Peter Cheese is the Chief Executive of the Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development (CIPD). Three months ago he won one of our Toady awards – here. The capitulation of CIPD to feminist narratives in recent years has been appalling, and nowhere more so than in the area of the ‘gender pay gap’.
Our thanks to Chloe for this. An extract:
Dianah Worman, diversity adviser for CIPD, the professional body for HR and people development, comments: “The survey findings demonstrate the need for employers to act expeditiously to be able to deliver what will be expected of them, or risk damaging their public reputations as progressive employers of female talent and undermine their competitiveness in attracting and retaining it…
“We welcome the additional focus on publishing information on the bonus gap and quartile salary bands which will give more detailed insights to employers on where and how pronounced gender pay differentials exist and what needs to be done to address them…
“To stimulate employers to act willingly, it is vital to raise awareness about the reasons why addressing the gender pay gap makes good business sense and the good practice that can be adopted to put things right.
Hmm. Why might it be necessary to ‘stimulate employers to act willingly’? For the same reason the Davies Report (2011) felt it necessary to threaten gender quotas for FTSE100 boards in 2015 if the companies didn’t ‘voluntarily’ reach 25% female representation on their boards by then (which the spineless companies duly did). It’s more of the same old, same old… feminist manipulations of deferential men, regardless of the consequences.
Another extract:
The most commonly cited ways in which organisations have tried to improve equal opportunities in the last two years are:
-
improving the range of flexible working opportunities available to staff (26% all employers; 34% large employers
-
developing more inclusive recruitment practices (16% all employers; 21% large employers
-
through greater use of mentoring in the last two years to help women progress into the most senior levels in the business (13% all employers; 19% large employers
-
improving the childcare package they offer staff (10% all employers; 14% of large employers)
These amount to nothing less than special treatment for women, at the cost of the efficiency and effectiveness of employing organizations. I’d like to pick up on ‘greater use of mentoring’. When I started work in the private sector in 1979, as a graduate trainee with Beecham, the term ‘mentoring’ was unknown. It’s shorthand for experienced people transferring their hard-won knowledge and experience to others, meaning the latter don’t have to put in the time and effort expended by the former. We can replace ‘experienced people’ with ‘men’, and ‘others’ by ‘women’.
In the world of work, all roads lead to Dr Catherine Hakim’s Preference Theory (2000):
Four out of seven British men are work-centred, while only one in seven British women is.
‘To stimulate employers to act willingly, it is vital to … ‘
Threaten them with a big legislative stick. ‘You can choose to do it voluntarily of we’ll force you’.
The one advantage that a ‘voluntary’ effort has over legislated compulsion is that the measure can be dropped quickly and easily when the disaster that is inevitable from this laughable policy is undeniable.
Re. ‘mentoring’: people of real ability don’t need ‘mentoring’, they simply get on with the job and have the nous to acquire for themselves the skills they need. What excuses will they find for the failure of formerly profitable businesses thanks to the incompetence of over promoted unsuitable and incapable women?
The diversity industry is feathering it’s own nest here, that much is transparently obvious. There has to be ‘inequality’, otherwise they have no purpose, no jobs and no income – powerful incentives to talk up the ‘problem’.
This is why the wage gap myth, although dead, won’t lie down – and in fact is starting to be true in reverse.
The Fawcett Society is another well known exponent of damaging society for cash.