p.p1 makes it difficult and inaccessible to those intended

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Times; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Times; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 14.0px}
span.s1 {font-kerning: none}

Evaluation of Law System

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

According to Hepple et al. (2000), the existing law structure puts too less stress on the accountability of organisations and individuals to bring about a change and too much on the state regulation. This structure approaches different actions of inequality in an incoherent and inconstant manner. Administrations such as vertically integrated, centralised and hierarchal representation of organisations were largely to be dealt with this type of structure. It is difficult to deal with modern flatter organisations in which equality is determined by active involvement of all stakeholders, stimulating adaptability, growing wider network of social interactions and personal relationships, rather than simply on avoiding negative discrimination. (Hepple et al. 2000) 
Though a single statute, an important defect to understand in the present framework is that there is too much law. According to Hepple, Coussey, and Chowdhury (2000) there are more than 30 relevant Acts, 11 codes of practice, 38 statutory instruments and 12 EC directives and recommendations immediately pertaining to discrimination. With new rules and amendments each year and many thousands of decided cases, makes expanding case law. It makes it difficult and inaccessible to those intended to be influenced due to the language and style of statutes. These are the major causes of prolonging of legal proceedings, and makes it hard and expensive for trade union officials, employers, officers of public authorities, human resource managers, and those who stand for victims. People have started to think that elevating equality and removing discrimination is no more the responsibility of organisations and individuals to change themselves, but a problem of detailed rules levied by the external agencies. (Hepple et al. 2000)

According to McCrudden (2007), the legal system is able to build an arrangement of procedural stimuli that guide to the aimed subsystem that adapts itself. This is an flexible and positive attribute to the legal system that makes a ‘reflexive regulation’. In a review of equality law by Hepple at al. (2000), they recommended 53 complete changes on how a difference could be attained. The inquiry conducted by Stephen Lawrence gave energy to put these changes into force, which revealed significant institutionalised race discrimination in the Metropolitan Police Force (Conley and Mary, 2013). As a result to attend to discrimination, public authorities were given three new legal duties. Race Equality Duty 2001, Disability Equality Duty 2006, Gender Equality Duty 2007 were introduced under Race relations act 2000, Disability Discriminations Act 2005, Equality Act 2006 consecutively. A Single Public Sector Equality Duty was formed in the Equality Act 2010 when these three duties were integrated with five other equality components. These duties put entire responsibilities on public authorities rather than giving additional rights to individuals, for which this is constructive and positive framework to equity that does not rely on an already occurred discrimination. The legislature is independent of symbolising any existing lobbying interests and has a reflexive nature that prevents any possibility of recurring instances of equality and also removes any emotional discrimination.(Conley and Mary, 2013)

Evaluation of Trade Unions

Trade unions have an significant part in enhancing the employment conditions but traditionally were male-biased concerns. However, as the share of women in the employment increased, there was engagement in women’s workplace priorities in union revitalisation strategies rather than just on issues associated with gender inequality (Dickens, 1999). According to heery’s (2006) analysis, the results broadcast a favourable role that unions play in elevating employment equality. A significant example is the equal pay which has been an item on the bargaining agenda, experienced by a remarkable proportion of UK negotiators in pushing the problem, for which, they have generally received positive outcomes. 
The unions make sure that government and management policies have proper effect along with strengthening of other industrial relations actors to a stronger engagement with equality issues (Dickens, 2000). Through collective bargaining employees can not only be protected from wage cuts during financial crisis, reduce gender pay gap, narrow inequality, but also ensure real effect to the entitlements in the statute by extending the extent of equality legislation and by arranging improvements over the legislated level. Workers have a stronger position to achieve greater conditions and terms and can achieve industry standards (Conley and Mary, 2013).
Unions have gained changes in UK laws by using complaints to the European Commission, or warnings to find infringements in law proceedings. For e.g. the Management Regulations in 2006 was challenged by a trade union over the manner which may put workers deemed to be liable for actions in a manner which was inconsistent with European Union regulation. The changes that occurred were also required to be adopted to the UK rules as they have been varying with European Union law (TUC, 2017).

There are limitations to the union actions and its involvement is greatly inconstant and determined by a favourable environment. According to Hoque and Noon (2004), Walsh (2007), the translation of equal opportunities into effective workplace exercises by trade unions even in the unionised workplaces has been modest and slow. Membership and the extent of employees covered by collective bargaining have diminished over the past two decades and the unions have been losing bargaining power. As a result, for bargaining on new issues, the unions have become depending on chances afforded by alteration in employment law and broader state policy. (Heery 2006)
The equality goal sometimes creates tensions, as the conventional strategy is developing union strength with common joint interests and identity. But, realising and identifying the problems of particular groups of employees and pointing out variations between groups of union associates might create conflict. An other significant factor is that unions struggle prioritising between enhancing the state of disadvantaged group, or its implications of worsening the state of another group of union. For example, in application of Single Status Agreement, there was frequent reduction in men’s pay to achieve higher gender pay inequality. Internal conflicts and dilemma is often created in unions on how to reduce gender inequality avoiding internal divisions or separating male members. The challenges are even more when there is a diverse group membership which have conflicting interests and also the future survival requires to redress the power structures and traditional interests. (Tavora, 2012)