Enbridge moved a number of employees into supervisor roles this past week. They also moved a number of female supervisors out of frontline leadership roles. They advertise that they are a diverse company and encourage females to apply for these roles but do not practice what they perch.
15 replies (most recent on top)
Duh. Nobody is claiming otherwise.
Management roles should be proportional to the overall population. If you have 75% male employees and 25% female, then 75% of managers should be male, and 25% should be female.
If you’re a company that wants to make change, figure out a way to attract more women into roles where they are underrepresented, such as Engineering or Field Services. But in the meantime, don’t just hand out management jobs based on gender, use merit.
How is giving people roles because they are female any better than doing it because they are male? Is that not just as s-xist? Do male employees not deserve promotion and opportunity based on their effort and contribution? Do they not have families and people who depend on them? The argument that 70% of the jobs belong to men and therefore it is unfair is absolutely illogical. You are assuming women apply for the same positions as men. No one is entitled to employment or opportunity based on their s-x. Enbridge owes you nothing.
My two front line managers are female ,my VP is female and many of my fellow workers are also female. Oh, I almost forgot the President Cynthia!
Men can take paternity leave? If men feel like they can't take advantage of a legally protected right, that's a problem too? I find it really dumb that people think of this stuff as a zero sum equation - that to have women treated equally, men will lose something. That makes no sense... the idea is simply to be equal and give neither group an advantage. Is that really that hard to understand and get behind?
It’s probably fair to say that senior management cares about lawsuits, human rights complaints, bad press, etc.
The question is: Does anyone who is not a senior manager care one way or the other?
That’s great, but the latest gender dashboard obviously doesn’t reflect the Enbridge Gas Inc. restructuring that the original poster - and everyone else - is talking about. LOL... thanks for coming out.
Have a look at the most recent gender dashboard. It shows that company wide Enbridge is 30% women/70% men.
There are 1141 people at manager level or above. Of these, 310 are women.
This is a ratio of 27% women/73% men in manager roles. So the gender distribution of female managers is proportional to the overall female employee population.
I don't see gender discrimination issue in the allocation of manager jobs - it is proportional. The real problem is there is not a proportional amount of women working at the company in the first place.
If you don’t think there are biases that impact female employees, ask any woman of a typical childbearing age if they would have been reluctant to tell their people leader about a pregnancy in the months leading up to the restructuring/layoffs.
News flash: This is a layoff discussion site. People who come here have either been laid off or have low morale.
Happy employees (current or former) do not come here.
Those under 35 are too busy fooling themselves!
Meritocracy? Well judging by the state of 99% of the posts, ENB is a pretty lousy place to work these days, morale is non-existent, benefits have been slashed and it’s run by men. So is that meritocracy working?
Doesn't anyone believe in a meritocracy? Assigning people to roles because of their gender is pandering and tokenism.
I noticed that too. There seem to be a disproportionate number of female managers and directors who were either demoted or who got stuck with "team lead" titles when men with similar accountabilities and the same number of reports are somehow supervisors. It's possible this wasn't completely Enbridge's fault - one theory is that more men chose "retirement" over a demotion. Still, I definitely find Enbridge's attempts to be more diverse/inclusive to be extremely feedble. There are some female VPs and directors, as well as our awesome EVP... but having a v----na doesn't mean you understand the real issues or will act without bias. For example, I've noticed that a lot of the female leaders over 50 "came up" in the era where they had to mask their true personality to operate in a "man's world" and are actually quite dismissive of younger women who refuse to do that. It's so transparent - being a woman is fine and there are equal opportunities - but only if you're a woman who acts like she has a ween. There are some notable exceptions, but constant churn of meaningless D&I rhetoric is not fooling anyone under the age of 35.