a third party harasses B in the course of B’s employment, and
(b)
A failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the third party
from doing so.
(1B)
A third party is a person other than—
(a)
A, or
(b)
an employee of A’s.
(1C)
Subsection (1D) applies if and so far as—
(a)
a third party harasses B in the course of B’s employment,
(b)
the harassment falls within section 26(1) (unwanted conduct
related to a relevant protected characteristic) and not within
section 26(2) or (3) (unwanted conduct of a sexual nature etc),
(c)
the conduct constituting the harassment involves a conversation
in which B is not a participant, or a speech which is not aimed
specifically at B,
(d)
the conversation or speech involves the expression of an
opinion on a political, moral, religious or social matter,
(e)
the opinion expressed is not indecent or grossly offensive, and
(f)
the expression of the opinion does not have the purpose of
violating B’s dignity or of creating an intimidating, hostile,
degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.
(1D)
For the purposes of subsection (1A) (b) , A is not to be treated as having
failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment solely
because A did not seek to prevent the expression of the opinion.”
But the frothers will froth. (2)
In section 40 (employees and applicants: harassment), after subsection (1)
insert—
“(1A)
The circumstances in which A is to be treated as harassing B under
subsection (1) include those where—
(a)
a third party harasses B in the course of B’s employment, and
(b)
A failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the third party
from doing so.
(1B)
A third party is a person other than—
(a)
A, or
(b)
an employee of A’s.
(1C)
Subsection (1D) applies if and so far as—
(a)
a third party harasses B in the course of B’s employment,
(b)
the harassment falls within section 26(1) (unwanted conduct
related to a relevant protected characteristic) and not within
section 26(2) or (3) (unwanted conduct of a sexual nature etc),
(c)
the conduct constituting the harassment involves a conversation
in which B is not a participant, or a speech which is not aimed
specifically at B,
(d)
the conversation or speech involves the expression of an
opinion on a political, moral, religious or social matter,
(e)
the opinion expressed is not indecent or grossly offensive, and
(f)
the expression of the opinion does not have the purpose of
violating B’s dignity or of creating an intimidating, hostile,
degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.
(1D)
For the purposes of subsection (1A) (b) , A is not to be treated as having
failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment solely
because A did not seek to prevent the expression of the opinion.”
Rivenink said:
The usual Daily Mail frothing.
https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/49735/doc...
You dont find the highlighted points quite worrying?https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/49735/doc...
The actual Bill says said:
the conduct constituting the harassment involves a conversation
in which B is not a participant, or a speech which is not aimed
specifically at B,
(d)
the conversation or speech involves the expression of an
opinion on a political, moral, religious or social matter,
(e)
But the frothers will froth. in which B is not a participant, or a speech which is not aimed
specifically at B,
(d)
the conversation or speech involves the expression of an
opinion on a political, moral, religious or social matter,
(e)
ChemicalChaos said:
Rivenink said:
The usual Daily Mail frothing.
https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/49735/doc...
You dont find the highlighted points quite worrying?https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/49735/doc...
The actual Bill says said:
the conduct constituting the harassment involves a conversation
in which B is not a participant, or a speech which is not aimed
specifically at B,
(d)
the conversation or speech involves the expression of an
opinion on a political, moral, religious or social matter,
(e)
But the frothers will froth. in which B is not a participant, or a speech which is not aimed
specifically at B,
(d)
the conversation or speech involves the expression of an
opinion on a political, moral, religious or social matter,
(e)
It is in effect the restriction of opinion being freely and lawfully expressed and in that I think it is wrong
I follow the old adage that whilst I might not agree with someone’s opinion I will fight for their right to express it
Edited by Earthdweller on Tuesday 4th April 12:22
ChemicalChaos said:
Rivenink said:
The usual Daily Mail frothing.
https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/49735/doc...
You dont find the highlighted points quite worrying?https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/49735/doc...
The actual Bill says said:
the conduct constituting the harassment involves a conversation
in which B is not a participant, or a speech which is not aimed
specifically at B,
(d)
the conversation or speech involves the expression of an
opinion on a political, moral, religious or social matter,
(e)
But the frothers will froth. in which B is not a participant, or a speech which is not aimed
specifically at B,
(d)
the conversation or speech involves the expression of an
opinion on a political, moral, religious or social matter,
(e)
In any case I am not sure the world was crying out for more ways for employees to sue their employers over the behaviour of customers rather than other employees. Strikes me that this could very easily become a minefield and yet another thing causing high risk business, such as pubs, to close.
Earthdweller said:
ChemicalChaos said:
Rivenink said:
The usual Daily Mail frothing.
https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/49735/doc...
You dont find the highlighted points quite worrying?https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/49735/doc...
The actual Bill says said:
the conduct constituting the harassment involves a conversation
in which B is not a participant, or a speech which is not aimed
specifically at B,
(d)
the conversation or speech involves the expression of an
opinion on a political, moral, religious or social matter,
(e)
But the frothers will froth. in which B is not a participant, or a speech which is not aimed
specifically at B,
(d)
the conversation or speech involves the expression of an
opinion on a political, moral, religious or social matter,
(e)
It is in effect the restriction of opinion being freely and lawfully expressed and in that I think it is wrong
I follow the old adage that whilst I might not agree with someone’s opinion I will fight for their right to express it
Daily Mail hyperbole aside, what business is it of anyones to police what other's can lawfully say? Even without the part about it not being directly aimed at the complainant, that's a huge overreach.
But worse, they appear to be proposing to 'protect' workers from overhearing something they might not agree with or like.
In doing so, it appears that this bill opens the door for employees to sue their employers because they've heard someone say something they don't like.
ChemicalChaos said:
Rivenink said:
The usual Daily Mail frothing.
https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/49735/doc...
You dont find the highlighted points quite worrying?https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/49735/doc...
The actual Bill says said:
the conduct constituting the harassment involves a conversation
in which B is not a participant, or a speech which is not aimed
specifically at B,
(d)
the conversation or speech involves the expression of an
opinion on a political, moral, religious or social matter,
(e)
But the frothers will froth. in which B is not a participant, or a speech which is not aimed
specifically at B,
(d)
the conversation or speech involves the expression of an
opinion on a political, moral, religious or social matter,
(e)
That subsection (C) highlights the instances where Subsection D applies.
Subsection D declares that "A is not to be treated as having failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment solely because A did not seek to prevent the expression of the opinion.”
Which rather than worrying me, assures me that a company is not obliged to prevent expression of free speech in case a harrasament claim is brought against them.
Rivenink said:
You need to read them in context with the rest of the section. Pulling them out like this and saying "arn't these worrying" entirely misrepresents why they are there.
That subsection (C) highlights the instances where Subsection D applies.
Subsection D declares that "A is not to be treated as having failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment solely because A did not seek to prevent the expression of the opinion.”
Which rather than worrying me, assures me that a company is not obliged to prevent expression of free speech in case a harrasament claim is brought against them.
IMO that wording is terrible. Rather than stating a vague negative, tell me what the reasonable steps an employer should take are exactly.That subsection (C) highlights the instances where Subsection D applies.
Subsection D declares that "A is not to be treated as having failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment solely because A did not seek to prevent the expression of the opinion.”
Which rather than worrying me, assures me that a company is not obliged to prevent expression of free speech in case a harrasament claim is brought against them.
The test will be the first case brought by an employee who's legal team claims their employer failed to 'take all reasonable steps' - typically of recent government legislative wording, it's lack of specificity means it's open to abuse.
EmBe said:
Rivenink said:
You need to read them in context with the rest of the section. Pulling them out like this and saying "arn't these worrying" entirely misrepresents why they are there.
That subsection (C) highlights the instances where Subsection D applies.
Subsection D declares that "A is not to be treated as having failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment solely because A did not seek to prevent the expression of the opinion.”
Which rather than worrying me, assures me that a company is not obliged to prevent expression of free speech in case a harrasament claim is brought against them.
IMO that wording is terrible. Rather than stating a vague negative, tell me what the reasonable steps an employer should take are exactly.That subsection (C) highlights the instances where Subsection D applies.
Subsection D declares that "A is not to be treated as having failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment solely because A did not seek to prevent the expression of the opinion.”
Which rather than worrying me, assures me that a company is not obliged to prevent expression of free speech in case a harrasament claim is brought against them.
The test will be the first case brought by an employee who's legal team claims their employer failed to 'take all reasonable steps' - typically of recent government legislative wording, it's lack of specificity means it's open to abuse.
But agree, it could be worded much better to ensure people understood it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff