National Trust guides obliged to wear rainbow badges

Give the man a job ?

alexgrant.me/2017/09/20/a-word-of-advice-to-the-national-trusts-new-director-general-urbanise/#more-2714

Ha forgot to link...

Here is a brilliant article about the failings of the NT and the way it should go in the future.

Haha! Just came across this succinct tweet by Frank Furedi in which he calls the NT badge rulers a "bunch of schmucks". Naughty but spot on.

twitter.com/furedibyte/status/893861715741376513

I hope nothing similar happens again, wear this badge or stay away from the public.

annie I don't think that's true at all - it's not his sexuality that is being commemorated but the legislation ( rightly or wrongly). I've not visited the Hall but I doubt very much that that is all that is mentioned in the guide book about him. As I said above, Baggs has summed the issues up succinctly. I actually can't think of another example in any organisation where something like this has happened. And I doubt anything similar will happen again.

How sad that all that could be found about this mans life to commemerate! is his sexuality

Well said Baggs.
Two different issues here.

I think the imposed corporate mentality that the NT's behaviour showed is insidious. Employees and volunteers do not and should not have to advertise agreement with their employers or anyone else on any subject. Furthermore, not wearing a badge of any kind signifies nothing further than that the individual is not wearing a badge.

Baggs you've summed it up perfectly within the confines of this particular issue. If an organisation decides to commemorate a particular issue ( and I agree that the making of this choice could be problematic and I don't think now that the NT should have made this particular decision) I don't even think that there should be anything at all for employees to wear. In everyday working life however i don't think that employees can exercise individual freedom re what they wear can they? For example, during the elelection campaign, I'm sure employees could not have been free to go into work wearing party rosettes ( unless they were employees of the political party of course). O

Commemorating anniversaries with badges or whatever is perfectly acceptable. Individuals should be free to commemorate whatever they like.

Telling others to wear a badge is not acceptable.

The issue is individual freedom. It is sad that that NT had to be told this before they understood it.

I would describe wearing a poppy as a commemoration. For a number of reasons I do not wear a poppy and would object to being told by my employer that I had to wear one. Everyone appearing on TV during the Remembrance period is reportedly expected to wear a poppy and I think this is an abuse of power.

It makes very little difference whether people wear an emblem of some sort, other than to show their own support for a particular issue or commemorate a particular event. I think that's OK. But my own view is that, in the work situation, a more acceptable and useful way of dealing with homophobia or other discriminatory behaviour is to ensure that it is swiftly and effectively dealt with (and, just as importantly, is not tolerated within the workforce itself) through disciplinary procedures and proper training.

If the matter were taken to Court, would it even be considered legal for an employee to be forced to go along with this requirement or be removed from customer-facing duties?

Call it a commemoration if you like, but I still feel that doesn't detract from the fact that there are many injustices that should be recognised and who should choose which of those injustices should be commemorated?

I would describe wearing a poppy as a commemoration. For a number of reasons I do not wear a poppy and would object to being told by my employer that I had to wear one. Everyone appearing on TV during the Remembrance period is reportedly expected to wear a poppy and I think this is an abuse of power.

It makes very little difference whether people wear an emblem of some sort, other than to show their own support for a particular issue or commemorate a particular event. I think that's OK. But my own view is that, in the work situation, a more acceptable and useful way of dealing with homophobia or other discriminatory behaviour is to ensure that it is swiftly and effectively dealt with (and, just as importantly, is not tolerated within the workforce itself) through disciplinary procedures and proper training.

If the matter were taken to Court, would it even be considered legal for an employee to be forced to go along with this requirement or be removed from customer-facing duties?

Call it a commemoration if you like, but I still feel that doesn't detract from the fact that there are many injustices that should be recognised and who should choose which of those injustices should be commemorated?

I still think Eloethan is incorrect to use the word campaign for what happened. It wasn't a campaign. The issue of the badge or lanyard is separate from this. I don't think the NT should campaign but commemorating anniversaries could be acceptable depending on the circumstances.

I agree with Eloethan's post.

And it wasn't the owners secuality that was being commemorated but the 50 year anniversary of the partial decriminalisation of homosexuality - his wasn't the only example that the NT used. And that's why I said the word campaign was wrong ( and roses agreed with that)

That's a bit of a stretch annie but I'm sorry if it read like that. I wasn't talking about the volunteers specifically at all but saying that amongst all those who expressed concern for the outing of the owner there would be some who were lurking homophobes. But neither of us know either way do we? I think some would be, you think not - both are suppositions. I would argue though that homophobia still exists - I don't think that's just a supposition.

So maryeliza, are you saying posters who expressed concern for the outing of the owner are homophobic ? I think you are mistaken .

Why commemorate the mans sexuality ?

Yes, commemorating is probably the correct word, but that doesn't alter the facts: staff being told they must wear insignia ( about anything!) other than NT insignia.

Well I'm still confused about the whole thing - surely the NT weren't campaigning but comemorating? That's a real difference isn't it? A campaign would be to change the law? I think I've moved into the position that the fuss about this has been out of all proportion to the facts of the case and that there is much lurking homophobia still in our society which explains much of the fuss which has masqueraded as concern for outing the owner who wouldn't have wanted it.

I totally agree that homophobia is still a problem. In my view, those who insist everything is fine now so there is no need for campaigning are mistaken.

However, supporting a cause and campaigning for it is not the same as insisting that people who work for you should be forced to participate in that campaign. Some people object to wearing badges proclaiming their beliefs. I am not one of them - and do sometimes wear campaigning badges - but I do feel that it is not appropriate in the workplace.

I say, once again, who decides what campaigns should be supported? Why not, for instance, have a badge to compaign against race-related discrimination and force all employees to wear it?

There is a legal obligation to ensure non-discriminatory behaviour and it is an employer's duty to ensure that it is rigorously applied.

For me it has little to do with Gay Pride but that the NT was insisting the volunteers support a cause which really has little to do with the NT. What will their next cause be? Womens Lib? Anti-abortion? And who decides?

I don't understand the left/ right issue either. I don't think right wing people are more homophobic than left wing people. As maryliza54 said, the Tories brought in gay marriage

I wish I knew how much the lanyards cost in total. I've spent an astonishing amount at Cragside this summer.

So is Lilyflower.