FEMALE QUOTAS ARE ON THEIR WAY INTO BRITISH BOARDROOMS

Over the past year the issue of introducing female quotas into the boardroom of UK companies has been bubbling under the surface, and now it soon will be here as the Government has submitted evidence into the Financial Reporting Council (a body that sets the overall rules as to how boards of plc's should work) asking them to find a way to increase female representation.

This follows the lead of Norway who introduced a legally binding 40% quota for their boardrooms, with Spain following  in 2009, then France (1 and 2) this year plus German firm Deutsche Telekom. Italy and Holland may also follow. 

This issue was brought to life in the UK becausepeople like Harriet Harman and the institutional oxymoron ,the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, blamed the financial crisis on men, declaring it avoidable if there were less men running banks.

Quotas are wrong because they undermine the basic principles of a liberal democracy where everyone is equal and to be judged equally. Their gender, race etc is irrelevant. Bringing in quotas would mean that some people (men) would be denied a position on the Board solely because of their gender, not what they could offer. This is discrimination. As mentioned before, it affects their wives/girlfriends and daughters and sisters and mothers, as men do not live in isolation.

The way the UK Government is undertaking this is very subtle and pernicious. It has already built in discrimination against men at all levels of employment through the Equalities Act but rather than deal with the boardroom issue with a sledgehammer like other countries, it is trying to influence those who make business rules. These rules (known as the Combined Code) are based on what is known as a "Comply or Explain" whereby companies only have to explain why they do not adhere to the rules and it is up to shareholders to then vote them down.

The issue is that if these quotas are accepted by the Financial Reporting Council, they then become the normal way that companies have to behave. They would do so to avoid the risk of shareholder censure or simply having their reputation dragged through the mud by Harman and others. Once it is the norm then it makes easier for any quota rules to be passed through Parliament.

The Government's proposals like, all their anti-male proposals, are the thin end of the wedge. They seem 'harmless' to many at the time but once the inch has been taken, it will be soon be a mile.

Posted by Skimmington

Comments

[John Kimble]

Given we have an election coming up it should be noted that the Green party this week decided they were in favour of these sexist quotas too:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/mar/10/pay-for-women-company-directors

Further still we should remember the 40% is the minimum figure - there is no maximum from what I can tell, so all females boards are ok, but all males ones certainly not.

[John Kimble]

The "thin end of the wedge" is the key phrase here.

Just as with All Women shortlists, you'll then have all the other groups wanting (and eventually getting) quotas for their special interest group.

Further still 40% doesn't always mean 40% - if the number of board member isn't divisible by five then mathematically you've GOT to have more than 40% women.

On top of the 40%+ women we'll undoubtedly be forced to have a gay representative, someone disabled, a black person, a muslim, perhaps someone Celtic etc etc.

Such quotas mean possibly a couple of places left for heterosexual white men.

If anyone's got any investments in UK companies I strongly suggest you cash them in before such laws are introduced and invest in companies in countries where they recruit on merit.

[Darren]

Even discounting the maternal instinct and a desire amongst many women to “nest”, women are much more likely than men to opt out of high stress corporate careers to follow alternative life-styles, including better work-life balances and occupations with more human contact. Amongst other sources of information, I recommend Susan Pinker’s ” The Sexual Paradox” for an honest psychological analysis of this.

It must follow that there are many fewer women chasing these top jobs. If therefore women have 40 percent of places reserved just for them, then those women who are competing for these jobs will find themselves competing in a very small pond, the standard will be lower and the salaries will reflect this. Instead of appeasing feminists’ demands, we will allow Harman et al to argue that women board directors are underpaid relative to their male counterparts. In other words: over-privileged women claiming unfair disadvantage – sound familiar anybody?

Obviously directors have to be groomed, so there will be a whole supply chain of seemingly under-paid, but actually over-promoted, women at all level of management claiming unfair pay discrimination.

Meanwhile, will women cede their domination over home and family? Will there be a quota demanding that in 40 percent of divorces, the father gets the house and children and the wife goes to work to support them? Not likely!

Women will continue to exercise their freedom to choose, but with plumb jobs reserved just for them on the off-chance that they choose to take them; men will continue to work as if they have no choice whatsoever (which in practical terms, is generally true), and Harman will argue that women are doing better than men but still underpaid.

[L]

Sorry, could be a bit off-topic, but...Wonder if grant schemes for 'personal development' available for women-only like I just read about in the news today have anything to do with this?

Now, I find this strange, as Newport City Council have recently claimed they're £9 million pound in debt and have, therefore said that they've no choice but to cut vital services such as meals-on-wheels for the elderly and local schools for the disabled - which they've done very recently.

Yet, as if by magic, they now seem to have plenty of £1,000 pounds at-a-time grants to spare to give out willy-nilly for to any person over 18 as long as they're female for (that intriguingly vague phrase) 'personal development.' How odd!

http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/5073454.Newport_women_can_apply_for_grants/

[amfortas]

Women make up half the population. It is a scandal that they are not represented properly in society's roles and positions.

Boardrooms are but one place and no doubt one of many in which to start. They need quickly, nay immediately, to be followed by mines and fish trawlers, railway track laying sites and sewerage farms.

Quotas should be immediately instituted - with non-compliance fines - to oblige women to apply for all jobs; the dirty, the dangerous and the smelly and the wet.

Garbage collection is a 'Local Authority' role and it would be very easy to jail Councillors who do not put women into all those nasty, dirty jobs that they put men into. Road labouring is another.

The fines should NOT be levied on the employers but on any woman seeking a job who does NOT apply for such jobs.

[Thomas Pellow]

"Quotas for women scientists will produce second-rate science" (Cristina Odone)

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100030753/quotas-for-women-scientists-will-produce-second-rate-science/

[Thomas Pellow]

John Simpson on BBC's discrimination against men:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/bbc-is-not-just-ageist-against-women-says-john-simpson-1925401.html