Quota of women on boards

[Sunder]

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,27753,26212936-5012426,00.html

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.

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.

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.

I'm wondering what do people think of this? Does anyone else aside from me think that this will result in men who are more competent, being passed over for promotion because the quota needs to be maintained?

Does anyone think that new directorship positions would be created? Like "Director of workplace refreshments and breaks"?

I'm all for competent, proven women taking directorship of companies, I'm just not sure if I'm willing to put an incompetent woman over a competant man because of quotas.

 

[Julia]

I'm totally opposed to quotas for anything. Advancement or participation should be on the basis of merit.

It has frequently been suggested that we should have a required quota of, e.g. female and/or aboriginal members of parliament. Disagree absolutely.

 

[Mr J]

I'm wondering what do people think of this? Does anyone else aside from me think that this will result in men who are more competent, being passed over for promotion because the quota needs to be maintained?

I do. On the other hand, it might be useful for forced integration, but I think the quota needs to be removed once reasonable integration has been achieved. By this I mean that affirmative action may break down barriers, but once they are broken down it becomes unproductive.

 

[prawn_86]

Yet another example of the PC nanny state mindset. Does this mean they should impose quotas of men for those boards (limited admittedly) that are made up of women?

Are we talking just public companies or all companies?

Load of cr@p imo.

 

[JTLP]

I'm totally opposed to quotas for anything. Advancement or participation should be on the basis of merit.

It has frequently been suggested that we should have a required quota of, e.g. female and/or aboriginal members of parliament. Disagree absolutely.

Bingo!

What about women who have genuinely worked their way to the top...how would they feel about this 'quota' being met so their counterparts could sit at the round table with them.

This has got to be the biggest load...if men ever tried the reciprocal on women in any fashion they would get shot down in flames.

Another thing that irks me...women tennis player's getting the same amount of prizemoney as men at the Aus Open.

THE MEN PLAY MORE TENNIS...since when did doing less work amount to the same pay?

 

[Wysiwyg]

Who is Ms. Broderick :dunno: and why does her opinion attract attention?

 

[Timmy]

Who is Ms. Broderick :dunno: and why does her opinion attract attention?

From the linked article:
Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick

 

[Nyden]

Hire the best for the job. If this means that there are zero women, zero men, or zero people of a certain race in any given job; then so be it.

 

[awg]

I'm totally opposed to quotas for anything. Advancement or participation should be on the basis of merit.

It has frequently been suggested that we should have a required quota of, e.g. female and/or aboriginal members of parliament. Disagree absolutely.

I very largely agree.

I noticed in my various careers that the most able females most often had decided to make their children their No1 priority.

This led to an over-representation of women who for whatever reason did not have children, in senior management, which to my mind was not wholly desirable.

Obvious exceptions like Gail Kelly of WBC.

In an ideal world, work would allow more child friendly development.

However, to make it to the top, is dog eat dog, and very competitive, cant serve two masters.

Noticed women in management were not especially kind-hearted toward their colleagues who had children. The "I did it tough" school.

I personally turned down several opportunities for advancement, as it would have meant sacrificing time with my kids.

There is also a lack of suitably qualified persons willing and able to act as company directors.

They may need to rehabilitate Meredith Hellicar

 

[Wysiwyg]

From the linked article:
Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick

I can see and welcome her objective but going about it with a demanding legislative ruling is a divisive approach.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

This thread is extremely sexist and some of the quotes are unworthy of ASF members.

I know many women who serve on boards with distinction.

I know many men who are absolute dills on boards and who only got there by birthright or by mateship, political or commercial affiliation.

and vice versa.

Women make good board members.

Many women choose, quite rightly to avoid the overly competitive area of industry and commerce.

Women are much better at bearing children and breast feeding them. They are better nurturers by and large. They thus are absent from the formative years of ass licking and networking that goes with being invited to be a board member.

And women are different to men.

Any boards that I know of that have women members are the better for it.

Some women carry boards.

gg

 

[gooner]

Whole proposal is based on a flawed idea - that women should constitute 50% of Board Directors. Let's extend that:

50% of brickies
50% of nurses
50% of garbos
50% of childcare workers

Why pick on board directors for quotas - why not garbos? Don't think I've ever seen a female garbo. Given that, surely should focus on that first?

Reality is that women and men are different and have a tendency to choose different careers and focus on different things.

Frankly, having spent a lot of the last three years at home with my children, I actually think women make the better choice to focus on family and children. Much more rewarding than being stuck in an office all day, particularly in Sydney's weather.

 

[Realist]

Anyone willing to admit or even look at the ridiculously strong evidence before us that men are without question better at most business jobs than women are?

Or should we continue to blame men for women underperforming, or taking the easy road of letting hubby slog his guts out for 50 years at work, or taking the caring road of putting family first?


Men have the earning power, they do better at work. Men do better at sports, they do better at chess, running, jumping, trivia, selling, earning, cooking, computer games, umm everything I can ever think of apart from cleaning and looking after babies - they are far more competitive. But women have the spending power, and they hold families together.

There's no doubt women are better off in our society anyway, they live longer, they are less likely to commit suicide or go to prison, or to become homeless, or become redundant, the list goes on and on about how women are better off than men. Yet a few high earning men skew statistics and give feminists ammunition to want more for doing and achieving little.

utthedoor:

 

[Realist]

I know many women who serve on boards with distinction.

What was the name of the lady who ran Storm Financial again?

 

[wayneL]

Realist,

Have another read of GG's post. There are differing dynamics at play.

IMO we should facilitate female participation; women make very good businesspeople, but quotas are a Fabian socialist poison that will ruin society.

Julia has hit the nail on the head and there are plenty of meritorious women who should be encouraged, but not forced into positions.

This is a situation for finesse, not an Orwellian dystopian legistative sledgehammer.

On another note, zealous idiots should be rooted out and shown the door, male or female. e.g. One Ms Broderick.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Men make up the overwhelming majority of workplace deaths and accidents.

I never see these "sex discrimination" hacks demanding equal representation in that.

Women make up the majority of domestic violence victims.

As a family stress affects everyone.

sorry off topic

gg

 

[wayneL]

What was the name of the lady who ran Storm Financial again?

What was the name of the guy who ran Lehman Brothers again?

Pullleeeeze!!

 

[Boggo]

And then there is another class that lowers the bar for all females... the gold digger.

Maybe 'the times they are a changin'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-evicted-luxury-Regents-Park-town-house.html

 

[springhill]

Ms Broderick's husband is to blame for this! Why isn't he controlling this woman? Must've been him who unchained her from the sink, let her put on shoes and took the gaffa tape off her mouth. Weak pr!ck.

 

[Julia]

Anyone willing to admit or even look at the ridiculously strong evidence before us that men are without question better at most business jobs than women are?

Or should we continue to blame men for women underperforming, or taking the easy road of letting hubby slog his guts out for 50 years at work, or taking the caring road of putting family first?


Men have the earning power, they do better at work. Men do better at sports, they do better at chess, running, jumping, trivia, selling, earning, cooking, computer games, umm everything I can ever think of apart from cleaning and looking after babies - they are far more competitive. But women have the spending power, and they hold families together.

There's no doubt women are better off in our society anyway, they live longer, they are less likely to commit suicide or go to prison, or to become homeless, or become redundant, the list goes on and on about how women are better off than men. Yet a few high earning men skew statistics and give feminists ammunition to want more for doing and achieving little.

utthedoor:

Good God, Realist, I can only hope your intention in writing the above total rubbish was to stir the pot.

If you are serious, then I am (for once) at a loss for words.