‘Velvet glove' legislation

Press, 21 April 1979, Page 24

‘Velvet glove' legislation

Employers need not rewrite the dictionary to comply with the new human rights" legislation, the Institute of Management was told at a luncheon meeting. Coining words such as “waitperson” instead of waiter or waitress, was not necessary under the terms of the act, said the guest speaker, Mr R. Oram, who until recently has been an information officer with the Employers’ Federation. Waiter and waitress were not discriminatory if both appeared in an advertisement, he said. The Human Rights Bill was basically velvet-glove legislation, said Mr Oram. It was best for employers to do all they could to go along with it: if employers co-operated, there would be fewer examples in case law to bind other employers. Experience overseas had shown that if employers did not co-operate the law became stricter, he said. Employers should make clear the demands of a job and then let the applicant decide if he or she still wanted it, said Mr Oram.