European Commission approves gender quotas proposal
The European Commission has adopted Viviane Reding's proposal for a European law that would see women represent 40 per cent of company board members by 2020.
This was announced by Commissioner Reding on twitter this morning.
Malta's Commissioner nominee Tonio Borg said during his grilling by MEPs yesterday that he supported the proposal, which was voted upon by Commissioners yesterday.
Nine EU countries, including Britain, the Netherlands and Malta, made clear their opposition to the law in September. But one of the nine, Bulgaria, has since changed its mind, said one EU source.
The Commission estimates that women currently account for fewer than 15 per cent of non-executive board positions in companies with more than 250 staff.
The new proposal would oblige these companies to favour "the underrepresented sex" from 2016 onward until a share of 40 per cent is reached, a source said.
Member countries would have the power to determine and impose sanctions on firms that did not obey the rule.
Popular Stories
Old buses, drivers to return
Former Judge Ray Pace found dead
Updated: Minister apologises for...
Three new Nationalist MPs elected –...
Where’s Everybody staff is given notice
Updated - Director of Prisons submits...
Update 4 - Eddie Fenech Adami stable...
Update 3 - Woman trapped as car crashes...
Revealed...the face of a Maltese woman...
In Discussion
Old buses, drivers to return
Updated: Minister apologises for...
PL reacts as PN labels Franco Debono's...
Updated - Director of Prisons submits...
Enemalta seeking minimum five year gas...
Protected birds shot and trapped as...
Mario de Marco, Zammit Dimech concede,...
PN postpones salaries as financial...
Updated - PM's offer to Opposition MPs...
78 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr Adrian Zahra
Nov 15th 2012, 06:17
Why not start with 40% of the armies or 40% of the rescue corps. for all that matters. This is nothing but the usual imposition of God allmighty commissioners onto individual free choice.
R. Borg
Nov 14th 2012, 20:41
A clear case of absurd and blatant femminism
Robert Agius
Nov 14th 2012, 20:37
How about women starting their own companies and choosing whomever they like? Or aren't they capable of starting their own companies? :P
Joe Grech
Nov 14th 2012, 20:17
Brussels is going nuts. How can Viviane Reding force companies ''to favour the under-represented sex" from 2016 onwards... until a share of 40 per cent is reached. It's WRONG, UNDEMOCRATIC, may affect companies and business negatively... Where's the level playing field? The proposal is an insult to women - the capable ones that is. Capable women do not need Reding's pushes!
Robert Agius
Nov 14th 2012, 20:10
Corporate board members only....hmmm, doesn't that discriminate all other jobs?
Anton Grech
Nov 14th 2012, 19:56
This is a case of misguided political correctness resulting in reverse discrimination. It proves yet again that Albert Einstein was right in saying, “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
Joseph P. Borg
Nov 14th 2012, 16:20
Viviane' s proposal and those who supported her egoistic desire clearly indicates why women have not as yet equalled the number of men sitting on companies' board. They cannot realise that the proposal goes against a basic human right and is an imposition on the freedom of choice of the individuals. The shareholders of any company have the right to elect the directors they freely choose
Alfred Falzon
Nov 14th 2012, 16:03
Is this meritocracy or a clear breach of human rights since males now risk being discriminated against?
Representation on Boards, promotions, etc should be on the strength of qualifications and proven efficiency not on a fixed number based on artificial and superficial quotas!
Gender equality supposes male = female not female > male!
The proposal is preposterous!
Alfred A. Falzon
Martin Saliba
Nov 14th 2012, 16:02
An incompetent person should never take the place of a competent one whether male or female . This law will only weaken institutions if an incompetent female is put on a board for the sake of equality . Something similar happens in Malta where someone is appointed for his / her political views rather that his / her abilities and the public are left to suffer because of their inability to do their
Manuel Briffa
Nov 14th 2012, 15:12
How long will it be before we start saying 'Behind every successful woman, there is a man' ?
GL Calleja
Nov 14th 2012, 14:53
I am all for equality but having quotas is bad and a very dangerous idea. One should not be promoted because of sex,religion or colour. These are not qualifications, these are ways for disaster.I have seen it happen in other countries and in the end,the same results. People should be promoted the old fashion way, they have to earn it. But these days it seems,everybody wants something for nothing.
Aldo Chircop
Nov 14th 2012, 14:23
Disgusting. I'll believe these people really want 'equality' when they will start clamoring for even the hardest, most ungrateful jobs to go 50% to women - you know: garbage collection, heavy construction, dying from black lung after years in the coal mines, etc.
Funny how they only want quotas for women in the most glamorous jobs and not for jobs at the other end of the scale.
David Bawden
Nov 14th 2012, 14:15
Frankly I am entirely against quota's that cater to the politically correct world. In order for companies to improve and be competitive, they have to employ the best, whether it is a male or a female. I have worked for several female bosses and they were respected by their staff because they were the best, not because they were a token. in my opinion this does nothing more than denegrate women.
Mr G Naudi
Nov 14th 2012, 13:53
In my opinion this law is an insult to women and pure discrimination towards men. Ms. Reding should be asked to resign as she breached the first rule of the European Union. I am the first to affirm that women are as capable as men are but placing a cap of 40% is ridiculous. I would agree if there was a cap of 40% already in place for man. Now in an AGM we are not free to vote for who we want.
Justin Spiteri
Nov 14th 2012, 13:49
Why just company board members? Not operators, software developers, tour guides, construction workers etc etc?.
Manuel Briffa
Nov 14th 2012, 15:06
and why 40% and not 50% if they believe so much in equality?
r buttigieg
Nov 14th 2012, 19:24
cos those jobs do not constitute power, and femminists like Redding is power they are after not equality.
John Zammit
Nov 14th 2012, 13:34
I don't know why all this fuss about the qualities of women to day. There were times that at the University you was able to count women on the tips of one hand. Now over 50% are women. A look at Mater Dei staff doctors will give you the answer
Gervais M. Cishahayo
Nov 14th 2012, 13:20
Those who have never been at the receiving end of discrimination cannot appreciate how much hurtful it can be especially when a person is sidelined for unwritten subjective criterion while being equally or more qualified and experienced to hold a post. Discrimination has a negative connotation. Gender (or any type) discrimination is unacceptable and ought to be effectively remedied.
charles caruana
Nov 14th 2012, 13:06
So gender is an automatic qualification of competence and attainment in any sphere. To make sure we have gender equality in educational qualification, let's say, why not confer gratis honoris causa MBA's on 40% of women who don't have to bother with the hassle of years of study? Absurdity galore, a crazy form of inverted sexism, an insult to women's intelligence, political correctness gone mad.
Charmaine Monseigneur
Nov 14th 2012, 12:47
what is this reasoning??? i want to be there because i'm good at it not because there's a quota!!! how stupid ... we will end up with incompetent women at top positions because people have to employ them ... and this coming from a woman!
Anthony Galea
Nov 14th 2012, 14:51
Well said Ms.Monseigneur, there's no better feeling in life than setting yourself a goal and then finally achieving it , being asked to fill an empty seat !!! no thank you.
Clemens Hasengschwandtner
Nov 14th 2012, 12:31
It makes sense. In the end women make up more than 50% of our population. They have better grades in school - there are more women graduating from University than men but still they are hardly represented in the business world. Can't be that they are all too stupid - maybe less aggressive when elbowing their way to the top of the career ladder.
charles caruana
Nov 14th 2012, 13:20
Are you implying that modern women have a natural or culturally induced emotional deficiency, like lack of aggression, that must be made up by imposing gender quotas? And once comfortably lifted without effort by quotas to the top of the career ladder, this lack of aggression qualifies a woman better to compete in the harsh competitive world of the open marketplace? Bollocks!
Jessica Debattista
Nov 14th 2012, 13:59
Agree 100% with what you say, and in principle I agree that appointments should be based on merit not on gender. But women should be allowed to compete fairly in a man’s world. Discrimination against women in managerial positions is leading to the implementation of more drastic measures to ensure that women are given their due.
Robert Agius
Nov 14th 2012, 20:21
Fair enough, but I would also like to the the same quotas for garbage collectors too. otherwise we are discriminating between jobs....and as far as I know, all animals are equal
........not!
I Bugeja
Nov 14th 2012, 12:28
Why promote executive roles only for women?
A 40% minimum would pressure companies to employ women irrispective of whether women are good enough for the particular role.
Would this 40% apply to the other gender? A company in Malta favours the employment of women - and I heard the owner say it on Xarabank. Anyone questions why?
Any changes should look at the wider picture.
j brincat
Nov 14th 2012, 12:27
So, meritocracy has gone to the dogs!
(jb)
John iNGUANEZ
Nov 14th 2012, 13:19
I fully agree Mr Brincat! For example we had valid female candidates for MEPs. The majority of voters are women, so why these were not elected?
C Borg
Nov 14th 2012, 12:25
Such law should have been proposed for parliaments first, if they really feel that it is fair and beneficial!
Parliaments and cabinets are far from having a 60/40 proportion in gender
Paul Zammit
Nov 14th 2012, 12:21
If this ain't sexism ... then I really have no clue what is!! SHAME!
C Chircop
Nov 14th 2012, 12:17
As others mentioned, the appointments should be based on merit not on gender or other aspects (religious views, orientation, race). This ruling may give rise to ideas for other quotas in the future
walter camilleri
Nov 14th 2012, 12:14
This is an absolutely nonsensical "politically correct" proposal. If, in my business, I need a director to fill a specific post as a dirtector, I would seek exactly that person of whatever gender for that post. To do otherwise would be haramful to the business,.
Walter
Mark Anthony Fenech
Nov 14th 2012, 12:13
Jekk hemm kwota ta' 40% għan-nisa naħseb bix-xieraq li jkun hemm 40% kwota għall-irġiel ukoll min-naħa l-oħra. Plus li tagħti l-idea żbaljata li mara daħlet f'bord għax mara u mhux għall-ħiliet tagħha.
J Martinelli
Nov 14th 2012, 14:29
"Kwota ta 40% ghan-nisa - 40% ghall-irgiel - u l-kumplament ta 20% ghall-min?
U jekk ikun hemm kumpannija li ghandha Board maghmul minn rgiel u l-impjegati li ghandhom cans isiru membri tal-Board huma kollha rgiel, x'taghmel? 'Tisraq' nisa minn kumpanniji ohra anke bla esperjenza tax-xoghol partikolari, sempliciment biex timla il-kwota?
John Scerri
Nov 14th 2012, 12:11
Such quotas are created for two reasons.
1. To favour women .
2. To control men who reject having women in management posts.
A good initial interviewing technique would be to eliminate anything in CVs related to gender including full names of candidates, photos,
Then the interviewing board will select persons for interviews according to what is submitted in the CV.
Fabien Sant Fournier
Nov 14th 2012, 12:04
So female board members will have to live with the stigma of being percieved as having their position for what's between their legs rather than what's in their head..well done!
Mario Borg
Nov 14th 2012, 12:04
Gender trumps qualifications. Yet again, reason goes out of the window in the name of political correctness. Ridiculous!
V. Cauchi
Nov 14th 2012, 11:46
Yet another case of daunted thinking which should make us entertain second thoughts about the EU and its phobias.
Mark. Galea
Nov 14th 2012, 11:42
u l-meritocracy li ilu tant jaghjat biha l-leader fejn ser inhalluha?
R. Caruana
Nov 14th 2012, 11:38
Prepare for a big influx of U.S women! And well done Brussels for making males 2nd class citizens.
r buttigieg
Nov 14th 2012, 11:36
We should introduce quotas for transgenders now also
Ms. P.M Graham
Nov 14th 2012, 11:33
It's not a case of placing women onto Boards just for the sake of it. it's a case of IF a woman is more qualified or equally qualified, she shouldn't be passed over just because she is a woman and perhaps a mother or mother to be in the future.
charles caruana
Nov 14th 2012, 11:26
A piece of social engineering by the European liberal elite imposing their creed of political correctness on the majority. Why not suggest that 40% of electoral seats in parliament should be automatically, without even the bother of democratic voting, be assigned to women? Why forcibly impose their gender views on the 'ignorant' majority? Liberalism will self-distruct by its own contradictions.
Michael Borg
Nov 14th 2012, 11:23
why not let nature tajke it s course !!! if she is qualified and has what it takes she takes the job if not bad luck
PS it s been for since begining of time that males ( humans and animals) are Dominant species :)
Jurgen Farrugia
Nov 14th 2012, 11:15
Engaging employees, irrispe tive of sex should be made on merits and qualifications. Why for example many women cancidates in electiond are not elected, when there are more women voters than male?
E Gatt
Nov 14th 2012, 11:13
Directorships should be based on meritocracy not discrimination.
If a company feels that there aren’t enough suitably qualified women to fill the posts, they could nominate a woman regardless of her abilities (say an unskilled woman school leaver), pay her a nominal fee (added cost for business), then empower the management team (consisting of qualified people regardless of gender).
John Micallef
Nov 14th 2012, 11:12
So first without the need of having 40% of the employees women in a company, who are working as hard as the men... you pass a rule that tells you that women are weak in the workplace so they need a push to be up there without the need to work hard cause they cannot do it on their own?
Mr Pierre Portelli
Nov 14th 2012, 11:10
Ridiculous! Sexism at its worst! So now a candidate is to be favoured if a female...what next?
John Spiteri
Nov 14th 2012, 11:08
I never voted for Viviane Reding!
John Spiteri
Nov 14th 2012, 11:08
What about peoples rights to vote for their own democratic government. The Italian people are being governed by a dictatorship style of government. Civil rights to a free democratic society are being taken away from us and we are being governed by elitists!
John Spiteri
Nov 14th 2012, 10:52
Promotions should be based on merit and whether or not the person is able to do the job. Not on gender or whether some one is black or white, gay or straight. Totally ridiculous!
O Galea
Nov 14th 2012, 11:00
i totally agree... and I'm a woman.
Amante Reale
Nov 14th 2012, 11:02
Unfortunately that's how it currently is.
Ignoring that just makes sure that the current, ridiculous situation remains as is.
John Spiteri
Nov 14th 2012, 11:09
I didn't vote for Viviane Reding and she is dictating to us!
Anthony Paul Naudi
Nov 14th 2012, 11:28
i FULLY AGREE WITH YOU.
A.P.NAUDI
Joseph N. Attard
Nov 14th 2012, 10:49
May appear unfair at first glance. But it is well known that males do not like better qualified females in key positions, and have been obstructing them for a long time. The proposed law would put an end to this discriminatory attitude.
Amante Reale
Nov 14th 2012, 11:02
Oh look, a reasonable comment.
Finally.
gil falzon
Nov 14th 2012, 11:10
How do you support your claim? Can you name your source please?
John Micallef
Nov 14th 2012, 11:18
Did you ever work with different sexes? Did you ever see a group of females working together? and another group of males working with a female? Do you think that the males working with females group is the more hostile group?? If so, you don't know what you`re saying.
r buttigieg
Nov 14th 2012, 11:34
@ Amante Reale call it by whatever name you want it is still discrimination. How come that only managerial positions are taken into account? And if you take a quick glance in the history books, arbitrary decisions like these usually have the opposite effects over time
Christian Sciberras
Nov 14th 2012, 11:45
Joseph, so you want to combat unfair discrimination by increasing incompetent workforce?
I personally would resign from my position as soon as I learn someone incompetent was promoted to management on the grounds of gender - so the problem has become effectively worse, since management cannot complain because this law goes against them.
leo briffa
Nov 14th 2012, 12:42
i work in a dept where the managers and the majority of people under her are mostly female. I assure you that women hate men as much as men hate women when it comes to promotions. the only thing is that a woman's primary concern is the family and she will be on sick leave the minute someone of her family is sick, while a male will try to go to work. quotas are not really good but what can you do?
C Sant
Nov 14th 2012, 10:48
I consider this as an insult to women! Why should a woman be a board member just because she is a woman? If she merits the position and she is interested then she should be in that position.
Silvan Said
Nov 14th 2012, 10:48
How sad that such women feel so insecure about themselves and their abilities that they seek positive discrimination rather than meritocracy.
Amante Reale
Nov 14th 2012, 10:58
No, women don't feel insecure.
Men just bump them out of managerial positions.
You should read something about discrimination on the work place before posting.
Joe Felice-Pace
Nov 14th 2012, 10:38
And what about qualifications? This obviously applies for males also.
Franco Abela
Nov 14th 2012, 10:33
In my opinion this will lead to discrimination against males.
Because if for any reason women do not represent 40% of board members in a particular firm for example because there are not enough interested women in the position.... A qualifying male person will not be appointed!
Also, so we now have a minimum female %.... Is there a minimum % for males? To be fair it should be 40% for both!
Michael Borg
Nov 14th 2012, 10:47
well said ~~
Amante Reale
Nov 14th 2012, 10:55
lol what?
Women are discriminated against. If you stop that discrimination you don't get discrimination against men. You get equality.
C. Muscat
Nov 14th 2012, 10:59
'the under-represented sex'....so if there are 10 board members and 7 women are board members, men would be under-represented....in that case if a male and female apply for the post and have the same qualifications then the male would have to be preferred. That's how i understood it...correct me if i'm wrong.
Malcolm Mizzi
Nov 14th 2012, 11:14
@Amante Reale, so what you mean are double standards not equality
Mr.W Cassar
Nov 14th 2012, 10:32
Promotions should be on merit not on gender!
There are other ways to get women into the workplace this is not one of them.
Amante Reale
Nov 14th 2012, 10:56
As it is, promotions discriminate against women.
Stopping that discrimination is very important.
Mr.W Cassar
Nov 14th 2012, 11:19
@ Amante
That is a sweeping statement, and is not the case in all company's .
Of course I agree that stopping discrimination is very important, but this proposal is not the solution. This will be hard on businesses , and might build resentment amongst male counterparts.
Christian Sciberras
Nov 14th 2012, 11:47
Amante that is plain stupid. There are already anti-discrimination laws, just make use of them.
Jennifer Cosaitis
Nov 14th 2012, 14:52
Mr Sciberras proving discrimination is harder than you think. How can one effectively prove that a man with the same qualifications and similar experience was chosen over a woman simply because you are a woman (especially one in her early child-bearing years)? How can one effectively prove that she has been sidelined for a promotion granted to a male colleague instead?
Anthony Paris
Nov 14th 2012, 10:23
Always on the right side of history.
Please choose the reason of your report below: