Canada: Liberal Senator Introduces Bill that would set a 40% Sex Quota for Corporate Boards
26 replies, posted
[url]http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/women-on-corporate-boards-companies-need-to-open-their-minds-1.2711186[/url]
[QUOTE]Liberal Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette is determined to speed up the glacial pace at which women are cracking the ranks of corporate boards of directors.
"We really need to push the companies to open their minds," Hervieux-Payette told Laura Lynch, guest host of CBC Radio One’s The Sunday Edition this week.
Currently, women hold just 10 per cent of the seats in Canada’s boardrooms, and 40 per cent of the top 500 Canadian companies have no women on their boards at all. According to the Conference Board of Canada, at the current rate, it will take 151 years to see gender parity on boards.
In a report last month, the federal Advisory Council for Women on Boards set a voluntary target to increase women's participation on boards to 30 per cent within five years.
But Hervieux-Payette said that such voluntary measures have failed in Norway and the UK, while mandatory quotas in some European countries and Quebec have swiftly ushered more women into boardrooms.
A 2006 Quebec law requires male-female parity on the boards of Crown corporations in that province.
"We have introduced that and there is nothing falling apart," said Hervieux-Payette.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]When asked whether enough women have the qualifications to fill board seats, Hervieux-Payette said that given the fact that women comprise the majority of university graduates today, it’s not a question of credentials.
"It's really a barrier of people who don't want to share the power," she said.
"Women have the qualifications. If you look at one sector that has done some homework on this matter, it's the financial sector, the banks. They have more women [on boards] than most of the large corporations in Canada."
Companies working toward gender parity at the board level have seen financial returns for their efforts, she added.[/QUOTE]
I really don't see the need for the quota. 151 years seems like a bit much since the trend would probably pick up pace anyway.
But then you get uncertainty about whether or not people were hired simply to fulfill a quota, and I just think this'll cause more problems than it'll solve.
Board meetings need to contain at least 40% more sex.
[QUOTE=Blanketspace;45447929]Board meetings need to contain at least 40% more sex.[/QUOTE]
or 40% of board meetings must contain sex
That title made me come into this thread expecting something totally different. :v:
[QUOTE]40 per cent of the top 500 Canadian companies have no women on their boards at all[/QUOTE]
That's crazy, I wonder what the stats in the US are.
[QUOTE=joshjet;45447885]But then you get uncertainty about whether or not people were hired simply to fulfill a quota, and I just think this'll cause more problems than it'll solve.[/QUOTE]
Well with alot of companies it doesn't seem like merit matters at all. That whole boys club culture, etc.
Instead of forcing people why not give benefits to those that have better gender ratios?
[QUOTE=kaven;45448162]Instead of forcing people why not give benefits to those that have better gender ratios?[/QUOTE]
don't even do that. just punish places that are discriminating
hiring the most qualified people isn't discrimination and shouldn't be punished. giving benefits to those with "better ratios" is punishing those without
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;45448205]don't even do that. just punish places that are discriminating
hiring the most qualified people isn't discrimination and shouldn't be punished. giving benefits to those with "better ratios" is punishing those without[/QUOTE]
I agree, but it seems that everytime someone tries to solve a problem they focus on forcing people when giving people proper motivation to do something works much better in my experience.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;45448205]don't even do that. just punish places that are discriminating
hiring the most qualified people isn't discrimination and shouldn't be punished. giving benefits to those with "better ratios" is punishing those without[/QUOTE]
[url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1213518]Except peoples' ideas of "qualified" change depending on if you have breasts or not.[/url]
I'd be fine with this if it was just a bottom line thing. Like if you're 10% or less you'd be punished. It's ridiculous that all of these companies have [I]no[/I] women, just no excuse for that.
I guarantee that if you look at the statistics of qualified women, there are a comparative amount in boardroom jobs, if not more. Most companies would love to have more women in top spots. The problem isn't discrimination in hiring, its the fact that there are barely any women actually qualified for the job. If you want gender parity, you need to look at the source. More women need to actually start pursuing jobs in business or STEM fields.
[quote]When asked whether enough women have the qualifications to fill board seats, Hervieux-Payette said that given the fact that women comprise the majority of university graduates today, it’s not a question of credentials.
"It's really a barrier of people who don't want to share the power," she said.
"Women have the qualifications. If you look at one sector that has done some homework on this matter, it's the financial sector, the banks. They have more women [on boards] than most of the large corporations in Canada."
Companies working toward gender parity at the board level have seen financial returns for their efforts, she added.[/quote]
I'd really like to see a source on this. It smells like bullshit.
It sucks knowing there are people who will defend this
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;45448084]Well with alot of companies it doesn't seem like merit matters at all. That whole boys club culture, etc.[/QUOTE]
And you know this from your vast experience in what exactly?
[QUOTE=Superkilll307;45449183]And you know this from your vast experience in what exactly?[/QUOTE]
Talking with people in the oil industry.
Let's say your company has 50 employees and 6 of them are female because the job is male dominated (lets say its a construction company of some description) and you have to put women into that position in the board regardless if they are actually qualified for such a task?
The furthest I would go in supporting an actual mandated quota along these lines would be to mandate a certain level of equality in internships/apprenticeships when the company's main workforce is disproportionately one sex/race. (Perhaps mandate a goal of increasing minority representation in workplace training by a few percentage points per year, etc. This way companies only have to put in an effort and won't be punished simply for not being able to find qualified minorities)
Punishing companies that actively discriminate and making grants available to companies that try to diversify their workforce is something I'm fine with though.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;45449776]Talking with people in the oil industry.[/QUOTE]
Corporates then I assume? Really high up on the food chain as it were?
The problem with quota's is that to fill them the company may hire women to fill it, but they aren't capable of the job. Reminds me of the story of when the U.S. pushed for a female captain in the navy and her crew had a mutiny since she was abusive to them.
[quote]When asked whether enough women have the qualifications to fill board seats, Hervieux-Payette said that given the fact that [B]women comprise the majority of university graduates today[/B], it’s not a question of credentials.[/quote]
First I've heard of this outside of academic circles. I wonder if the issue of male success in education is finally going to get some attention... it's getting worse every year.
[QUOTE=typeperf;45450827]The problem with quota's is that to fill them the company may hire women to fill it, but they aren't capable of the job. Reminds me of the story of when the U.S. pushed for a female captain in the navy and her crew had a mutiny since she was abusive to them.[/QUOTE]
No.
For one, many who apply for Director positions were former Directors or Executives at other firms, and these positions have historically been male dominated. It's like how to find even basic work you need to have work experience, and women applying for Director positions are analogous to the unemployed applying for those low-level positions (where men would be analogous to those with work experience). Equality is not going to occur if the status quo remains the way it is. Women need to have those additional opportunities if the field is to become balanced.
Two, I am sure that many applicants for Director positions are very experienced. But the very best female applicant may only be considered, by the interviewers, to be on par with a 'good' male candidate and not a 'very good' male candidate, of which the latter will be hired (although the female applicant may be sufficient for the position). Why's this? Because Director positions have historically been held mostly men and so the most experienced applicants will be men. There are also the issues of subconscious/subtle sexism ('hmm so this applicant is female, let's excessively scrutinise her former work experience over what we would for a male applicant') and that 'boys clubs' and 'who you know, not what you know' are still things today.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;45450993]First I've heard of this outside of academic circles. I wonder if the issue of male success in education is finally going to get some attention... it's getting worse every year.[/QUOTE]
Even if this is true, you have to wonder what degrees women are earning. It doesn't really matter if more women are graduating if they're all graduating with English degrees.
[editline]20th July 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Antdawg;45450996]There are also the issues of subconscious/subtle sexism ('hmm so this applicant is female, let's excessively scrutinise her former work experience over what we would for a male applicant') and that 'boys clubs' and 'who you know, not what you know' are still things today.[/QUOTE]
Please elaborate.
Well since this is a bill introduced by the Senate, especially a member of the Opposition in the Senate, it's going to die on first reading in the House of Commons and go nowhere.
It's not like companies actively say "Oh, this applicant is a women. Rejected." It's a very subtle and passive thing like Antdawg said. Men are better qualified because they have more experience, so why hire women? Which creates a cycle where women can't even get a job in their desired field. Quotas give minorities a chance to get a job and gain experience they would otherwise have lost.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;45451614]Well since this is a bill introduced by the Senate, especially a member of the Opposition in the Senate, it's going to die on first reading in the House of Commons and go nowhere.[/QUOTE]
Im guessing the majority of the Liberal party and NDP won't support this as well.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.