- Joined
- 4 August 2008
- Posts
- 362
- Reactions
- 0
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?
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.
Who is Ms. Broderick :dunno: and why does her opinion attract attention?
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 can see and welcome her objective but going about it with a demanding legislative ruling is a divisive approach.From the linked article:
Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick
I know many women who serve on boards with distinction.
Men make up the overwhelming majority of workplace deaths and accidents.
I never see these "sex discrimination" hacks demanding equal representation in that.
What was the name of the lady who ran Storm Financial again?
Good God, Realist, I can only hope your intention in writing the above total rubbish was to stir the pot.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:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?