Norway

[Lucius]

Yeah. I felt so... so excluded. :'(

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, it's somewhat sad that the Nazies ruined the name so. One of the political parties in DK, the third largest, who is keeping the center-right government in place has more or less nationalist politics and at the same time leaning a bit towards socialism... What can they call themselves? They don't favour dicatorship or extermination of jews at all, however they are quite anti-immigration, hence the support.

[Judge Hades]

A person should be in their relative position in the workforce based on their competence level, not by some artificial and arbitrary government ruling. Now I know there are some equality issues that need to be worked out but this is not the way to do it.

[~Di]

Give resumes and applications file numbers, without information concerning sex, race, or disabilities if we have to, but enforcing quotas is just a horrible, horrible idea.

 

Yes, I agree. There was a time when blacks (and women for that matter) were so blatantly and consistently discriminated against that it was impossible for them to advance in any profession beyond the ones they were "allowed" to have, i.e., garbage pickup and file clerk. This violated their constitutional right to equal opportunity under the law, much as segregation did, so when government stepped in rather heavy-handedly, I understood the reasoning. And after 30 years of affirmative action, it has done the job intended. From this point on, however, it is simply being used as governmentally-sanctioned reverse discrimination against anyone who is not female or minority... otherwise known as white males.

 

My heart doesn't bleed for them, since white males are still in charge of the country and at least 80% of it's wealth, but quotas now are simply used to take rights away from them and give more rights to others. Since the gross violations seen decades past do not exist any more (despite the whining by radicals that grates on my last nerve) then affirmative action itself has become, in my view, unconstitutional.

[Maedhros]

Heard this on my drive home this morning from BBC World Service:

 

Apparently, Norway has a law going into effect shortly that requires all corporations to find themselves with an executive board comprised of at least 46% women within the next two years or be shut down by the government.

 

I've never heard anything about that.

 

If it's true, I regret voting for the social democrats.

[Volourn]

This is just plain dumb.

[SteveThaiBinh]

The Guardian has an article on this here.

 

I thought this bit was quite interesting:

The law being implemented was the brainchild of the former businessman Ansgar Gabrielsen, a trade and industry minister in the former government. "The law was not about getting equality between the sexes; it was about the fact that diversity is a value in itself, that it creates wealth. From my time in the business world, I saw how board members were picked: they come from the same small circle of people. They go hunting and fishing together, they are buddies," he said.

If the Norwegian government has evidence that more diverse boards result in more profitable companies, and they've tried and failed to get companies to do this voluntarily, then I think the new law is valid. Making Norwegian business more competitive is the responsibility of the government as well as businesses themselves.

[mkreku]

I love hearing the replies from some of the guys on this board! "Rich guys clubs are a myth, the most qualified person for the job always gets the job". Those statements should not come from someone whose entire nation is run by Dubyah.. )

 

I do, however, agree that such a law would be a bit drastic. I'm for equal rights but it has to be phased out and not enforced in a single law.

[Spider]

The reason women are generally paid less than men is because they take more days off statistically and men don't take maternity leave. 

 

Give all men paternity leave and I'll start feeling more sympathy for the cause.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In Sweden men has the same right to paternity leave as women do maternity leave. A family divides up their days any way they chose between the parents, although the man is required to use a certain percentage (not sure what it is though). I wouldn't be surprised if there is something similar in place in Norway.

 

Now then, to the issue at hand. Women make up 52% percent of the poulation and with the proper education they are every bit as qualified as men to run a large corporation. So how many women are present in the boards of large companies? Not all that many. I don't have any numbers for total board presence, but I do have it for the top position.

 

From fortune.com:

 

"Even with Carly's departure from Hewlett-Packard, there are more female FORTUNE 500 CEOs this year than there were last year. A total of 19 FORTUNE 1000 corporations have women in the top job, including Anne Mulcahy at Xerox. "

 

19! Out of one thousand. Or in other words, 1.9%.

 

Does this mean that for every one qualified woman there are 49 equally qualified men? Or could it be that companies in our world are biased in favor of men over women?

 

And leaving the world of corporations for a while, how may women senators are there in the US? 15-17 (when I checked this there were some names that to me felt male that I could have been mistaken about, I checked most but one or two may have slipped by me).

 

In the US congress it's slightly better with 70 of 435 being women.

 

Oh, and how many female presidents have the US had? How many female candidates? Female Vice Presidents?

 

(btw, the corresponding political numbers for Sweden would be 208 of 395 in our legislative branch are female which is roughly 52.5%. We're a lot worse when it comes to corporations)

 

According to these numbers, one of two things are true. Either women in general are incompetent when it comes to leadership or they are vastly underrepresented in leading positions. Since I don't believe women are any less capable than men, you may see where I'm getting with this.

 

I don't agree 100% with the Norwegian law, but I don't totally disagree either. I would prefer if the best person was hired for the job, but since there are so many cases where a man gets hired over an equally (or more so) qualified woman I do think something needs to be done.

 

Quotation may not be the best way, but at least it's a way to change the public perception. And the public perception needs to be changed. Our culture holds men in much too high regard, especially middle aged men.

 

If anyone has any better ideas how to increase the female presence in companies and I'm all ears.

[Gorth]

If anyone has any better ideas how to increase the female presence in companies and I'm all ears.

I have a few, but I would get in serious trouble with HR >_

[mkreku]

If anyone has any better ideas how to increase the female presence in companies and I'm all ears.

I have a few, but I would get in serious trouble with HR "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Free strippers for everybody! Come get your own free stripper here!

[alanschu]

"or be shut down by the government" sounds a bit drastic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree.

 

It's essentially mandatory firing of what are presumably qualified men, or the end of the company.

 

Edit: And I don't believe in women's rights, Lucius.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Or the hiring of more women.

[alanschu]

Kudos to spider for seeming to have a grasp of the intent of affirmative action.

[Volourn]

"Kudos to spider for seeming to have a grasp of the intent of affirmative action."

 

It's sexism. Plain, and simple.

[alanschu]

Absolutely!

 

Your grasp and understanding of it is truly impeccable.

[Magena]

There is a level where having the glass ceiling removed is nice.. but having the government state that there must be a certain number of women is silly. It is just as easy for them to place women in those positions, but have women who really have no interest and no knowledge, so you end up with someone who is just there on the payroll but has no power at all.

 

The fact that the government is getting involved is pretty darned funny.

[~Di]

Er, I thought the topic of discussion was the Norweigian Law. How did it get switched to a debate about gender discrimination in America? *scratches head*

 

BTW, most companies do indeed have male AND female "maternity" leave, in compliance with the Family Leave Act (I think that's what it was entitled). Smaller companies with few employees are exempt, but for the most part both parents are entitled to take a certain amount of family leave, maternity and otherwise.

 

I still don't see what that has to do with Norway's intent to force a quota system into both the public and private sectors.

Edited January 12, 2006 by ~Di

[taks]

Don't we have basically the same thing in the US in the form of Affirmative Action laws?

yes.

 

taks

[taks]

The Guardian has an article on this If the Norwegian government has evidence that more diverse boards result in more profitable companies, and they've tried and failed to get companies to do this voluntarily, then I think the new law is valid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but since in the past there was no law, that would mean boards that were equal had women that were qualified to be there. the new law forces companies to hire people, women, regardless of their qualifications. this will not create wealth, but it will create resent.

 

taks

[taks]

Women make up 52% percent of the poulation and with the proper education they are every bit as qualified as men to run a large corporation. So how many women are present in the boards of large companies? Not all that many. I don't have any numbers for total board presence, but I do have it for the top position.

but there aren't as many women in the workforce and there certainly aren't nearly as many with the proper education.

 

19! Out of one thousand. Or in other words, 1.9%.

but what's the percentage of women with the proper qualifications, particularly education?

 

my point is that while it is true women are 50+% of the population, the are NOT 50+% of the pool available, and capable, of running a company. certainly there is a disparity, but not nearly as bad as these numbers indicate.

 

taks

[~Di]

What y'all are missing is that those statistics (uses the 19-out-of-1000 Fortune 1000 CEO figure as an example) are 19 times higher than they were 20 years ago. And for good reason.

 

Just because the law suddenly said females and miniorities had to be given equal opportunity doesn't mean that every female/minority in the country got up the next morning with the education and long-term experience to run a Fortune1000 company. It took years for women/minority percentages in universities to catch up, then many more years for those same women/minorities to work their way up the corporate ladder to even become eligible for those major CEO positions.

 

In 50 years, this will be a non-issue. People just need to use some common sense, intelligence, and old fashioned patience, m'kay? LOL

[Volourn]

Di wins.

[Surreptishus]

What y'all are missing is that those statistics (uses the 19-out-of-1000 Fortune 1000 CEO figure as an example) are 19 times higher than they were 20 years ago.  And for good reason.

 

Just because the law suddenly said females and miniorities had to be given equal opportunity doesn't mean that every female/minority in the country got up the next morning with the education and long-term experience to run a Fortune1000 company.  It took years for women/minority percentages in universities to catch up, then many more years for those same women/minorities to work their way up the corporate ladder to even become eligible for those major CEO positions.

 

In 50 years, this will be a non-issue.  People just need to use some common sense, intelligence, and old fashioned patience, m'kay?  LOL

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ok but this law states that corporations must abide within 2 years or be shut down.

[Magena]

The reason women are generally paid less than men is because they take more days off statistically and men don't take maternity leave. 

 

Give all men paternity leave and I'll start feeling more sympathy for the cause.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Men can have maternity leave.

 

Also, it is more often that women take time off to take care of the children when they are sick, and to deal with dr's appointments, etc.

 

On the other hand, the men that I have worked with tend to take longer lunches and later starts in the am's.... soooooooo.. I think it really all pays off in the end.

[Nartwak]

That's paternity, not maternity.

[~Di]

(Ok but this law states that corporations must abide within 2 years or be shut down.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Which is why I personally think it's an utterly stupid law.