Interesting post about women in the finance industry

I still dont see though,that if women set up business for themselves,how this helps other women in the institutions,as the other women are literally no longer there.In fact they have deserted.
When the media quotes eg 4% of women or whatever have the top jobs in the ftse 100,that is what the masses mainly hear.

Childcare and housework are deadly dull. Anyone male or female asking to do more of it is very silly. I am happy to apply that adjective to either gender.

I agree that some work needs long hours. Those of us who work for ourselves make our own hours and often we choose to make those pretty long but at least we are in charge of that. Some things just you have to be there - the surgeon cannot leave a 10 hour operation because it's time to collect a child.

We are working shorter hours now than 150 years ago by the way. In th elifetime of many people's parents people always worked a 6 day week so things are not necessarily any worse than they ever were.

If you want to earn a lot of money, as many of us do, then I agree you need lots of help which thankfully if you earn a lot you can afford but it will never be easy whether you're at home or work if you have young children. However it is just a short phase over a 40 year career so if you do adore your work the aim should be to see those 40 lovely years ahead and not let having a few babies ruin the career forever.

Plenty of people of both genders do not like or want children and some cannot have them even though they want them but they may have other commitments too like older parents or dogs or horses or a hobby they love. All of us have to make compromises about work but from the feminist point of you in this crucial period when we would rather like most institutuions to have more women than men in positions of power now is not the time for women to duck out of high paid jobs to bake cakes and wipe bottoms. We need more not fewer women at the top.

Xenia, why is it "silly women" letting other women down and not "silly men" who should be asking for flexible working in equal numbers to their wives and partners?

The finance industry is really broad. I am in it and both men and women at my work have had flexible working. Lots of firms would be less happy about this but ours is good.

The PP who said the City expects you to be married to it is right. In my first job there was a pretty even gender split on the way in but practically everyone was pre-children (all 30 and under) apart from the two eldest (men) who were married without children. As both men and women had children, both genders left as lots of us were married to people similar (ambitious graduates) so there was no SAHP to cover the last minute travel, all nighters etc.even using all left over salary on childcare after living costs, there aren't many jobs, even "good" graduate jobs that would pay enough to cover 24/7 childcare at the age of 23 or whatever.

A lot of the world is still set up on the assumption that there is a "wife" at home (though things are getting a bit better, at least BritishGas have stopped being surprised there's no-one home during the day to let them in!) and a lot of City-type jobs are in that category. Over time it is becoming a problem for City men as well as City women, which is at least fair!

Xenia,

Firstly, financial services in total contributed 10% of GDP in 2009, and that is dropping. Secondly, London was less than half of that, and the traditional "City" a slightly smaller percentage still. So maybe 4% versus the 25% you are claiming.

You have to counteract that with the money injected and lost by the government and the possibility that a lot of the assets bought by the BOE's special liquidity schemes may not pay back 100%.

And even if the City does contribute, that is through overpaying its staff at the expense of its shareholders. Cannot continue forever.

25% of our revenues which keep the poor etc are in the City. We often have market ups and downs but there is certanily a lot of very unfair anti banker sentiment at present which is a pity but I expect it will blow over.

Xenia,

Ok, asset stripping and confidence trickery are brilliance in your world. Fair enough. I could not live with myself in that position but good for those that can. Banking has been good to me over the years and I don't need to work now but when I was a banker, I always did an honest job and was unprepared to tell bosses that shit smelt of roses, as many of the super successful bankers that I know did.

You also have the idea that in banking, people work extraordinarily hard. Some do in some areas but my experience is that it is very intense but you can get a days work done when the markets are open pretty easily. Especially now, with shrinking business volumes, there is a huge culture of presenteeism. People are at their desks at 7, no lunch, then work till 6-7PM minimum. During that time there will be tons of random gossip, internet searching (fantasy houses, vehicles, holidays) and random and not very productive e mail threads to be dealt with. This is definitely anti those parents who want to see their children at all during the week, fathers and mothers. However more fathers are prepared to make this Faustian bargain than mothers. I don't see that as heroic, more stupidity. You only get one life and I, for one, do not find looking after (and educating) my children to be drudgery, in fact far less so than going into a 6pm meeting for an egotistical boss to recite a string of targets which are never going to be met in a month of sundays.

Why would it not be clever of them to manage that? Obviously if they shoot their industry in the foot in the process and bring pay down then it is not brilliance but at the moment I think those working in finance, the brighter ones at the upper end have managed their own pay pretty brilliantly. Even last week the EU seemed to have dropped its plan that bonuses would not exceed 100% of salary. 10 - 0 to the bankers I think laughing as I type..

Xenia.You have done your downgrade of women again.You said "silly" women.I think I may call you on it each time,to help you learn not to at least post it,even if you still think it.
Also,though.by leaving the environment and setting up business yourself,a lot of the business sectors that women are in,it cannot be done, or only some I would have thought.It also wouldnt suit all womens personalities.

Xenia,

Was it brilliance that led to the CEOs of banks paying themselves 100s of millions of $ whilst losing 90% of their shareholders' money (unless you include confidence trickery as genius of course)? Is it genius that has allowed CEO pay to rise exponentially as the FTSE has at best remained static over the last 10 years or so?

You so desperately want to believe your own narrative here. You should read Kahnberg "thinking fast and slow" to realise how large a role luck plays and how people's brains are hardwired not to really accept this.

There are two issues - silly women ruin their careers by going part time and that hurts other women who want to work at least full time and make a fortune. Those of we women who are trying to work normally are up against all that prejudiced caused by the women part timers who want to swan in for 2 hours a day and cry discrimination if they do not do as well.

Second issue is that some environments if you aren't like the others (whether that be left wing black or white male working class into sport and drink or not posh whatever it is) you find it harder to get on. However if you are brilliant at what you do which I profess to be then you can always get over those issues as at heart money talks and those you serve follow you wherever you are if you're good at it. Hence this is why so many women are doing so well working for themselves. My choice to take business calls within 24 hours of birth of my twins, no silly employer saying stay at home longer as if I were some kind of invalid. Conversely women and men who work for themselves can also take a decision such as I want not to work all winter as I'll ski - I know people with own businesses who do that . this is why owning and working for yourself is so much nicer than being someone's hired hand. Yo0u eat what you kill. If you kill nothing you starve but at least you are in charge of your own destiny.

Name,

Or be making a sane and non discriminatory (in itself) financial calculation. If you knew it would cost £200k to sack Nigels and £20k to sack Normans, all other things being equal you would hire Normans over Nigels. Not sure I would call that discrimination, although we may be arguing over semantics.

Larry that does not make it non explicit. It just means people have come up with a reason for their discrimination.

Name,

As I explained, due to anti discrimination law, there is a far higher risk to hiring women.

Xenia,

I have seen blatant discrimination where women were fired effectively just for being pregnant. Equally, I have seen some crap women bring sexism claims only when they were in the process of being fired and on very spurious grounds. If you are a mother/pregnant and fired and you go to any half decent employment lawyer, the first thing they will do is ask if you can think of any sexism, direct or indirect, that you have experienced. If they can add that to the claim, because there is no cap for compensation for discrimination, it puts you in a very good position to start a negotiation for a decent payout.

In high paid finance jobs, you can always sack someone but the question is the cost. Banks do not want to be considered discriminatory but most are, so 90% of claims are settled a long way before the tribunal.

Larry Could you describe a scenario where pressure not to hire women in their thirties when there isn't a similar pressure not to hire men is something other than explicit discrimination?

But people who drop out from the commute as it were and work from home by setting up their own businesses,are not really helping the women left in either really,in finance or otherwise.

The other problem is that anti discrimination laws have the unintended effect of making people reluctant to hire women of child bearing age because they are "unsackable"

Especially in small companies, which is why temp working for women has rocketed.

its one of the biggest "elephants in the room" in this area

Although plenty of men bring claims too and lots of pregnant women are sacked when pregnant. Actually something like only 1 in 5 tribunal claims are won where employers bother to fight them. In high paid finance jobs I suspect hiring and firing is easier than in your average school or local authority.

The other problem is that anti discrimination laws have the unintended effect of making people reluctant to hire women of child bearing age because they are "unsackable". If you hire a 30 year old man, he has a child and turns out to be crap, you just sack him. If there is an identical woman, she will almost inevitably go to tribunal on the basis of "indirect" discrimination.

This is why housewives and part timers stab full time working women who do not want any concessionsx in the back every day of the week and why decisions to work part time are not a personal choice but a political decision which damages other women. If all women did as I did - 2 weeks holiday to hav a baby in then no one would think ah she's 30 something so in a year or two she will be making a huge meal of being pregnant and then only want to work 2 hours a day. People assume that because so many women indeed do do that. Ifinstead on the whole it was mostly men who disappeard for 5 years when babies came women would not have the same issues at work.

Anyway I agree that plenty of us instead work for ourselves and out earn men and have a lot of fun doing that and that many women who love their work and are ambitious and hard working can do pretty well. I don't think it's a dire sad position to be in and plenty of women these days are saying to sexist husbands - hang on mate if you want a parent at home here is the duster, enjoy your 12 hours holding the screaming baby.

I am not convinced that it is explicit discrimination and, if anything, I think it is far more anti working class than anti women. If you perform well, you will continue to do well. The problem comes when people have bad patches (which, in banking, everyone does). That is when, if you are a member of the "gang", then you will be forgiven and allowed infinitely more chances (extended limits, extended time horizons etc etc). If you are not, it is very easy to freeze someone out.

In an industry where it is REALLY hard to objectively assess someone, it is very easy to subconsciously discriminate in favour of someone who is like you and, with a lot of senior management being men, it works in men's favour. In addition, the rituals one needs to go through to remain a member of the "gang" (presenteeism, always being contactable, being prepared to go out on late evenings etc) tend to mean that women get fed up before men.

Finance has many problems and, until a way is found to objectively see if someone is talented or not (and that is definitely NOT the case at the moment with the exception of a couple of areas such as pure quants, programmers etc), it will be hard to make it a "fair" employer.

I agree there's a natural tendency to want to hire people like you and that cuts across industries. But I'm talking about an explicit pressure not to hire women over thirty because of a belief they will work for a couple of years and then go off and have babies and be no good to anyone. The fact my male friends in finance never seem to stay in the same job for more than a couple of years doesn't seem to be considered a problem, but losing a woman to babies rather than another firm is (and this despite the fact many of those women would like to stay in the game and others don't want babies at all).

Its not just a wanting-to-hire-people-like-me-and-not-really-appreciating-that-I'm-narrowing-my-field thing. Its explicit (and illegal) discrimination against women on the grounds they will up and leave for children.

Men leave all the time for all sorts of reasons. Firms have a bee in their bonnet about women having children.

Totally agree on the class thing, though many firms seem to have a token "working class made good" man (never seems to be a woman) to work the trade union pension funds (this is based on a very narrow sample and probably mainly fuelled by cynicism).

As regards the op,and her statement,are not men slightly more "valuable" to finance and other industries or sectors,,beacuse they are more,or much more willing to often relocate,abroad if necessary

And men won't disappear mid career to have children. This is the problem in a nutshell, but IMO it's a total career income thing and there is no excuse for not paying the same rate for a job.

IMO the best way out is to restructure work, I think it's already happening organically as women increasingly go for starting their own businesses to give them flexibility, but more could be done in larger concerns. I also think in that respect the red tape and tax rates on small businesses are far too onerous for the relative risk of setting them up.

Feel I need to slightly qualify what I have just posted.Men may be more "valuable" to finance etc in that 1 regard.I am pretty sure women may be more "valuable" in other regards.

As regards the op,and her statement,are not men slightly more "valuable" to finance and other industries or sectors,,beacuse they are more,or much more willing to often relocate,abroad if necessary.
I have sons and daughters.And while,at the moment,they are happy to work here there and everywhere,I can see a time coming,in the next few years,that if or when they all have families,that it may possiblyall go down the traditional role of where the daughters follow the men around jobwise.All hypothetical at the moment.

Yes, all HR people have this problem - that people want to hire people like they are. I know one department which is full of gay men and women in industry -nothing wrong with that of course; started with one etc etc. Then you get class recruiting - apparently in most good jobs in London being working class is a much bigger barrier than being female (although not presumably in areas where there is a tradition if hiring white Essex boys I suppose).

In some ways someone you can bear to spend 15 hours a day with is not a bad test (along with if they are up to the job) but it could mean you only recruit from a very narrow pool and therefore in a big organisation miss vast swathes of greatly talented people.

I do like the trend of women setting up on their own and isn't it a Greek woman who owns one of the biggest yachts in the world and set up her own hedge fund?