EU threatens gender quota on companies if they don't appoint more women to top jobs

twinytwo

Im all for gender not coming into it when choosing who sould take a position in a company.

However to force companies to select a women for a job that may have better male options* or face fines.....

i wonder what it will be next

*yes i know there are loads of women more that capable of doing any job

Pighead

Ridiculous. . Political correctness gone mad etc.

It's a bit like some shadowy EU person forcing Pighead to get a dog and a cat instead of two dogs. Even if they knew Pighead hates cats. Pighead ain't saying he hates women (far from it) but he should be allowed to have two men if he wants. And a couple of dogs as well.

Daegerty

The EU needs to fuck off.

Not more of this

Hey, I wonder what the effect will be.
"You got the job cos of quotas, I'm not listening to you"

mgmt

The EU has turned into a authoritarian nightmare.

Pighead

Daegerty wrote: »

The EU needs to fuck off.

You're in the EU. YOU ARE THE EU. You've just told yourself to Fuck Off.

Daegerty

Pighead wrote: »

You're in the EU. YOU ARE THE EU. You've just told yourself to Fuck Off.

I meant the fucker who came up with this idea. More likely a bunch of fuckers trying to justify their jobs

Run_to_da_hills

Daegerty wrote: »

The EU needs to fuck off.

No it can't, we sold our countries soul to it on October 2nd 2010. :mad:

Thanks again to all those that voted YEs.

Ebbs

Next we'll need to elect a certain number of women into the Dail :rolleyes:

Ah equality, I love how you have changed your meaning.

View

twinytwo wrote: »

Im all for gender not coming into it when choosing who sould take a position in a company.

However to force companies to select a women for a job that may have better male options* or face fines.....

i wonder what it will be next

*yes i know there are loads of women more that capable of doing any job

Sweden discussed this around 10 years ago and dropped the idea. In the 6 months or so, when the idea was under discussion, Swedish companies appointed more women to their boards than they had done in the previous 10 years.

All of which would appear that it is a case of "We don't want to" rather than "We can't"...

jumpguy

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

No it can't, we sold our countries soul to it on October 10th 2010. :mad:

Yes, it's all Lisbon's fault, rabble rabble rabble.

Anyway, this is definitely not the right way to go about tackling sexism. Perhaps making sure the job selection process is governed by an equal amount of women as well as men would make more sense. Another random poorly-thought out piece of bureaucracy.

Mr. Presentable

"They say a woman's work is never done" Hmmmm

They are "sick" 5 days a month.

They take months at a time off to birth.

These are among the reasons women do not do as well in industry as men.

Pighead

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

"They say a woman's work is never done" Hmmmm

They are "sick" 5 days a month.

They take months at a time off to birth.

These are among the reasons women do not do as well in industry as men.

Urgent Weather Warning: Severe Shitstorm incoming in After Hours Region within next hour.

Dudess

In before someone suggests that all women demand this and it's those bitches' (women) fault.
Anyhoo, it is total discrimination against men, and it's condescending towards women. Should be best person for the job.

Mr Presentable, I may have used being on the rag as an excuse to get out of P.E. but I have never taken a sick day at work because of it. Most women don't - the odd woman does, and it is for good reason as they can suffer shockingly every month, both physically and mentally. We're talking agonising pain to the point of vomiting. Wouldn't be much use in the workplace to be fair...

NothingMan

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Thanks again to all those that voted YEs.

You're welcome.

Uriel.

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

"
They are "sick" 5 days a month.

Are they? Really? Cos Having worked with and managed plenty of women in my career to date, this is not a pattern that I have noticed, i.e. I have not noticed under performance or absence for 5 days a month. :rolleyes:

I'm a guy btw.

I know this is AH, but your post comes across as being serious - therefore, what a ridiculously stupid thing to say.

mickrock

There needs to be more of a gonads balance in top jobs.

Mr. Presentable

Dudess wrote: »

In before someone suggests that all women demand this and it's those bitches' (women) fault.
Anyhoo, it is total discrimination against men, and it's condescending towards women. Should be best person for the job.

Mr Presentable, I may have used being on the rag as an excuse to get out of P.E. but I have never taken a sick day at work because of it. Most women don't - the odd woman does, and it is for good reason as they can suffer shockingly every month, both physically and mentally. We're talking agonising pain to the point of vomiting. Wouldn't be much use in the workplace to be fair...

I know this. It was intended as an AH response - not entirely true, but not entirely untrue either.

Now, where's my tea!

BizzyC

I think you need to look historically at the number of women in business rather than the total at top positions.
In general men at the top levels of a company have got 30+ years of expertise and experience before reaching that level.
Before assuming there's sexism in place, check how many women of similar qualification there are. I'd say the current number of female executives with that level of qualification are quite low, as they all began their careers in the 70's & 80's when they wouldn't have gotten the opportunities.

The real test towards modern day sexism will be how many top executives are female in another 10-15 years time.

Mr. Presentable

Uriel. wrote: »

Are they? Really? Cos Having worked with and managed plenty of women in my career to date, this is not a pattern that I have noticed, i.e. I have not noticed under performance or absence for 5 days a month. :rolleyes:

I'm a guy btw.

I know this is AH, but your post comes across as being serious - therefore, what a ridiculously stupid thing to say.

In spite of the "woman's work is never done" line? That didn't give it away?

Dudess

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

Now, where's my tea!

Right away sir - now, how many arsenic lum... I mean, sugar lumps would you like in it? :pac:

Uriel.

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

In spite of the "woman's work is never done" line? That didn't give it away?

ummm, no, not without the obligatory emoticon such as.... or or :cool: or :pac:

:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P

biko

The linkage is weak in this thread.

EU mulls gender quotas on company boards, July 2010

The European Commission is considering introducing quotas to tackle gender imbalances in the decision-making bodies of private companies, where only 10% of members are women.

EU threatens gender quota on companies if they don’t appoint more women to top jobs, today

THE EUROPEAN UNION’S justice commissioner has threatened publicly listed companies with imposed gender quotas if they don’t appoint more women to corporate boards.
Viviane Reding said today that European companies should commit voluntarily to fill 30 per cent of all board positions with women by 2015. She wants that figure to rise to 40 per cent by 2020.
Reding says the companies have 12 months to self-regulate. She said the companies should become creative “so that regulators do not have to become creative”.
EU data shows that currently only 12 per cent of board members at Europe’s biggest firms are women. Over the past seven years, their presence has increased by half a percentage point.
The EU says at this rate reaching the 40 per cent target will take 50 years. -AP

Earthhorse

How did the EU issue this threat?

Was it over the phone or did they just glare at someone menacingly until they got the point?

Sisko

This isnt a good thing for women at all , as someone already pointed out.

Could/will lead to some bad attitudes in the work place and start to be the cause of a lot of problems.

People should be hired due to their skills and qualifications not gender.

FreudianSlippers

It's just that... a threat.

It'll never happen.

pickarooney

They should just force companies to make women responsible for all the hiring and firing.

phill106

Dudess wrote: »

Anyhoo, it is total discrimination against men, and it's condescending towards women. Should be best person for the job.

This ^^^^


How on earth with a straight face can people suggest forced gender ratios in the workplace. Are they to fire people because they have a penis?
Hire pj wearing scummy mummy to be the ceo of a company just because she has female reproductive organs?
Never mind men giving out about it, if women do give a dam about equality, they should be protesting against this!

Herb Powell

April 1st is next month.........

Victor

twinytwo wrote: »

However to force companies to select a women for a job that may have better male options* or face fines.....

*yes i know there are loads of women more that capable of doing any job

Another way of looking at it is 'we have 5 capable candidates and while the best one is male, all are capable of doing the job'.

pickarooney

pickarooney wrote: »

They should just force companies to make women responsible for all the hiring and firing.

They do. It's called human resources.

biko

It's odd that almost all the EU top jobs are held by white males of similar age.
Maybe when 18 white males on a board decide to appoint a 19th they go for what they know, another white male of similar age that they've golfed with a few times, or gone to school with.

Also a lot of companies would have gone from father to the son who had been preparing for the job since he was 20. Taught at a private boys school, networking only with other males.

vetinari

I think the lack of women at high positions has nothing to do with sexism. Women more than men are far likely to prioritise family life as they enter their thirties. By this, I mean that they want to not be working 60 hour weeks as their kids are growing up. There's nothing wrong with this, in fact it is healthy. It however tends to be men who work the unhealthy 60 hour weeks and thus presumably advance more in their career.

Personally, I'm a guy and I'm quite happy working 40 hours a week. I know that people around me who are working 60 hour weeks will probably advance their careers faster than me. Fair enough.

Nolanger

Whoever discovers the cure for cancer will have a penis.

FreudianSlippers

Nolanger wrote: »

Whoever discovers the cure for cancer will have a penis.

Is that a side effect of the cure?

Nolanger

Nope, it's a condition about 99% of people have who made major discoveries/inventions that benefit mankind.

Chaotic_Forces

Nolanger wrote: »

Nope, it's a condition about 99% of people have who made major discoveries/inventions that benefit mankind.

Wake up, buddy. Most women didn't have the rights for hundreds (if not thousands) of years that men had.

Nolanger

I am awake. Just stating fact that your PC mind won't admit. This excuse that women can't invent/discover anything because they were oppressed or have families to care for is just lame. Men will always have the advantage when it comes to new inventions and theories. No quota will change this. Why are the best chefs/hairdressers/fashion designers men? Where's the oppression of women in those areas?

Chaotic_Forces

Nolanger wrote: »

I am awake. Just stating fact that your PC mind won't admit. This excuse that women can't invent/discover anything because they were oppressed or have families to care for is just lame. Men will always have the advantage when it comes to new inventions and theories. No quota will change this. Why are the best chefs/hairdressers/fashion designers men? Where's women's oppression in those areas?

Again, you're not getting it. That's like saying how come there aren't black people leading major business in America? While there are a few no doubt, there were repressed too. It's called common sense. If you don't allow people to be given the equal rights the opposite sex have, you're holding them back. Sure, the whole pregnancy thing is annoying but it's not PC to want them to be equal to us.

You're still living back in the 50s were women should just stay at home in the kitchen popping out babies while you work.

Nolanger

Putting people in top jobs because of their sex is not 'equal rights'. That just a stupid PC solution and nothing to do with 'common sense'.

Chaotic_Forces

Nolanger wrote: »

Putting people in top jobs because of their sex is not 'equal rights'. That just a stupid PC solution and nothing to do with 'common sense'.

Actually no, you stated that women have done nothing. I told you why they did nothing; they weren't given the same respect men were. Stop trying to change your point; what we are arguing over isn't about PC tripe or women being put ahead of men for "equality", it's the fact you're a sexist and still think women are inferior.

Nolanger

Yes I do think women are 'inferior' in certain areas as mentioned: inventions/discoveries. Just as men are inferior in areas: childcare. This idea that both sexes are 'equal' in everything is just PC nonsense. If that was the case we'd all have the same IQ. Putting people in charge of a large company over someone else more qualified just because they are female is wrong. It's also bad business sense. That what 'quotas' do. Equality is picking the best candidate regardless of their sex. That's 'equality'.

Mr. Presentable

Dudess wrote: »

Right away sir - now, how many arsenic lum... I mean, sugar lumps would you like in it? :pac:

I take my lumps from a hammer!

Chaotic_Forces

Nolanger wrote: »

Yes I do think women are 'inferior' in certain areas as mentioned: inventions/discoveries. Just as men are inferior in areas: childcare. This idea that both sexes are 'equal' in everything is just PC nonsense. If that was the case we'd all have the same IQ. Putting people in charge of a large company over someone else more qualified just because they are female is wrong. It's also bad business sense. That what 'quotas' do. Equality is picking the best candidate regardless of their sex. That's 'equality'.

Alright, you think you're smart. Tell me why women were never allowed to vote untill 1928. Because they're inferior and their stupid woman brains are much smaller than that of the mighty manbrain? :rolleyes:

AlmightyCushion

Victor wrote: »

Another way of looking at it is 'we have 5 capable candidates and while the best one is male, all are capable of doing the job'.

Sure they may all be capable of doing the job but why not pick the best person instead of someone who isn't as good. E.g. if you were hiring for a sales position and all five candidates were equal in every metric (experience, training etc.) but one person consistently had higher sales figures than all the others why would you choose anyone but that person?

pickarooney

Nolanger wrote: »

Whoever discovers the cure for cancer will have a penis.

Have you given up then?

ricman

SO the last ten years ,we had political appointments on state boards quangos,etc we had the banks,going crazy on lending,civil servants ,tds,giving each other massive,pay rises,pensions and a corrupt/incompetent regulatory system eg one example anglo lends millions to ten people to buy shares to prop up the share price.
in a such a corrupt, stupid ,political ,financial system ,i would welcome a 20 per cent quota on tds,civil servants ,directors as long as they are fully qualified.IT might help to break up the cronyism,old boys network which almost destroyed the economy.

Squirm

I think this is disgraceful.

I will accept that there is still a good deal of nepotism at play in the workforce and, that there are still a lot of men receiving jobs on the basis that they have similar interests to existing employees/management etc.

But it doesn't take away from the fact that a ruling such as this means, where necessary, employing a woman who is not as good as a male candidate. This isn't fair on either person. I wouldn't be impressed to be offered a job based on my gender rather than my merits.

I think it's interesting to read some of utter sh*te being vomited all over this thread. Here was me thinking this was going to be a debate about the true meaning of equality and how best to tackle nepotism in the upper echelons of a given organisation....
... But instead, a handful of bigots have managed to really only highlight how obviously necessary this kind of heavy handed legislation is. If there are more like-minded men out there in HR, unfortunately it will take something like this to ensure they are controlled. Even if it means their same-sex peers suffer. It's a crying shame that, in this day and age, people are still so ignorant as to need supervision to ensure everyone is playing fair.

Tigger

Pighead wrote: »

Ridiculous. . Political correctness gone mad etc.

It's a bit like some shadowy EU person forcing Pighead to get a dog and a cat instead of two dogs. Even if they knew Pighead hates cats. Pighead ain't saying he hates women (far from it) but he should be allowed to have two men if he wants. And a couple of dogs as well.

Pighead hates cats?!??!

WindSock

Instead of friends and family being promoted, it has to be women now? What if she were friend or family? Would that be ok.

Mrmoe

This is an ill thought out position to take. The reason why more men tend to reach the top in business is because they would be more disposed to taking risks. Historically the reward to take a risky decision for women was quite low compared to that for men.

His research led him to the conclusion that economic bubbles "are a male phenomenon," a result of increased levels of testosterone that contribute to greater and greater confidence and appetite for risk. He says this testosterone boost is due to an evolutionary adaptation shared by males across species called the "Winner's Effect." Male animals that win a competition are statistically more likely to win in the next round, he says. That's because when two males go into a fight their testosterone levels rise—increasing lean-muscle mass and hemoglobin in their blood (and thus its capacity to carry oxygen). As well, testosterone also affects the brain, increasing confidence and appetite for risk. After the competition, the winner comes out with higher levels of testosterone, while the loser comes out with lower levels. “From an evolutionary point of view, if you’ve just lost a fight you probably shouldn’t be looking for another fight,” says Coates.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/24423