We invite you to read the opinion column by our Labor Group director, Jocelyn Aros, in which she analyzes the gaps that have become evident after the figures for the first year of the Karin Law.
The assessment of the first year of the so-called “Karin Law” showed us that gender gaps in the world of work continue to exist in Chile. This is not only because 66.4% of the complaints filed were lodged by women, but also because, according to official figures from the Labor Directorate, this figure rises to over 90% in cases of sexual harassment complaints.
In its first year, the law triggered more than 44,000 complaints, showing that formal protection channels are being used by workers. However, the most relevant data is not only the volume, but who is filing complaints and in what context. When such a significant proportion of women resort to these mechanisms, it is necessary to ask about the structural conditions that explain this reality.
The figures certainly highlight the existence of gaps. But what do we mean when we talk about “gaps”? We are not referring solely to statistical differences, which are evident in any case in light of the data presented, but rather to structural asymmetries inherent in the organization of work. These are expressed in the way management powers are exercised, in levels of hierarchical dependence, in the concentration of decision-making power, and in the difficulties in managing labor conflicts early on.
As we pointed out then, the data from the Karin Law are not only figures on conflict, but can also offer insights into how internal dynamics are structured within organizations.
In this sense, the higher proportion of complaints made by women could be associated, among other factors, with the position that many occupy within organizational hierarchies, which certainly reflects a reality that deserves analysis: that gaps in female participation within organizations persist. This context could lead to greater exposure to complex dynamics within the workplace.
Ultimately, the figures do not necessarily allow us to conclude that there is a higher incidence of such behavior than in the past, but rather that they could validly reflect a lower tolerance for these dynamics and greater use of the formal reporting mechanisms provided for in the Karin Law.
The challenge these figures present is for the Karin Law to cease to be merely reactive and for the structural gaps that still persist in terms of gender to be addressed. Many organizations have understood this and, beyond mere formal compliance, are taking on a more preventive role, reviewing their leadership structures and ensuring the effective implementation of protocols and training, among other measures. Only then can the Karin Law cease to be a reactive tool and become an instrument that contributes to reducing legal and reputational risks, improving the work environment, and advancing the reduction of gender gaps within organizations.
Column written by:
Jocelyn Aros | Director, Labor Group | jaros@az.cl
