T Nation

Women Compulsory on EU Boards

Even though this has been postponed, they are going to debate this at a later date.

Imagine one employees discussion with his Directors: -
“Thank you for all your years of hard work and everything you have done for the company to increase profits, etc. However, you will not be able to obtain any more promotions within the company as you do not have a vagina.”

Surely, regardless of your gender, you should be promoted on your skills and experience and not what you have between your legs?

If a woman has more skills and experience than a man, then they will get the position. Am I looking at this too simply?

Just found another link: -
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11/14/eu-mandatory-quotas-proposals-scrapped-in-favour-of-softer-approach_n_2128296.html?icid=hp_uk_top_art

This is a quality sentence…“The new proposal - which is to be set before the EU member states - will oblige companies to favour what they term ‘the underrepresented sex’ from 2016 onward, until a share of 40% is reached.”

So it’s positive discrimination now. Equal rights or preferential treatment?

[quote]nocturnus wrote:
http://www.europeanceo.com/news/2012/10/women-compulsory-on-eu-company-boards-plans-postponed/

Even though this has been postponed, they are going to debate this at a later date.

Imagine one employees discussion with his Directors: -
“Thank you for all your years of hard work and everything you have done for the company to increase profits, etc. However, you will not be able to obtain any more promotions within the company as you do not have a vagina.”

Surely, regardless of your gender, you should be promoted on your skills and experience and not what you have between your legs?

If a woman has more skills and experience than a man, then they will get the position. Am I looking at this too simply?

Just found another link: -

This is a quality sentence…“The new proposal - which is to be set before the EU member states - will oblige companies to favour what they term ‘the underrepresented sex’ from 2016 onward, until a share of 40% is reached.”

So it’s positive discrimination now. Equal rights or preferential treatment?[/quote]

So to be fair, all companies ALSO should be required to have at least 40% men as their employees. Sweet.

  1. Pick well-paying female-dominated work industry
  2. Get hired there due to “sex equality” laws, despite lack of qualifications
  3. ???
  4. PROFIT!

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]nocturnus wrote:
http://www.europeanceo.com/news/2012/10/women-compulsory-on-eu-company-boards-plans-postponed/

Even though this has been postponed, they are going to debate this at a later date.

Imagine one employees discussion with his Directors: -
“Thank you for all your years of hard work and everything you have done for the company to increase profits, etc. However, you will not be able to obtain any more promotions within the company as you do not have a vagina.”

Surely, regardless of your gender, you should be promoted on your skills and experience and not what you have between your legs?

If a woman has more skills and experience than a man, then they will get the position. Am I looking at this too simply?

Just found another link: -

This is a quality sentence…“The new proposal - which is to be set before the EU member states - will oblige companies to favour what they term ‘the underrepresented sex’ from 2016 onward, until a share of 40% is reached.”

So it’s positive discrimination now. Equal rights or preferential treatment?[/quote]

So to be fair, all companies ALSO should be required to have at least 40% men as their employees. Sweet.

  1. Pick well-paying female-dominated work industry
  2. Get hired there due to “sex equality” laws, despite lack of qualifications
  3. ???
  4. PROFIT![/quote]

this right here

this motherfucker

well played

And hence why private equity is booming and public stocks are dead.

The whole we need X% of women in an authoritative role is short sighted.

At the risk of sounding sexist the vast majority of women I encounter in a work environment aren’t higher up on the rung versus their male colleagues due to the male colleagues in most cases being far more interested in the specifics in what they are doing. For example the male project manager tends to be have a vested interest in the job his engineers are performing, how and why they do certain things, offering alternative advice, etc.

While the woman will be more focused on herself doing a good job as project manager. I.e. correct costing, communicating administrative and safety concerns, delegating next step tasks, etc. Both have their obvious advantages and pitfalls and which being more appropriate depends largely on the nature of the work.

If I’m going to invest my money into a company with “X% directors/managers need to be women” policies I find myself delving A LOT deeper into the history of their female management to see what real value they can add. Purely as I am not convinced they necessarily are the best PERSON for the job.

In saying all this, there are obvious exceptions to this generalisation.

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]nocturnus wrote:
http://www.europeanceo.com/news/2012/10/women-compulsory-on-eu-company-boards-plans-postponed/

Even though this has been postponed, they are going to debate this at a later date.

Imagine one employees discussion with his Directors: -
“Thank you for all your years of hard work and everything you have done for the company to increase profits, etc. However, you will not be able to obtain any more promotions within the company as you do not have a vagina.”

Surely, regardless of your gender, you should be promoted on your skills and experience and not what you have between your legs?

If a woman has more skills and experience than a man, then they will get the position. Am I looking at this too simply?

Just found another link: -

This is a quality sentence…“The new proposal - which is to be set before the EU member states - will oblige companies to favour what they term ‘the underrepresented sex’ from 2016 onward, until a share of 40% is reached.”

So it’s positive discrimination now. Equal rights or preferential treatment?[/quote]

So to be fair, all companies ALSO should be required to have at least 40% men as their employees. Sweet.

  1. Pick well-paying female-dominated work industry
  2. Get hired there due to “sex equality” laws, despite lack of qualifications
  3. ???
  4. PROFIT![/quote]

You going to apply at Hooters? H4M?

[quote]Derek542 wrote:
You going to apply at Hooters? H4M? [/quote]

Did you see that episode of King of the Hill lol?

Or maybe Victoria’s Secret?

Brutal

All hail to our female overlords!

A city in Canada, Fredricton I believe was considering female only parking spots.

http://www.news889.com/news/local/article/420076--fredericton-councillor-floats-women-only-parking-spots

[quote]Teledin wrote:
The whole we need X% of women in an authoritative role is short sighted.

.[/quote]

Judging staffing on anything other than performance and ability is short sighted and a miss-allocation of resources.

If a private company was to look at its staffing and conclude they didn’t have many women in positions they desired them to be in, they should look to the policy in place, if they are in place, that prevent women from getting into that position and change those policies.

Setting a goal to have X% of Y demographic is one thing, and can be a very positive change for an organization. Changing qualification requirments to reach that goal is silly. If you can’t find enough talent in the pool of whatever demographic you are looking to hire, then you need to address the source of the lack of talent. The source may be the company itself, the industry, education system, anything really.

The point being, hire and promote based on merit, make sure your company’s environment isn’t still in the stoneages, and the problem should work itself out, assuming the industry doesn’t repel that particular demographic.

[quote]therajraj wrote:
A city in Canada, Fredricton I believe was considering female only parking spots.

http://www.news889.com/news/local/article/420076--fredericton-councillor-floats-women-only-parking-spots

[/quote]

Holy rape bait Batman.

Maybe I’m missing something, but that doesn’t look like anything new to me. In Canada it’s called the employment equity act. In the U.S. I’m not sure, but I believe it’s called affirmative action. Either way, we should all just go take some blue pills, and forget about it.

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]nocturnus wrote:
http://www.europeanceo.com/news/2012/10/women-compulsory-on-eu-company-boards-plans-postponed/

Even though this has been postponed, they are going to debate this at a later date.

Imagine one employees discussion with his Directors: -
“Thank you for all your years of hard work and everything you have done for the company to increase profits, etc. However, you will not be able to obtain any more promotions within the company as you do not have a vagina.”

Surely, regardless of your gender, you should be promoted on your skills and experience and not what you have between your legs?

If a woman has more skills and experience than a man, then they will get the position. Am I looking at this too simply?

Just found another link: -

This is a quality sentence…“The new proposal - which is to be set before the EU member states - will oblige companies to favour what they term ‘the underrepresented sex’ from 2016 onward, until a share of 40% is reached.”

So it’s positive discrimination now. Equal rights or preferential treatment?[/quote]

So to be fair, all companies ALSO should be required to have at least 40% men as their employees. Sweet.

  1. Pick well-paying female-dominated work industry
  2. Get hired there due to “sex equality” laws, despite lack of qualifications
  3. ???
  4. PROFIT![/quote]

You going to apply at Hooters? H4M? [/quote]

Idk, I DID say well-paying…I was thinking as much or more than I make now lol. Got a family to feed.

How about a feminist organization. Surely they should be required to have 40% males working among their ranks, right?

lol

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]nocturnus wrote:
http://www.europeanceo.com/news/2012/10/women-compulsory-on-eu-company-boards-plans-postponed/

Even though this has been postponed, they are going to debate this at a later date.

Imagine one employees discussion with his Directors: -
“Thank you for all your years of hard work and everything you have done for the company to increase profits, etc. However, you will not be able to obtain any more promotions within the company as you do not have a vagina.”

Surely, regardless of your gender, you should be promoted on your skills and experience and not what you have between your legs?

If a woman has more skills and experience than a man, then they will get the position. Am I looking at this too simply?

Just found another link: -

This is a quality sentence…“The new proposal - which is to be set before the EU member states - will oblige companies to favour what they term ‘the underrepresented sex’ from 2016 onward, until a share of 40% is reached.”

So it’s positive discrimination now. Equal rights or preferential treatment?[/quote]

So to be fair, all companies ALSO should be required to have at least 40% men as their employees. Sweet.

  1. Pick well-paying female-dominated work industry
  2. Get hired there due to “sex equality” laws, despite lack of qualifications
  3. ???
  4. PROFIT![/quote]

So, wait…what’s the other 20%

Oh. Never mind, I get it. So if I become a partial-op transgender, I should ge promoted to CEO within 2 years!

Thailand, here I come…

Companies will do whatever is in their best interest in terms of making money. I believe the proposal is ridiculous as money will trump ideology 99% of the time in corporations, so is entirely unnecessary.

Additionally, I find it odd that they would attach an arbitrary percentage like that. I do not know for a fact, but I would strongly suspect that the playing field that possesses the qualifications necessary for these positions is overwhelmingly male-dominated in number, which likely account for their over-representation (at least in part). The demographics will likely have large variances between the different countries of the EU, as well, so this can hardly be considered a fair law. As the relative number of women receiving post-secondary education tends to be higher in more developed countries, this will likely favour the more progressive nations at the cost of the others. The underdogs here are also the ones who are the most likely to require bailouts in the future.

Congratulations EU, set an unnecessary handicap upon the corporations of your members, who are already having a difficult enough time managing their own economies. I am far from being conservative, but sometimes these liberal ideas are unbelievably stupid.