Register to Comment
Page 14 of 22 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 219
Like Tree57Likes
  1. #131
    Orbit v2 Orbit v2 is online now

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,780

    Quote Originally Posted by ibis View Post
    I'm sure that it will happen wherever boards feel that they have appointed someone incompetent just to make up numbers, but I'm equally sure in the long run that they'll choose competent women.
    They'll obviously choose the most competent women they can find. That's not the question though.
    And I'm afraid that's exactly the argument that boils down to "women just can't make it on their own merits".
    Sigh! Well, it seems to me that employing quotas is arguing that "women just can't make it on their own merits". I'm saying that the reason why fewer women make it currently is due to a host of other reasons, which this measure won't affect.
    If there's a problem with the pipeline of women candidates, companies will have to act to improve it unless they want to go on having to appoint incompetent women and hold their meetings in the gents' toilets.
    "gents toilets" - very amusing I'm sure, or "the golf course" perhaps? Maybe it will be a lot easier to do that, than solve the problems which result in so many women leaving the workforce before they gain the experience required to serve effectively on a company board.
    Claiming that there's no problem with the pipeline - that is, the career path offered to women in companies - but that there still won't be enough suitable women candidates, necessarily requires that women be inherently less competent than men in this respect.
    Do you really think the career path offered to women in companies is different to that offered to men? This isn't the 1970's any more.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #132
    ibis ibis is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    28,004

    Quote Originally Posted by Orbit v2 View Post
    They'll obviously choose the most competent women they can find. That's not the question though.
    Okay.

    Sigh! Well, it seems to me that employing quotas is arguing that "women just can't make it on their own merits". I'm saying that the reason why fewer women make it currently is due to a host of other reasons, which this measure won't affect.
    Not directly, no. Indirectly, yes, I think it will.

    "gents toilets" - very amusing I'm sure, or "the golf course" perhaps? Maybe it will be a lot easier to do that, than solve the problems which result in so many women leaving the workforce before they gain the experience required to serve effectively on a company board.
    It's not the best, or even the easiest, long-term solution. Also, few golf clubs are men-only still...so the gents' toilet it will have to be, I'm afraid.

    Do you really think the career path offered to women in companies is different to that offered to men? This isn't the 1970's any more.
    Er, is there a gender pay gap, and do countries vary significantly in the levels of women that get to higher positions? Again, unless there are corresponding real differences in women themselves between countries, that's going to result from structural impediments in the way of equal career opportunities for women. You've effectively agreed as much, by stating that you don't think this measure will remove such obstacles.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #133
    Orbit v2 Orbit v2 is online now

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,780

    Quote Originally Posted by ibis View Post
    It's not the best, or even the easiest, long-term solution. Also, few golf clubs are men-only still...so the gents' toilet it will have to be, I'm afraid.
    Who said anything about men only golf clubs? Chairman invites his buddies out for a four ball. Three hours of uninterrupted chat .....
    Er, is there a gender pay gap, and do countries vary significantly in the levels of women that get to higher positions? Again, unless there are corresponding real differences in women themselves between countries, that's going to result from structural impediments in the way of equal career opportunities for women. You've effectively agreed as much, by stating that you don't think this measure will remove such obstacles.
    No, no. That's not what you said. You said the "career path offered to women". Any woman who chooses to take that career path can make it all the way, as far as I'm concerned.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #134
    afns1 afns1 is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    644

    Marian Harkin backs it:
    I don't.

    There are lots of statistical differences in men's and women's lives. I'm not sure why the ones where women appear to be losing out jump to the front of the jump and are seen as so important as to justify quotas, which are really quite extreme measures.

    Here's one statistical difference in the workplace that doesn't get much focus in terms of measures to narrow the gender gap:
    In most countries males comprise the vast majority of workplace fatalities. In the EU as a whole, 94% of death were of males.

    Occupational safety and health - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #135
    kvran kvran is offline
    kvran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,152

    UK musters support to block EU women quota

    The UK and 8 member states have already communicated their opposition to the Commission. They can form a blocking minority but if the Commission proceeds with the legislation it will probably pass as non binding directive calling for affirmative action on the issue in member states.

    It's possible the Commission began with the intention of just passing something less like a commitment to affirmative action but knew it would face resistance so used the move of going far to one side so that the compromise would fall somewhere in the middle and close to what they actually want.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #136
    afns1 afns1 is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    644

    Quote Originally Posted by kvran View Post
    UK musters support to block EU women quota

    The UK and 8 member states have already communicated their opposition to the Commission. They can form a blocking minority but if the Commission proceeds with the legislation it will probably pass as non binding directive calling for affirmative action on the issue in member states.

    It's possible the Commission began with the intention of just passing something less like a commitment to affirmative action but knew it would face resistance so used the move of going far to one side so that the compromise would fall somewhere in the middle and close to what they actually want.
    Interesting (although can't see link without a subscription)

    Perhaps some lobbying of Irish politicians e.g. MEPs might be useful.

    Nessa Childers says:
    Return to gender - Letters, Opinion - Independent.ie
    To become law, the proposal must now be agreed by both EU legislative bodies, the Council of Ministers and the directly elected MEPs of the European Parliament.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #137
    Con Gallagher Con Gallagher is offline

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,778

    Apart from those who think that boardmembers are already appointed on merit*; who can possibly oppose this? (female directors might have a case so that their authority is not diluted)



    *ha ha ha ha ha ha(they probably think TDs are elected on merit too).
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #138
    afns1 afns1 is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    644

    Quote Originally Posted by Con Gallagher View Post
    Apart from those who think that boardmembers are already appointed on merit*; who can possibly oppose this? (female directors might have a case so that their authority is not diluted)



    *ha ha ha ha ha ha(they probably think TDs are elected on merit too).
    Lots of people. This isn't about equality of opportunity, it's about equality of outcome.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #139
    Keith-M Keith-M is offline
    Keith-M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    23,380

    Quote Originally Posted by kvran View Post
    UK musters support to block EU women quota

    The UK and 8 member states have already communicated their opposition to the Commission. They can form a blocking minority but if the Commission proceeds with the legislation it will probably pass as non binding directive calling for affirmative action on the issue in member states.

    It's possible the Commission began with the intention of just passing something less like a commitment to affirmative action but knew it would face resistance so used the move of going far to one side so that the compromise would fall somewhere in the middle and close to what they actually want.

    Fair play to our neighbours for standing up for common sense against the latest manifestation of Euro-nonsense. What a shame that we didn't lead this charge.

    The irony of ironies here is that the EU Commission is itself 67-33 male dominated. Physician heal thyself?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #140
    Con Gallagher Con Gallagher is offline

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,778

    Quote Originally Posted by afns1 View Post
    Lots of people. This isn't about equality of opportunity, it's about equality of outcome.
    So what's wrong with that? (I presume it is not a 50:50 split, eg our modest effort on reform by linking state funding to 30% minimum from each gender for candidates in elections only rises to 40%)
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 14 of 22 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment