Wednesday 25 August 2010

Hairy Excels Herself

I don't know whether it's that Hairy hasn't been as bonkers of late, or that I've just been too busy to notice.

But she's on top form here on the subject of women in top jobs.

Other firms sadly put prejudice before business sense.

24 percent of FTSE 100 companies have no women on their boards and more than half of the FTSE 200 companies have no women in the boardroom.

Norway has made it mandatory for 40 percent of company boards to ne (sic) made up of women.

It’s high time we in the UK followed these European examples [...]
Business is entirely motivated by profit maximisation and satisfying shareholders. If those who owned businesses felt that it was in their best interests (and in FTSE stocks, we are talking about big bonuses, of which Hairy would no doubt disapprove), they would employ a fucking monkey - or even a dozy chef - if they thought it conducive to a healthy profit and loss account.

Just a brief anecdote from my transport business. Around six months ago, we advertised for a new transport manager through Reed. 46 applied but after the agency had whittled them down for us (part of their service) we were sent just seven CVs, all of them from men**. This wasn't anything to do with prejudice - the Reed recruiter was a twenty-something female, after all - it's just that females don't get turned on much by trucks, trailers, headways and bills of lading ... so don't tend to gravitate towards the transport industry.

Say, for argument's sake, government dictated that 40% of our interviewees were to be female by law - or 40% of our technical staff - where are we to source them? Recruit a few credit controllers, perhaps, give them a crash course in tail-lift regulations, maintenance schedules, the intricacies of European community licensing, international road transport regulations etc, AND then pay them the same wage, remember, as a transport professional with 25 years' experience?

Likewise, if a FTSE company is short of their arbitrary 40% level, are they to over-promote a middle manager - and pay her commensurately - simply because she is female and helps fill the quota?

That's not 'business sense', it's irrational lunacy.

The only 'prejudice' being exhibited here is by those who think that legislation to coerce businesses into recruiting women is somehow preferable to giving the job to the person most able to deliver.

£350k per annum and this London (covering the City, remember) MEP's imaginary prejudice-obsessed brain prevents her from understanding that businesses recruit solely in order to increase profitability. That's the whole point of being in business.

** I did ask if any applicants were women, out of interest. There was one who was described as "woefully underqualified" ... she was a delivery driver for Sainsbury's


Anonymous said...

Norway? So on the basis of one country in the whole world she reckons we should introduce yet another law to add to the pile of useless laws introduced over the past couple of decades. I run a company and red tape costs me a fortune. Just what we need - and why?

Anonymous said...

How to get a Honeyball haircut.
1,Place a WW II German helmet on top of your head.
2.Cut round with scissors.

Childish comment ?

That idea of destroying the last remnents of our private sector is naive as well.
However far far more destructive.

Anonymous said...

Afghanistan death roll call
Men ......334

Now then where we on this
lack of women in UK boardrooms

PS Why do we still have separate events at the Olympics?

Why can women retire at 60 ?

Why are all the trolley collectors at ASDA ,,,men.?

Why cant women work down pits ?

Why do women live longer/

Why ?


Angry Exile said...

"Likewise, if a FTSE company is short of their arbitrary 40% level, are they to over-promote a middle manager - and pay her commensurately - simply because she is female and helps fill the quota?"

That's how it is in the Labour Party, much of the public sector, unions and right on organisations everywhere.

"That's not 'business sense', it's irrational lunacy."

That's how it is in... ah, but you already know that, don't you?

Anonymous said...

are they to over-promote a middle manager - and pay her commensurately - simply because she is female and helps fill the quota?

Why not? from my brief experience in the Public Sector it's what they've done there and it's all worked out marvellously hasn't it?

hasn't it?

HASN'T IT.......?
cue sound of wind and tumble weeds
Pavlov's Cat who couldn't be arsed to log in. Sorry Dick.

Anonymous said...

The phrase the lunatics have taken over the asylem is decades old now and getting more evident every day.
This person has a responsibiltiy to the people she supposedly has a part in governing.
Her incompetence is just breathtaking.
Oh hang on ,no her stupidity is scary.

Oldrightie said...

Fuck the lot of you, I'm pregnant.

Joe Public said...

Seems like its a choice between having 'the best', or, 'the quota'.

If the latter, then by definition because they're mutually exclusive, the best are discriminated against.

westcoast2 said...

She claims it had no effect.

Perhaps she didn;t read about the study from Michigan --> The Norway Numbers"

On average, the firms experienced a 2.6 percent drop in company value at the announcement of the new law and, if they had no women on their board, they experienced a 5 percent drop in value. Firms experienced further declines in value over the year that they changed their boards to comply with the law.

This because many of the new board members were less experienced.

Anonymous said...

For some years I have answered similar arguments for gender quotas by advocating female conscription for the Armed Forces. It's amazing how quickly the subject gets changed...

Anonymous said...

Yup, real value for money there from the people's choice.

Ad homs really aren't adequate to enunciate the contempt this woman generates - one can but try.

Stupid, stupid, stee-oo-pid moo.

Yes, ~£1000 a day of taxpayers money to spout self evident tosh and an ego that's inversely proportional to her intellect.

Beyond satire or parody.