Macaulay famously wrote : “We know no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality.” And the latest spectacle is the inquisition into the conduct of TV Chef Greg Wallace.
The Gregg Wallace story is again raising questions around appropriate behaviour in the workplace with some claiming that British society has a major issue with misogyny. However, I believe it is more of an issue in the entertainment and arts industry than it is elsewhere, here’s why.
Now, as an HR professional over the last 30 odd years, in a variety of industries, the question of when ‘banter’ ceases to be ‘banter’ is one that those in our trade are frequently asked to adjudicate on. A careful balance has to be struck between ‘banter’, which is an essential part of human interaction and is often used to quickly establish trust through gently prodding boundaries, especially in industries where that lack of trust can end in injury or death; and actual inappropriate behaviour.
No one wants to work in an environment where everyone is constantly treading on eggshells and where HR micro manages interactions between adults as if they were toddlers. We’ve seen plenty examples of HR over reach here, up here in the North East, for example, Newcastle University’s HR team recently released a list of verboten words, one of which was “pet”. The subsequent debate split into two clear camps: middle class and professional types who saw the word as inappropriate and patronising and everyone else, who understood that such words (love, hen, darling, dearie, sweetheart) are actually an intrinsic part of the language of regions and are not used in a sexualised way, rather as a polite and kind way of addressing another. Hence they are used by all sexes to all sexes and from all ages to all ages. I doubt that the garage attendant in her seventies who sold me a tank of diesel the other day was trying to get me into bed when she called me “Pet” several times during our interaction. Ironically, had the University HR department actually done any research into the use of such words, rather than jumping on an increasingly intolerant orthodoxy, they would have understood why such words are not what they are implying and they are seeking offence where none exists. Don’t take my word for it, linguists have studied this and here’s an article with many long and complex words to support my point!.
Why are HR teams doing this? Well, we have recent evidence from several Employment Tribunals where employers have been fined for essentially not policing the speech and interactions between employees. These are often ‘he said- she said’ cases and the employer is often caught out by not having followed a bullying and harassment policy. We also know that Labour are planning to make employers responsible for protecting their employees from being offended by third parties. So someone walks into a pub and asks the female employee working behind the bar:
“Pint of mild, please love.”
Female employee takes offence, reports the customer to the manager and unless the manager acts: seeks an apology or kicks the customer out, the employer may be liable for having breached employment law.
If Ms. Rayner gets her way that will be law. Yet again, a censorious elite class seeking to micromanage the behaviour of a general public it appears to demonstrate nothing but contempt for. In the meantime I would urge employers of all sizes to ensure you have your policies up to date and also ensure you train those policies into your company.
I cannot stress how important it is for HR professionals and others to push back on this over reach. If only because it will be impossible to police, will create huge resentment in workplaces, will tear up team and workplace cohesion and will cost companies millions whilst not actually improving workplaces for anyone, quite the contrary.
There’s of course a big dollop of classism at work here as well, there is an attitude amongst some of my colleagues in HR, that workers cannot be trusted to behave and need to be micromanaged in this way. You come slap up against this in industries like manufacturing or construction. On a shop floor, good natured banter is an important part of a positive workplace with a cohesive team. As already discussed above, banter is an important tool in feeling out another person’s boundaries and building trust. I have lost count of the number of times I have had to intervene when a young, junior HR manager has overheard something that was not what it seemed and therefore thinks they have to act when in fact what they overheard was normal, mutually given banter between workmates.
So when is banter not banter, when does it cross the line? For banter to be banter there needs to be an equal power dynamic or at least, an existing level of trust between the individuals. Wallace has misunderstood or misread this. Wallace is a wholesale green grocer by trade, he has grown up in an industry where being an extrovert is an essential part of standing out from the crowd and of business success. Don’t believe me? Visit any wholesale vegetable, fish or meat market anywhere in the country. These are fast paced environments, inherently working class where there is little time for sensibilities. It was this cheeky chappy barrow boy persona that gained Gregg Wallace his success but it was his inability to read a room which undermined it. Because what is perfectly acceptable and part of the job between equals in a marketplace, may not be acceptable in other environments.
The problem here is that the targets of Wallace’s banter (and I am not talking about the ‘slebs’ who have joined in the pile on with their own complaints) appear to have been young female production staff most of whom are not on permanent employment contracts and are therefore dependent on the largesse, ‘not being difficult’ and positive experience of those around them especially the ‘stars’. This dynamic is a particular issue in the arts and entertainment sector because of the insecurity of employment and because very often the employers are quite small production companies without strong cultures and without boundaries being set by management. Time and time again we see those who are not tuned into the sensitivity of such an environment falling foul of its rules. So into this stomps Gregg, ‘alright darlin’’ ‘nudge nudge wink wink.. Know what I mean’? All of which likely gives rise to cackles from his peers in the market but makes young female production staff, with no guarantee of employment, nervous.
You can understand why they feel this way. Those production companies are often small businesses, and they usually have to bend over backwards to indulge the stars of the shows, pandering to their every need and requirement. If a star barks at a temporary member of staff or upsets them, who is the production company going to support? The star, around whom the entire production is based and on which everyone depends for employment, or the worker? As smaller businesses the production company typically has no HR professional skilled in understanding how to manage this sort of issue and most importantly, how to prevent it. The client (often the BBC) demands the show with the star and this pressure adds to the requirement to ignore bad behaviour and drop the worker rather than the star.
When I have encountered the arts and entertainment sector, the atmosphere that always bubbles under the surface is one of fear. This is an industry where a faux pas which would be protected by employment law in other industries can cost you your entire career. A worker who ‘upsets’ a star finds themselves ostracised by agencies and bookers. Fear is the dominant emotion within the sector. Fear of losing your current assignment and your career.
Ever wonder why Graham Linehan was so viciously cancelled by so many of his closest friends in the sector? It is precisely because the norms which tend to manage workplaces in other sectors don’t exist in this sector. Fear of losing your career infects everyone at all levels, they know how quickly the sector can turn on you and if you have a taint of it then expect to be cancelled and your friends will drop you by necessity. Yes it is cowardice but they also have mortgages and kids.
And of course here is the rank hypocrisy of the sector, that a sector which claims to be so ‘inclusive’ it enforces Stonewall’s most radical gender politics as gospel and cancels and destroys the careers of heretics, despite those heretics’ views being protected under the Equality Act 2010. Is also the sector which tiptoes around primadonna stars who behave appallingly on set. A sector which is so quick to condemn Wallace for misogyny is also the sector which unreservedly attacks gender critical women as TERFS and viciously cancels their male supporters like Linehan.
The reality is that as sanity slowly returns to the British workplaces, entertainment, arts and the creative sector are being left behind, spiralling in an industry where fear, denouncement and witch hunts are increasingly the norm. So why are they being left behind? I’ve already touched on the small business nature of many of these employers, and also the star being the product. However, it’s also simply because there is a perception that those who are free lancers have no protections under employment law or the Equality Act 2010, when in fact they do. Now there is always the De Jure versus the De Facto and in this scenario, the De Facto is that no one needs a reason not to book you next time, they just don’t book you. Until the sector actually addresses this imbalance, this will continue to be a problem, the sector will continue to be dominated by insecure, terrified workers and management quite happy to indulge stars until the pressure grows on them to drop them. Who on earth would want to work in such an industry? Especially in 2024 where in order to secure employment you also need to overtly demonstrate how you adhere to what’s expected of you, which is why the sectors are so much more focused on ‘woke’ stuff than other sectors.
Major reform will be needed to the industry to restore some sanity but first and foremost would be to include agencies in the sector under the Conduct of Employment Agency Regulations 2000. This law makes it unlawful for employment agencies to charge their candidates for placing them in employment. But the law exempts agents working in the creative arts and sport. If this sector was included then the worker, especially those in production and other jobs, would become protected as agency employees. Therefore, the production company would be answerable to the agency for the conduct towards one of their employees. Until this or something like it happens, then I cannot see any way this can be repaired.Lastly, I have noticed how much bandwagon jumping is going on over the Wallace case. On social media and especially on linkedin Everyone with an axe to grind is emerging from the digital ether to use it as an excuse to attack ‘toxic masculinity’ in the workplace and claim that everywhere from the Inns of Court to the local supermarket are rife with unreconstructed males misbehaving with female colleagues. The reality couldn’t be further from the truth. Yes there will always be exceptions but it is now very rare to encounter such behaviour as the norm. There is no ‘structural misogyny’ in our country and those incidents we see in the entertainment sector are down to the employment structure of the sector failing to protect its workers and essentially failing to provide them with the same protection as any other sector.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.