Redundancies and white supremacist power dynamics
The wave of redundancies and budget cuts across the charity sector are already disproportionately impacting Black and Brown staff. So how do we navigate the emotional turmoil of redundancy processes in a way that aligns with anti-racist values?
It is a bleak time in the charity sector. Far-right narratives and Trumpian politics have led many funders to panic as civil society space comes under attack from increasingly authoritarian politicians. Strategies and plans are being ripped up and reworked as the world rapidly shifts around us and organisations go into reactive crisis mode. Funders are cutting grants and rethinking what they fund. High costs of living across the world have led to decreases in donations. And so charities are having to make difficult decisions to cut costs and survive - rather than rooting these decisions in how to best deliver their core mission. As restructure and redundancy processes rip through the charity sector, we want to look at how charities are failing to live up to anti-racist values and defaulting to white supremacist notions of whose work is most valuable and most worthy of retaining.
This collection of articles aims to be a resource for Global Majority staff to inform themselves about redundancy processes so they can assert their rights, as well as a resource for charity leaders to understand the ways that systemic racism plays out within redundancy processes. Use the links below to navigate to the different sections.
Redundancies reinforce unjust power structures
The UK charity sector is overwhelmingly white. 87% of the workforce is white, whilst 13% are from a global majority background. Breaking that down further 5.5% of charity staff are Asian, 3.8% are Black, and the remaining 3.7% represents other ethnicities and mixed backgrounds (source: NCVO Workforce Characteristics 2024). That 13% global majority figure is actually an improvement from 2022, where 91% of charity staff were white. However, the charity sector still lags behind the public and private sectors in terms of racial diversity.
But we don’t often see people digging deeper into what these diversity figures really mean within organisations. Just 7% of managers in charities are from a global majority background (source: Agenda Consulting, People Count Third Sector 2021). And only 7% of charity CEOs are from a global majority background, whilst the number of Black CEOs has fallen to less than 1% in ACEVO’s 2023 Pay and Equalities Report. So it is clear that racial diversity within the sector does not translate to diversity within leadership.
Whilst there is no sector wide data or reporting on race pay gap, we already know that there is a significant lack of racial diversity within management and leadership positions. This disparity in power translates to a disparity in pay. Meaning that charity staff from global majority backgrounds are concentrated in lower pay grades with less ability to influence decision making, whilst higher paid white colleagues are overrepresented within leadership positions and hold the power to make a difference in the sector. This is evidenced by reporting from NCVO, who in 2020 reported a 25% pay gap for people from global majority backgrounds. The latest pay gap data from NCVO shows this has gone down to 11%, but it also offers some insights into how a lack of diversity across the organisation impacts on the experiences of staff from global majority backgrounds. At the lowest pay grade F 67% of staff are from a global majority (GM) background (source: NCVO pay gap data), and at the next grade E up 40% are also GM. Meanwhile at the top end of the scale there are no GM staff in grade A and only 6% in grade B. And whilst 17% of staff at director level are from a global majority background, at this level it likely means that a single person is bringing up the diversity statistics. That single high earner from a global majority background will significantly impact the overall percentage race pay gap that is calculated, which just shows that understanding systemic racial oppression within the charity sector is not about a simple numerical analysis but about understanding the thoughts and feelings of racialised staff to go beyond numbers and change culture.
A typical restructure and redundancy process will often seek to cut jobs at lower grades to avoid cuts to roles at manager and senior leadership levels. If lack of diversity in charities means that global majority staff are over represented in lower paid roles, then that means that typical redundancy processes will disproportionately impact global majority people. Redundancy packages are often about cutting the number of people in an organisation, not about cutting the amount of work that is being done. So for many global majority staff in lower paid roles going through this process, they may find that afterwards they come out of this with more work that needs doing. Then there is the emotional toll that a redundancy process takes on people who are left behind to continue in the organisation, which comes on top of the already existing emotional burden of living with systemic racism in the workplace. For many global majority staff we may find that what little progress we have made on tackling systemic racism is set back or undone when a redundancy process kicks in. We often see how anti-racism work is put on the back burner as it is not seen as “mission critical”. So instead of building a new structure rooted in a vision for a different future, we instead see organisations aim for the same as before but with fewer people.
Global Majority staff have less power in the workplace because of systemic racism in society, which means that we may find we have less power or ability to advocate for ourselves in redundancy processes. We will find ourselves being seen and measured through the lenses of white supremacy and patriarchy to determine our value to the organisation. The legal timelines of a redundancy process creates an intense emotional rollercoaster of a situation that leaves little space for humanity, empathy or care. And in all of this we continue dealing with the weight of systemic racism too.
So, in all of this, how do we as racialised people protect ourselves and protect our peace in a redundancy process?
Redundancy - know your rights
Redundancy happens when your employer no longer needs your role because: the charity is closing, the service you work for is shutting down, funding has been cut or the charity needs fewer people to do that kind of work.
It’s about the role, not your performance. If the charity is saying otherwise, that’s a red flag. The law sets out specific expectations and processes that must be followed to ensure that the redundancy is fair, but these processes do not necessarily take into account the specific needs of individuals or the ways that systemic oppression can impact decision making. Here is what should happen:
1. Consultation: You Must Be Involved in the Process
Your employer must speak to you individually before making any final decision. And if 20 or more people are being made redundant then the organisation also must carry out a formal consultation with employees and union reps (if there is a recognised union at the org) that last at least 30 days. This is your chance to:
Understand why your role is at risk - take notes!
Ask questions about the process - timelines, what to expect, etc.
Suggest alternatives (like redeployment to another role)
Raise any concerns about fairness or discrimination.
As with any workplace dispute, your rights have a deadline. If you want to take your employer to an employment tribunal through ACAS this must be done within 3 months minus 1 day of the event in question. These are strict time limits, so keep track of timelines as you work through internal processes and contact ACAS within this time if you need to.
2. Fair Selection: How Are They Deciding Who Goes?
If your employer is choosing between people, they must use fair, objective, and transparent criteria. For example: Skills, qualifications, and experience; Attendance (but they must be careful not to discriminate based on disability or pregnancy); Performance records. Their criteria must not discriminate based on race, gender, age, disability, pregnancy, or caring responsibilities. This is why best practice is to have people who qualify for available roles to put in applications for those roles. The idea is that fair and unbiased decisions can be made about who is best for the role.
But we all know that “fair, objective, and transparent criteria” does not mean that systemic racism, sexism, and ableism won’t come into play in how leaders select who is at risk of redundancy. Bias can and often does still impact who is picked for redundancy, and if you feel you’ve been treated unfairly you can challenge the decision. But be ready to show evidence or rationale as to why you perceive the process or treatment to be unfair, and remember that the white supremacist and patriarchal structures of the workplace are still at play and you will still likely be held to those standards. The burden of proof in these situations lays heavily on the shoulders of racialised staff who feel they are experiencing racism but will still struggle to explain racism to leaders and HR who likely don't understand it.
3. Looking for Other Jobs for You
Your charity must actively try to find you another suitable role within the organisation. If they offer you an alternative job, you’re entitled to a 4-week trial period to see if it works for you. It is also good practice for your manager to give you time and space to interview for roles outside of the organisation at this time. This is all stressful enough as it is without having to worry about using annual leave for interviews.
4. Notice Period: How Much Time You Should Be Given
The minimum legal notice periods are: At least 1 week’s notice if you’ve worked there for 1 month to 2 years; 1 week’s notice per year of service if you’ve worked 2 to 12 years; 12 weeks’ notice if you’ve worked 12 years or more. (Some employers offer longer notice periods in your contract.)
5. Redundancy Pay: What You’re Entitled To
If you’ve worked for the charity for 2 years or more, you should get statutory redundancy pay: 0.5 weeks’ pay per year under age 22; 1 week’s pay per year aged 22–40; 1.5 weeks’ pay per year aged 41+. The weekly pay amount is currently capped at £700 per week (2024) unless your charity offers an enhanced package - check your contract!
6. Right to Appeal
Your employer should give you the chance to appeal the decision. This isn’t a strict legal requirement, but it’s good practice and many charities will have this built into their policies. Knowledge is power, so take time to read your charity’s policies on redundancy in detail and know what your rights are. If you’re organisation has a recognised union, then they will be a valuable ally in the appeals process so make sure you get in touch with them.
7. Early Conciliation
If you have been through internal processes and are still unhappy, then you have a right to take your employer to tribunal via the Early Conciliation process with ACAS. But remember, there are strict legal time limits at play and you have to contact ACAS within 3 months minus one day from the date the problem at work took place. You can find more information about the process on ACAS website. The important thing to remember is to keep track of timelines, don’t let delays to internal process take away your rights to dispute resolution via ACAS.
So what does white supremacy have to do with redundancy?
Our society is built on colonial and white supremacist frameworks that shape how we exist within the world and how we interact with everything. White supremacy shapes what is seen as good work, what is seen as productive, how decisions are made, and how we behave in the workplace. So in the same way that white supremacy has shaped the structures of charities and the ways that working culture functions, it also shapes restructure and redundancy packages.
To understand how, we need to talk about white supremacy culture and how it shows up in the workplace. Tema Okun has developed a framework to help us understand how white supremacy operates in the workplace in her brilliant paper “(divorcing) White Supremacy Culture”. Whilst this work is focused around the world of academia, it can teach us a lot about how white supremacy functions within charities.
Urgency - the speed of the process and the specific requirements around timelines and communications means that a redundancy process becomes all consuming and an urgent crisis we have to deal with. The tight timeline forces us to compress our emotional processing into an all too brief time, and make decisions all too quickly.
Individualism - the redundancy process places focus on the individual and actively discourages us from looking at the bigger picture or collectivising our response. We focus our attention and time on how the process impacts us individually, because the short time means we have to focus on protecting ourselves. But this, alongside the urgency of the process, serves to prevent us from organising a collective response that reflects on the wider systemic injustices playing out in redundancy processes.
One Right Way - the redundancy process and the steps within it expect us to engage in particular ways which are deemed correct. We are expected to behave in ways deemed “professional”. And to deviate from the norms set out in our professional and “nice” workplace cultures can often be seen as aggressive, challenging, or over emotional.
Fear - a culture of fear is often a key part of the redundancy process. For months we may be fearful of what redundancy might mean for us and are kept in suspense about the practical implications on our lives and roles. The formal redundancy process itself might be very quick, but often it follows months of rumours and internal discussions that hint redundancy packages might be coming. But the formal restrictions on communication and timings on employers can create a situation where leaders deny rumours only to eventually announce a formal process. The process itself can often be so stripped of emotion that it drains us. It amplifies the fear that we are feeling without letting us have an avenue to express that fear or be supported through it.
Redundancy and anti-racism
Since the start of the #CharitySoWhite campaign in 2019 we have seen charities around the country talk about racism and make commitments to tackle systemic racism in the sector. Since then we have seen some change alongside a lot of virtue signalling and performative actions. The available data on diversity in the sector shows that whilst the sector celebrates increased diversity, the reality on the ground is that new hires of global majority staff have found themselves at the bottom of the ladder and in low paying roles with little power. Now that the sector faces a funding crunch and we see waves of restructures and redundancy packages we see how real those anti-racism statements and commitments were, and unfortunately it is highly likely that it will be racialised staff on the chopping block and at risk of redundancy.
As we see organisations cut staff, and as we see that it is young Global Majority staff in the lowest grades that are most likely to be impacted by redundancy, we are going to see the usual tactics of empty words on anti-racism and anti-oppression from charity leaders. We will see commitments to equality, diversity, and inclusion written into emails announcing redundancy processes. Meanwhile racialised staff are still likely to experience systemic oppression within those very same redundancy processes. Engaging in redundancy processes in this way risks charities rolling back the little progress that they have made on diversity in the sector, and is further proof that without meaningful investment in development programmes for racialised staff and increased diversity at senior levels then the sector will continue to be overwhelmingly white.
But beyond all of this, there is the very real threat of far-right, anti-migrant and anti-woke narratives taking root within the charity sector. As media and social media amplify the voices of those that want to see Black and Brown people kicked out of the country there is a real risk of charity leaders seeing these positions as legitimate. We have already seen a significant shrink in investments on equality, diversity, and inclusion work in the charity sector. And that goes to show that the sector was always following a trend, and wasn’t really committed to delivering transformative change in order to dismantle racism in the sector.
Amidst all of this is it any wonder that so many Global Majority charity workers are burnt out? We are tired of constantly fighting for equal treatment. Tired of constantly masking and controlling the way we work and the way we behave in order to be perceived as good by our white colleagues. Diversity in the sector will not increase without significant culture and behaviour change of white staff and leaders in the charity sector.