Post #3 Gender equality in the workplace

This article touches on a topic that should be addressed utilizing our government and laws; however, it poorly represents the true issue. I believe the issue that government is able to address is the unfair practice of gender pay discrimination. When a person of any gender, age, race, or religion is discriminated against strictly because of these factors then I believe the company should be held liable. The issue arises when the government begins to enact laws that force companies to hire solely based on someone’s gender, age, race, or religion.
This article mainly focuses on the idea that women are discriminated against in the work force. While this can be the case people are discriminated against for many reasons. Should we then write laws forcing companies to hire a certain number of people because of their race, age, or religion? Where does the control the government over companies stop?
The article misuses statists to prove its point. The article states that, “the Center for Work-Life Policy demonstrate that while 47% of college-educated entry-level corporate professionals are female, women comprise a mere 21% of senior executives, 17% of Congress (PDF link) and 15% of board directors.” The 47% represents the number of entry-level corporate professionals. This means that almost half of the people being hired today for entry-level positions are women. This number cannot be used to compare the number of women that are eligible to be senior executives, Congressmen, or board directors. This statistic only shows that 47% of people being hired for these positions are women, nothing more. Where are the statistics that show the number of qualified men to the number of qualified women who are applying for these positions. Statistically if 100 men are applying for a position to every 47 women it would more than likely show that men are being hired more than women.
In response to the Contract for Equalities stated in the article I believe some points are valid while others will cripple the future of companies. The first point addressed is that, “Half the slate of candidates would have to be female and any company which had a board made up of fewer than 30% women would have to set out what steps it was taking to remedy the situation.” There is nothing that shows just because of someone’s gender they are qualified to be a board member. This type of law would only serve to diminish the quality of people serving on the board. With a law like this in place would not one also be needed that at least 50% of the board member be men? If not, are we not beginning to discriminate against men?
The point made in the second bullet about legislation, requiring any employer who loses an employment tribunal case on grounds of gender pay discrimination to undergo a compulsory pay audit covering the entire company, is not a bad idea. The third point both the fathers and mothers being able to take off after a child has been born is better than a law only enforcing companies to insure this for the mother; however, this is not in the best interest of companies. The idea in the forth bullet point is also not in the best interest of the company. If companies are forced to comply with what is best only for the employee then companies will cease to be profitable. The fifth point is discriminatory in itself. It represents only one facet of those who could benefit from a mentoring program such as this. I have never understood why it is acceptable to discriminate against a certain venue only to benefit the party being discriminated against.