Diversity & equal rights

This week’s data released by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) shows some modest improvements in workplace gender equality in the entities required to report to WGEA (those with 100 or more employees).

There was an ever so slight increase in the proportion of women in senior management roles. And I guess the “biggest single-year drop” of 1% in the gender pay gap is something to celebrate (at least it didn’t go up!) notwithstanding that men still earn 21.3% more than women on average and pay gaps persist in every occupation and industry – even those which are heavily dominated by female workers, such as health & social assistance and education & training.

The stats also disclose that:
  • access to employer-funded paid primary carer’s leave has gone backwards. This disproportionally impacts women who still account for 94.9% of all primary carer’s leave utilised, with men accounting for only 5.1%
  • more than 35% of boards and governing bodies in the data set have no female members
  • although there was a 4% increase in organisations analysing pay data, 40% of those employers took no action to close the gap
  • although almost 75% of employers have a gender equality strategy or policy, only 31.4% have implemented KPIs for managers relating to gender equality outcomes.
Narrowing the “action gap”

The “action gap” – having policies and strategies in place but not making managers accountable for embedding them in their workplaces – has not narrowed. It has been 18 months since I published this blog on diversity and inclusion noting that:

It is trite and well-trodden ground that without buy-in from the top, progress towards true diversity and inclusion will not be made. However, general statements of commitment at the Board or corporate policy level will also never lead to change without integration and implementation at each business function and unit level.

Sadly, although obvious, it is still true. Whilst these policies and initiatives remain stuck within departments for example, seeing them as an HR responsibility not a broader management responsibility, and aren’t part of a broader organisational change conversation, things will never change.

With such little progress being made on gender equality, I’m disillusioned about the prospect of achieving meaningful diversity beyond gender in our workplaces (ethnicity, age, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, educational background, religion, parental status and socio-economic status) anytime soon, until we begin to close the gap between corporate rhetoric and reality.


Subscribe to receive the next Workplace Law & Strategy blog direct to your inbox.

It is an indisputable fact that women are not equally represented in leadership roles or management positions in Australian companies and governments, not even close. Even in 2016, this is the case in almost all arenas of business and politics and is most certainly a global issue, although Australia even appears to lag in this indicator among developed nations. This flows through to an under-representation of women on boards of directors of Australian public companies. Earlier this year consultant Conrad Liveris found that there were fewer women in CEO and chair roles in ASX 200 companies than there were men named either John, Peter or David in such roles. What an alarming statistic! In this note we consider whether this under-representation is caused by a failure to recognise that women as much as men are able to achieve and sustain appropriate business outcomes and conclude that this is a matter that good corporate governance can resolve. Continue Reading A perspective on the unequal representation of women in leadership

As we celebrate International Women’s Day, the 2017 campaign message asks us to #beboldforchange and to “take action to drive change for women to forge a better working world”.

The campaign’s aims are admirable and worthy of support. But I find myself querying whether such a campaign really helps our workplaces become more holistically diverse and inclusive. Continue Reading Playing the numbers game – diversity and inclusion

The Victorian Supreme Court recently issued a stunning decision awarding an employee over $600,000 comprising $210,000 for pain and suffering and the balance for lost past and future income, despite the employee having a significant pre-existing psychiatric illness and a finding that no bullying had occurred.   Continue Reading Damages in bullying claims – the stakes are rising even higher

The stakes are risingIn the world of anti-discrimination law awards of money against employers for psychiatric injury or illness caused by sexual harassment by one of their employees have been rare and low, typically in the range of $12,000 to $20,000. Similarly, the anti-bullying jurisdiction of the Fair Work Commission has seen limited orders made to prevent further bullying where claims have been made, and compensation is not available as a remedy for bullying behavior.

But things are changing, especially in the area of sexual harassment where awards of damages for psychiatric illness are increasing. This reflects change in societal attitude towards this type of conduct that has (finally) started to be reflected in judicial pronouncements.

The spectrum of mental harm that can be experienced by victims of sexual harassment or bullying covers depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) any of which can be debilitating for a significant period.

Continue Reading Damages in sexual harassment and bullying claims – the stakes are rising

Work imageWhat will work look like in the future and what lessons can employers take from that? Two recent reports have identified the trends in the way in which we will work in Australia over the next 20 to 40 years.

In the first, Tomorrow’s Digitally Enabled Workforce, the CSIRO looks at what they describe as six ‘megatrends’ for jobs and employment markets over the coming twenty years: Continue Reading The future of work – what are the lessons for employers?

FinanceScott Morrison’s first Federal Budget announced the creation of the ‘Youth Jobs PaTH’ (Prepare-Trial-Hire) program – a program designed to encourage up to 120,000 unemployed youth into the workforce through skills training programs, paid internships and incentive payments for prospective employers. While further details will come to light over the course of the Federal Election campaign, employers who want to participate will need to look before they leap, to make sure their participation in the program doesn’t lead them, later on, to fall foul of the minimum wage provisions in awards and legislation.  Continue Reading Are you on the right path with interns?

EyeWhen it comes to managing bullying in the workplace, the focus tends to be on dealing with the bullying behaviour after it has occurred or at least after the bully has started work. But are there ways to stop bullies from being recruited in the first place?

One place to start is screening during recruitment. There are certain personalities who deliberately inflict harm or lack the ability to understand the harm they are doing to others. These personalities fall within a category that psychologists call the ‘Dark Triad’ which comprises three sub-personalities: Machiavellianism, sub-clinical narcissism and sub-clinical psychopathy. Continue Reading Screening for psychopaths – managing the front end of workplace bullying

As the Australian Football League 2016 pre-season approaches, there is a lot of talk in the media about “list management” by clubs. This generally involves retiring or trading “older” players – usually over the age of 28.

It is often assumed – rightly or wrongly – that football players lose their athletic edge around this age. But is it fair – or legal –  to use age as a blunt proxy for performance?  There are players (like Dustin Fletcher of Essendon fame) that perform brilliantly into their late 30s and beyond. Continue Reading AFL “list management” – a polite term for age discrimination?