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 piece 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
There is an interesting paradigm within modern workplaces when it comes to young professionals. Millennial workers spend many of their formative years after high school learning about the functional skills and knowledge required to carry out a job in their chosen field – be it through higher education or on-the-job training like an apprenticeship.
As their abilities develop through experience, so too does their industry expertise and many go on to rise through the ranks, until the day comes that they are given a team of people to manage.
And then what?
The glaring dearth of women in leadership positions, both throughout Australia and the world, has been much documented in recent years, with calls to see the gender gap closed at the top levels of business and government. Although there has been much discussion, gender parity and diversity are still struggling to be achieved in the workforce. Women are underrepresented in the leadership pipeline and aren’t ascending to leadership roles at the same speed or with the same ruthlessness as their male counterparts. The promotion and development of talent and essential leadership skills for female employees needs to be a business priority of organisations, regardless of size.
Susan Colantuono, as the CEO of Leading Women – one of the world’s premier consulting firms for companies committed to closing the leadership gender gap – recognises and speaks on the importance of developing women leaders at every level. Previous AmCham Women in Leadership events have focused on how in order to accelerate women to the top of the leadership chain, they first need to develop their skills and advance themselves as they move through the pipeline. Continue reading
So here we are in 2017. Another year that will no doubt come and go as fast as 2016 did, the year before that, and even the year before that one.
AmCham and AmCham’s Women in Leadership Committee continues to support and agitate for diversity and inclusion in the workplace and in leadership in all its descriptions.
As the Productivity Commission finishes its draft report into workplace relations, one question it must ask is why does the system create high cost, low productivity projects? AmCham Human Capital Committee chairman and Seyfarth Shaw partner Chris Gardner considers the issue in a opinion piece for the Australian Financial Review.
Last week, the Australian oil & gas Industry converged for its annual conference hosted by the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association. The conference illustrated the great opportunities Australia has in LNG. It also served as a reminder that realising these opportunities depends upon deep investment in project infrastructure. Alas, we are expensive by international standards. Labour cost and productivity are becoming burning issues with our relative position poor by international standards.
As the Productivity Commission puts the finishing touches on its draft report into the workplace relations framework, a key question it will need to answer is, “What is it about the regulatory environment that drives high cost and low productivity outcomes on major projects?” Let me help.
First, there is what I call horizontal price control between projects.
This is the phenomenon which sees the price of labour set from one project to another, with the most recent project providing the starting point for the next.
The owners and developers of a new project have significant capital at play. They cannot afford for it to sit idle. Delay is untenable. The prospect of industrial action risks delay. Under the existing regulatory framework, the only real option to ameliorate the risk is a “greenfields” (enterprise) agreement. Such an agreement can only be made with one or more unions.
In effect, unions are put in a monopoly position for the supply and price of labour. “Price” is thereby distorted by this alone. Of course, it’s not just price, rostering arrangements often aimed at maximising overtime pay and union-control clauses are also in the mix.
The previous federal Labor government’s inquiry into the Fair Work Act acknowledged this dynamic, as did the Productivity Commission in its report last year into public infrastructure where it noted that, “unions routinely use the commercial risk faced by contractors as a lever to secure industrial concessions”.
This is not a criticism of union negotiating behaviour, it is a function of regulatory shortcomings. The issue has been raised squarely by the Productivity Commission again in its current inquiry into the workplace relations framework and has been the subject of a number of submissions.
There is also “vertical price control”. This is where the price of labour is set at the top of the project supply chain and is demanded of any and all sub-contractors throughout. Head-contractors effectively drive this outcome.
Sub-contractors are then limited in their ability to establish their own terms and conditions, and often the price of labour is standardised at the highest common denominator. Given this practice is fundamentally anti-competitive, why do economically rational, well-resourced players in key sectors of our economy accept it?
The project owner and head contractor need stability and certainty to deliver projects on time and it’s this quest for stability which is regularly offered as the reason – or at least a key reason. The question then for the Productivity Commission is, “to what extent is any regulatory shortcoming the underlying driver for the instability which is sought to be avoided?”
The link between investment in major projects (whether in resources or otherwise) and our labour relations environment is obvious and seemingly well accepted, so the practices relating to greenfields agreements and enterprise bargaining more generally will be a key focus for the Productivity Commission.
Fundamentally, the link between the “levers and pulleys” under the legal framework and negotiating behaviour needs to be understood. There are three dimensions here. First, evaluating where leverage sits as between the negotiating parties. Second, the impact of not reaching an agreement for both parties needs to be understood – it alone creates negotiating leverage. Thirdly, there is the monopoly position unions enjoy when it comes to setting terms and conditions in particular environments.
Chris Gardner is a partner with Seyfarth Shaw, a workplace relations law firm.
AmCham’s Human Capital committee heard from Rina Rose’meyer of Industry Skills Victoria this week about the newly launched Industry Skills Fund, and how SME employees can benefit from the variety of support available.
The $467 million Industry Skills Fund was launched in January 2015 by the Federal Government and will provide up to 200,000 training places and various support services to help businesses grow and be more competitive on a global scale. Continue reading
They don’t see themselves using social media channels to bank in the future. Security measures are a bore and ‘annoying’. And almost all currently don’t have a financial planner, however most would like financial coaching . . . for free. These are among the views of today’s Gen Y professionals, who will become a significant customer group for retail banking by 2030.
AmCham member KPMG Australia’s second report in its series, Banking on the Future: The expectations of the Gen Y professional, is based on a study undertaken by the firm into the banking and wealth desires of Gen Y professionals. It has revealed a fundamental change in the way this generation is thinking about banking – and highlights significant implications for banks.
“Generations X and Y will dominate the financial space of the next few decades. Their share of financial assets, which sat at just 36 percent in 2010, will jump to 70 percent in 2030. For Gen Yers, it’s only the beginning of what will be a 40-50 year experience as workers, consumers, savers, borrowers and investors,” said Daniel Knoll, the report’s co-author and Head of Financial Services Management Consulting for KPMG Australia. Continue reading