That’s the point Paul – gender discrimination. When the woman is the best and should get the job but isn’t given it.

Paul the best person for the job does not take 6 mts off for when they decide to have a child.

You’re right mohamad. Us women shouldn’t even bother going to school or college really. After all if we want to have kids and, you know, continue to populate the country, we really aren’t fit to work at all…

Lets be honest you are not built for working!

Thats one of the most sexist and outdated comment I’ve ever heard. Tell you what Mohamed sure we’ll stop having children and nurturing the next generation, don’t come crying when there is no next generation available to insert the suppositories in your nursing homes when you’re grey and old.

While i do feel it is immoral for a woman to be discriminated against based on biological requirement to take time off and develop a close bond to a child to combat post natal depression, its not up to a business to have to take on the consequences of having to temporarily hire and train new staff as a replacement and potentially jeopardize the success of possible projects they’re committed to by doing so.

Based on your thinking Risteard how about we make men take full maternity leave to care for and bond with the child and allow the woman to go back to work after four weeks (which would be normal annual leave that men take). I know it would mean that there would be no male directors or men in high positions in any companies unless they are committed to making sure they don’t have children – but it wouldn’t be fair otherwise on the business to have to take on the consequences of having to temporarily hire and train new staff as a replacement and potentially jeopardize the success of possible projects they’re committed to by doing so.

PS You show a total lack of understanding as to what post natal depression is.

I for one would love to see parternal leave that equals women’s maternity leave. And you’re correct, it would make my point useless. However, its currently not the case in Ireland and thus we see the result. Granted its not completely the cause but it is a factor.

My point is that if it was the other way around – that a woman who has a child took her annual leave and men took full maternity leave – and if that resulted in men being discriminated against in terms of promotion I think there would be equal uproar about this by men – i.e if is not fair on men who take a few months out of work to provide for and be there for their child when it is very young to be passed over for positions that they will be well capable of holding for the next 20, 30 years.

When you consider that most families in Ireland now have around 2/3 children and start to have them in their 30′s and that standard maternity leave is 26 weeks this is a very small time out of a career spanning 30/36 years after the child is born (and on the increase as the retirement age increases).

Its not a valid reason to not promote someone who is capable of doing the job and may indeed be the best candidate.

Well if men and women were forced to take them same leave, the playing field is level. There wouldn’t be that much uproar as the promotion will have to be filled by someone.

That’s true. And it was also eliminate discrimination based on a woman seen as not fit for the job of she wants to have children. I think that would go someway towards helping this issue as even looking at the comments on this article it seems people’s first thoughts are about how women can’t do the job and have children.

But its not that was so with current norms, my point stands.

Way… Not was.

I wonder how many women actually go for the jobs. And as long as its illegal to ask a woman is she planning on having kids in the next couple of years, i don’t see much of a change. Company’s care little for gender and more so for how much money a person can make for them. This doesn’t happen if a mother is at home with a baby. Granted, i imagine most women wouldn’t be doing this but i don’t see company’s willing to take the risk on their profit margins without being allowed to know these things…. Without quotas of course.

Ah but if men could take equal leave on the birth of a child the playing field is instantly levelled.

I completely agree. But currently, they can’t. Id love to see it.

Miranda, great point and I appreciate your honesty. Come on girl’s, let it out. I wanna hear all the things you are gonna change.

Who wants to go next?
Talk to uncle Bayo

Well that is a compelling argument.

Well said Peter

It’s also a total back of a beermat hypothesis. Greed and the capacity for bad decisions are not exclusive to men. Is anyone trying to tell me that when most or all of the family income is earned by the woman, she won’t take risks in order to get the best life for her family? That she won’t be tempted to bend the rules?

Yes, it’s been mostly men who got up to this kind of thing because that role was mostly left to men. And mark my words, it’ll be exactly identical behaviour women exhibit when put in the same position.

There’s a lot of unsubstantiated rubbish and caricatures being put forward here.

Well said Peter. A Finnish study has shown that firms with a female CEO or with corporate boards composed of at least half of women have better results than the others.

Elegant narrative Peter but crap nonetheless.. Just a load of baseless, sweeping generalisations..
As such, your argument doesn’t hold any more water than a less eloquent assertion that “birds just aren’t up to the job.
Gender quotas, or any other type of quotas for that matter, fly in the face of the concept of equality.
Simply, the best candidate should get the job, regardless of gender..

*good

Yeah I know this is obviously why our economy is doing so well

Would the fact that we still have one of the highest birth rates have anything to do with it. Ireland is still quite traditional in family thinking. I feel a new ridiculous suggestion for a legal Quota on the cards for directors.

Maternity leave is abused in ireland more than any other country in the western world with a high percentage of women taking the extra unpaid leave ( although social welfare pay ) to bond with the child.

Recently spoke to a friend who paid for training and all expenses trips to Brussels for seminars for a female executive as part of a new product line he was launching. Two days before launch she told him she was 4 months pregnant and was feeling sick. That was two years ago and he hasn’t seen her since. He then delayed the launch and spent 12,000 retraining another executive.

In the Uk a survey was carried out on recruitment agencies and most of the high paying clients had requested “off the record” that they did not want any women of child bearing age. Sounds shocking and also illegal but for many business’s and employers, they feel it makes perfect sense.

I’m not suggesting I agree but these are the facts of life when it comes to spending money training a member of staff .

Niall Boylan, what a load of crap!!! Please explain how “maternity leave is ABUSED in Ireland”??? Also, you do not get social welfare payments while taking unpaid leave! It is attitudes like yours that are unsupportive to women in the workplace. And, in case it hasn’t dawned on you, this is something that may one day affect the mother of your children or your own daughter! Please don’t tar all women with the one brush.

@weelump ,You do get social welfare payments for extended maternity leave, when like most you claim you have post natal depression, I suggest you check your facts. Ireland has the highest birth rate in europe per head of population and also the a large percentage of women take advantage of the extended maternity leave. Why would you force quotas on employers, surely thats discrimantion on the best person for the job. Attitudes like mine? You need to get a reality check, im just telling you the cold hard facts. Many women choose not to go full time if they want to raise a family and hence they dont get promoted up the company line.

Ah I see what ye did there ;-)

:)

This comment makes no sense. Firstly, it has been shown in numerous studies that women earn less than men – so I’m not sure who these ‘ younger men who already earn less than women’ come from? Unless you are implying that women who earn more due to having more experience in the workplace earn more than younger men with less experience? If so what is your issue with this – it is normal for those with more experience regardless of gender to earn more than younger and more inexperienced staff…

If you are maintaining that if we increase female participation through normal fair recruitment rather than getting rid of the ‘old boys’ and putting women in their place then younger men will no longer be able to step over women who earn more and have more experience to higher positions in a firm then you are just proving that there is gender discrimination in the workplace. This is not a right that ‘younger men’ should have.

Actually, the most recent study (published on The Journal only a few weeks ago) showed that younger women who have not had children make more than men. Quite a bit more, if I remember correctly. The implosion of the construction industry may have had something to do with this.

To address your second point, this proposal does not suggest normal fair recruitment. It suggests that where both candidates are equally qualified, the female is given the position by default. Now then – if you have to increase your board from 10% female to 40% female within eight years you need to do one of two things. Start sacking the men who are already on it or hiring almost exclusively females up until the quota is reached, y’see?

Nothing about stepping over female candidates. Under this proposal younger men won’t have a hope in hell – companies will either have to sack half of the incumbent men (unlikely) or hire almost exclusively females until the quota is reached.

This still makes absolutely no sense – you are comparing across sectors. How on earth do you see young men who work,as per your example, in construction, who earn less than young women working in say a business/particular company, get onto the board of said company when they don’t even work in this sector???

You can only realistically compare men and women of similar age and experience working in a similar sector – and these studies have shown women to earn less than men and have less chance of being promoted. Your comparison is not valid.

I’m making two distinct points there and I see what’s you’re doing in trying to confuse them and invalidate both. My first point is that looking at the younger demographic (under 35) from recent figures nationally across all sectors, women make more money than men. This is a statistical fact and not up for debate.

To leave the pay issue out for a moment and deal purely with the make up on the boards, the question remains, how will you bring your board from 10% female participation to 40% female participation within under eight years? For clarity, this is per sector, per industry. No one is suggesting the ridiculous scenario you seem to have derived from my previous post.

The only way this is possible is to exclusively hire female candidates. The proposal allows for this by stating explicitly that, where candidates are EQUALLY qualified, the firm should favour the female by default. So if the law both allows you to favour females by default and you need to quadruple your female participation within eight years, the ONLY two ways to do this are to almost exclusively hire female candidates or sack incumbent male members which is as I’ve said unlikely.

And hey, it may all be for the best. Who knows? Younger men should just be aware that if they support this, it’s their generation that will be left almost completely out in the cold while this historical inequality is corrected by short term shock therapy.

If all these boards have to quadruple female membership in eight years none of the younger men (and I mean none as that’s what will be needed to achieve this kind of change in the time frame allowed) will have a hope of getting near any of these boards barring a mass exodus of established guys in their 50s and 60s.

We really are being asked to atoll for the sins of the previous generation here and I don’t find that fair.

Actually I’m afraid it is you who seems to be confusing your own points and creating ridiculous scenarios. To quote from your earlier posts:

“This also means that younger men (early 30s and younger) who already earn less than women wouldn’t have a hope in hell of GETTING ON A BOARD ” and then in clarifying what you meant by younger men who earn less than women you said: ” younger women who have not had children make more than men. Quite a bit more, if I remember correctly. The implosion of the construction industry may have had something to do with this.”

I merely pointed out that it is not possible for these younger men you are talking about (the ones who earn less than women due to perhaps the large portion of males in their twenties who worked in construction and other boom related industries) to actually get on a board.

If, however, they were working in the same sector as the woman then males have been shown to earn MORE than women by numerous studies and have a higher likelihood of getting onto the board as they are male hence all of your points on this issue are defunct, so of course we can leave pay aside if you want.

Regarding your point of increasing the membership of females from 10% to 40% then yes this would require where both candidates are equal selecting the female. However you seem to miss that current practice is where both candidates are equal to select the male (which you seem to have no problem with). I am not sure why this bothers you so much as you seem to be missing the larger picture which is that boards will still be dominated by males (60%) and that this practice will only stand until board membership is more equal.

Additionally, this does not mean that no young man will be elected to a board – any outstanding guy who outstrips any competition both male and female will be elected to the board according to the legislation.

All you are saying is that you don’t agree that if the female is EQUALLY as good as the male that she should get the job in order to make a MALE DOMINATED board more equal. Instead you believe that the male should be chosen because he is a man and that’s how it is at the minute. So you are in fact a prime reason why this legislation is needed.

PS In my opinion what the younger generation of men should take from this is if this legislation is enacted they will need to ensure they are the BEST not just that they are the best male candidate as this means they get the place by default because they are not female. If they are the best they will get the position.

Ah. So we can speak in specifics and generalities only according to what bolsters your argument? I hear no mention of different industries or risk or longer hours or indeed anything other than broad statistics when discussing the popular myth that women are paid less than men for the same work.

The crux of your point is based on the supposition that if two candidates are equally qualified under the current regime, the male will automatically get the position. That is actually illegal under current legislation. So are you suggesting that a significant number of companies are breaking the law on a regular basis?

Oh, and I never said the male should be automatically chosen. That’s incredibly disingenuous, but a typical tactic by people taking your particular line on this issue.

They do demand their “elevenses” and have to be let out for coffee mornings with the other women once a month or they get cranky. Thats equality for you.

I AM DEAD SERIOUS.

Can’t decide if you’re a troll, sexist, or just insanely stupid,,,

Sure the best people for the job are white middle aged men

^
Too right.

(Honestly, I’m so bored of all this gender warrior claptrap of late the only thing to do is take the piss.)

That’s why I see to it that none of my wives work. Their job is to give me bubble baths and roll my blunts.

LL cool Adebayo.

Now Audrey that’s a bit racist the best!
You can call me sexist but you try and run a company in the middle of a recession when half my staff are having baby’s! The employer is aways left holding the baby!!

Mohamed, it was also ageist and sexist but you only comment on the racist element how narrow minded.