Afternoon:
10°c
A few months ago, a junior clerk in the City told his colleagues he was going out for a sandwich. He never came back. Turned out that he didn't head to M&S, but for the hills. The next day his mother rang up: her son wouldn't be returning because he couldn't take the stick he was getting in the office. No doubt it was shrugged off as “banter”. Bullying might be a better word for it.
A trader told me this over a lunch last week with two of his fellow bankers. It was just after I had asked them — all men — if the City is still sexist. Their response? Two embarrassed “yes”es and a “hell, yes”, the latter coming from the one whose wife works in the Square Mile. They pointed to the frequently misogynistic chat and the concentration of women in client-focused roles.
Although they believe that the glass ceiling is far from gone, however, the story about the clerk had a purpose: to prove that the trading floor isn't only cruel to female staff.
Recent discussion about discrimination in the City has focused on bringing more women to senior roles in the Square Mile and equalising pay. Unequal reward for equal work is a disgrace but to me the current lack of women in top City jobs shows their admirable good sense. Surely the real question is why so many men continue to give over the bulk of their life exclusively to the pursuit of money? The City rewards those who put their jobs above all else: the BlackBerry on the dinner table, the missed parents' evenings, the all-nighters. They endure what most of us would balk at: be it long hours or bullying.
That sacrifice certainly isn't for me. After university, three of my friends — all male — headed for the big banks. Four years later, only one remains. The second burnt out, sick of working 16 hour days. The third, fearing he could lose his job, killed himself. Clearly the macho environment, where status is so entwined with career prospects and bonuses, is harmful to men too.
At the Treasury Select Committee inquiry into Women in the City, lobby group the Fawcett Society told of banks offering trips to brothels to entertain clients. Small wonder this culture — often bullying, misogynistic and status-obsessed — holds no appeal to me or my female friends.
This isn't all going to change simply by getting more women on the boards, as Harriet Harman called for last week. This apparently could have averted the credit crunch.
Nice idea, Harriet, but replacing Gordon Gekko with Jordan Gekko wouldn't have stopped our banks going into meltdown. Women can be just as greedy as men. There's no evidence that they are any more risk averse, either.
Please let's also forget the patronising idea of women-only shortlists for top jobs: who would want to know that she was only the best woman — not the best person — for the position? Besides, we don't want just any women in the boardroom, but to attract a different type. That goes for the boys too.
Transparency on pay will help. But what is needed is a total overhaul: the creation of a completely different business culture, free from sexism, the bonus obsession and the bullying which often characterise the City, with more flexible hours where possible with both men and women being encouraged to spend time with their children. The current environment isn't just hurting women.
The Square Mile will scoff at this, of course, saying they must compete on the world stage. But only this way can the City hope to attract and keep hold of the best: male or female.
* AS well as grimaces there were a few wry smiles in the City at Friday's news that we are stuck in recession. Some took a modicum of pleasure from the fact that the Panglosses talking up the economy had got it so wrong. As the miserable GDP figures proved — with our crippling debts and rising unemployment — Britain isn't the best of all possible worlds.
You can just facebook off
I am not alone in suffering Facebook fatigue. Two of my friends left last month. Others say they are keen to quit, tired of weirdos trying to befriend them.
Worse, my friends hate that it encourages them to take an almost obsessive interest in other people's lives — it hasn't won the nickname “Stalkerbook” for nothing. Even on the social networking site itself, more than 3,000 users are signed up to groups called “I hate Facebook”.
But founder Mark Zuckerberg, he who at 25 still has the little-boy-lost look, won't be shedding any tears for us former followers yet. Analysts expect the site to have 380 million users by the end of the year. Hey, there's even talk it could make a profit. Some day.
Techies such as Sean Parker, a former president of Facebook himself, are now predicting that it will overtake giants such as Google in the next decade. Google has — in geek speak — only “linear value creation” but Facebook “produces value from the connections it facilitates”. In other words, the more who sign up to Facebook, the more useful it is to members.
And, of course, the harder it is for rivals to steal users and the bigger the barrier to entry for fresh competition. We could always find another search engine — though laziness prevents most of us — but if we want to join just one social networking site, we'll go where our friends are.
Parker's prediction makes me nervous. Only last week, evidence of Google's near-omnipotence emerged. A slip down the rankings on its searches — now lifted — was costing internet advertising group Media Corporation £1 million a year in lost profits. Media Corp chief executive Justin Drummond didn't know why it happened, because Google wouldn't tell him.
Do we want Facebook to be even more powerful? Zuckerberg's site has already got in trouble for taking control of users' content. Yes, it backed down after member backlash but it doesn't bode well.
Google is a warning. Remember when it was a friendly company with a new approach to doing business? Then it censored searches in China and decided paying UK taxes in full was better left to plebs. This isn't the only reason I'm quitting, though. At 25, I've realised I'm too old to be messing around on Facebook. Zuckerberg: I wish the same applied to you.
