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

twinytwo · 01-03-2011 05:13PM #1

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 · 01-03-2011 05:18PM

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 · 01-03-2011 05:21PM

The EU needs to fuck off.

01-03-2011 05:21PM

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 · 01-03-2011 05:22PM

The EU has turned into a authoritarian nightmare.

Pighead · 01-03-2011 05:24PM

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 · 01-03-2011 05:25PM

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 · 01-03-2011 05:27PM

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 · 01-03-2011 05:27PM

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 · 01-03-2011 05:29PM

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 · 01-03-2011 05:30PM

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 · 01-03-2011 05:31PM

"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 · 01-03-2011 05:33PM

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 · 01-03-2011 05:36PM

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 · 01-03-2011 05:37PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Thanks again to all those that voted YEs.

You're welcome.

Uriel. · 01-03-2011 05:38PM

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 · 01-03-2011 05:38PM

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

Mr. Presentable · 01-03-2011 05:39PM

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 · 01-03-2011 05:41PM

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 · 01-03-2011 05:41PM

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 · 01-03-2011 05:44PM

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. · 01-03-2011 05:44PM

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 · 01-03-2011 05:45PM

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 · 01-03-2011 05:45PM

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 · 01-03-2011 05:46PM

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 · 01-03-2011 05:50PM

It's just that... a threat.

It'll never happen.

pickarooney · 01-03-2011 05:51PM

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

phill106 · 01-03-2011 05:52PM

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 · 01-03-2011 06:19PM

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

Victor · 01-03-2011 07:09PM

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'.

01-03-2011 07:31PM

pickarooney wrote: »

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

They do. It's called human resources.

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

Comments