Turn on thread page Beta

Should UK companies/services be fined if they don't have 40%+ women on boards? watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    I think this is a sexist comment. Are you saying that women are less skilled than men across the board?
    If employers hire people based entirely on merit, and if women are not being employed as much as men, then yes obviously women are less skilled than men across the board. But that's just a theoretical situation
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    Or managerial positions* (couldn't fit that in the title)

    That's exactly what the Swedish Justice and Migration Minister is planning to do and I for one think it's a great move. The fines would depend on the size of the company or they could be "dissolved" if they don't meet the 40% quota. I think 40% is a fair figure.

    I think it's a win-win for both the women who will be promoted/employed into these high-ranking positions and also for the companies benefiting from the diversity and women friendly atmosphere in board meetings/decisions.




    http://www.thelocal.se/20150515/empl...companies-told
    Would you agree that there should also be a quota where 40% of people in these positions are male.
    By having a quota that only helps women, it would be allowed to be 70% women but not allowed to be 70% male, which is unfair towards men
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    What I find more demeaning is that you, a male, wants to decide what a female should or should not feel when she gets a job. If you think that a would-be woman board member got the job because of a quota and not her qualification that's your prerogative but I see a real false dichotomy in this thread that has been repeated more than once by more than one person regardless of how many times you repeat the same downtrodden argument it won't become true. Women can be competent as men. This quota is for broadening gender diversity on BOARDS but it doesn't diminish the competency of the role person filling the managerial role. What it does diminish however is the ubiquitous male-ness in such workplaces and I feel that rubs you, a male, the wrong way because if this was implemented in the UK it would have the potential to seep down the pyramid and potentially limit your job prospects because a woman is either equally or more qualified than you. The hostility in this thread is enough evidence of that let's not beat around the bush (this is not directed at your per say).
    At what point did I say that I wanted to decide? You asked what I would feel, and I told you what I would feel. Am I not entitled to the right to freely give my opinion? I'm not saying that's why a female board member got the job, I'm saying that any board member should only get their role by hard work, male, female, whatever, hence why I gave my examples of successful businesspeople who are women. I agree, women can most definitely be as competent as men. However, going about addressing the imbalance of boards with this measure is most definitely not the correct solution. I don't feel rubbed the wrong way at all; I openly encourage any female or male to aspire to do well. However, neither sex should be given a 'step up' on the ladder (as this is patently - by definition - not equality, no matter how much you try to argue it is), and introducing such a measure would caue this. I am not deluded by some Victorian notion that women are inferior to men, and in fact your suggestion of such is sexist as you're associating my concerns about the 'equality' that you seem to subscribe to with the stereotypical image of a man who is fearful of women 'overstepping their mark' in society. At the end of the day, equality should simply be that; equality. Men, women, whatever, should have an equal route into a job, and honestly, enforcing a quota is simply not equal. Not everything is governed by a patriarchy who want to see women fail.

    Plus, you've not responded to the questions of those who are asking about the male-dominated professions of building work, rubbish collection, etc. One could probably infer that you're only comfortable with women being in high-paid roles where males are typically associated, whilst only men should be in these supposedly less-dignified, and less well paid roles.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I support targets, but quotas are a retarded way of dealing with the problem.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    I think you're grossly underestimating the competency of women and overestimating that of the men's perhaps because you're a man yourself but I digress. The best person for the job can be a woman suggesting that women wouldn't secure top board positions because they're simply female is sexist and prejudicial.


    I think you and a whole bunch of people in this thread, unsurprisingly ALL male so far, are misguidedly feeling threatened and misconstruing the OP as somehow diminishing the worth of men in the workplace. Inequality is a real thing. Women and men are equally competent. So why is it then that women are falling behind in board/managerial positions and make up a smaller demographic when compared to men? The explanation is discrimination. Plain and simple.
    What are you talking about? If men and women have equal ability, a gender-blind, meritocratic system for assigning people to management roles will lead to a fair representation of men and women in a company. My point is is that to suggest that it would not, that women would be disadvantaged, is to say that they do not have equal ability! This would make the issue seem rather moot - you cannot have equality if you are not equal.

    The reasonable point you could make here is that this gender-blind meritocratic system does not exist yet - there is still gender bias against women in management roles. However, the way of getting this gender-blind meritocratic system is not to discriminate against people further but benefiting women instead of men.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Also, Daenerys, you judging my thoughts since I'm a guy is also sexist, because you're using criteria to ascertain an image of me even though you've never met me and have never spoken to me. From what you've said, you think that all guys want to preserve this so-called 'patriarchy' but that's simply not the case. Why is it wrong for me to demand equality in this respect, but for you to demand equality (which really isn't equality, by the way) in the workplace is perfectly acceptable? Isn't that, in itself, discriminatory?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Stupid. I want the best person to run my business. Gender shouldn't matter.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    What if all the women that apply are simply incompetent? Why should a company be fined for not employing incompetent staff? It's just ridiculous. If there are two equal candidates, and the company goes for the man over the woman based solely on the fact that he's male and she's female, then that would be cause for some kind of fine/ legal action, but otherwise just no.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anonwinner)
    If employers hire people based entirely on merit, and if women are not being employed as much as men, then yes obviously women are less skilled than men across the board. But that's just a theoretical situation
    Correlation != causation
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sam280297)
    Would you agree that there should also be a quota where 40% of people in these positions are male.

    Like I said in a previous post (you should go to the bottom of the page 3 to find it) male discrimination is also an issue but female discrimination is a much bigger issue which needs to be tackled first it's a simple priority based on need think of it as a triage-based medical healing approach.

    Female promotion starts with giving the girls aspirations for career while they are still in their school age - which didn't happen 40 years ago in Europe. European companies simply don't have the pool of qualified and ambitious women to fill the board seats. The diversity agenda is about bringing different but complementary skills to bear, not just gender substitution.Its a mistake to say that imposing gender diversity quotas on boards will decrease profits of companies or promot, women aren't better than men of equal merit, they are simply equal to them. I think this is about justice for women in a very wide sense and yes its skewed to just impose it on listed companies, but they set the standards for business in many ways (good and bad).


    And sadly there are many females in middle, senior management roles, as well as those working pro-bono for large charities and educational establishments, even - dare I say it - company secretaries (who are routinely overlooked despite top notch professional qualifications), who have the skills and competencies to make a very positive contribution to board deliberations. It is also very instructive to take a look at other industries outside the City - journalism, PR, the arts etc where there has never been as much of a gender inequality and divide.


    It is 35 years since the Sex Discrimination Act came into force and 40 years since the introduction of the Equal Pay Act. Despite those ground breaking changes, the loss to the UK economy just by qualified women scientists, technologists and engineers alone working below their level of qualification, or being unemployed or inactive alone is estimated to be high (1.5 billion). We need to encourage positive working environments which offer better work/life balance for people - which includes fathers as well as mothers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    This is not the right way to do this...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    This idea has good intentions but it's completely impractical if you think about it.

    Look at the technology industry or software development - female developers don't have a large share there and fining these companies is only going to make that worse as they cannot invest funds into promoting girls into software development (Yes, some companies do this)

    In a tech company you may have little female staff and so out of chance you will have less chance of a female board member. This is basically being a jerk to a specific sector.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    Disgusting? You think equality is ridiculous?
    Equality of outcome is ridiculous, yes. For several good reasons.

    If nothing else it is unbelievably patronising towards women to suggest that they aren't capable of being successful without a leg-up from the state. There is no institutional prejudice against women in this country anymore. The inequalities that exist are the result of fewer women being involved in these professions, like politics, the fact that they work fewer hours or because they are simply not as good as their male counterparts in jobs that inherently lend themselves to the aggressive, bold, testosterone-packed man.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The studies on the relation between board diversity and corporate performance have identified several main benefits of diversity. On the benefits side, the positive business effects of board diversity include:
    1. improved access to information, increased creativity and more effective problem-solving

    2. better understanding of the marketplace, customers and suppliers

    3.improved relations with employees, by signalling that the company values diversity and offers mentoring and advancement opportunities for all groups of employees

    4. improved public image, by conforming to societal expectations

    From a corporate governance perspective, some of the most promising arguments in support of diversity are those linking diversity with directors’ improved ability to discharge their main duties. The first duty that comes to mind is the duty of care, skill and diligence. The improved access to information, the diversity of viewpoints, and the greater scope for debates could increase the quality of business judgment and the outcomes of board deliberations.

    Just take a look at Norway who is the frontrunner in the reforms promoting gender diversity, with a 40% quota of women on boards imposed on publicly listed companies since 2003 which has made companies more professional and globally focused. The penalty for not complying in Norway is drastic: if a company did not comply, it would be shut down. At the time the move caused an uproar in the Norwegian business community, but firms complied.
    Other countries - including France, Malaysia, Belgium, Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain - followed suit in order to break the glass ceiling preventing women from reaching top business positions.

    "You had to look more thoroughly to find females. This started a more professional process," said Svarva, who is also the head of the corporate assembly and the election committee at Statoil, the largest company in the Nordics.


    Over time, I hope that a sudden large increase in the number of women in leadership will change attitudes and shift prejudices/stereotypes. For example the results of a law passed in 1993 in India that reserved positions for women in randomly selected village councils. A decade later women were more likely to stand for, and win, elected positions in those villages that had by chance reserved positions for women in the previous two elections. So change does happen and quotas is one dynamic method of achieving that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sandra1)
    This is not the right way to do this...

    Posted from TSR Mobile

    As a black person who also happens to be female I would suggest you don't speak-out against your best interest. Do you also think that the rise of Asians/black in the health sector is also unfair?

    Don't let the male posters in this thread paint a picture of affirmative action/positive discrimination/gender diversity quotas as demeaning or unethical because they have been benefiting from the persecution of women and minorities for decades it's only now that the rules are shifting in favour of another group that they're speaking out against positive discrimination.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Congratulations, you can lift words from a text. Since you've not even attempted to communicate your own opinions, I'll ignore tha.t

    Oh, India? What a wonderfully cosmopolitan, equal society due to the magic nature of quotas! Uh, no. Women are still undermined in Indian communities. Just think of all of the times in the news where women have been r*ped on buses, or in any situation at all. Would you say that change has happened there? No, because although there's a person with a v*gina in charge of the community instead of a person with a p*nis, the same attitude towards women prevails. You can't say that quotas will change attitudes if we allow the same fundamental unwritten laws of society to prevail, to the point where women are used for sexual gratification against their will. Once we ensure people view women and men on a level playing field, only then will we achieve true equality in the workplace.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    As a black person who also happens to be female I would suggest you don't speak-out against your best interest. Do you also think that the rise of Asians/black in the health sector is also unfair?
    See, now you're enforcing your decision upon her based on both her ethnicity and her gender. That's both sexist and racist. Maybe she doesn't want to act in her 'best interest'. Maybe she wants equality.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CodeJack)
    Stupid. I want the best person to run my business. Gender shouldn't matter.
    As I have maintained throughout this debate the best person can be female this quota doesn't supersede competence in favour of a pair of breasts. If you want to maintain that women aren't in board positions in a higher proportion because they're incompetent or unskilled I will brand you both delusional and sexist.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daenerys...)
    Don't let the male posters in this thread paint a picture of affirmative action/positive discrimination/gender diversity quotas as demeaning or unethical because they have been benefiting from the persecution of women and minorities for decades it's only now that the rules are shifting in favour of another group that they're speaking out against positive discrimination.
    You are in the grip of a persecutory delusion. I urge you to approach your GP and seek treatment.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 18, 2015

2,105

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.