Gay students get death threats

More than 150,000 students in the UK have been bullied at secondary school because they are gay, a new survey found.

Over two thirds of lesbian and gay pupils have been victimised by homophobic bullying, with abuse ranging from verbal abuse to violence to death threats at the hands of students and staff alike. Of those, 92 per cent (143,000) have experienced verbal bullying, 41 per cent (64,000) physical bullying and 17 per cent (26,000) death threats.

The study also discovered that that half of teachers did not intervene when students used homophobic language, using derogatory labels like "dyke", "queer" or "rug muncher".

Catherine, 13, from a single sex independent school (South East) explained that “ teachers join in on the joke’.

Ben Summerskill, Stonewall chief executive, said "These deeply disturbing figures should serve as a wake-up call to everyone working in education.”

"This is a damning legacy of Section 28, which deterred schools from tackling anti-gay bullying for so long. This remains one of the few sorts of bullying about which too many schools still take no action. It blights the lives not just of gay children but of thousands of pupils perceived to be lesbian or gay too."

The Stonewall survey polled 1,145 young people and found that 7/10 of those who have experienced homophobic bullying said it has adversely affected their school work. Half of those bullied say they have missed school as a result.

Ali, 17, from a secondary school in London said, “On three occasions I’ve been assaulted and had to go to hospital to be examined and get the police involved”.

‘People call me ‘gay’ everyday, sometimes people kick me and push me, they shut me out of games during school gym and they steal my belongings, “ said James, 17, from a secondary school in the South West.

Stonewall’s survey is the largest poll of young gay people ever conducted in the UK.

This story was first published on Gay.com

Remploy HR director hits back at claims she should resign over her handling of the factory closure announcements

Remploy's HR director has hit back at union jibes that she should resign over the way her team handled the announcement of factory closures.

Last week the GMB union, which represents the majority of workers at Remploy, accused the HR team of mismanaging the announcement by using DVDs and failing to answer questions.

About 2,500 mainly disabled staff will be affected when 32 manufacturing sites are closed and 11 are merged with others. But Anne Jessopp, executive director of HR at Remploy, said the union's reaction was "very disappointing".

"We would rather the union wasn't making these kinds of comments, but it's our job to get on with things," she said.

Jessopp rejected the GMB's accusations of mismanagement by the HR team.

"We communicated with employees using [sign language] DVDs, on-site signers, face-to-face, and with leaflets and letters," she told Personnel Today. "Then we took staff into smaller groups and answered any questions they had."

She said professional counsellors were on hand to provide support, as well as senior managers, and a staff helpline had been set up.

Jessopp guaranteed there would be no compulsory redundancies among disabled staff, who would have the option to work for local employers on their existing terms and conditions.

Last week the GMB voted for industrial action at Remploy's factories. Jessopp described the decision as "premature", and said it would have a detrimental effect on the organisation's customers. A meeting between management and the union consortium is scheduled for tomorrow (Wednesday).

Former Remploy HR director hits out

The decision to close factories has been criticised by Remploy's former HR director Ray Fletcher. In a letter to the Guardian last week, Fletcher said the closure would "narrow the options" open to disabled people who want to enter the workplace.

Fletcher is now HR director at the Unite 'super-union' - which also represents Remploy workers - so perhaps should declare a vested interest.

This story was first published in Personnel Today

Bullying is bad for business performance

April 2007 special viewpoint from Ian Dodds Consulting, the D&I strategy consultants.

IDC’s monthly viewpoints have consistently highlighted situations which result in people feeling excluded by organisations. Bullying is one of these, and it is this month’s subject because to my great dismay IDC’s consultants have experienced this from a member of a diversity team in a public sector client organisation.

Persistent criticism, ignoring or deliberately excluding people, undervaluing effort, changing targets without discussion or notice and setting impossible deadlines are all examples of bullying cited by the HSE and the Andrea Adams Trust.

IDC’s consultants experienced all of these behaviours from one particular individual. Had it not been from a member of a diversity team I might have considered it just part of the range of good and bad experiences that come with providing services to clients. But surely members of a diversity team have a duty to behave inclusively in an exemplary way with all the people they interact with.

This is because bullying leads those on the receiving end to lose self-esteem and ultimately question their own self-worth. Clearly, this is likely to have a negative impact on their performance. They are likely to withdraw and disengage and, in extreme cases, leave their jobs.

It does not matter that the behaviour experienced by IDC’s consultants was probably unintentional. It is ethically and morally wrong for one person to behave in such a way towards another, and even more so if that person works in the field of diversity and should be most aware that diversity is founded upon the concept of respecting and valuing others.

In our work, bullying and harassment are sometimes not considered by clients to be important aspects of the diversity and inclusion agenda. However, they are and should be; because they cause exclusion and distress to those who experience them. Last month we considered micro-inequities, which have a similar impact. Both these and bullying should be mainstream considerations for diversity practitioners, because of the negative impact they have, both on individuals and on business performance.

IDC’s consultants have considerable experience of enabling clients to create a working environment where bullying and harassment are minimised.

Incidentally, in this instance IDC withdrew its consultants from the project and formally raised the issue with the client. I believed it was important for IDC as a diversity consultancy to take a stand on inappropriate behaviour by someone employed by a client in a diversity role.

Read more viewpoints from Ian Dodds Consulting