I know I wasn't the only one rather bewildered by the statements made yesterday over the concern of the number of womens' jobs lost at the start of the recession.
As Harriet Harman and her 'flashmob' run up another hill to carry out a 'ghost-witchhunt' over equality - the question is 'did she/they stop and think for one moment?
One suspects not and hysterical shouting has now broken out.
[1] A simple economic explanation.
For example, if Harriet had taken the time to call on her local 'Woolies store' before it shut down she may have noticed something. For one that the female to male ratio seemed to be in the order of FOUR-to-ONE.
The Woolworths staff I suspect have not yet hit the statistics but in retail this ratio is not uncommon.
Thus, I'm afraid that if retail and (financial services retail) have borne the brunt so far it won't take much IQ to understand why female full-time jobs and (part-time for that matter) probably outnumber male jobs lost so far.
(Though I've no doubt she will be 'pleased' that Corus made redundancies yesterday which were mostly male and 'even things up a bit' - such would the vacuous argument run!)
You see, Harriet, in the rush to proclaim jobs for everyone Ministers didn't distinguish the types of jobs and their resilience in the face of economic distress - many in retail can prove illusory.
Interestingly, I note that several commentators have jumped on some 'new jobs' recently created quoting ALDI, Morrisons, Sainsbury and McDonalds. All very laudable but NOT pointing out that these are all food retail of one sort or another.
What are we doing - eating our way out of recession???????????
[2] The legal front
We already have enough 'equality' employment legislation to sink a BATTLESHIP........
Given the scenario, is an employer faced with the unedifying prospect of cutting jobs going to:
(a) Do the best they can in the circumstances to follow legislative guidelines, or
(b) Invite even further potential cost risk (litigation) by singling out particular individuals and risk PR opprobium as well - for what would turn out to be a minor difference in costs?
If you're an employer I would have thought that (a) would be your choice.
I guess there may well be a few (b)s dotted about (!?) and frankly its their decision if they want to go there.
But Harriet don't tar everybody with the same brush with some hysterical vacuous argument that sows the seeds of unnecessary doubt.
It insults employers. It insults males who have lost their jobs. It also insults female intelligence. And it should insult professionals. Get out of the victim space..........
[3] Dealing with the real issue
We've got to deal with issue of unemployment with an intelligent mindset. This sort of thing belongs to the middle-ages. Don't genderise a general issue its very divisive.
As I said a few months ago the UK needs an economic/human capital strategy as the current bankrupt one is being shown up for what it is - i..e built on sand........
All HCM professionals should denounce this extraordinary 'initiative'........I for one am bristling when there is so much other stuff to focus on from a media perspective.................
[4] What I really wanted to talk about...
I really wanted to report that amid all the 'gloom and doom' whether generally or all things HR, that the 2009 HCMI class got underway last week.
A great two days. It's a pleasure to 'do learning' with such qualified people who have a bent for learning and still be doing their day jobs (by the way 80% female ratio).
One of the class of 2008 came to present their experience. My thanks to Rob (you know who you are!). It makes it all worthwhile despite the cynics, the knockers and the general apathy.........
Well it looks like the HCMI is here to stay - pity the profession's media aren't interested in following up some real stuff of substance.........
NJH
