Housing groups among best employers for LGB staff
Five housing organisations have made it into the top 100 places to work for gay, lesbian and bisexual employees.
Housing association Gentoo is number 16 in the list complied by charity Stonewall, with Metropolitan at number 27, Your Homes Newcastle at 90, Berneslai Homes at 92, and Knowsley Housing Trust at 98.
Stonewall assessed steps the organisations had taken to accommodate LGB staff, from setting up groups where any issues could be discussed, to ensuring staff could bring their partners along to company events, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Nigel Wrightson, head of special projects at Metropolitan Housing Partnership, said his organisation had seen a clear business advantage in making LGB staff feel comfortable.
‘If you have got a small proportion of your workforce who are feeling demoralised, then working to include them will encourage them to progress in their job and the organisation,’ he said.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (17)
Melvin Bone | 13/01/2010 9:34 am
Hooray! A good news Housing Association story! It was worth the wait!
Well done chaps!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 13/01/2010 10:30 am
5 out of of a hundred. But it does not say how many organisations in total participated. Maybe ~Stonewall can tell us the total amount of participants as because of heavy snow I do not think I can make it to their champagne reception this evening to ask personally.
Obviously the 5 social landlords which have been duly recognised this year had already in place these provisions and it is not suprise they would be recognised. it's like you have to have a football team in the first place to particpate in a football tournament... But the thousands of other social landlords in the land did not particpate which might mean they do lack these provisions in the first place and they would have only revealed themselves as failures by participating. Maybe next year the particpation of all public funded bodies should be made compulsory and then we'll get the full picture of the horrors of LGB discrimination going on, included in social landlord organisations.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry Lime | 13/01/2010 10:57 am
Are your Human rights organisation included in the list Kass? Surely you wouldn't want them to be shamed, after all this survey theoretically takes in ALL employers so for there to be 5 HA's is a major achievement, although I'm sure that doesn't meet your viewpoint.....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
The ONLY One | 13/01/2010 11:06 am
Kass - What, if any, awards has your organisation got? Have you been singled out for any exemplary work? I would suggest if the effort you put into knocking other persons was channelled in a positive way to helping others (as you claim you do) then you too may benefit from some positive recognition.
Well done to those organisations for showing the way forward.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 13/01/2010 11:13 am
No human rights groups listed at all!
It seems they cannot practice what they preach!
I notice that every sort of organisation normally blamed for the worlds ills including many police forces and councils ARE listed.
I'm not sure people should complain about other organisdations until their own house is in order.
To all those on the list well done!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Steve | 13/01/2010 11:14 am
I'm actually amazed that there are banks/financial institutions in the 100 list considering the regularlity with which they appear in IT-related headlines for various types of discrimination.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Nigel W | 13/01/2010 12:27 pm
Kass - participation in Stonewall's WEI is voluntary, but more than 350 employer's applied this year, an increase of about 10% on 2009. I think I'm right in saying that about 20 housing associations particpate in Stonewall's Diversity Champions programme. You can find out all you need to know about it on Stonewall's website here:
http://www.stonewall.org.uk/workplace/1477.asp
A full analysis will be published there later today, if you are interested.
The assessment is competitive, and the standard for inclusion has risen year-on-year since the index was first launched in 2006 - the benchmark for the top 100 has risen by 10% this year. This suggests that it has been a significant driver for improvement in employment practices for LGB people.
While I welcome Stonewall's work to drive improvements in workplace practices for LGB people, I think it highly unlikely that particpation would ever be made compulsory for public authorities. Nevertheless it is estimated that 1 in 6 of the UK workforce now works for a Stonewall-affiliated employer. In 5 years, I'd call that progress.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 13/01/2010 1:04 pm
"Harry Lime | Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:57 GMT
Are your Human rights organisation included in the list Kass? Surely you wouldn't want them to be shamed, after all this survey theoretically takes in ALL employers so for there to be 5 HA's is a major achievement, although I'm sure that doesn't meet your viewpoint..... "
How senslessly stupid... I do not see any LGB organisations making it too, and not even Stonewall itself, does it means they are all failing their own LGB survey?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Nigel W | 13/01/2010 1:31 pm
Kass - if Stonewall participated in their own index they would undoubtedly win, on the basis of the assessment criteria, and what would be the value in that? Please be sensible.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
DavidJ | 13/01/2010 1:35 pm
Nicely deflected Kass - answer the question for once. Before criticising everything, and everybody take a look at yourself and your organisation. We can all be spectators and shout abuse from the sidelines. Certainly if your organisation supports the views you post on here I would have grave concerns about it's validity, let alone the time it allows you every day to post comments on this forum rather then actually working!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment