Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

German leader singles out demographic for arbitrary punishment/solution

Options
  • 26-11-2014 9:17pm
    #1
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭


    But its cool, it only discriminates against men.

    And they're all the same after all, one homogeneous group acting as a collective, each one responsible for the actions of the collective.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11255970/German-boardrooms-to-introduce-female-quotas.html



    Germany's largest companies will get more women in the boardroom whether they like it or not, after Angela (sausage slicer) Merkel's government agreed to impose a controversial new quota system.
    Under the proposed law, which will apply from 2016, large, publicly listed companies will have to ensure that at least 30 per cent of seats on their boards are filled by women.
    "We can't afford to do without the skills of women," Mrs Merkel said, hailing the new measure in the Bundestag. Germany is the latest in a series of European countries to introduce similar quotas for women in the boardroom, after Italy, Norway and the Netherlands.
    But German business leaders united in criticism of the new law, and even suggested it might be unconstitutional, while there were angry exchanges between MPs as it exposed divisions within Mrs Merkel's ruling coalition.
    Currently, fewer than 20 per cent of boardroom positions in Germany are occupied by women, according to Deutsche Welle. The new quota will apply to more than 100 of Germany's largest companies. Those that fail to meet it will be forced to keep some seats on their boards empty and face further, as yet undetermined, sanctions. Another 3,500 medium-sized firms will have to publish gender equality targets from 2016...


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Fr_Dougal
    Registered Users Posts: 9,167 ✭✭✭Fr_Dougal


    Interesting...


  • Options
    #3
    wildefalcon
    Registered Users Posts: 925 ✭✭✭wildefalcon


    About time.


  • Options
    #4
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    All 'Wurst' jokes verbotten after 20:45.


  • Options
    #5
    nokia69
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭nokia69


    something about the evil patriarchy


  • Options
    #6
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    Under the proposed law, which will apply from 2016, large, publicly listed companies will have to ensure that at least 30 per cent of seats on their boards are filled by women.

    Publicly listed companies.

    If the shareholders don't like it they can sell their shares can't they?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Drakares
    Registered Users Posts: 904 ✭✭✭Drakares


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    Angela (sausage slicer) Merkel

    Liked your post just because of this.


  • Options
    #8
    nokia69
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭nokia69


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    Publicly listed companies.

    If the shareholders don't like it they can sell their shares can't they?

    what difference does that make

    if it was government jobs quotas then you would say the government has to help the wimmin


  • Options
    #9
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    "We can't afford to do without the skills of women,"

    Then they should be able to be on these boards without quotas.


  • Options
    #10
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    Sounds like Germany is coercing women into positions and forcing the companies to accept candidates who mightn't be the most qualified for the position. German Democracy is still a riddle to me.

    Lower the bar for women...because they're as good as/better than men and shouldn't need to prove it?


  • Options
    #11
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    lols at posters thinking a company board is a meritocracy...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    DeadHand
    Registered Users Posts: 2,713 ✭✭✭DeadHand


    Demeaning to women, no?

    "Ye clearly can't make it on your own, girls, here are some laws to help you out"

    How will the women who made it onto boards already on their own steam feel about this? Insulted and frustrated, I'd imagine.

    What if a male candidate loses out to an obviously inferior female candidate to satisfy the quota? Why should he be held back for making the terrible career choice of being born with a penis?

    Women have all the educational opportunities men have now, more if anything. Women are clearly as bright (have always been) and, nowadays, are just as confident as men. The balance these laws are attempting to force unfairly would have occured naturally, given time.

    And I hate having to use clumsy language like "women are x, men are y" but trying to deal with wretched gender politics like this forces me to.

    As it is, gender quotas in any area are undemocratic and unmeritocratic. They serve only to insult women and embitter men.

    More divisive nonsense.


  • Options
    #13
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    Is it a good idea to reduce the number of board members a company has? Who benefits or misses out in that scenario?


  • Options
    #14
    Stinicker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,102 ✭✭✭Stinicker


    Jobs for the boys girls.


  • Options
    #15
    Iranoutofideas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭Iranoutofideas


    What about the Trans community. How many board seats do they get?


  • Options
    #16
    Eramen
    Registered Users Posts: 776 ✭✭✭Eramen


    Yup, Angela Merkel is definitely a sausage slicer.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-dOGsjRjh8


  • Options
    #17
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    nokia69 wrote: »
    what difference does that make

    Afaia a publicly listed company is what's also known as a corporation. Corporations are opt in legal entities that are creations of the state - they enjoy state upheld benefits such as limited liability.

    If the state sees fit to create regulations for companies/corporations to abide by then that's the state's prerogative. If businesses don't like it then don't become a PLC/Corporation. If shareholders don't like then sell the shares.
    if it was government jobs quotas then you would say the government has to help the wimmin

    What?


  • Options
    #18
    hfallada
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,180 ✭✭✭hfallada


    Apparently its pissing off a lot of women, who through hard work and skill made it to the top of companies. But know they will just been seen as token measure in a company. The Germans actually call them "quotatildas", as in women only there to fill a quota.

    I dont understand how women still believe that the only barrier to them being at a top of a company is their gender. When there is plenty of LGBT individuals in senior roles in most US companies(Although the US is still quiet intolerant of LGBT people and roughly half of US states can legally discrimination against hiring workers if they are gay). But the CEO of the Apple is Gay, the highest paid female of a US company was actually born a man. There is far greater reasons than just gender, why there is a lack of women in most companies.


  • Options
    #19
    Birneybau
    Registered Users Posts: 10,221 ✭✭✭✭Birneybau


    Nice use of the old 'thread title trick' (TTT) ; P


  • Options
    #20
    nokia69
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭nokia69


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    Afaia a publicly listed company is what's also known as a corporation. Corporations are opt in legal entities that are creations of the state - they enjoy state upheld benefits such as limited liability.

    If the state sees fit to create regulations for companies/corporations to abide by then that's the state's prerogative. If businesses don't like it then don't become a PLC/Corporation. If shareholders don't like then sell the shares.



    What?

    yes the state can make the laws that it wants, but that doesn't make it right

    I don't believe in quotas, if women are not good enough to get onto the boards then hard luck, try harder girls


  • Options
    #21
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    If German companies don't like this, they can register their HQs outside of Germany.

    This will have the advantage of lower corporation taxes and access to cheaper prostitutes at the AGM.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    The_Valeyard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,452 ✭✭✭✭The_Valeyard


    Donkey Oaty wrote: »
    If German companies don't like this, they can register their HQs outside of Germany.

    This will have the advantage of lower corporation taxes and access to cheaper prostitutes at the AGM.


    If only they knew of a country that could help them with the lower corporation taxes!

    Not sure about the prostitutes.


  • Options
    #23
    Littlekittylou
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,357 ✭✭✭Littlekittylou


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    But its cool, it only discriminates against men.

    And they're all the same after all, one homogeneous group acting as a collective, each one responsible for the actions of the collective.






    Germany's largest companies will get more women in the boardroom whether they like it or not, after Angela (sausage slicer) Merkel's government agreed to impose a controversial new quota system.
    Under the proposed law, which will apply from 2016, large, publicly listed companies will have to ensure that at least 30 per cent of seats on their boards are filled by women.
    "We can't afford to do without the skills of women," Mrs Merkel said, hailing the new measure in the Bundestag. Germany is the latest in a series of European countries to introduce similar quotas for women in the boardroom, after Italy, Norway and the Netherlands.
    But German business leaders united in criticism of the new law, and even suggested it might be unconstitutional, while there were angry exchanges between MPs as it exposed divisions within Mrs Merkel's ruling coalition.
    Currently, fewer than 20 per cent of boardroom positions in Germany are occupied by women, according to Deutsche Welle. The new quota will apply to more than 100 of Germany's largest companies. Those that fail to meet it will be forced to keep some seats on their boards empty and face further, as yet undetermined, sanctions. Another 3,500 medium-sized firms will have to publish gender equality targets from 2016...
    This is a totally misleading post and you know it.


  • Options
    #24
    Littlekittylou
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,357 ✭✭✭Littlekittylou


    nokia69 wrote: »
    yes the state can make the laws that it wants, but that doesn't make it right

    I don't believe in quotas, if women are not good enough to get onto the boards then hard luck, try harder girls

    In one sentence you actively use the term 'girls' pejoratively and at the same time say that quotas are not needed. It is exactly that type of attitude and denigration taken to an extreme in business that makes quotas necessary.

    You just proved my point.


  • Options
    #25
    Sound of Silence
    Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭Sound of Silence


    Littlekittylou wrote: »
    In one sentence you actively use the term 'girls' pejoratively and at the same time say that quotas are not needed. It is exactly that type of attitude and denigration taken to an extreme in business that makes quotas necessary.

    You just proved my point.

    That's quite the stretch.


  • Options
    #26
    Littlekittylou
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,357 ✭✭✭Littlekittylou


    Sound of Silence wrote: »
    That's quite the stretch.

    7-inch stretch?


  • Options
    #27
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    Littlekittylou wrote: »
    This is a totally misleading post and you know it.

    Do I ?

    ..... well if you say so it must be true.

    BTW, In what way do I know it to be misleading? Just so I know.


  • Options
    #28
    Littlekittylou
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,357 ✭✭✭Littlekittylou


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

    ..... well if you say so it must be true.


    :-)

    You said so yourself. If you know it's true then it must be misleading.


  • Options
    #29
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    lols at posters thinking a company board is a meritocracy...

    True enough, but this measure does nothing to tackle that issue at all. If we're actually concerned about making corporations more accountable and socially responsible just increasing the number of women members is pretty pointless.
    What skills does a women have that a man can't have? (the same applies in reverse too obviously)


  • Options
    #30
    Boskowski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭Boskowski


    For those about 100 listed companies affected vacancies on the board must be filled by women until the 30% quota is reached.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    Littlekittylou wrote: »
    :-)

    You said so yourself. If you know it's true then it must be misleading.

    But do I know in what way its misleading ?


Advertisement