Campaign for Merit in Business – let’s get political

[Updated 28 February 2013]

The Electoral Commission has just registered our political party, Justice for men & boys (and the women who love them). More on this later in this post.

Campaign for Merit in Business, which was launched early in 2012, has made a remarkable impact in a relatively short time. We’ve proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the ‘glass ceiling’ is a baseless conspiracy theory. Through exposing as fantasies, lies, delusions and myths, the arguments which said that increasing gender diversity in the boardroom (‘GDITB’) will improve corporate financial performance, we’ve destroyed the long-vaunted ‘business case’ for GDITB. We continue to publicise five longitudinal studies, all of which show that GDITB leads to declines in corporate financial performance. What else would we expect when businesses aren’t free to select the best people for their boards, regardless of gender? Proponents are left with little other than misrepresenting correlation as causation in pursuit of their social engineering programmes.

The Conservative-led coalition no longer challenges our assertion that the impact of GDITB on UK plc will inevitably be a negative one. And yet it continues to actively pursue GDITB. DBIS continues to refuse to have a minister meet with us. What might explain this extraordinary state of affairs? We believe there are a number of strands in the answer:

1. David Cameron has an exaggerated fear of the ‘women’s vote’. He showed his feminist-friendly credentials soon after coming to power in 2010 by appointing the Labour peer Lord Davies of Abersoch to report not on whether to give effect to GDITB, but on how to do so. Indeed he showed those credentials in the autumn of 2009, when he announced he was setting up some all-women prospective parliamentary candidate (‘PPC’) shortlists. I’d once worked for the party at their London HQ (2006-8) but resigned my party membership in the autumn of 2009 when David Cameron announced his willingness to introduce all-women PPC shortlists for the forthcoming general election. I was later informed, by a senior officer in the party, that I was far from alone in having done so.

2. The leading minister at DBIS, the Lib Dem MP Vince Cable, holds extreme left-wing views, and is on record as saying that if he were Prime Minister, 50% of his cabinet would be women. He has publicly used – in his speeches and writings – utterly discredited research ‘evidence’ in support of GDITB.

3. The CBI, which should be defending its members’ rights to appoint directors as they see fit, is a part of the problem. For some years it’s actively promoted GDITB. Its current President, Sir Roger Carr (chairman of Centrica) is on record as stating that while he doesn’t personally believe GDITB improves corporate financial performance, he thinks it improves meeting ‘atmospherics’.

4. GDITB is being pursued vigorously because FTSE100 companies are under threat of legislated quotas (Davies Report – 2011) if they don’t ‘voluntarily’ achieve 25% female representation on their boards by 2015. This has resulted in a more than fourfold increase in FTSE100 female director appointments, from 12% of new appointments before the quotas threat (2010) to 55% (2012). Virtually all of the new female appointments have been as NEDs, an indicator of how shallow the available pool of qualified women is compared with the available pool of qualified men.

5. For some years government inquiries into such matters, while seeming to be open, have been deeply flawed. The most obvious recent example was the 2012 House of Lords inquiry into ‘Women on Boards’ which heard only from witnesses in support of GDITB. Many were professionally involved in the initiative. The level of witness challenging by the peers, including the Conservatives, was embarrassing to watch. In our written evidence to the inquiry we included details of four longitudinal studies which show that GDITB harms corporate performance. The final inquiry report explicitly rejected the idea that GDITB can lead to declines in corporate performance, without explaining why. We wrote to the inquiry’s chairwoman, Conservative peer Baroness O’Cathain, asking for an explanation, and didn’t receive one.

6. The House of Commons inquiry into ‘Women in the Workplace’, to which we gave oral evidence, is still ongoing, and we’re hopeful of more attention being given to our evidence than was the case with the House of Lords inquiry. But virtually all the witnesses before this inquiry, as with the House of Lords inquiry, have been pro-GDITB. We’ve made formal complaints about the misleading testimonies of a number of ‘witnesses’, one of whom amended her evidence as a result.

[New entry, 22 July 2013: The report of a House of Commons inquiry – ‘Women in the Workplace’ – was outrageous in its curt dismissal of our evidence base and arguments, and those of the renowned sociologist Catherine Hakim. The committee blindly accepted feminist arguments in relation to the genders in the workplace, while traditional Conservative perspectives on issues such as meritocracy were nowhere to be seen. Our critique of the report is here.]

The area of GDITB is but one of many areas in which governments actively discriminate for women and against men, because they’re fearful of the potential impact of ‘women’s votes’. Let’s consider just one example of that discrimination. Two-thirds of public sector workers are women, and the Equality Act (2010) effectively enables public sector bodies to discriminate on the grounds of gender in terms of recruitment and promotion, where one gender is ‘under-represented’. In practise only women in the sector are using the legislation, and only to advance women. Positive discrimination on gender grounds is illegal, so the government terms the phenomenon ‘positive action’. It amounts to exactly the same thing in practice.

Men have signally failed to co-operate effectively to defend ‘men’s human rights’ over many years, but this is changing. Politicians of all parties have left us with no choice. We’ve taken the only logical step. We’ve formed a political party to challenge the government in numerous policy areas – including GDITB – where there’s relentless special treatment for women at the expense of men. I shall lead the party.

On 30 December the leading broadcaster and Daily Mail columnist Quentin Letts exclusively revealed our intention to launch the party.

The name of the party was revealed in an article published by the world’s most-visited and influential men’s human rights advocacy website, A Voice for Men.

If you believe in this cause, then please support us by making a donation or possibly by making a contribution in other ways. A qualified accountant has taken care of finances both before and since the party’s establishment. 100% of donations will be used to finance our campaigning work. Nobody associated with this campaign or our party derives any personal income from donations. Thank you for your interest in our work.

Mike Buchanan

mike@j4mb.org.uk

07967 026163

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

It pays to have more women in work, so policy must reflect this. Er… must it?

In today’s edition of The Times (p.39) there’s a woeful article by Philip Aldrick, Economics Editor, titled, ‘It pays to have more women in work, so policy must reflect this’. His analysis is feminist throughout, though I doubt he realises this. A particular gem:

Women are good for the bottom line. Companies with more women in senior management deliver higher returns on assets. No economist has taken a stab at the reason, but the evidence, most recently from IMF research into two million companies across 34 European countries, is simply that it does. More profits means more cash to invest, which means higher productivity and better prosperity for all.

I honestly cannot be bothered to check out the ‘IMF research’, because I’m 100% sure – after working on this issue for 4+ years – that it would report a correllation between more women in senior management, and higher returns. What it would NOT demonstrate – no research ever does – is a causal link, because it’s been known for years that a causal link exists between more women in senior positions, and corporate financial decline. I outlined the evidence of a causal link to House of Commons and House of Lords inquiries in 2012, and that evidence is here.

If any of this blog’s followers has more energy and time than myself to direct Philip Aldrick to this blog piece, I thank them warmly in advance. His email address might be philip.aldrick@thetimes.co.uk. Then again, it might not be. I could be wrong. It happened once before.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

EasyJet is offering 10 places for women each year on the easyJet pilot training programme and underwriting the £100,000 training loan. This is the ‘first phase’ of their long term strategy to increase the proportion of female pilots at the airline.

Few of our blog pieces about education and workplace-related issues have angered our supporters than one we posted in 2014 – here – about female Brunel University MSc Engineering students being handed a taxpayer-stolen lump sum of £22,750 denied to their male colleagues.

Social engineering in the public sector has long been rife, but it’s becoming increasingly common in the private sector, too, and not just ‘women in the boardroom’. The objective is to deny men advancement, or even stop them starting careers in well-paying professions.

Carolyn McCall is the CEO of the low-cost airline easyJet. She became the CEO of Guardian Media Group in 2006, after rising to be CEO of Guardian Newspapers Ltd.

My thanks to Nigel for sending me this:

Dear Mike,

I’ve forwarded the link below as it gives a list of examples of major firms actions on gender (of course no help to men!) Easy Jet are offering 10 places to women  on their pilot course at effectively their expense [note: more accurately, at their shareholders’ expense] if the pilot candidate (woman) doesn’t go on to be a working pilot. If you look at the other examples you will see similar as well as the usual Family Friendly, Mentoring training into management and other privileges.

I realise that you will be mad busy at the moment but I think this information of the case studies is worth having a good trawl through. I would think it will also interest members working in the various companies/industries.

Nigel

The link will take you to a piece by the absurdly-named Government Equalities Office. The link to the piece on easyJet is here.

As a final comment, male unemployment has long been higher than female unemployment, and unemployment has long been known to be a bigger suicide risk factor for men than women. The cost of these social engineering programmes is paid in many ways, including men’s lives. Suicide continues to be the #1 cause of death for men under 50 in the UK.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

We must do more for women entrepreneurs

A truly pathetic article from a recent Mail on Sunday. An extract:

A report from the Federation of Small Businesses last week argued that while women-led firms face many of the same challenges that all small businesses encounter, ‘there appear to be issues which are more acute for women business owners’.

Its survey of more than 1,900 women business owners found key challenges included balancing work and family life, achieving credibility for the business, and a lack of confidence.

One of the comments hits the nail on the head:

Why must we do more for women entrepreneurs? Who is the ‘we’? If people can’t do it for themselves, men or women, they are not entrepreneurs.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How to set up a small business. Take a big one and stuff its board with women.

My thanks to The Conservative Woman for publishing my latest article on the topic of gender diversity on corporate boards, inspired by a lengthy and absurd EHRC report, nothing less than a taxpayer-funded feminist propaganda piece.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Laura Perrins: Female quotas serve only mediocre women

Another good piece from Laura Perrins. Of course mediocre women haven’t the slightest reservation about advancing in preference to better-qualified men. They are utterly shameless, as are the men and women who facilitate all the damnable social engineering which has had such a ruinous impact on the public sector, and will in time have the same impact on the private sector.

The government is threatening to introduce gender quota legislation for FTSE350 companies in 2020 if the companies don’t ‘voluntarily’ achieve 33% female representation on their boards by then. Doubtless they’ll cravenly capitulate in the same way FTSE100 companies did in the wake of the ridiculous Davies Report (2011), which resulted in a doubling of the female representation on their boards in the space of four years to 25% in 2015 (average across the FTSE100). 96% of the new female directors were appointed as Non-Executive Directors – prestige, no executive responsibility, and good money for little effort. No wonder feminists are so keen on such initiatives.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

CIPD survey highlights the ‘need’ for more action by employers to address ‘gender inequality’

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 is 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 cost.

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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Will Ruth Sunderland EVER engage with the evidence showing that appointing more women onto corporate boards leads to financial decline?

Ruth Sunderland is a business journalist with the Daily Mail. In January 2014 our associated organization Campaign for Merit in Business – C4MB – posted a blog piece critiquing her article on the financial returns in 2013 of FTSE100 and FTSE350 companies with female chief executives, here. An extract:

So, just one of the four female FTSE100 CEOs performed more strongly than the average male FTSE100 CEO in 2013. The article’s downplaying of female failure is breathtaking:

‘Cynthia Carroll left the top position at mining giant Anglo American earlier this year after disappointing investors and has been replaced by a man.’

‘Disappointing investors’? They lost their shirts. In the course of Cynthia Carroll’s five-year tenure at Anglo American £9 BILLION was wiped off the company’s value. The following is a link to our piece on the matter, along with further information on the performances of other female CEOs:

https://c4mb.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/womens-performances-as-ceos-of-major-companies/

Six months later, in July 2014, C4MB posted another blog piece on Ms Sunderland – here – with the snappy title, ‘Is Ruth Sunderland (Daily Mail journalist) willing to engage with evidence showing that placing more women on corporate boards leads to financial decline?’ It was, of course a rhetorical question, and the answer was, ‘No’.

My thanks to Chloe for pointing me to a piece by Ms Sunderland in today’s edition of the Daily Mailhere. It’s titled:

Female success isn’t at the expense of men, so why does equality still look like a distant dream?

She may not have written the silly title, but she wrote the silly article. Excerpts:

The gender pay gap in this country is higher than the OECD average and we still have only a small handful of women in chief executive roles at top companies…

Many companies have made serious efforts to get more female directors into the boardroom, and to help women with children navigate work and home. So why does equality still look like a distant dream?

My personal theory is ‘the snowball effect’. [Will this morph into ‘the glass snowball’ in time, to join all the other glass-related myths?] While outrageous sexism is relatively rare these days, for fear of lawsuits if nothing else, many women experience small, but repeated episodes of discrimination – of being overlooked, not listened to, assumed not to be ambitious and so forth…

Despite the nonsense spouted by the ‘men’s rights’ brigade, female success does not come at the expense of male failure.

I shall email Ms Sunderland a link to this blog piece, and ask her if she’ll EVER be prepared to engage with the evidence – here – demonstrating a causal link between appointing more women onto corporate boards, and financial decline. Don’t hold your breath.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment