I think it'll be a lot clearer in about 10 years time, but at present it's a little fluid like, a bit like smoke in the wind. Looking at one workplace, BHP its very well worth a look. It has to be said that at the coal face, morale in BHP is not good, in some areas its pretty bad.
On top of this, BHP now has a policy that some mine management & project management has to be 30% women. Its a noble idea, an understandable ideal and over 10 years or more it will probably turn into something beneficial for most if not all in the work place but at present its not helping and possibly adding to the already poor level of morale on sites.
At present there are some positions where its thought that preference was given to women because they are women. Debatable, possible who knows but there's more than a few people who weren't vying for those positions who believe it's difficult on any given day to find both (REPEAT BOTH) QUALIFIED & EXEPERIENCED applicants who also happen to be female.
As a result, some projects haven't, in some people's minds got the best person for the job. Now time will fix that. If the person isn't suitably qualified or experienced they'll either get training & experience as they go and will have suitably trained & experienced people around them in the meantime.
Time will fix this problem.
Sadly in the meantime some women may get labelled fairly or unfairly as Quota Queens or Merit Deserts. I understand the timeline imperative they have pencilled in & with staff turnover and the passage of time those women will get up to speed and be vital team members. Some however will be experienced, trained qualified and the right choice for a given job & there's a chance (hopefully diminished) of unfair sledges of "jobs for the girls"
We do need to ramp the effort in encouraging women that if there's a particular career they're after it is achievable. And yes, they need to navigate how marriage and child birth is factored in, (if they want those things) in such a way that they're not disadvantaged in their career pathway. That protective structure isn't there yet. It shouldn't be viewed as a free kick at goal, but a simple matter of equality & the goal should be the lack of inequality/penalty.
I do notice the Aust Institute of Company Directors (AICD) is still pushing hard for equal numbers of men & women in company boards & it is a nice ideal. However there just isn't one woman for every man seeking a corporate career at CEO level let alone board level. It also stands out that there's no similar push by them for women truck drivers, plumbers, brick layers, welders, train drivers, fishing boat skippers, labourers, sheet metal workers, crane operators and a 50:50 ratio. At present its high paying white collar jobs not blue collar that gets the focus. That's going to pop up and cause angst the ranks as we try to get women into jobs they really want.
It is a thing that there are many financially successful tradies of either gender who never went to University. I think the lost focus is all honest work is noble and noble work should be everyone's aim. Having a sole desire of very high paid work, that's high in status & public eye isn't all its cracked up to be...that and not everyone will make it there.
I seriously think women may need more mentoring than men in some fields as many still see the glass ceiling in front of them. In earlier days when I wore a younger man's clothes the women who excelled longer were the ones who were first into the boardroom & then set about installing their own glass ceiling to build a position of personal advantage. I asked 3 women who are successful company directors & 2 admitted that's exactly what they did and were along the lines of you gotta do what you gotta do if you want to be your best. The 3rd said it cost her 8 years of proper progress. She was on the end of another woman's glass ceiling. Its not class traitorhood, most people male or female in those particular boards at that particular level are equally capable of pulling the same trick.
Workplace Gender Equality should be the best person for the job irrespective of their gender, gets the job & then gets ongoing training and support to improve in their field. Simple.
Now its going to get more complex in years to come as some people fear the other gender activists who believe there are actually in excess of 200 genders and that wrongly only male & female are accepted at present.
Goal posts in gender equality appear to be made of thick smoke in a swirling breeze. I think workplaces should be busy encouraging supporting and even if possible mentoring. I think the political parties all have a role to play. It may be as simple as pushing people, groups, schools, companies to take a lead role facilitating mentoring programmes and open advice channels.
It should ideally get to a point where the best person gets the job, irrespective of their gender. Its going to get even more confusing where we see activist groups telling us there are actually more than 200 genders and no one is confined to the traditional male & female genders. Apparently we are no longer "constrained by the traditional, outdated & oppressive 2 gender system".
I wish I was kidding, more so I wish the people telling me this were kidding.
I was gobsmacked to hear this, now we need another 200+ genders spread out over the board rooms.
And after all this, activists and well meaning corporate Australia forgot a vital part of AICD training (unless its been dropped). You represent the share holders, that's who you owe the fiduciary duty to.
You are not Nominee Directors representing a chosen group among society's demographic and indeed if you are a Nominee Director you're put there by a stakeholder group but your primary fiduciary duty is not to your Nominators, its to the shareholders and perpetuity of the company.
That point is lost in the twirling smoke. That and directors for example are performance driven positions, not social benchmarks. Worth reminding as it'll be forgotten by some quite quickly and often.
We are in an age of rampant protest, many rebels without a clue, many people who are very keen to fight for a principle but probably won't be content if it is afforded to them as they wish.
Its this social warrior set that may have once pushed hard for gender equality but now that set has evolved into a more unreasonable crowd where the battle any battle is more important than the improved social change.
If this is the case, these people can (and have in the past) made things worse for young women with aspirations, plans and the guts to work hard. We owe it to them to ensure they find good mentors they're comfortable with so they can be all they can be.
Its what is right, but its not a fight of revolutionary proportions and we as a society need no unnecessary backlashes blocking the path.
No comments:
Post a Comment