Sunday, November 28, 2010

Issue #11

I think that British parliament is moving in the right direction. If there is an overall increase in productivity, and a larger benefit gained from an increase in female board members, then policies like these should be initiated. If, however, there can be no proof linking these low percentages to that of discrimination, then I think that it is crossing a line to force companies to change their percentage of board members to 40%.

I believe in social equality more than the next, but when it comes to forcing companies to allow positions of great power and responsibility to someone who does not deserve it, then it would be fool-hearty to allow such a thing. Companies thrive under strong direction, not to opposition. I think that the proposals offered by David Cameron's party are brilliant. There are restrictions to discrimination, and consequences that should follow if a company operates in such a way. The idea to audit an entire companies pay scale is a great idea, if a company shows signs of paying on the basis of sex.

Corporate entry-level graduates may be comprised of 47% women, but I think the question is not statistics, but if put to the task, can the said employee operate under the strenuous conditions. Another question to be answered is , why is the number of top executives only 17% , and what are the reasons behind hiring large proportions of men as executive, versus that of women. If the answer to those questions are Discriminatory, then companies should be forced to comply with legislature opposing those actions.

What might work for some individuals, might not work for everyone. If a certain few companies are discriminative, then it should not be imposed on the rest of the countries companies. That being said, I think that any combination of board members or executives should be used to gain favor for any type of industry. The overall goal, of course, is maximizing shareholder wealth.

No comments:

Post a Comment