Lee Albright addressing a rally of the strikers. Photo: Photo courtesy Harry Albright.
What do we mean by equality?
Harry Albright challenges us to recognise the unique worth of every individual in the workplace
In 1976 the general staff at the United Nations office in Geneva went on strike: these were the cleaners, the porters, the cafeteria workers, people who served the executives who worked in the Secretariat and the diplomats when they attended meetings. My father was a very senior member of the UN staff, and yet he chose to lend his support to the strikers. As an economist, he addressed a rally and demonstrated how the strikers were being treated unfairly when it came to salaries and other benefits. It was not the only time he showed concern and consideration for people whose work was essential to the functioning of the building, but who were nevertheless often overlooked by the people they served.
The recent discussions in the Friend about our testimonies, especially the equality testimony, reminded me of this episode, because to me it epitomises what that testimony is all about. But I often wonder if Friends in Britain have lost sight of the religious basis of this and other testimonies, so eager are we to focus on the practical.
The basis of the equality testimony is that all are equal before God. This means that each person is to be valued and cherished regardless of who or what they are, where they were born or the job that they do. It does not mean that we are all the same, nor should we be. But in a yearly meeting where I often hear discomfort at the mention of the word God, even resistance to it, many seem to have set aside that religious basis and opted for a more sociological or even political meaning to the equality testimony.
Thus we see the equality testimony invoked in all manner of causes, without always working through the religious basis of what we are doing. It is perfectly possible to support human rights, for example, from a secular basis, as many non-religious people do. But as Friends, is not this work part of our religious calling? If so, how do we differentiate what we are called to do, and how we are called to do it, from others who may approach it from a different direction?
And how do we live our testimonies in a society that has fundamental inequalities hardwired into it? Do we seek material equality rather than spiritual equality? Is spiritual egalitarianism the same thing as political or social egalitarianism?
Even within Britain Yearly Meeting we pay the people who work for us differently depending on the jobs they do. The recording clerk earns substantially more than a junior member of the catering staff. What we are doing is recognising that the jobs themselves are not of equal value, although the people who do them are (or should be). It was heartening to see the new recording clerk recognise this in his recent interview with Quaker News.
Therefore, some inequalities are inevitable. But that doesn’t mean you treat people badly, with disrespect or unfairly. That money can buy privilege is an area for concern, and one that we as Friends can address from our unique religious perspective. For example, in Friends House the salary scale is weighted so that those at the top earn less than they would doing a comparable job elsewhere, and those at the bottom slightly more (although others do better in this regard than we do, as the Friend recently reported). And as employers, we try to recognise the unique worth of every individual (although again we sometimes fall short of that ideal).
Because he or she earns more, a senior executive will have access to more material goods than a more junior member of staff. But what it should not mean is unfair access to justice and other fundamental human rights. No one should be without safe and adequate housing, for example, or access to medical care. But that does not mean that we should live in identical houses.
Of course our testimonies can and should lead to political action. As the government looks to dismantle large swathes of programmes that support and benefit those who are less well off, Friends certainly have a role in campaigning to ensure that those who can least afford it do not bear a disproportionate burden. Our peace and other testimonies should also lead us to raise our voices where we can.
But when I invoke our equality testimony, it is not that I am primarily worried about eliminating material inequalities. Those will always be with us. To me, it is more about recognising the unique worth of every individual and ensuring that people are enabled and encouraged to fulfil their potential – whatever that may be. It means taking an interest in people as human beings and, where possible, supporting and helping them to achieve their goals no matter what they might be. It also means working for fairness and justice in society at large so that all can achieve happiness and security in their lives.
This is what led my father to support the strikers in 1976. He recognised that his workplace could not function without people who were willing and able to do the jobs the strikers were doing and that they should be treated with respect and fairness. He also saw it as his role to use his expertise to help them to achieve fairer treatment. It benefitted everyone.
