[QUOTE]The European Commission says it may legislate to get more women into top management jobs in Europe because companies are too slow to improve the gender balance.
The EU's Justice Commissioner, Viviane Reding, said "self-regulation so far has not brought about satisfactory results" for women.
A year ago Ms Reding invited European firms to sign a voluntary pledge to appoint more women to their boardrooms.
But only 24 firms signed it, she said.
Ms Reding launched a public consultation on Monday to generate initiatives - including possible legislation - aimed at redressing the gender imbalance.
Just one in seven board members at Europe's top firms - 13.7% - is a woman, the European Commission says.
For most European countries, including the UK, Ms Reding's targets would require anything from a doubling to a trebling in the number of women on boards”
"I am not a great fan of quotas. However, I like the results they bring," Ms Reding said.
"I believe it is high time that Europe breaks the glass ceiling that continues to bar female talent from getting to the top in Europe's listed companies. I will work closely with the European Parliament and all member states to bring about change."
The Commission says there are big differences between EU countries on the gender issue, with women making up 27% of boards in the largest Finnish companies and 26% in Latvia, but only 3% in Malta and 4% in Cyprus.
Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain are among the countries that have introduced gender quotas for companies.[/QUOTE]
Source: [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17257676[/url]
Additional Material: [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17257124[/url]
Personally, I am against this. I think the way to solve the problem is not to force women into the board room (all the women there will most likely be, at best, puppets) but to address issues like childcare, in which the women predominantly takes the role of stay at home parent and the man the working parent. This is not just because of the idea that women should be housewives but also, at least in the United Kingdom, the fact that Men can only take 2 weeks of paid maternity leave whereas a women can take 39 weeks (due to rise to 52 weeks but this has been delayed indefinitely).
This legislation in the UK makes it impractical for the man to look after the child and forces mothers to look after the children, often meaning they have to take a lesser role or quit which leaves them unable to reach higher positions. There are several other similar issues that, if solved, would mean more women in board rooms. Quotas will leave a hollow and meaningless result.
I've always thought this was a bad idea. People shouldn't be forced to put women in place simply because they're women. Otherwise we end up throwing incompetent persons in high ranked positions to be gender equal and completely ruin the core idea that it should be equal and based on merit, not gender.
I mean, this is arguably discrimination in its own right. If I am extremely qualified for a job but the company hires/promotes some dumb, unprofessional woman who acts like an asshole just so they can get their quota, I'd be pretty god damn pissed off.
EDIT: for clarification, OP, we're rating the idea of quotas dumb, not you personally. You're right to be against this.
isn't this giving women more rights than men by telling employers to make sure that they employ more women?
should be equal rights, not women's rights.
Are we still on about this..
RETARDED.
Do i even have to explain why.
Why the fuck with all this feminism shit, women should be glad we gave them at least SOME OF THE RIGHTS last century. Before, all they could get is getting buried alive into asphalt.
Just more stupid shit coming out of there; I am hardly surprised, just like how they dictate how loud Mp3 player volumes can be. It's stupid as shit.
Oh god, this is getting like the race craze where companies hired various races for the sake of diversity and not their skill.
[QUOTE=The fox;35008946]Just more stupid shit coming out of there; I am hardly surprised, [B]just like how they dictate how loud Mp3 player volumes can be[/B]. It's stupid as shit.[/QUOTE]
Well quite a lot of teenagers have damaged their hearing by listening to music on MP3 players with the volume at max, so it makes sense.
Sucks if you're switching the shitty earbuds that come with them out for great headphones though, but there's small & portable amplifiers available to deal with that.
[B]THIS[/B] particular law on the other hand is BS.
Slightly reminds me of this:
[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html[/url]
Daily Mail I know, but still.
so basically this is using sexism to fight "sexism"
[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;35008847]RETARDED.
Do i even have to explain why.
Why the fuck with all this feminism shit, women should be glad we gave them at least SOME OF THE RIGHTS last century. Before, all they could get is getting buried alive into asphalt.[/QUOTE]
That statement is so stupid you should win an award. For being ridiculously stupid.
But on topic, I can see what they're doing with this law, I don't agree with it necessarily but they're just trying to push along companies that are refusing to be equal in their jobs.
[QUOTE=Van-man;35009043]Well quite a lot of teenagers have damaged their hearing by listening to music on MP3 players with the volume at max, so it makes sense.
Sucks if you're switching the shitty earbuds that come with the out for great headphones though, but there's small & portable amplifiers available to deal with that.
[B]THIS[/B] particular law on the other hand is BS.
Slightly reminds me of this:
[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html[/url]
Daily Mail I know, but still.[/QUOTE]
so? let teenagers be stupid and damage their ears.
we shouldn't become a nanny state.
[QUOTE=blAkk;35009137]so? let teenagers be stupid and damage their ears.
we shouldn't become a nanny state.[/QUOTE]
True, but we should spread the awareness. Do you also go around "let teens be stupid and fuck without protection"?
[QUOTE=blAkk;35009137]so? let teenagers be stupid and damage their ears.
we shouldn't become a nanny state.[/QUOTE]
Too bad the nanny state would have to pay for their hearing aids then.
Why cure when you can easily prevent?
[QUOTE=blAkk;35009137]so? let teenagers be stupid and damage their ears.
we shouldn't become a nanny state.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. Look at a huge percentage of the American population. Notice how allot of you guys say "Only in America". Well that's the effect of us not being nanny enough.
Last i checked someone who worked as a top position got there generally by earning it or being competent enough to do the job, not whether they have tits or not.
[QUOTE=Van-man;35009176]Too bad the nanny state would have to pay for their hearing aids then.
Why cure when you can easily prevent?[/QUOTE]
when we have that attitude that is when we definitely become a fucking nanny state
we should warn people against it, not prevent them from actually doing it
you could come up with the same argument for banning all unhealthy food "why let people eat junk food if it's going to make them fat? we'll have to be paying for heart surgery".
[QUOTE=Source;35009214]Last i checked someone who worked as a top position got there generally by earning it or being competent enough to do the job, not whether they have tits or not.[/QUOTE]Women just don't have balls to take the risks needed.
[QUOTE=blAkk;35009218]when we have that attitude that is when we definitely become a fucking nanny state
we should warn people against it, not prevent them from actually doing it
you could come up with the same argument for banning all unhealthy food "why let people eat junk food if it's going to make them fat? we'll have to be paying for heart surgery".[/QUOTE]
There'll always be a small but fully retarded percentage that'll completely disregard common sense.
So you'd have to make a compromise that doesn't affect the general population too much, while still keeping the jackasses from doing stupid shit and ending up costing society money in the long run.
There's no [I]black & white[/I] or [I]left and right[/I] here, only somewhere in the middle.
[QUOTE=blAkk;35009218]when we have that attitude that is when we definitely become a fucking nanny state
we should warn people against it, not prevent them from actually doing it
you could come up with the same argument for banning all unhealthy food "why let people eat junk food if it's going to make them fat? we'll have to be paying for heart surgery".[/QUOTE]
It's different in our countries blAkk. We have public healthcare systems and tax payers have to foot the bill for some very poor choices people make. The government, in an effort to reduce later costs, takes preventative action. This is why many countries are now regulating things like sodium levels in food.
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;35009255]Women just don't have balls to take the risks needed.[/QUOTE]
Not the issue at all. I'll tell you what one of the men on top told me: they don't like to bring young women up into their ranks because they can't have upper management getting pregnant and taking time off. Older women are fine, but not all firms feel this way and some refuse to bring women up anyway. I'm not a fan of legislating this into action though... we've had "affirmative action" type stuff in Canada for some time, and all it has lead to is inefficiency, bad hiring practices, and massive spending on workforce training.
damn femenists, go earn your top job in society by hard work not by being a big baby. we dont need big babies in top possitions
Isn't this still some form of sexism?
bad idea, doesn't help anything
Quotas always seem like a really bad idea, they are a brute force method that does not address the problem at all.
hey FP just an FYI women can hold "top" jobs so to be against this is kinda stupid.
I don't know how to feel about this. The obvious answer is, that it's a bad idea 'cause you shouldn't get a job because of your gender, but the problem is, that a lot of women don't get these jobs [I]because[/I] they're women.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;35008816]Otherwise we end up throwing incompetent persons in high ranked positions to be gender equal[/QUOTE]
that's also stupid. you don't even know what you are disagreeing with. if you're extremely qualified for a job they aren't going to hire some "dumb slut" (right obviously if you don't get the job it's her fault not yours). keep the boxes to yourself mate, you need them more than the OP does.
if you can't find enough good female candidates to fill the quota then there's something wrong with you, not the candidates
this is completely justified
[url]http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/s...&M_GB_2006.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE=sp00ks;35009690]I don't know how to feel about this. The obvious answer is, that it's a bad idea 'cause you shouldn't get a job because of your gender, but the problem is, that a lot of women don't get these jobs [I]because[/I] they're women.[/QUOTE]
I guess the only just solution is to have no top jobs for anyone
workers rejoice!
Quotas are just a lazy method to solve this complex problem of gender/ethnic/whatever equality.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35009688]hey FP just an FYI women can hold "top" jobs so to be against this is kinda stupid.[/QUOTE]
I've never been a fan of affirmative action. Women can hold top jobs, I'm not arguing with that. In the corporate world (and the rest of it really, but especially the corporate), there is little to nothing that separates men and women (save a few small differences). It depends on how this legislation works. If they are forcing companies to further diversify, I see this as an overall bad procedure. If they are providing incentives such as tax breaks, I see this as a good procedure.
Forcing a corporation to balance and diversify its workforce would require most companies to fire men and hire women in place. How is this good? If you provide incentives, it should, in theory, speed up the process.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
