Of course not - the most best and most qualified person should get the job - whether that is CEO or cleaner.
Should there be quotas for women in boardrooms? (poll) watch
View Poll Results: Do you support the idea of a quota for women in boardrooms?Yes - 50% of positions should be held by women00%Yes - but the quota should be less than 50%0.96%No, but more should be done to get women into top jobs38.46%No, and nothing needs to be done to get more women into top jobs60.58%Voters: 104. You may not vote on this poll
- 10-04-2013 19:19
(Original post by justanotherposter)
- 10-04-2013 19:51
How about some stats rather than a wild claim that employers always show bias? How does deliberately showing bias help society in any way? Showing bias to the disadvantaged gender doesn't help, it still isn't fair on the best person for the job, if anything since there are more male applicants than female applicants for the top jobs on average it's even more unfair since the bias is on a smaller pool of people, reducing the chance that the best person for the job is in that group.How about some stats rather than a wild claim that employers always show bias?
The link above shows how referrals influence job hiring, and how they were singled out SIMPLY BECAUSE they were referred. People are biased to hire others that they know, or others who are recommended by people that they know.
How does deliberately showing bias help society in any way?
Showing bias to the disadvantaged gender doesn't help, it still isn't fair on the best person for the job, if anything since there are more male applicants than female applicants for the top jobs on average it's even more unfair since the bias is on a smaller pool of people, reducing the chance that the best person for the job is in that group.
2. I am NOT advocating hiring unqualified people to a position simply because they are in a certain group. I AM saying that if you have two roughly equal candidates, then the one from the disadvantaged group should have an advantage.
- 10-04-2013 20:19
I am a man, i would be proud when i had a buisnes to start a 50% woman policy !!!
- 10-04-2013 20:24
Good god no.
(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
- 10-04-2013 20:27
Could I just ask why you feel it's important?
I've always thought that appointments should be on merit; I couldn't care less whether a company's staff were 100% male or 100% female, 100% white or 100% black; so long as they're there on merit it doesn't bother me in the least.
- 10-04-2013 20:56
Wow. Pretty decisive poll so far.
I think it would be better if boardrooms (and workplaces in general) had a better gender balance. But I think at some point we have to accept that in many cases they just aren't going to get near 50:50.
I think quotas would be completely the wrong way to go about it. No one should be considered differently for a job based on their gender. The important thing is to look at why fewer women are board members. See if there is anything that's either holding women back, or if there is anything discouraging women from going for those positions. See if anything can be done about them. It's possible it's just that the average woman is just less interested in those jobs. And there isn't really anything you can do about that.
Of course all this applies the same to jobs where men are under represented.
(Original post by dgeorge)
- 20-04-2013 15:37
I said quite clearly, where a group of people have been systematically disadvantaged (either through law, or general societal norms) then I believe that that situation should be made equal in some way.
Therefore, both situations share some similarities
And if you bothered to read my OP, you'd see that I am against quotas.