Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Introducing a 40% quota for women on company boards? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Should we?

    I have a debate on this on Saturday so both sides of the argument would be much appreciated.

    thanks
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    If by quota you mean that at least 40% of board members must be women, no. That's that's blatantly unfair, people should be promoted on merit, not sex.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    That's preposterous.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Pro-
    • Increase women's comfortability within the work place
    • Inspire women of all races and ages to work hard and feel confident enough to strive for the best
    Neg-
    • As one UKIP MP said, "This is backward as it is implying women cannot do this on their own" which is true to an extent
    • Cuts men out of their own chance to earn a place


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pjm600)
    If by quota you mean that atleast 40% of board member must be women, no. That's that's blatantly unfair, people should be promoted on merit, not sex.
    yes, but often a woman is the best for a job but are discriminated against and the job is given to a less able man...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hexagon999)
    yes, but often a woman is the best for a job but are discriminated against and the job is given to a less able man...
    "job is given to a less able man". Then that company is damned to fail.

    Can you support that claim?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    No, the majority of statistical differences for work between genders are due to personal preferences rather than discrimination. If it wasn't and we went with the thread title then we'd need to start introducing quotas for a minimum percentage of men in healthcare.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hexagon999)
    yes, but often a woman is the best for a job but are discriminated against and the job is given to a less able man...
    I agree this occurs but positive discrimination isn't the solution. Target the problem rather than the symptoms. In this case using positive discrimination to cover the problem causes its own issues (that people as individuals do not get equal treatment).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pjm600)
    "job is given to a less able man". Then that company is damned to fail.

    Can you support that claim?
    Women consistently perform better than men in GCSEs and A levels yet only 10% of company boards are made up of women. Why?

    edit-- bloody hell! Why so many negs! I'm not saying I agree with the point of view I'm putting across! I just need to prepare both sides of the argument for my debate!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hexagon999)
    Women consistently perform better than men in GCSEs and A levels yet only 10% of company boards are made up of women. Why?
    Maybe they quit to take care of children?

    Forcing companies to recruit a certain number of women to board level will only artificially increase equality. Inevitably if companies need to recruit women 'just to make the numbers up' the overall quality will decrease.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hexagon999)
    Women consistently perform better than men in GCSEs and A levels yet only 10% of company boards are made up of women. Why?
    Because work isn't a examination asking you to write down what you've been taught for the past 2 years.

    I'd be interested to see where we would place genderqueer individuals? Offer them an arbitrary percentage? Disregard them? It might seem a bit pernickety and you couldn't base a debate around it, but it'd make a reasonable point of information if you don't have any others.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If something like this is implemented, I think it should be amended to: between 40% and 60% women on boards. That way it would achieve the aims of having balance but avoiding being positive discrimination.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Why not a 40% quota for each gender?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    No. Jobs should be based entirely on merit.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There is literally not one even slightly valid argument in favour of this. Anybody who supports this must either be painfully stupid or utterly bigoted.

    The reason that women are statistically under-represented in boardrooms is that on average more women take less career-focussed life choices compared with men (eg career breaks to have children, more likely to work part-time). This is not a bad thing, it's just the choices that people make.

    There likely is some discrimination present due to the potential for a women to get pregnant and go on maternity leave for months, costing the company lots of money (and morese if she is in a highly paid position). However, that problem is with the maternity leave system; if paternity leave were the same length of time, this discrimination would not occur.

    Outside of this, there's no reason why a company would choose to hire a less able man instead of a more able woman; the only thing that really matters to a big corporation is how much profit they make. If the woman will make them more profit, then they will hire her. To do otherwise would be detrimental to the business.

    Positive discrimination is not a solution at all. It is literally enforcing the problem that it's trying to solve, that being hiring on the basis of sex rather than ability. Not only does this destroy the meritocratic nature of the workplace, but as others have said, implies that women need to be disproportionately favoured in order to get these positions.

    If you support positive discrimination, then either you haven't actually thought it through, or you're an idiot.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ttoby)
    If something like this is implemented, I think it should be amended to: between 40% and 60% women on boards. That way it would achieve the aims of having balance but avoiding being positive discrimination.
    Actually thinking about it a bit more, the percentage requirement would need to vary depending on the size of the board. It would need to be stricter on larger boards but looser on smaller boards where it would be more likely that any bias had arisen by chance.
    Offline

    0
    They have looked at doing this for race as well. One black policeman said that he was against a quota for no. of black higher ranked police officers, because then people would believe he got the job because of that, not because of skill. That would just create arguments. Also, you may find that there are more men than women on the board because:
    More men work in that company
    More men apply to be on the board
    And as terrible as this may sound: you are more likely to get consistent work from men. Not because they are more skilled, but because of the ego that they have to be best (in finance this is often true) so put in a stupid amount of work. But that comment is probably not true in most cases, what is true though, is that men do not get pregnant. The company has to honour (and partially pay) for a year maternity leave. I'd rather pay my employee a £30,000 wage to not be there, than an £80,000. (probably a bit extreme there).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The wider she spreads it, the wider the choices.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Never really been a fan of positive discrimination. Think its an insult to women who worked hard to get to top business positions without a quota. No one wants to get a job just because the company was forced to hire you because of your race or gender. People want the self-satisfaction of knowing there're the best and better than the rest at what they do.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hexagon999)
    Should we?

    I have a debate on this on Saturday so both sides of the argument would be much appreciated.

    thanks
    This is sexist. Its what most femenists don't realise.

    Giving places should be to personal merit and attributes to the person, as opposed to their sex.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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