Intersections at work

8 Very little available data captures the experiences of culturally diverse LgBtQ workers. Overseas, there is little or no available information on the percentage of culturally diverse LGBTQ workers who are out at work. Studies have tended to focus on reporting on LGBTQ workers overall or a subset of these such as LGB or people with a trans history/experience. While these studies mention the importance of considering the experiences of culturally diverse LGBTQ workers, they have not yet gone so far as to investigate and report on these. 6. In Australia, this situation is exacerbated by the data that is available not being easily comparable due to there being no nationally agreed upon way of measuring and reporting on people’s cultural background/s. what DCa’s Out at Work research tells us. In Out at Work , (2018) DCA used ‘country of birth’ to measure respondents’ cultural background, with LGTBIQ+ workers who were born in a non-Main English-Speaking Country 7 being defined as culturally diverse. This definition revealed very little difference between the percentage of culturally diverse and non-culturally diverse LGBTQ workers who were out at work. 8. For example, 29% of culturally diverse LGBTIQ+ workers were out to everyone at work compared to 32% of non-culturally diverse LGBTIQ+ workers. When we looked at outness by sexual orientation (LGB status) we found that 30% of culturally diverse LGB employees were out to everyone compared to 32% of non-culturally diverse members, while 50% of culturally diverse LGB employees were out to their managers, compared to 40% of non-culturally diverse LGB employees. what Pride in Diversity’s Australian Workplace Equality Index (awei) tells us. Pride in Diversity’s AWEI (2019) used ‘non-English Speaking Background’ to measure respondents’ cultural and linguistic diversity (CALD status), 9 and found somewhat larger difference in ‘outness’ between non-English speaking background and English-speaking background on the basis of their sexual orientation (LGB status). For example, 54% of LGBQ respondents from a non-English speaking background were out to everyone at work, compared to 63% of those from an English-speaking background. The difference between the DCA and PID findings is likely a consequence of different survey sampling approaches. Pride in Diversity’s AWEI survey was completed by organisations that are active in LGBTQ workplace inclusion. It would stand to reason that the greater the visibility of LGBTQ inclusion initiatives, the greater the likelihood that people will be out at work. DCA’s Out At Work survey was administered by convenience snowball sampling and so included people working in organisations that were and were not active in this space. aRe CuLtuRaLLY DiVeRse LgBtQ woRKeRs ‘out’?