Workplace quotas have been suggested for some time now, in an attempt to encourage gender equality in the workforce. The idea provokes strong arguments, which I will consider here.
On the one hand, it can be said that quotas would allow women to enter traditionally male professions, ranging from surgeon to airline pilot. This, it is argued, would expand the pool of people available to do these jobs, and reduce inequality between the sexes. Furthermore, supporters of quotas claim that the procedure would encourage women into the workforce generally, thus increasing family incomes and improving the standard of living of many people and families.
The other side of this debate is that gender quotas may simply be unenforceable in practical terms. This is because the number of women who wish to be (for instance) airline pilots or surgeons appears to be substantially lower than the number of men. This being the case, it would appear to be impossible to enforce a quota in many areas. A second point is that a quota should logically work for both genders, and thus men would have to be employed in traditional female roles such as primary teaching or nursing. Again, we would find ourselves asking men to take on jobs which they are not inclined to do. A final point is that the reduction of inequality should start at an early age, with equality of qualifications, career and life choices, rather than being enforced retrospectively by employers or the state.
To conclude, it appears that the aim of these quotas is admirable, but they are unworkable in realistic terms due to the differing wishes of the existing workforce. A longer-term and the more thoughtful programme is surely needed.
Workplace
quotas
have
been suggested
for
some
time
now
, in an attempt to encourage gender equality in the workforce. The
idea
provokes strong arguments, which I will consider here.
On the one hand, it can
be said
that
quotas
would
allow
women to enter
traditionally
male professions, ranging from surgeon to airline pilot. This, it
is argued
, would expand the pool of
people
available to do these jobs, and
reduce
inequality between the sexes.
Furthermore
, supporters of
quotas
claim that the procedure would encourage women into the workforce
generally
,
thus
increasing family incomes and improving the standard of living of
many
people
and families.
The other side of this debate is that gender
quotas
may
simply
be unenforceable in practical terms. This is
because
the number of women who wish to be (
for instance
) airline pilots or surgeons appears to be
substantially
lower than the number of
men
. This being the case, it would appear to be impossible to enforce a
quota
in
many
areas. A second point is that a
quota
should
logically
work for both genders, and
thus
men
would
have to
be employed
in traditional female roles such as primary teaching or nursing. Again, we would find ourselves asking
men
to take on jobs which they are not inclined to do. A final point is that the reduction of inequality should
start
at an early age, with equality of qualifications, career and life choices,
rather
than
being enforced
retrospectively
by employers or the state.
To conclude
, it appears that the aim of these
quotas
is admirable,
but
they are unworkable in realistic terms due to the differing wishes of the existing workforce. A longer-term and the more thoughtful
programme
is
surely
needed.