Yes for women. LGBT: no, because a population of approximately 10% (rough estimate on my part) is difficult to translate to let's say a board of 5 people. Also not everyone is 'out'. Ethnicity: maybe, but again, disclosure rates are low.
Yes for women. LGBT: no, because a population of approximately 10% (rough estimate on my part) is difficult to translate to let's say a board of 5 people. Also not everyone is 'out'. Ethnicity: maybe, but again, disclosure rates are low.
Quotas are very important and I for one will not rest until Asians are limited to being 7.5% of doctors and pharmacists and Jews to 0.5% of lawyers and academics.
Similarly given their statistical insignificance in the overall population the England rugby team will have to sack all of its South Sea Islanders.
Harsh maybe, but you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs.
i doubt may employers are genuinely interested in ethnic diversity which isn't evident from skin colour. eg nobody cares if you are more diverse because you have 10 white scots in your firm of 100 people.
Yes, maybe and I would encourage higher disclosure rates because then we actually know much more about how we (society, companies) are doing in this respect.
So for you, as a white man, quota will mean that instead of having to fight for a spot on a board of 10 total places, you will have to fight for a spot of 5 places available for men on a board of 10. May the best five men win. And the best 5 women. I see what you have to lose there. But you can't argue the outcome is not fair.
Tricky, I do not necessarily disagree that quotas are sometimes necessary to break the back of inequality but you can certainly argue they are unfair on an individual basis if the quality and size of one pool is lower than the pool you are in.
I can very much argue that the outcome is not fair. if there are 20 candidates for these 10 jobs and only 2 women are good enough, then there should be 8 men on the panel and 2 women, not 5
Guy: yes, I recognize that difficulty. I work in an industry that is very technical. I'm afraid I don't really have an answer to that. Having general quota is a very heavy handed means to a far more sophisticated problem. I see that, and there should be escapes. I'm glad I'm not a legislator!
Traumatico: dude, I'm sorry, but the company you work for will just have to work a little bit harder at finding more capable women. They can do that by training and promoting more women or finding them externally.
if there are 20 candidates for these 10 jobs and only 2 women are good enough, then there should be 8 men on the panel and 2 women, not 5
Why are there only two women good enough? To me this is an indication that the people making the appointments are men who subconsciously want to recruit in their own image, or that the company has not made enough of an effort to recruit and retain enough women in the first place, or that the women have not had the same mentoring and career development opportunities as the men.
The women simply being less capable than the men seems like the least likely explanation here, especially when applied across the population as a whole.
I do not want a colleague and mch less so a boss because of some quota and rest assured, 90% of all men think the same
warning: if you establish quotas, anyone who promises he will do away with them will get a lot of votes irrespective what else he has to say
do you want that?
You seem very threatened by these types of suggestions. I wonder why?
so, basically, there should be 50% quotas and if the female candidates are actually not good enough, they shall receive extra training until they meet the criteria
bit of a repressed fear coming through there sun? Have you got an Eton fringe by any chance?
anyway, skipping on
the problem we have, which is historical and based on the good old "women and children can't say no" school of civilization is that we are not starting from a position of "equality". We did not have equality in the 00s, we did not have it in the 90s and we did not have it in the 80s even if people were starting to think, "you know what's a good idea"
So in effect you have a system which is built on having quotas of 100% guys (and invariably that turns into old guys) and you want to turn that into something approximating 50/50
You probably can't do that in anything like a reasonable time by saying "meh, girls will just sort of work it out"
Tricky, you recognise the risk of unfairness in imposing quotas where there is potentially a small pool of candidates (which could be the case in a huge number of specialised areas) and say you have no answer to that. But still you argue "no one can argue" a blanket 50% quota is unfair. This is self-contradictory.
I don't understand why one wouldn't want to be hired for one's capcity to do the job as compared with all other candidates, rather than on the basis of one's genitalia.
I am disabled, and I would hate to feel I'd only been hired to make up the numbers in the annual diversity report. In fact, if I felt that were the case in the context of an offer being made, I would refuse.
I don't understand why one wouldn't want to be hired for one's capcity to do the job as compared with all other candidates, rather than on the basis of one's genitalia.
But the fact that we are even talking about quotas suggests that either people are already being advantaged/disadvantaged in their careers on the basis of their genitalia, or you genuinely believe that men are generally better and more competent than women and that is why they are overrepresented at the top.
Johnny: we need to start somewhere. I think 50/50 is good, with some exemptions. I don't think there is a difference between men and women in terms of capabilities. We should have no difficulty in finding good candidates of either gender.
I also have a disability btw and it does form part of me, how I work and I think it does impact how I treat my team members sometimes. I also think it impacts how people perceive me (once they know) and therefore their decisions re promotions. I don't mind that. But I don't think either of us will ever be confronted by a "we gave you the job simply because you're deaf". I don't know how I would respond to that. I'd probably take the job with an "I'll show them" mentality.
I don't particularly like the idea of quotas, but the current system isn't working. When I went into City law around 20% of partners were women. You could sort of see why then because the folk who were partners trained in the 60s, 70s and 80s, when the world was a different place. Now we are 20 years on and still around 20% of partners in most firms are women. And at equity the numbers are even worse. So I can see the sense in doing something to try to shake firms out of the status quo.
0
0
tun slut
0
0
Yes. Women form 50% of the population, yet are hugely under-represented on boards. There's a need for quotas in the short term to redress the balance.
0
0
Yes for women. LGBT: no, because a population of approximately 10% (rough estimate on my part) is difficult to translate to let's say a board of 5 people. Also not everyone is 'out'. Ethnicity: maybe, but again, disclosure rates are low.
0
0
Yes for women. LGBT: no, because a population of approximately 10% (rough estimate on my part) is difficult to translate to let's say a board of 5 people. Also not everyone is 'out'. Ethnicity: maybe, but again, disclosure rates are low.
0
0
Yeah, this ^
0
0
What about us Welsh?
0
0
they are going to want that, though
0
0
Quotas are very important and I for one will not rest until Asians are limited to being 7.5% of doctors and pharmacists and Jews to 0.5% of lawyers and academics.
Similarly given their statistical insignificance in the overall population the England rugby team will have to sack all of its South Sea Islanders.
Harsh maybe, but you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs.
0
0
Well yes the Welsh are clearly underrepresented at senior management level in all sectors apart from possibly mining and sheep farming.
0
0
i doubt may employers are genuinely interested in ethnic diversity which isn't evident from skin colour. eg nobody cares if you are more diverse because you have 10 white scots in your firm of 100 people.
0
0
Yes, maybe and I would encourage higher disclosure rates because then we actually know much more about how we (society, companies) are doing in this respect.
So for you, as a white man, quota will mean that instead of having to fight for a spot on a board of 10 total places, you will have to fight for a spot of 5 places available for men on a board of 10. May the best five men win. And the best 5 women. I see what you have to lose there. But you can't argue the outcome is not fair.
0
0
But if you do that Traumatico will quit his job!!
0
0
Oh, diddums!
0
0
Tricky, I do not necessarily disagree that quotas are sometimes necessary to break the back of inequality but you can certainly argue they are unfair on an individual basis if the quality and size of one pool is lower than the pool you are in.
0
0
I can very much argue that the outcome is not fair. if there are 20 candidates for these 10 jobs and only 2 women are good enough, then there should be 8 men on the panel and 2 women, not 5
0
0
I do not want a colleague and mch less so a boss because of some quota and rest assured, 90% of all men think the same
0
0
warning: if you establish quotas, anyone who promises he will do away with them will get a lot of votes irrespective what else he has to say
do you want that?
0
0
Guy: yes, I recognize that difficulty. I work in an industry that is very technical. I'm afraid I don't really have an answer to that. Having general quota is a very heavy handed means to a far more sophisticated problem. I see that, and there should be escapes. I'm glad I'm not a legislator!
0
0
Really? Got independent stats and verification for that 90% claim? Or did you just make it up?
0
0
Strutter in missing the point non-shocka. I'm not aware of any discrimination against white men in the England rugby term, for example.
0
0
Traumatico: dude, I'm sorry, but the company you work for will just have to work a little bit harder at finding more capable women. They can do that by training and promoting more women or finding them externally.
0
0
But what about the Welsh and the Cornish while I think about it?
Dux there does seem to be discrimination currently in the England rugby team if you happen to like other chaps.
0
0
Why are there only two women good enough? To me this is an indication that the people making the appointments are men who subconsciously want to recruit in their own image, or that the company has not made enough of an effort to recruit and retain enough women in the first place, or that the women have not had the same mentoring and career development opportunities as the men.
The women simply being less capable than the men seems like the least likely explanation here, especially when applied across the population as a whole.
You seem very threatened by these types of suggestions. I wonder why?
0
0
I do not want (right wing) populists to derive an advantage if quotas get introduced, which they will
0
0
Yes, m2, that's definitely what you are worried about.
0
0
worryingly we've now got more females on our boards than people with my first name. I suspect we'll have to do something about that
0
0
You do have an incredibly lame first name m7. suggest "dave"
0
0
Clubbers, you have the same name as my father. I'd be slightly worried if that weren't the case tbh!
0
0
so, basically, there should be 50% quotas and if the female candidates are actually not good enough, they shall receive extra training until they meet the criteria
yeah?
0
0
Perhaps you should go away and think about the reasons why there is an imbalance in the first place.
0
0
the balance only shifted a couple of years ago, thinking about it .
0
0
The shift to having more women on the board than men called Clubbers?
0
0
DD King 17 Apr 19 15:32
next stop:
quotas for gays and lesbians
quotas for trans people
good idea?
me: no way
________________________________________________________________________
bit of a repressed fear coming through there sun? Have you got an Eton fringe by any chance?
anyway, skipping on
the problem we have, which is historical and based on the good old "women and children can't say no" school of civilization is that we are not starting from a position of "equality". We did not have equality in the 00s, we did not have it in the 90s and we did not have it in the 80s even if people were starting to think, "you know what's a good idea"
So in effect you have a system which is built on having quotas of 100% guys (and invariably that turns into old guys) and you want to turn that into something approximating 50/50
You probably can't do that in anything like a reasonable time by saying "meh, girls will just sort of work it out"
So quotas could be a solution.
0
0
my team is approximating 50/50, no quota needed
led by a woman partner, too
0
0
How do you know there isn't an idiot quota, which is why you have a job?
0
0
Nice outing DD, everyone knows that part time Mitie staff do have an over abundance of women
0
0
Tricky, you recognise the risk of unfairness in imposing quotas where there is potentially a small pool of candidates (which could be the case in a huge number of specialised areas) and say you have no answer to that. But still you argue "no one can argue" a blanket 50% quota is unfair. This is self-contradictory.
I don't understand why one wouldn't want to be hired for one's capcity to do the job as compared with all other candidates, rather than on the basis of one's genitalia.
I am disabled, and I would hate to feel I'd only been hired to make up the numbers in the annual diversity report. In fact, if I felt that were the case in the context of an offer being made, I would refuse.
0
0
But the fact that we are even talking about quotas suggests that either people are already being advantaged/disadvantaged in their careers on the basis of their genitalia, or you genuinely believe that men are generally better and more competent than women and that is why they are overrepresented at the top.
0
0
no part time and not mid tier
0
0
Johnny: we need to start somewhere. I think 50/50 is good, with some exemptions. I don't think there is a difference between men and women in terms of capabilities. We should have no difficulty in finding good candidates of either gender.
I also have a disability btw and it does form part of me, how I work and I think it does impact how I treat my team members sometimes. I also think it impacts how people perceive me (once they know) and therefore their decisions re promotions. I don't mind that. But I don't think either of us will ever be confronted by a "we gave you the job simply because you're deaf". I don't know how I would respond to that. I'd probably take the job with an "I'll show them" mentality.
0
0
I've got disability of being part Welsh but nobody cares about the Welsh.
0
0
I don't particularly like the idea of quotas, but the current system isn't working. When I went into City law around 20% of partners were women. You could sort of see why then because the folk who were partners trained in the 60s, 70s and 80s, when the world was a different place. Now we are 20 years on and still around 20% of partners in most firms are women. And at equity the numbers are even worse. So I can see the sense in doing something to try to shake firms out of the status quo.
0
0
There is a lot to be said for 50/50 representation of men and women when it is about .... parenting
Join the discussion