​The union movement was founded on a principle of powerful simplicity: fairness. So why has Britain’s biggest trade union come out in opposition to the Equality Act? 

This week, Unison published its response to the EHRC guidance which followed the Supreme Court’s definitive ruling on the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010. Credit where it’s due – the statement is a small masterpiece of (deliberate?) misinformation and misdirection. And it speaks volumes about who the union really represents – and who it doesn’t. 

First, there’s the subtle sleight-of-hand that frames the guidance as a new and arbitrary imposition on businesses. It’s not. The law has always been clear: “sex” is based on biology and is separate from “gender reassignment”; service providers may exclude men from female-only spaces where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate goal. 

It was clear before the Supreme Court, and it’s clear now. The only thing the guidance does is give practical guidance on how to interpret the act. 

That’s hardly the worst thing about Unison’s statement. Even more egregious is its attempt to muddy the waters by misrepresenting what the guidance is actually for. As Akua Reindorf KC points out, there’s a common misunderstanding that the Code of Practice applies to workplaces. It doesn’t: it applies to services, public functions and associations.

Unison is doing nothing to dispel this mistaken belief. Instead, it’s reinforcing it. While the union acknowledges that the guidance isn’t for workplaces, “we anticipate many employers will [use it] as the standard to apply”. 

So, rather than helping businesses stay compliant and support employees by correcting misunderstandings about where the guidance applies, Unison is doubling down on disinformation – for example, casting doubt on when it’s proportionate to ask someone’s sex in the workplace. (Again, for those at the back – the guidance applies to services NOT workplaces.)

Rather than using its members’ subs to challenge the legal foundation of equality in the UK, it could be making a meaningful difference to employees bullied for the ‘crime’ of distinguishing between sex and gender. As our followers know, LGB workers are particularly impacted by the sex-and-gender debate in the workplace, with our Compelled Conformity report revealing how we are shamed, ostracised, disciplined, or denied career opportunities for stating basic facts about our sex and our sexuality.

What has Unison said about the abuse heaped on gender-critical people, women, and LGB employees? Not a peep.

Instead of this quixotic attempt to invalidate the Equality Act, Unison should act like a trade union and listen to all its members – not just the small group of activists who have been fighting for more than a decade to undermine the law.

The trade union movement has been perhaps the single biggest contribution to establishing fairness as a core value of modern society. But it’s never been immune from criticism or controversy. When it acts as a wrecker to the Equality Act – and all for the benefit of a tiny handful of men who want in on women’s rights – Unison is playing up to the stereotypes satirised by The Strawbs’ in their 1970s hit “Part of the Union”: 

So though I’m a working man

I can ruin the government’s plan

Though I’m not too hard

The sight of my card

Makes me some kind of superman.

When the government’s ‘plan’ is simply to ensure fairness, the question for any union opposing it is obvious: Who are you really fighting for?