I entirely agree with you. Toughening penalties and enforcing the law are essential, along with other measures such as ensuring access to childcare. The operation of the two-track system deserves more investigation. As I understand it (but I have seen no research on this), applicants to a firm apply to one of the tracks, but if hired, may be assigned to a different track. (A few years ago I saw a letter to the newspaper where a woman complained of being assigned to ippanshoku after applying to sogoshoku.) It seems to me that the government could do several things about this. First, they could require employers to report publicly the number of male and female applicants to each track, and the number of male and female applicants actually hired for each track. Second, if they are actually serious about having 30% of women managers, then they could stipulate by law that firms over a certain size that have a specific managerial track recruit at least 30% (preferably higher) of entrants to that track from their female applicants. Another major issue is the expectation that managers work extremely long hours, which probably puts many women who want children off a management track. Two things could be done about that. First, raise the statutory level of overtime pay, and enforce reporting of overtime better, to provide incentives to reduce work hours. Second, make some serious studies of work practices in places like Germany, which manage to have relatively short working hours and high economic performance, in order to learn how to do better.
Food for thought. Thanks. First, they could require employers to report publicly the number of male and female applicants to each track, and the number of male and female applicants actually hired for each track AND make some serious studies of work practices in places like Germany,
There are perhaps 5,000,000 firms in Japan but only about 3200 labor standards inspectors. They are already battling huge caseloads. They might be ordered to enforce EPEW and non-discrimination statutes, but they already struggle to enforce all but the most egregious violations of health and safety laws. Violations of work hours and overtime pay rules, even when investigated, result only, as Katz notes, in administrative guidance. Even when enforced, the law is toothless and bias against gender equality remains strong among men because realizing it won't benefit them.
2) I disagree that gender equality will hurt men. Firstly, men have wives, not to mention daughters and it would help family income. Yes, some men may think it hurts them, just as there are women in the US who think gender equality will hurt them because it will hurt their husbands. But that doesn't make the perception true.
Agree. Gender equality for women means lessening the burden of Japanese men to be the sole breadwinner of the family. I don’t see it hurting them at all.
Of course Kishida isn't serious. This is pre-election talk. He's fluffing his feathers before the G7 meeting so as to get approval from other G7 leaders that will translate into a beneficial couple of seconds of video on the news. He's also coasting off sympathy for the rather inept assassination attempt of a couple of weeks ago. Word among opposition politicians is he's thinking of dissolution after the G7, and an election as early as July 09.
Getting more females sucked deeper into the workaholic Japanese business environment will not do anything for their birth rates.
I'd be curious to see what correlation exists between female workforce participation and birth rates in Japan.
The Japanese have a different POV on priorities
Edit: I've lived in Japan and worked in Japanese industry for Japanese companies for 7 years. Totally fluent in Japanese. Doesn't make me Japanese, but I know how they think. Generally speaking...
The reason for Japan’s declining birthrate is not as simple as because women work more. People don’t choose having children because of a lot of reasons, including higher living cost, lack of daycare options...
Good grief, you're the one who started speaking on behalf of the Japanese. Try not to be so woke and read what I actually said. Nobody over the age of 25 should assume that any label mentioned is intended to apply to 100% of that group. You're destroying conversations with your pedantics.
David, I think having targets, but not quotas, is a good idea in this situation. i also think your 90% number is far too high. As you can see from the chart, half of men have reached the kacho level by their late 30s, but just less than 15% of women, and only 20% of women ever get there.
Interesting. I'll be traveling and get back to you in a few days. One quick thing on the legal side: class action suits don't apply in this situation, the last time I looked; so the financial burden is heavy in bringing a case; nor do victories set a legal precedent.
I entirely agree with you. Toughening penalties and enforcing the law are essential, along with other measures such as ensuring access to childcare. The operation of the two-track system deserves more investigation. As I understand it (but I have seen no research on this), applicants to a firm apply to one of the tracks, but if hired, may be assigned to a different track. (A few years ago I saw a letter to the newspaper where a woman complained of being assigned to ippanshoku after applying to sogoshoku.) It seems to me that the government could do several things about this. First, they could require employers to report publicly the number of male and female applicants to each track, and the number of male and female applicants actually hired for each track. Second, if they are actually serious about having 30% of women managers, then they could stipulate by law that firms over a certain size that have a specific managerial track recruit at least 30% (preferably higher) of entrants to that track from their female applicants. Another major issue is the expectation that managers work extremely long hours, which probably puts many women who want children off a management track. Two things could be done about that. First, raise the statutory level of overtime pay, and enforce reporting of overtime better, to provide incentives to reduce work hours. Second, make some serious studies of work practices in places like Germany, which manage to have relatively short working hours and high economic performance, in order to learn how to do better.
Food for thought. Thanks. First, they could require employers to report publicly the number of male and female applicants to each track, and the number of male and female applicants actually hired for each track AND make some serious studies of work practices in places like Germany,
There are perhaps 5,000,000 firms in Japan but only about 3200 labor standards inspectors. They are already battling huge caseloads. They might be ordered to enforce EPEW and non-discrimination statutes, but they already struggle to enforce all but the most egregious violations of health and safety laws. Violations of work hours and overtime pay rules, even when investigated, result only, as Katz notes, in administrative guidance. Even when enforced, the law is toothless and bias against gender equality remains strong among men because realizing it won't benefit them.
Thanks for your thoughts, Scott:
1) Most of those are family outfits. The government could start with big firms and move downward in size. They could also hire more inspectors, who are needed for all sorts of purposes beyond gender and non-regular equality. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/08/29/national/social-issues/thousands-japanese-apply-labor-inspectors-wake-dentsu-overwork-death/
2) I disagree that gender equality will hurt men. Firstly, men have wives, not to mention daughters and it would help family income. Yes, some men may think it hurts them, just as there are women in the US who think gender equality will hurt them because it will hurt their husbands. But that doesn't make the perception true.
Agree. Gender equality for women means lessening the burden of Japanese men to be the sole breadwinner of the family. I don’t see it hurting them at all.
Of course Kishida isn't serious. This is pre-election talk. He's fluffing his feathers before the G7 meeting so as to get approval from other G7 leaders that will translate into a beneficial couple of seconds of video on the news. He's also coasting off sympathy for the rather inept assassination attempt of a couple of weeks ago. Word among opposition politicians is he's thinking of dissolution after the G7, and an election as early as July 09.
Apologies for my errant fingertip— I did not mean to ‘like’ my own comment …
Getting more females sucked deeper into the workaholic Japanese business environment will not do anything for their birth rates.
I'd be curious to see what correlation exists between female workforce participation and birth rates in Japan.
The Japanese have a different POV on priorities
Edit: I've lived in Japan and worked in Japanese industry for Japanese companies for 7 years. Totally fluent in Japanese. Doesn't make me Japanese, but I know how they think. Generally speaking...
The reason for Japan’s declining birthrate is not as simple as because women work more. People don’t choose having children because of a lot of reasons, including higher living cost, lack of daycare options...
"The Japanese"? Which Japanese? Not all have the same POV.
Good grief, you're the one who started speaking on behalf of the Japanese. Try not to be so woke and read what I actually said. Nobody over the age of 25 should assume that any label mentioned is intended to apply to 100% of that group. You're destroying conversations with your pedantics.
David, I think having targets, but not quotas, is a good idea in this situation. i also think your 90% number is far too high. As you can see from the chart, half of men have reached the kacho level by their late 30s, but just less than 15% of women, and only 20% of women ever get there.
Interesting. I'll be traveling and get back to you in a few days. One quick thing on the legal side: class action suits don't apply in this situation, the last time I looked; so the financial burden is heavy in bringing a case; nor do victories set a legal precedent.