Young, white and male? You're fired

24 June 2008

2 minute read

As banks step up their redundancy programmes, will young white males with little recourse to discrimination legislation find themselves at the sharp end of job cuts?

"First we had to watch out for women, then ethnic minorities, then gay and transgender people, then disabled people - and now old white boys are suddenly playing the age discrimination card. It doesn't leave us with many people to choose from," says an MD at one US bank.

Linda Jackson, a director of Fairplace, which provides transition services to redundant bankers, says they've had "a couple" of Afro-Caribbeans coming to them from banks, but that most of the redundant bankers coming through their doors are young white males. She points out that this could, however, be because most banks are disproportionately staffed by white males aged less than 35.

An aversion to discrimination claims doesn't appear to have been uppermost in the minds of all banks making job cuts. Charles Ferguson, of Ferguson Solicitors, says he's currently representing a female CDO trader who was made redundant after she lost 24m. Her male boss was responsible for desks which lost 750m and is still in situ. "It just so happens that all the traders who lost their jobs were women and that the bank no longer has any senior female traders left," Ferguson says.

But he adds that banks would be stupid not to be wary of cutting people who might claim discrimination: "It ups the ante enormously - you're talking millions of pounds in compensation as opposed to a cap of 65k for an ordinary unfair dismissal case."

In theory, people who are sacked because they're easy targets can bring a reverse discrimination claim. In practice, this doesn't happen. "These laws weren't passed to protect white males," mulls Ferguson.

AUTHORSarah Butcher

Global Editor

su
surrel
28 June 2008
South Africa is a special case. the whites are last of the preference list because their parents and grand parents were benefocioaries of the racist policy of apartheid which ensured that they were guaranteed education, jobs, training, promotion and higher remuneration SOLELY on the basis of being white. Subsequently their older white family members benifited and thus acquired significant assets through employment that exploited blacks!!! So for equlaity to reign, the previously disadvantaged groups needed help from the states because the white owned firms and universities were still not prepared to allow the blacks into their schools and businesses. I lived in South Africa for 4 years, both as a banker and as a post-grad student at Stellenbosch. I nkow what I am talking about! - don't go there!!
Reply
Fa
Fair Play
27 June 2008
The article ought to be taken down. At best it's ignorant, at worst racist.
Reply
Wh
White bloke
27 June 2008
Having read this article and the accompanying comments, I think the basic premise that young, white males are not protected by employment legislation is fundamentally flawed. Minorities are not automatically protected by virtue of being gay, black, disable etc. They have to show they were treated less favourably than colleagues due to their sexual preference /ethnicity/ disability. This is not an easy standard of proof - a court may require written evidence where managers have made direct reference to this characteristic to deny the employee promotion etc. Many cases never make it to court because the employee's solicitor advises they would not have enough evidence to build a case against an employer. Equally if a young, white male has evidence that they have been treated less favourably than their peers due to their age, colour, gender they would also have a case. In practice, we don't hear of many cases by this group because it is far less likely you will be passed over for promotion because you are white or because you are male - although it is more likely you may have some detriment if you are too young but equally as qualified as another older employee!
Reply
Ma
Mary (white female)
27 June 2008
Having a background in law, I am always interested when publications like Efinancial publish this type of article. I've noticed they never give the reader an indication of obvious sources of bias by the author/interviewees eg whether the lawyers interviewed are retained to defend employers or whether they represent employees. Typically these articles are written by lawyers defending banks in an attempt to discourage employees from using new legislation put in place to protect their Employment Law rights.
Given the current state of the market, it is probable that many banks are facing a higher number of claims by whites and minorities. Employers are in a very strong position, it is fairly easy for them to show they have followed a fair procedure to dismiss an employee - in contrast, it is extremely hard for an employee to prove breach of their rights. Therefore, why shouldn't an employer have to satisfy an employee they have been selected for redundancy using a fair procedure? The onus should be on the employer to prove they have nothing to hide. This article is a good strategy by employers to discourage a segment of potential litigants by branding them "toxic minorities"
Reply
ch
chinny
26 June 2008
Funny this article was published by Efinancial careers but my comment on (Guest comment: Don't diss the headhunter) was edited when I mentioned a personal experience of ghost job posting by recruitment agencies talk of a case of being 2faced.....
Reply