So according to research women occupy just 34 of the 970 executive director positions at companies in the FTSE 350 index, according to a survey by the Co-operative Asset Management.
Harriet Harman’s response:
“This is a very important piece of research,” she said. “It shows how important it is for companies to have accountability on gender. A company in the grip of the old-boy network is never going to be successful in the modern world. If they can’t see half the population as worthy of a say, then they are in the grip of structural prejudice. What does it say about a company that they have an all-male board? It is backward-looking and old-fashioned.”
I agree with what Harman says but this is not the whole picture, also just examining the position of women via the FTSE 350 index is a distraction from the real underlying issues. Indeed it reflects the imbalance of power between men and women in this patriarchal capitalist society intertwined with a class dynamic.
But then neoliberalism and recession are not equal opportunities minded! The gap between rich and poor has widened under NL. On the issue of women and pay, latest research has shown that women are being pushed into traditional jobs, along with gender pay gap,widened to 22.6% from 21.9% in 2007. And NL argues that it is committed to tackling inequalities….
Other research has looked at impact of the recession on women workers. Last year, the TUC published a briefing paper called The Iron Triangle that looks at the connection between child poverty, low pay and women’s poverty.
The paper outlines gender inequality and one major aspect being the pay gap. Grim statistics include thirty percent of women have an income less than £100 a week, compared with fourteen percent of men. Four out of ten poor children live in households headed by a single mother. And the glaring fact that women are paid less than men therefore in low paid jobs and are more likely to be in part-time jobs compared to men. And once a woman has a child she is penalised and faces constant discrimination such as badly paid precarious work with very few rights.
Women with children are likely to find themselves caught up in the quagmire of means tested benefits and tax credits. Only a third of p/t women workers are contributing towards a pension compared with over half of all men working full time. And the benefits system is antiquated and sexist as it takes into account household income as opposed to individual income (so a woman is rarely seen in her own right with independent income instead viewed as mere appendages).
What massive changes to the structure would we witness if there were more women senior managers? The case of more women smashing through that elusive glass ceiling where they too can scoff from the same trough where their male counterparts have been doing for longer..? Yes, real equality of opportunity to become part of the oppressive and exploitative bourgeoisie.
These companies are part of the private sector as well, with their inflexible working hours, child care and along with other equal opportunities issues, it is no coincidence that the trade unions are weak within the private sector.
Oh, but never fear, support services company Mitie, in second place, also boasts women in its top two executive roles.
Do I have to remind people about the hideous role Mitie played in capitulating to state racism recently? Yes, they’ll discuss equal opportunities but on their neoliberal terms and that means don’t unionise and campaign for decent pay and conditions.
The primary urgency and priority isn’t getting more women in senior positions in the board room. It’s about the fact that many women can’t make ends meet, keep their head above the financial water with the constant worry of drowning in debt and poverty, juggling bills, keeping the bailiffs from the door while looking after children with little prospect of cheap/free childcare, either living existing on meagre welfare benefits or low pay supplemented by bureaucratic tax credits.
As Wilkinson and Pickett argue: Modern socities will depend increasingly on being creative, adaptable, inventive, well-informed and flexible communities, able to respond generously to each other and to needs wherever they arise. Those are characteristics not of societies in hock to the rich, in which people are driven by status insecurities, but of populations used to working together and respecting each other as equals.
“women occupy just 34 of the 970 executive director positions at companies in the FTSE 350 index”
We can see how this is poor – I wonder why it is the FTSE 350 and not say the FTSE 100 or FTSE 250?
I assume the figures are worse for the FTSE 350?
Also, what about non-executive director (i.e. those on the board who are not paid by the company as a day-2-day role) positions and positions such as CEO/MD and Chairperson.
I am not justifying the bad numbers just it would be good for some in depth research of numbers of CEO/MDs, executive directors, non-executive directors and chairperson for each of the FTSE 100, FTSE 250 and FTSE 350, for the last 3 years.
I am all for equality, however, to tackle this issue it is deeper than initially thought. It isn’t as simple as someone choosing a man over a woman to do the job.
We have to consider certain factors such as:
a) the ratio of men to women applying (if it is say 8:2 then its likely a man would get the job – if it is 1:1 then in theory it should be balanced.)
b) a lot of them jobs are by promotion – that is to say, to get the top spot you would have to be a step lower. It isn’t a silly assumption that there are more men in business then women (thus the lack of women in higher positions means they are less likely to be promoted to the top positions).
c) the figures are largely distorted – for example, I have never had a male boss: they have all been women. Of course, these bosses are either not in the FTSE or they are in a lower managerial position than the Board of Directors.
d) Equality is the key. There have been a lot of business courses and schemes which segregate the women from men. I know several people who have been on them and all those women have said it is hard to do business, as largely dealing with women all the time sticks them to a disadvantage. There is a phrase in business that is “leave your heart at the door” that is to say have the confidence to make a good business deal but we do not need the women bullied into thinking they are a different species with the mentality of “that room is full of men, they might discriminate against me” doesn’t help the case.
So to recap there is a LOT that can be done but we don’t need the added friction. The women I mentioned above were all expected to network with JUST other women – thats a big disadvantage! Of course you need to begin somewhere and thats a good idea (like local businesses will start networking locally) but the importance is to be inclusive.
Ever heard of the saying “It’s not what you know but who you know”?
Pingback: Liberalism and the radical Left: properly engaging with Žižek « Though Cowards Flinch