Written Evidence Submitted by Prospect

(DIV0031)

Introduction

Prospect is a trade union with around 150,000 members representing professionals, specialists and managers in the public and private sectors across a number of industries.

This includes around 50,000 members in STEM disciplines, giving us a claim to be one of the largest membership organisations in UK STEM. Our STEM membership is typically highly qualified – around four in five have degrees, and two in five have PhDs.

Many of our members work in relevant areas of the private sector such as industrial R&D, technology and telecoms, energy and environmental consultancy, and commercial archaeology; in charitable and not-for-profit research institutes, learned societies and heritage organisations; as well as in public sector research establishments and the civil service. The platform we offer to these members provides a valuable complement to the more academically oriented bodies and organisations contributing to these debates.

Prospect’s membership reflects many of the demographic challenges of the industries we represent, such as:

• Male-dominated in engineering-heavy industries, compared to near-gender-balance in environmental disciplines
• Underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in STEM roles, taken to extremes in certain industries (e.g. the nuclear sector)
• Barriers, unequal opportunities and difficulties in accessing reasonable adjustments faced by workers with disabilities, including neurodivergent people
• Segregation by occupation or function: ‘core STEM’ roles, and notably field-based engineers, or publishing researchers, dominated by white men, with women, ethnic minorities and disabled workers disproportionately engaged in supporting functions such as HR and finance, but also ‘curatorial’ STEM roles, such as museum archaeology and research data management

As a union with a long-standing commitment to redressing these inequalities, we welcome this inquiry and the opportunity to contribute to it.

Reasons for the lack of diversity in STEM

STEM employers often link lack of diversity on problems upstream in the talent pipeline[1], while at the same time failing to address barriers to equality within their own walls.[2] But the visible inequities in the STEM workforce are a major contributor to those imbalances in the STEM pipeline – and in the power of employers to rectify.

The unequal representation of women and others in STEM organisations and professions is both cause and consequence of pervasive inequalities and exclusions in workplaces and organisations.

Workplace culture

Workplace culture is key. Issues range from lack of felt inclusion to micro-aggressions and full-scale bullying and harassment. Our research shows a clear correlation between a lack of workplace diversity and cultures of disrespect towards marginalised groups.

Male-dominated workplaces (including those that are primarily led by men, and those that are traditionally male) see the highest incidence of sexual harassment, including sexism of all degrees of severity.

The STEM workplaces Prospect operates among are typically disproportionately white, but those where BAME people are in more extreme minorities see higher incidence of harassment and discrimination against members of minoritised groups.

For example, the nuclear industry, while recently making inroads towards gender balance, has a very poor record on ethnic diversity. We have heard senior leaders in the sector attribute that weakness to the geography of nuclear facilities, although many of the roles under Prospect’s portfolio are of the quality that workers relocate for. However, our 2018 workplace behaviours survey showed that of the few BAME workers in the sector, nearly two thirds had experienced bullying, harassment and/or discrimination, compared to 40% of all workers in nuclear, and 35% of BAME workers in other areas of the energy sector.

Cultures and attitudes are also key to the barriers and inequalities faced by workers with disabilities. Views of disabled people as less capable, or failures to consider the impact of policies and practices – such as recruitment processes or performance management systems – that can disadvantage or discriminate against them, all too often result in limited or abandoned careers. Research suggests that many disabled workers do not feel confident to talk to their employers about their disabilities or ask for the reasonable adjustments that employers have a legal duty to provide.[3]

We believe that bullying, harassment and discrimination are both cause and consequence of poor workforce diversity. STEM employers must acknowledge the cultural dysfunctions that legacy inequalities have created, and actively cultivate a respectful culture that supports the diverse workforces they seek to build, rather than reinforcing the lack of diversity they currently have.

Pay and progression opportunities

Equal pay is a major issue in UK STEM. Prospect has had wins for STEM workers at the Met Office, the Intellectual Property Office, and the Office for National Statistics, and currently have reps in other STEM workplaces investigating ongoing equal pay cases. We challenge employers to share with us detailed breakdowns of ethnic and gender pay data to prove they share our commitment to pay equality.

We believe most of the STEM gender pay gap is attributable to gender segregation, with women in more junior positions and undervalued occupations. Our analysis indicates that gender pay gaps are as much driven by the concentration of women into lower pay quartiles, as by the underrepresentation of women in higher pay quartiles. Efforts towards gender parity must focus more on retention and progression, rather than being allowed to intensify the stratification of women at lower pay grades.

This is not simply a matter of recruitment. Segregation develops as a result of divergent career paths resulting from a range of disadvantaging and discriminatory factors, from non-inclusive or toxic workplace cultures to a lack of options or career pathways for those with caring responsibilities who need to prioritise flexibility and job security.

An Equal Pay Case brought by Prospect at a major STEM employer in recent years highlighted data showing that although the organisation was good at recruiting women into entry-type roles, it was bad at retaining them and progressing them to more senior roles. Recent independent research into diversity in engineering has pointed to career deflection, as well as issues at education and recruitment stages, as a key factor.[4] A recent review of ethnic diversity and inclusion at the Bank of England also pointed to the importance of divergent “employee life-cycle outcomes” related to different “lived experiences” resulting from workplace and management culture.[5]

We believe ethnicity pay gaps are likely to be no more flattering to STEM employers than gender pay gaps: all the more reason for employers to proactively diagnose them and take action to close them, ahead of the growing call for mandatory reporting.

Prospect also believes there should be a duty on employers to report disability pay gaps.

Grant allocations

Lack of diversity in decision-making levels/occupations also provides a mechanism for inequality in the allocation of grant awards, with the obvious consequence of maintaining asymmetries of power.

A Prospect member at UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) has confided to us the make-up of a standard grant panel he served on as a member of the National Environment Research Council’s (NERC) ‘peer review college’: all white, and only one woman among the twelve members. The recent publication of UKRI ‘funding gaps’ differentiated by research council showed NERC to have the worst record on ethnicity funding gaps – increasing in the most recent data to a nearly twofold difference in success rates between white and BAME applicants.[6]

Essential equipment

Prospect research, supported by our members at HSE’s Science Division, has shown inequalities in the provision and adequacy of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), with consequences including everyday indignities in the workplace from ill-fitting kit, serious induced hazards, and exclusion from aspects of the job.

“As a safety inspector in the construction industry, I already have my work cut out to maintain my professional authority as one of very few women on a construction site… You try doing that when you look like you’ve raided the dressing-up box.”

Prospect member, health and safety inspector

“Seagoing scientists are given a choice of survival suits in large or extra-large. As a small woman, mine tends to trap air around my legs, which could flip me upside down if I went in the water.”

Prospect member, polar researcher

“Men who can’t shave, and need to wear religious headgear – their only option for respiratory protective equipment is a full hood, and that needs to be certified for use with the full ensemble of other PPE. In reality, many employers don’t, or can’t go to that expense, so those workers are just assigned to different tasks.”

Prospect member, health and safety scientist

Impacts of the pandemic

Potential impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on equality, diversity and inclusion also need to be carefully considered.

Increases in flexible and remote working clearly have the potential to improve opportunities and inclusion. However, the interaction of multiple changes to ways of working can have complex results on different groups of workers.

For example, evidence suggests that many disabled workers were not allowed reasonable adjustments that would have enabled them to work effectively at home; and some who had been advised to shield continued to work outside their home.[7] There are also risks that new working practices and procedures introduced to reduce infection risk are introduced without adequate consideration of potential impacts on disabled people – for example hand sanitisers that cannot be accessed by wheelchair users, or signage that does not consider those with sight impairments.

There is also a clear risk that disruptions to childcare and schooling will have had a disproportionate impact on women who bear the greater burden of childcare and homeschooling responsibilities.[8]

Impact of leaving the European Union

In addition to the factors highlighted above, the UK’s departure from the European Union could have an additional negative impact on the diversity of its STEM workforce. As a trade union we were concerned about the negative impacts of Brexit on free movement and international collaboration in the STEM sector[9], and there are some reasons to think that the high proportion of EU workers in the UK STEM workforce has improved its diversity.[10] This is a risk that should be closely monitored.

What should be done

The responsibility of employers

We argue that employers and industry groups should prioritise addressing the inequities under their immediate control, and thereby demonstrate supportive and inclusive career paths for underrepresented groups. Improving retention and progression within the STEM sector will have a further positive impact on recruitment and the diversity of those choosing STEM subjects at school and university.

As a trade union we have sought to work constructively to support and advance this, for example by publishing and promoting guidance and advice for employers on neurodiversity and organisational change[11], or on improving career options and progression for women working in STEM (in association with the Institution of Engineering and Technology).[12]

Where necessary, we challenge employers who are failing to create fair and inclusive working environments. In one case, a scientist with a major UK research council faced the prospect of early retirement when changes to his role were hard to adapt to as a result of side-effects of medication he was taking. With Prospect’s support he was able to move to a more suitable role in which he has thrived.[13] 

We must give credit to the STEM employers who candidly confront the equalities issues in their own working practices. A good example is offered by the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO). Prospect’s workplace representatives at the IPO have commended their employer’s action plan to eradicate their gender pay gap[14], and particularly highlighted the importance of the review of their recruitment process for patent examiners. Diversity & inclusion falls under the IPO’s “Brilliant Place to Work” initiative alongside mental health and accessibility.[15] The IPO has established staff networks including for neurodiversity, carers, and people who share protected characteristics, which offer a safe space for staff to support each other. Each network has a Director-level sponsor and is engaged in policy and business change. It also works with the IP and GSE Professions to increase diversity and inclusion within these STEM professions as a whole, including improving access, support and opportunities for new and existing members.

Educational outreach is useful, particularly under the coordination and guidance of expert bodies such as the British Science Association and the Institute of Physics. However, it must not be allowed to deflect from employers’ responsibility to provide equitable and inclusive working conditions and cultures.

We also note that employers’ public faces don’t always match the workplace experience of even those employees asked to do the outreach. One of our members, a young Muslim woman working as an engineer in the energy sector, told us:

“I’m just not feeling it – the STEM equalities work. They bring me out for these schools events and photo opportunities, then I get back to my desk and I’m treated like s**t. I was the only woman and the only person of colour in my intake, and all the rest of them have mentors, they get the projects that lead to progression, while I go out and tell girls that there’s a great career for them in engineering.”

Anonymous Prospect member

There is a sense that many STEM employers are more concerned about ‘the optics’ of public-facing equalities work than about making a real difference to the workplace experiences of their own staff:

“I think our biggest worry here is a management that likes to talk the talk but not walk the walk. For example, we are currently having deep conversations about the treatment of those who are having to work fewer hours due to the need to cover home-schooling. Management states that staff welfare is paramount but this isn’t reflected in policies that are perceived as being inequitable to those with school-age kids. There’s a worry that ED&I might be treated as a box-ticking exercise in order to achieve an accreditation status in the future.”

Anonymous Prospect rep

The importance of worker voice

The fundamental factor too often missing from current discussions of and approaches to the problem is the importance of employee voice and challenge – in identifying and understanding problems, enabling change (both cultural and procedural), embedding accountability, fostering inclusion, and redressing power imbalances.

Trade unions should be part of this, with considerable expertise and capacity to contribute across a range of relevant areas, from communication and consultation to reforming pay systems and career pathways.

Trade unions can be vital partners for employers that want to tackle these issues. For example, a key tool for identifying issues and driving change is better employer-level data. Gender pay gap reporting is a valuable step forward, but the biggest progress has been made where employers have chosen to, or successfully been challenged to, collate and share more detailed data. Obtaining good data in what is a sensitive area can be a challenge, but trade unions can and have already played a valuable role in addressing issues of trust and confidence among employees about anonymity, accuracy and the purposes to which survey responses will be put.[16]

Without this crucial ingredient of worker voice, corporate commitments can all-too-easily prove aspirational and superficial, lacking legitimacy in the eyes of workers and impact on the deep issues that need to be addressed. Ensuring a voice and a role for workers and their representatives is the only way to deliver the substantial and sustained change we need to see.

(January 2022)