Government to force private coperations to increase female board members (1 Viewer)

[Freedom_]

AUSTRALIAN companies should be given five years to increase the number of women sitting on their boards before government legislation forces them to do it.

Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick has outlined her vision to steer corporate Australia toward "the road to gender equality".
Just 8.3 per cent of board members in the nation's top 200 companies are women - the same number as two years ago.
Ms Broderick said yesterday it was time for radical action to change that. She wants Australia's corporate governance rules to be changed to require top companies to set three- and five-year targets to increase the number of women on their boards.
They would have to report annually to the stock exchange on their progress in meeting those targets. If that failed to improve the number of women on boards within five years the government should introduce quotas, she said.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.



"Five years from now if nothing has changed we'll have to have quotas," she told The Daily Telegraph. "Only 8.3 per cent of board members are women and women make up only 5.9 per cent of the senior executive levels of ASX 200 companies and if that doesn't change, then I think we can make a good case for the imposition of quotas."
Half of Australia's top companies have no female directors at all and Ms Broderick said while women were marginalised from leadership positions, the workplace would never change to take account of women's and men's roles as carers.
The commissioner said she had not yet determined at what level any quota should be set but added "the threshold would have to be significant enough to put us well on the road to gender equality". She said Norway introduced 40 per cent quotas a few years ago and companies that did not meet the quota by 2008 were to be delisted. Board seats held by women jumped from 6 per cent in 2002 to 41 per cent today.
Ms Broderick will make the case for quotas in her submission to the Government's review of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency.
Remove glass ceiling or have it smashed | The Daily Telegraph

.
I dont even know what to type, as I read this article I nearly cried. This has got to be an epic joke. these reformed Marxists that currently hold power in Canberra are an epic insult to common sense.

 

[blue_chameleon]

...she told The Daily Telegraph...

Says it all right there.

What a joke. Even Gail Kelly would agree that government interference in determining board positions would be a fucking nightmare.

 

[JonathanM]

Mandatory? That's a joke. But there is clearly a cultural problem up there which needs to be addressed.

 

[blue_chameleon]

Mandatory? That's a joke. But there is clearly a cultural problem up there which needs to be addressed.

Is it really that clear though? I'm all for equality and that jazz, but maybe there's just simply not the high enough quality within the female candidates?

 

[loquasagacious]

Or they simply don't want to be boardroom executives....

I think that these policies are a form of paternalism.

 

[blue_chameleon]

Or they simply don't want to be boardroom executives....

Exactly. For women, unfortunately they face the decision of career or family.

I'm all for placing women that choose career over family in executive positions, so long as they are the best person for the position.

 

[dieburndie]

Or they simply don't want to be boardroom executives....

I think that these policies are a form of paternalism.

Exactly.

Germaine Greer has discussed this point in detail. When societal constructs such as the corporate environment have been primarily, or entirely shaped by men, for men, simply allocating women positions within this framework achieves nothing.

Women are perfectly capable of choosing suitable career paths for themselves. In cases where women possess the necessary qualifications and skills to excel in the corporate world, I simply don't accept that sexism is so widespread as to prevent them from doing so.

This is the worst type of affirmative action.

 

[SylviaB]

This doesn't bring about equal rights and treatment.

Equal rights and treatment come about by the judging people by their merits in their given field, in this case, business.

This is the exact opposite of that.

 

[Darnie]

come on, seriously. Why should gender, race, sexuality, good looks play a role in any sort of decision making. The employer, if he wants the best for his business, will choose the person with the best merits. What ever was wrong with the merit based system?

 

[Amogh]

Its called discrimination on the basis of sex. An egalitarian society cannot be formed through bias.
They should establish policies that enhance the female stand and simultaneously leave males unaffected.

 

[blue_chameleon]

They should establish policies that enhance the female stand and simultaneously leave males unaffected.

That's all beautiful and peachy, but how?

More encouragement focused towards enticing talented women into the management realms of the corporate environment is one thing that I am in favour of and would support without doubt. However as locky pointed out, this is all no use unless those talented enough actually want to head in that direction.

However, forcing corporations to stock their boardrooms full of X number of women does nothing to promote the talents of women in the corporate world does nothing to address the situation.

 

[breaking]

Only know what I'm told, only know what I'm told
Fast asleep daydreaming
Start to push, break your own glass ceiling
Can't count, can't catch the pieces falling

Who let it end up on the ground
How am I gonna know you're letting me down
How did I end up on the ground

Only do what I'm told, only do what I'm told
Last to leave cold calling
You're gonna lose your arms, amputate plasticine
There's no knight in silver armor shining

Who let it end up on the ground
How am I gonna know I'm letting you down
Who let it end up on the ground
How did he end up on the ground
Face down on the ground

Only go where I'm told, only know what I'm told
Inch to inches crowding
We can't leave, it's the last road open
Every speed on our knees is crawling

 

[Serius]

I want to hear what einsteinium and saberblade have to say. I am trying to work out why anyone at all would support this legislation. Its insulting to women, bad for business[instead of hiring the best possible candidate, you now have to hire the best possible female candidate] and bad for men, because now you could be the best there, have all the right qualifications, but you wont get the job because you are a male.

 

[Amogh]

More encouragement focused towards enticing talented women into the management realms of the corporate environment is one thing that I am in favour of and would support without doubt.

Exactly what I was thinking of. Woman tend to associate themselves to be limited to the secretarial positions etc. Generating awareness of this and somehow making it subjectively appealing, should be enough boost.

However, forcing corporations to stock their boardrooms full of X number of women does nothing to promote the talents of women in the corporate world does nothing to address the situation.

And infact it leaves corporations vulnerable to declivity as of poor management. Employing redundant woman for the sake of it is seemingly inefficient.

 

[Fish Tank]

I've got nothing against women being board members, but forcing it upon corporations? Plain stupidity.

People should be judged by their merits. That does not necessarily mean having a perfect balance of men and women in the workplace (if there is, then bonus points). If I were an employer, I would particularly care what gender a person is (or for that matter, their descent, sexual orientation etc), just so long as the get the job done right and exceed my expectations.

Seems some people can't understand that there's a financial side to everything (sadly).

I dont even know what to type, as I read this article I nearly cried. This has got to be an epic joke. these reformed Marxists that currently hold power in Canberra are an epic insult to common sense.

OP, I agree. And I sure hope it's April 1st.

 

[TheStallion]

Einsteinium_101 and saberbladexx voted yes - you're both retarded.

 

[Napstar]

:\

 

[Mu5hi]

Coperations are greedy for money, and will hire the best people. Gender would be the last things on their mind. This is just stupid, there isnt any discrimination there, it will just put underqualified people there.

 

[astroe]

Ironically, in trying to achieve gender equality in the workplace, they're proposing to enact a blatantly sexist legislation.