http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/12560121
There is a threat of quotas beng imposed unless businesses ensure that at least 25% of the board is female.
Is this really what business needs - a system where people are promoted to fill a quota rather than because they are the best person for the job?
I can see how in a firm like Mothercare women would possibly make up the majority of the board, but, I can also see that in a heavy engineering firm or an armaments firm they would probably be a small minority. Is it the job of government of whatever colour to interfere with how companies run their businesses and who they promote?
.
Replies (43)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
So long as it cuts both ways
I worked at W H Smiths for a few years and aside from me there was one man (a manager I admit).
All the supervisors were women, all the floor staff bar me, the other manager... I was told not long after I had started that the only reason I was hired was because for whatever reason no women had applied for the post this time.
And there must be boards that are over 75% female, do we get to insist that they hire a man?
PC Gone Mad
I hate all this Political Correctness BS! I'm a woman and I believe that a person (male, female, gay, straight or anything in between) should be promoted because of merit.
Political correctness is now a joke. I mean really, the whole Sky Sports fiasco? Was Andy Gray's comment really that bad. I thought it was quite funny to be honest!! Everyone needs to calm down and obtain a sense of humour.
Tricky
I honestly think this is a tricky one.
Yes, in a perfect world all boards would be fairly representative of the population and all those on the board would be there on merit.
But we are coming from a very imperfect past where women were very much discriminated against when it came to these kinds of positions and are therefore now hugely under-represented at board level.
So the options we have are to forget the past and wait for things to correct themselves no matter how long it takes (because after all women are just as capable as men and over time it will correct itself, but who can say how long that will take) or do we go for a period of quotas or positive discrimination to give things a helping hand.
If such a quota is introduced it should be no more than a temporary measure, and there should be 'get-out clauses' to avoid firms having to take on anyone below the required standard just to fulfill the quota. Which means it will be very difficult to legislate for in any meaningful way.
.
Did you hear about the new law propsed attempting to crack down on the use of "bribery"?
Dont know all the details but I think it would potentially affect the ability of corporates to entertain potential / existing customers.
Seemingly this entertainment would deem to assert undue influence on the relationship and is tantamount to bribery.
Just crazy...
Women Taking Time Off
Not exactly relevant to the current conversation but I don't intend on become a house wife. In fact I intend that HE becomes the house husband!! I earn more than him anyway! :p So I guess I should be as qualified as any other person of my level.
political correctness, or just a waste of taxpayers money?
Should there be more females on FTSE boards? Or any other sorts of boards for that matter? You might equally ask why there should not be, but why pick on 25%? And why even worry about it in the first place? We already have legions of laws supposed to erradicate discrimination - or perhaps Lord Davies thinks these laws don't work? In which case perhaps they might waste some more money in working out why?
Discrimination
"Secondly, why are there less women at board room level - there is actually a reason for this."
There are several reasons. One of the main ones is decades (if not centuries) of discrimination against women (and the same can be said about many ethnic groups etc). This has resulted in an uneven playing field.
So while I agree that discrimination and therefore also positive discrimination is wrong, the only other alternative I can see is to do absolutely nothing to correct the past and level the playing field so that no 'quotas' are considered neccessary. Neither way is perfect but surely something has to be done to remedy a situation which has come about because of outdated views of women.
Dare I suggest picking the best person for the job....
of course not that would be far too cutting edge.....the only people who lose when they don't choose the best person for the job is the business itself....so I would suggest an oldboys network in a company hierachy isn't sustainable in a modern economy, that said i am sure we could find an exception....
I think it depends on the company
I think it's best if the board understands the workforce and the customer and therefore sometimes it's relevant to have a mix of sexes, and sometimes it isn't.
That said i do find it slightly amusing that CD's mind went directly to Mothercare when he thought of women on the board!
CD
Are all your female employees over 50 and past childbearing age?
I am just interested to know if this bias against women is real, or pretence, or if you are applying double standards.
Those who break through Glass Ceilings...
The problem here is not with women directors or some other obscure PC point, the problem here is that there is a market for talent and it pays the appropriate market rate for the talent that is required. It doesn't matter whether the field is teaching, selling pharmaceutical products or cars. The market, through supply and demand, determines the price.
What the government is attempting to do here is dictate that the price of a testosterone filled salesman is less than an HR director.
I am (of course) using parody to make a point. If you want to change UK companies from being male oriented, then you probably have to move them from being sales driven to some other approach. I'm not quite clear what, possibly concentrating on long-term shareholder value or something.
That would do more for women than government quotas. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan "Government is not a solution to our problems, government IS the problem".
Men v Women
I don't have children, but have suffered discrimination in the past because employers 'assumed' I would have children.
It seems so many people assume that all women have a 'strong' male who can provide for them, and their children (if they have any), so it is ok to give preference to men. For those lucky children that do have 2 parents, roll on the day where both parents take equal responsibilites for their offspring, and/or employers will accept that men, as well as women, may need to time time off for their children occasionally.
I have no problem whatsoever with people (men or women) being recruited on abilities and talent.
Some more than others!
OK - I take your point that everyone suffers discrimination at some point in their life, but some more than others.
However, that doesn't make it 'fair', and despite my faults I do try to treat everyone fairly, and with respect. I also believe (hope) that such outdated views of women will die as each new generation comes along.
I just find your attitude to the law so difficult to understand. If we each ignored the laws that we don't personally agree with then then the UK would be ruled by anarchy.
Edit: You have in the past mentioned that you suffered discrimination because of dyslexia, and that the services gave you the opportunity to show 'what you were capable of'. I was also lucky enough for an employer to give me that much-needed opportunity. I would have thought that experience would make you more likely not to discriminate against others yourself. I guess I was wrong (again!).
The following says it all
And once I'd considered all that - I'd simply select the best MAN for the job :)
I thought the above statement meant that you would appoint a man, regardless of who applied for the job. I thought this was discrimination.
Silly me!!!! I have misunderstood again!
Ignore laws
"I dont ignore laws - but I do campaign to change the bad ones."
I seem to remember you saying more than once that you smoke in your office and no law will ever stop you doing what you want in your own building?
I've gone and done it again!
I do have difficulty distinguishing between 'banter' and serious comments, at times! CD, you too, have experienced the same confusion in the past.
Maybe AWeb can give us a 'banter' smiley to prevent the confusion.
Interference
"There's a world of difference between real and necessary laws, and the interferance of politically correct anti-everything facists."
So does that mean then that you do ignore laws which you consider to be unreal, unnecessary or interference?
Slave owners used to view abolitionists as interfering do-gooders. Looking back, who was right and who was wrong? The fact is that the world has moved on and most people recognise that everyone has the right to be treated with respect and equality. My point regarding these 'quotas' is that they are far from ideal, but centuries of male-dominated society has resulted in very few women being in top positions. To suggest that this is because women have all decided to stay at home and have babies is rather backward to say the least.
The problem with doing nothing and just leaving nature to take it's course is that it will take decades for a reasonable balance betweeen genders to be achieved. The idea of quotas is to give a push in the right direction and help undo the centuries of discrimination which has led to the current imbalance. I don't think anyone is saying it's an ideal solution. And you can't tell people to recruit women who don't have the required talent or ability, just because they are women. But there are plenty enough women out there with the talent and ability, for it not to come to 'token' female board members.
As far as I see it, it's a choice between 'quotas' and doing nothing. As long as the 'quotas' are temporary then I would prefer that choice over the other.
Public attitudes
I was heartened by a TV programme the other night which featured people with facial disfigurements. They showed one young handsome male and another male with quite bad facial disfigurement. The handsome young man was sent into various shops enquiring about jobs, and he got mostly positive reactions about job prospects. The disfigured gentleman was sent into the same shops, and without exception, he was rejected. His abilities and skills were not even considered!
It was suggested that the employers attitude was that the public would not like to be served by someone with a disfigurement.
So, to test public reaction they sent the same two men out on the street giving away hotdogs. The two men were placed about 10 feet apart on the same street. The gentleman with the disfigured face got the best response from the public and gave his hotdogs away much quicker than the handsome man.
So that gave a real good example of discrimination. Most discrimination is based upon fallacy, personal bias (I would hate to use the word bigotry, but it does exist) ..... and lots of assumptions.
PS. the disfigured man came across as a lovely guy that would be a pleasure to work with, and easy to get along with.
C_D
"So your suggestion is that we replace one form of discrimination (against women) with another form of discrimination (against men).?"
As a temporary measure, to remedy an ongoing situation caused by centuries of discrimination the opposite way, and in the absence of any alternative then I'd be prepared to accept it. I'm not saying I like it.
Why not?
Why not a little discrimination against men ... we all suffer some discrimination ... only this time it will be legal.
What!!!!
Why not indeed. Under loony Labour abley assisted by Harriet Harperson the ordinary white hetrosexual male became the most discriminated against person in Britain.
Can you find any supporters for that theory?
White heterosexual males are the most discriminated against pers
If people like Peter Tatchill get their way being gay will be compulsary
Please tell me this was supposed banter?! I don't even know where to start. Do you have any idea what its like being gay and the discrimination you can face from family and friends, let alone employers and joe public? All the snide comments and the looks. Being put in the same sentence as paedophiles. Being insulted by strangers in the street. Shunned by the church. Having to be careful when you mention your social life at work just in case someone realises that your partner is the same sex and has an issue with you and you end up out of a job.
Maybe being gay should be compulsory so that those that discriminate so freely understand how it feels for a change and realise why sometimes there has to be legislation to protect against it!
And now apparently its a fact that white heterosexual men are the most discrimated against! They're not protected because they are the ones doing the discriminating!
I thought dinosaurs were extinct, obviously not.
False comparison
Its not a "theory" its a fact. Everyone is protected by some form of anti-discrimination law - except the ordinary white British hetrosexual male. Think about it.
They don't need anti-discrimination because they constantly get positive discrimination ... the same thing that you say should be denied to women!
I have thought about it and come to a totally different conclusion than yours.
European court to rule on gender discrimination by insurance com
Next week, I think, the European court will rule on a case about whether insurance companies can discriminate on the basis of gender. Insurance companies have, in the past, had an exemption from the general rule of no discrimination partly because they have a huge amount of data showing the precise effect discrimination has on risk outcomes.
If the court, as seems to be expected, rules such discrimination illegal; will this in future also apply to colour, race, sexuality, disability, age etc.? Insurance companies discriminate on the basis of risk; so outlawing sexual discrimination is a form of indirect discrimination; so does this mean that other forms of indirect discrimination by them could be made illegal? What about life insurance? Will an 80 year old pay the same premium as a 20 year old?
Oh dear
I doubt very much that women would be wholly responsible for determining insurance rates (just a bit of banter I know!).
And you are quite correct ... statistics can be used to prove anything .... such as white heterosexual males being the most 'discriminated against' people in the UK. You lose all credibilty with that statement!
.... or maybe ...
.... out motoring (at high speed of course) and crashing into innocent victims, so that I pay a higher car insurance :)