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

biko · 01-03-2011 07:45PM

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 · 01-03-2011 08:23PM

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 · 01-03-2011 09:09PM

Whoever discovers the cure for cancer will have a penis.

FreudianSlippers · 01-03-2011 09:11PM

Nolanger wrote: »

Whoever discovers the cure for cancer will have a penis.

Is that a side effect of the cure?

Nolanger · 01-03-2011 09:25PM

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

Chaotic_Forces · 01-03-2011 10:25PM

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 · 01-03-2011 10:31PM

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 · 01-03-2011 10:34PM

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 · 01-03-2011 10:40PM

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 · 01-03-2011 10:42PM

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 · 01-03-2011 10:46PM

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 · 01-03-2011 10:47PM

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 · 01-03-2011 10:49PM

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 · 01-03-2011 10:52PM

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 · 01-03-2011 10:59PM

Nolanger wrote: »

Whoever discovers the cure for cancer will have a penis.

Have you given up then?

ricman · 01-03-2011 11:07PM

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 · 01-03-2011 11:12PM

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 · 01-03-2011 11:12PM

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 · 01-03-2011 11:26PM

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 · 01-03-2011 11:44PM

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

Aoifey! · 01-03-2011 11:46PM

Who gets a job should be based on the best person for it - be they male or female.

Overheal · 02-03-2011 12:34AM

"Equal Opportunity Employer

******** does not discriminate in any term or condition of employment on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, age, national origin, pregnancy, sexual orientation, disability or veteran status, or any category protected under Federal, state or local law, regulation or ordinance.

************** is dedicated to ensuring the fulfillment of this policy with respect to hiring, placement, promotion, transfer, demotion, lay-off, termination, recruitment, advertising, rates of pay, and other forms of compensation, selection for training and general treatment during employment, this includes making reasonable accommodations for applicants and employees with disabilities. Any questions in regard to this policy, please contact the Human Resources Department.

The following questions are completely voluntary. We are making a good faith effort to record this information in order to comply with legal requirements. Your answers will not be considered during the hiring process. "

Gender: Prefer Not to Answer

Are you Hispanic/Latino: Prefer Not to Answer

Race/Ethnicity: Prefer Not to Answer

Veteran Status: Prefer Not to Answer

Disability Status: Prefer Not to Answer

(Yes, they specifically and seperately ask about Hispanics/Latinos on many applications; some of them federal)

All that information is absolute garbage. If an employer is truly equal opportunity he/she can employ people without the use of that information; to say "Well golly I really need a Negro in my sales district" is absurd.

James Jones · 02-03-2011 01:11AM

twinytwo wrote: »

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

Why the top jobs??? Why not the bottom jobs???
Maybe they'll enforce REAL equality and ½ the fishermen, ½ the bin men, ½ the sewerage workers and ½ the farmers will have to be women. They can't be looking for the cushy, clean, well paid safe numbers and claiming it's equality. We will know that we, as a society, have achieved true equality when the Health and Safety Authority release figures that show that work place fatalities are around 50/50 based on gender.

EQUALITY is the quality of being the same in quantity or measure or value or status. It does not change if you are a women

kincsem · 02-03-2011 01:21AM

Should they not insist on equality at the bottom jobs?

mickydoomsux · 02-03-2011 01:50AM

Not good enough to make it on your own, eh ladies? People should get jobs on merit, not because of a quota.

Also as other posters have pointed out, they're not scrambling to ensure equality in the appointment to ****ty jobs.

More PC nonsense that has no bearing on the real world.

silverspoon · 02-03-2011 03:42AM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Not good enough to make it on your own, eh ladies? People should get jobs on merit, not because of a quota.

Also as other posters have pointed out, they're not scrambling to ensure equality in the appointment to ****ty jobs.

More PC nonsense that has no bearing on the real world.

I don't see any 'ladies' in here arguing that a quota should be put in place. I don't agree with quotas in the company or in the political field or anywhere. I wouldn't want to get a top jobs purely on merit of being a woman.

I'm a little bit unnerved by this thread, and the ill-feeling towards women in posts like, but certainly not limited to, the one above. This is a threat by the EU, not a fleet of angry female protesters picketing for quotas. In both this thread and the earlier thread re: insurance, I've been feeling a definite anti-woman vibe, and don't know whether it's me being sensitive or not.

But anyway, I agree fully with posters who find issue with the idea of a less qualified woman taking a job over a more able man, purely to make up numbers. It's a bit ridiculous that on the same day that they insist insurance companies mustn't positively discriminate against women re: premiums (which I think is only fair), they then threaten enforcing positive discrimination against women in the workplace. If, in the name of equality, it is inappropriate to employ positive discrimination in one situation, then it shouldn't be appropriate to employ positive discrimination in another.

Ally Dick · 02-03-2011 05:36AM

The EU doesn't seem to realise that when single women get married and start squeezing out a few pups, they become USELESS at their job. I would love a return to the 1950s, when women were forced to leave work once they got married. There was a good reason behind that way of thinking !

Millicent · 02-03-2011 05:40AM

Ally Dick wrote: »

The EU doesn't seem to realise that when single women get married and start squeezing out a few pups, they become USELESS at their job. I would love a return to the 1950s, when women were forced to leave work once they got married. There was a good reason behind that way of thinking !

I ain't taking career advice from someone who's confused his dog with his wife...

Victor · 02-03-2011 05:49AM

Mrmoe wrote: »

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.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/24423

And look where those bubbles have got us.

Overheal wrote: »

"Equal Opportunity Employer

******** does not discriminate in any term or condition of employment on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, age, national origin, pregnancy, sexual orientation, disability or veteran status, or any category protected under Federal, state or local law, regulation or ordinance.

************** is dedicated to ensuring the fulfillment of this policy with respect to hiring, placement, promotion, transfer, demotion, lay-off, termination, recruitment, advertising, rates of pay, and other forms of compensation, selection for training and general treatment during employment, this includes making reasonable accommodations for applicants and employees with disabilities. Any questions in regard to this policy, please contact the Human Resources Department.

The following questions are completely voluntary. We are making a good faith effort to record this information in order to comply with legal requirements. Your answers will not be considered during the hiring process. "

Gender: Prefer Not to Answer

Are you Hispanic/Latino: Prefer Not to Answer

Race/Ethnicity: Prefer Not to Answer

Veteran Status: Prefer Not to Answer

Disability Status: Prefer Not to Answer

Here, those questions (when asked) go on a separate questionnaire that is returned separately and anonymously.

Nothingbetter2d · 02-03-2011 05:52AM

Millicent wrote: »

I ain't taking career advice from someone who's confused his dog with his wife...

i'm thinking his wife is his dog... based on his old fashioned attitude i doubt he'd find a woman

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

Comments