Yes, the gender pay gap rules are flawed. But they’re the best hope of making things better | Business
Isn’t transparency on pay wonderful? You might struggle to find many BBC managers who would agree with the sentiment after the corporation’s tricky week for harmonious staff relations. The publication of the salaries of those earning more than £150,000 a year provoked anger, recrimination and reasonable accusations of gender bias.
The BBC’s experience will also have sent shudders through many boardrooms in the corporate world. Unlike the BBC, none will have to give details of everyone earning more than £150,000; that requirement was an odd, and probably politically motivated, condition of the BBC’s charter renewal. But about 9,000 large employers will have to file data on their gender pay gap by April next year. The figures will be in the public domain on an official website, hence the worry that upsets and rows at the BBC will be repeated among millions of workers, albeit with less publicity.
Wariness â€" and outright scepticism â€" about the government’s initiative could be seen in a survey of employers published by consultancy Mercer. Fewer than half the organisations thought the reporting requirement will make a difference. One in 10 disagreed with the whole principle â€" “unlikely to provide an accurate view, and results could have a negative impact on firms which are genuinely being proactive in this areaâ€, said one respondent. Companies also seem to be dragging their feet. Only about a third had compiled the data by the end of May, but far fewer had made their submissions.
Up to a point, one can sympathise with some of the worries. Equal pay, which is the legal requirement to pay men and women equally for doing the same job, can be unhelpfully confused with gender pay, which is the mathematical calculation of what men and women in the same organisation earn on average. It is also true, as many companies complain, that the government is able to hide behind the reporting requirement to disguise its own inaction. An effort to promote Icelandic or Swedish-style shared parental leave would probably do more to address gender pay imbalances than the creation of a data-heavy official website.
Do such worries mean the reporting requirement is a waste of time? The answer is surely no. A blast of transparency in this area offers the best hope of improvement. As with Lord Davies’ efforts to get women into boardrooms, it is only when the problem is described in detail that those in positions of power are obliged to respond. In 2011, a report by the former trade minister highlighted the lack of women in top jobs and recommended that FTSE 100 companies should double the proportion of women in boardrooms to 25% by 2015. The target was exceeded, even if more recent evidence suggests progress has stalled â€" but Davies definitely provoked debate and scrutiny.
On gender pay, there ought to be a simple remedy against misinterpretation: companies can explain themselves. The same Mercer survey showed that 70% intend to publish a “narrative†alongside their figures. That’s good news â€" as long as the commentaries don’t become an extended bleat about how the figures have been skewed by the disproportionate number of men in senior positions. The important thing is to describe policies to redress the imbalance in the top ranks.
TSB, which revealed a 31% gender pay gap last week, did a decent job on that score â€" for example, by launching a campaign to attract “returning†women to financial services. Male-dominated IT companies, who seem to be most alarmed by gender pay reporting, should take note. Don’t fret about sending offputting signals to female applicants; take the opportunity to lay out your principles and ambitions.
As with the BBC, one suspects the initial shock of putting data into the public domain will fade. The first experience is daunting. The second year should be more comfortable, provided there is progress to report. So, yes, transparency â€" even when it is imperfect â€" is indeed very welcome. Sunlight is still a good disinfectant.
Recent history tells us not to worry about inflation
The United States economy has been expanding for eight years but wage inflation and the core measure for the cost of living have been surprisingly weak for four straight months. Britain’s inflation rate was expected to remain unchanged at 2.9% in June but instead fell to 2.6%. In the eurozone, growth is robust but inflationary pressure is weak.
To be sure, inflation in the developed world is higher than it was a couple of years ago, when the collapse in oil prices meant central banks were fretting about the risk of deflation. But the real story is of the long-term decline in inflation, which has peaked at a lower level in every business cycle since the 1970s.
Britain is a case in point. After the first oil shock, inflation rose to a postwar high of 26% in 1975. After the second oil shock, the peak was 21%. The late 1980s boom and the first Gulf war saw inflation hit 11% in 1990, while the long boom that followed Black Wednesday never saw inflation rise above 5%. Even if there is a bit more to come from the depreciation of sterling since the EU referendum, the next peak will not be much higher than 3%.
Modern industrial capitalism tends to produce low inflation because it is a system based on competition, which keeps price increases in check. And since the 1970s competition has intensified. The arrival of China, India and Russia into the global economy has increased the supply of goods, while companies have access to a much bigger pool of labour. Trade unions have been sapped of their strength. State monopolies have been broken up.
The upshot of all this is that economies can run with much lower levels of unemployment than they could in the past. That is why the Bank of England is not going to raise rates next month and why the US Federal Reserve is likely to put off another increase in American borrowing costs until the end of the year. Central banks are right to be cautious. Deflation will be a feature of the next downturn.
Applaud MPs who take direct action
MPs last week turned up at the offices of controversial ticket resale site Viagogo, fed up with the company’s reluctance to engage in a parliamentary investigation into ticket touting.
Conservative MP Nigel Adams and Labour’s Sharon Hodgson were sent packing â€" but even so they demonstrated their persistence in tackling the subject of secondary ticket sales.
MPs have shown their willingness to take direct action in the past. Six MPs turned up at Sports Direct’s warehouse after reports by the Guardian led to concerns about working practices there. Those MPs were let in â€" and then accused the company of secretly recording their visit. Clearly, MPs love a publicity stunt. But actions like these should serve to remind businesses that MPs do not give up easily when their public is on their side. For this, they deserve congratulations.
0 Response to "Yes, the gender pay gap rules are flawed. But they’re the best hope of making things better | Business"
Posting Komentar