Companies forced to reveal number of women staff

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/j...men-staff.html

Companies forced to reveal number of women staff

Listed companies will be required to unveil the number of women and men they employ to tackle gender inequality in the workplace, the Department for Business announced on Thursday.

From next October quoted companies will be made to carry out gender audits and report publicly on the number of women and men they hire.

The recommendation was contained within the Lord Davies women on boards review, which urged companies to get better at scouting and hiring talented women into senior management roles. At present women make up just 16pc of FTSE 100 board roles.

The mandatory requirement to list the number of women and men in jobs will help shine a spotlight on gender inequality, the Department for Business said.

It is hoped that investors will pile pressure on companies to up the number of women employed should the gender audit reveal low numbers.

Absolutely ridiculous and only adds to the joke that is the 'Department for Business'... led by socialist Vince Cable MP - an oxymoron if i've ever saw one. But here we go again, more political correctness and the state sticking its oar in where it has no business being. The next step will be forcing private business to start meeting 'equality quotas'... just watch.

But I couldn't put it better than Mr. Bloom MEP (somebody who actuslly has experience in business) here;



The reason why less women work in certain areas than men is simple - life choices (many women leave work as they choose to raise a family) and for smaller businesses, government regulation such as maternity leave.

Thoughts?

[MKR&*42]

I only have to one thing to state in regards to this - absurd.

[The Don]

the most suitable person for the job should get it, their sex, race or anything else shouldn't even matter

I literally can't stand extreme feminists

[Cerys]

Seriously? Who really cares if theres only a few woman.
As said above, if they are more qualified then it shouldn't matter.

._.

[Kelster462]

I agree with Don. You should get hired for a job based on what you can do in the workforce not based on your race, your gender, etc.

[Sian]

the most suitable person for the job should get it, their sex, race or anything else shouldn't even matter

I literally can't stand extreme feminists

My thoughts exactly.

If there's a real, sharp unbalance then maybe there's a problem but in most places I go I see about an equal amount of males and females.

[GoldenMerc]

This is silly as hell, Its about who can do the job, if a female has more quals or is more suited to the job, anyone with a right mind would hire her.

[Chippiewill]

I doubt many people will care about the gender inequality in companies, there'll be a couple of people who will point at the statistic and call the company sexist but I think most people will realise that there are a large number of women in some other jobs and a large number of them who stay at home and raise a family.

Only downside out of this is that companies have to waste time publishing these figures.

[dirrty]

the most suitable person for the job should get it, their sex, race or anything else shouldn't even matter

I literally can't stand extreme feminists

but in our society, those factors do, and can dictate who is hired/who isn't.

[FlyingJesus]

If a company is stupid enough to overtly avoid hiring women only based on their sex then they'll be the ones to miss out when they skip over some potentially great employees, as well as facing social scorn from fantasists who think that a 50/50 split is the only possible show of equality in action regardless of any other factor. I wonder if any of these types of companies will come under scrutiny ever, or will it forever just be "big business" areas, with the only shown figures being totally devoid of reference or situation?