This Isn’t Working

• How Did We End Up With A Case Like Sandie Peggie? (Ft. Heeral Gudka)

  Have standards collapsed across HR? Why are so many HR professionals confused about what their job is – and who is to blame for the mess? Some shocking practice has been exposed recently, raising urgent questions about standards, ethics and legal compliance across the UK’s HR industry. Are we seeing pockets of incompetence – or do the worst cases (such as Sandie Peggie and the Darlington nurses) point to rot so deep and widespread that it is now the competent HR professionals who are in the minority? To explore these questions, Tanya de Grunwald is joined by Heeral Gudka, director of the DEI consultancy Convergent, and author of a white paper titled Freedom of Expression and Belief Conflicts are the New EDI Frontier. Reflecting on their experiences at the UK’s biggest HR conference – the CIPD Festival of Work, in June – Tanya and Heeral conclude that robust debate and high-quality training has vanished, and been replaced by sponsor-driven content designed to generate income for the conference organisers, not to give HR professionals the challenging learning experience they need. Perhaps most worryingly, Tanya and Heeral recall a shocking panel discussion at the conference about the Equality Act, where a CIPD staff member said the recent Supreme Court ruling (that ‘sex’ means biological sex, according to the law) ‘erodes trans rights,’ and creates confusion for employers. Then he made a flippant comment about ‘policing’ women’s toilets.  And the lawyer on the panel – representing Lewis Silkin – appeared to express similar confusion and incompetence. No wonder this industry is in a muddle, if these are the people who have been appointed to set standards… Enjoy the episode! Heeral's company: Convergent https://convergentconsulting.org/ Heeral's white paper:  Freedom Of Expression and Belief Conflicts Are The New EDI Frontier https://convergentconsulting.org/foe-paper/ CIPD panel discussion:  What Would A Future Focussed Equality Act Look Like? Full recording: https://bit.ly/45jVC5A

  --------  

  1:07:44

  --------

  1:07:44
• Who's Ignoring The Supreme Court Ruling - And Why? (Ft. Helen Joyce & Inji Duducu)

  Trans women are not women, said the UK Supreme Court on 16 April – so why have some employers failed to bring their policies and practices in line with the law? Are they ‘captured’, conflicted - or just clueless? How did we reach a point where the Prime Minister Keir Starmer felt he needed to remind public sector HR professionals of their duty to follow the law (underlining the judges’ confirmation that ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex, with or without a Gender Recognition Certificate)? To answer these questions, we retrace our steps, examining how ‘trans inclusion’ was introduced to employers and embedded into organisations without proper scrutiny. This groundbreaking conversation between Helen Joyce, director of advocacy at Sex Matters, and Inji Duducu, an HR director with 30 years’ experience in retail and banking, is a world first.  We address the questions above, plus: * WHEN WAS ‘TRANS INCLUSION’ FIRST INTRODUCED TO EMPLOYERS – and what happened to HR professionals who pushed back against activists’ demands? Inji recalls the immediate, chilling and 'unbelieveably effective' impact of 'no debate'… * HOW SHOULD ORGANISATIONS HANDLE SENIOR STAFF WITH A TRANS-IDENTIFIED CHILD? Why will they struggle to see this issue clearly? And is this about politics, identity – or faith?   * WHY DID SOME LAW FIRMS MISLEAD EMPLOYERS ABOUT THIS ISSUE? Was this because of their links to Stonewall - or were young, activist lawyers poorly supervised? * IS THE CIPD TO BLAME FOR EMBEDDING BAD LAW INTO POLICY? How much damage has its 2023 trans inclusion guidance done to its members' organisations? Which other regulators got this subject wrong, and why? * DID THE HR PRESS FAIL IN ITS DUTY TO INFORM INDUSTRY PROFESSIONALS OF THE LEGAL RISKS? Why are significant cases still being minimised or ignored, including by the CIPD’s magazine, People Management? * WAS THE LAW FIRM CLIFFORD CHANCE UNWISE TO HOST THE PODCAST ‘QUEER AF’ – in which the Supreme Court judges were called ‘f***ing idiots’, to laughter and applause? Is it time for big firms to axe staff who continue to create legal, commercial and reputational risk for their organisation around this issue? It’s a bumper episode… Get the popcorn and strap in! NOTES: Sex Matters: Putting the Supreme Court ruling into practice https://bit.ly/44eyQgh Darlington nurse Karen Danson speaks to the Mail on Sunday: https://bit.ly/44sL0RD Queer AF podcast at Clifford Chance: - Audio ('F***ing idiots' segment from 33.36 - 36.16) https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/live-episode-star-wars-abigail-thorn-and-sex/id1126301158?i=1000706763444 - Photos https://www.instagram.com/p/DJbHU67CER5/?igsh=anpkMXlodnNxZG5j  

  --------  

  1:26:07

  --------

  1:26:07
• Is It 'Woke' To Care About Poor Kids? (Ft. Prof Dr Ger Graus)

  Would scrapping DEI really mean a 'return to meritocracy' - or is there no such thing? What will happen if employers, educators and politicians stop all attempts to level the playing field, and instead do nothing to adjust for disadvantage? In this illuminating episode, Professor Dr Ger Graus shares his insights about advantage, ambition and opportunity learned over the course of his long career in education and research. He also explains why he thinks the loudest voices on education and employment policies (including DEI - diversity, equity and inclusion) are often the least qualified to offer helpful solutions. In this conversation, we ask: WHAT DO CRITICS OF DEI FAIL TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE NATURE OF AMBITION AND OPPORTUNITY and the importance of representation, role models, confidence, practice and polish as predictors of achievement and career success? IS IT FAIR TO CLAIM THAT DEI IS ‘SOCIAL ENGINEERING’ when the advantage of class – particularly private school – is surely the most brazen example of social engineering ever, and we seem to have accepted that as a fact of life? WHAT CAN EMPLOYERS LEARN FROM FOUR-YEAR-OLDS? From his experience as global education director at Kidzania – an immersive theme park for children aged four to 14, funded by corporate sponsors who see the value of investing in experiential learning – Ger helps us to join the dots from young children to the world of work. Did you know girls choose activities below their age range - and kids from the poorest areas show no interest in activities which are alien from their daily life? What does this mean for the talent pipelines that employers see when these kids reach working age? WHERE DID EMPLOYERS START TO LOSE PUBLIC SUPPORT? If people are broadly supportive of efforts to improve social mobility, where did attempts to improve access for disadvantaged young people start to create suspicion, division and resentment? WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF POLITICIANS AND EMPLOYERS ADOPTING A ‘DO NOTHING’ APPROACH TO SOCIAL DISADVANTAGE? Is there a risk of civil unrest? Are economics really the best motivator for change? Or do we need to ask bigger questions, like: ‘What sort of country do we want to live in?’ WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR EMPLOYERS TO WORK WITH SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES? Are teachers and civil servants at the Department for Education too suspicious of private sector employers’ attempts to collaborate?  HOW ARE OTHER COUNTRIES DOING THINGS BETTER THAN THE UK? What can we learn from educational institutions and government policies around the world - and how might employers benefit from more long-term, joined-up approach to policy-making? Enjoy the episode... Buy Ger Graus' new book: Through A Different Lens: Lessons From A Life In Education https://www.amazon.co.uk/Through-Different-Lens-Lessons-Education/dp/1032896434

  --------  

  1:01:18

  --------

  1:01:18
• Inside The Stonewall Conference: What Didn't Work?

  Was this a business event - or a spiritual gathering? What did Stonewall say about the Supreme Court ruling? And what valuable content did employers gain from their £400 tickets? Our host Tanya de Grunwald shares exclusive insights from her day at Stonewall's 2025 Workplace Conference - and invites Levi Pay, director of Plinth House (and former Stonewall intern!) to provide further analysis about this highly unusual event.  They cover: * What was it like arriving at the event with Maya Forstater, co-founder of Sex Matters? Who else had paid to attend - and who were the noisy protesters outside the venue? * Why were there no photos, no questions - and no analysis of the Supreme Court ruling? * Who were the speakers - and what did they cover? Why was Tanya puzzled by some of the presentations, and alarmed by those from the National Trust and Trans in the City? * Are 'LGBT' partners with an activist agenda starting to turn on employers who they feel have let them down by respecting the Supreme Court ruling (defining 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010) - especially around the provision of single-sex spaces at work? Should big brands be worried about Pride? * Did Stonewall's slogan 'No debate' end up creating a cohort of fragile (and sometimes volatile) young people who will struggle to integrate with their colleagues? * Would Levi and Tanya's plans to redesign this event have improved its chances of engaging with the law, reality, disagreement, and the employers who are crying out for advice they can trust in this area? Enjoy the episode!   Thanks to Blackbird Documentaries for permission to use the protest footage https://youtu.be/lLEoBKf1SLs?si=9DFWlKUsj6bXzukI

  --------  

  1:11:15

  --------

  1:11:15
• What Is A Woman (At Work)? HR Director Faces Maya Forstater (Ft. Neil Morrison)

  It’s official: self-ID was never lawful, and too many UK employers have dangerous policies in place. Why did we need the Supreme Court to tell us this – and what should employers do now? Since the landmark ruling on 16 April, emotions have been running high, and HR teams face the daunting task of assessing and correcting their policies, while managing employee reactions from across their workforce, and hot takes from activist pressure groups and keen to overturn or circumvent the ruling.  The CIPD has dropped the ball, so we’re picking it up, presenting HR professionals with this calm, dispassionate analysis to help you find clarity and a way forward. If you identify as sensible, this is the conversation for you. This week’s episode features two guests: Maya Forstater (women’s rights campaigner and founder of Sex Matters) and Neil Morrison (HR director at Severn Trent). We ask: * What does the Supreme Court ruling mean for employers?  * If the judgement was clear, who has been creating confusion – and why? * How have big employers reacted to the news? What mistakes does Neil think they have made? * Which employers will find it hardest to unpick the problems they’ve woven into their organisation’s policies and culture? * What are the legal risks for employers who don’t sort this out immediately? * What role have Stonewall, the CIPD, confused lawyers, and poor-quality #DEI training played in leading employers down the wrong path?  * Have employers who have got this wrong underestimated the scale of the mess they have made? Do they understand how angry some of their employees are - and is it time to apologise? Looking back, this sort of conversation should have happened a long time ago. Whatever your personal view on this topic, it’s become clear that ‘No debate’ belongs in the bin. It's time to start talking... Enjoy the episode!

  --------  

  1:06:25

  --------

  1:06:25

More Business podcasts

Trending Business podcasts

About This Isn’t Working