In the world today, there are certain statements, certain viewpoints, which have become popularly accepted to be “true”. But most of the time, what is “true” is only because of societal beliefs and pressures, reinforced by the mainstream media. And in the world today, those with alternative or heterodox views are often pilloried or “no-platformed” into silence.

At International Business Review, we believe that this should not be the case. We believe that in order for business and economies to run successfully, it requires for different viewpoints and even uncomfortable things to be heard and said. And that is why we are introducing Global Perspectives, a section where our readers write in to share their views on things affecting the world.

The Right to Hire

By Susan J. Millis

Director of Attorney Recruiting at Rifkind Consulting in the USA – writes about why governments should not interfere in voluntary contracts between entrepreneurs and employees.

In my many years as an executive recruiter I have found that the most difficult task is to gain a thorough, indeed even an accurate picture of an Entrepreneur’s needs, (job description), whereas a detailed conversation about a Candidate’s background and career moves, reveals their unique character and their past performance quality, as a best predictor of their future performance potential.

What I realised early on was that the word unique played preeminent in the “hiring-dance.” Candidate equality, if they are ever equal before the Entrepreneur, is a condition as fleeting as a sneeze! Something will quickly tip the balance of preference in the eyes of the Entrepreneur. If I bring multiple Candidates to the interview table, the Entrepreneur can better put value to the trade-offs to be made with each, and in post interview conversations, each Candidate shares with me something additional about the scope of the job. Often the scope changes because of a Candidate’s unique offering.

Multitudes of factors are to be considered by both our “characters”; so many options to be narrowed down to a final decision, and yet magnificently, without a single outside interference, needs converge. The Entrepreneur accepts all the risks that come with the hiring, and the Candidate accepts all the responsibilities that come with the job. Sometimes, there are bells ringing, and fist-pumping with joy, but sometimes compromises will force that emotion to wait for the 6-month review. This is, as the brilliant Thomas Sowell unequivocally states, “There are no solutions, only trade-offs.”

Executive recruiters do not interfere with voluntary actions and are unwise to favour any Candidate, because we do not rule the mind of the Entrepreneur, nor know the chemistry between Entrepreneur and Candidate. If even this closest outsider to the engagement does not have critical knowledge, how then can a government presume to interfere in unique voluntary actions and contracts?

And that’s why I would ask the government. “Will you deny the validity of this voluntary outcome? For what reason, by what right, for whose benefit, and at what cost? If not you, to whom would you give that power to deny voluntary contract, and if you make a poor decision what is the price you or your surrogate will pay for your lack of judgment?”

“And, if you are “right” to make decisions for another, because you think they are “right” decisions, where does your knowledge end and your ineptitude (power), begin? Do you claim the right to speak for one man, two men, 20 men, 2,000, 2,000,000, 200,000,000? Will you not have to enlist and train multitudes to do your “right” work? Who will pay you to interfere, and how will you enforce your decisions?”

James Buchanan wrote that, “Profit-seeking entrepreneurs continuously move resources to more valuable uses, and in the process create economic growth and development, which unintentionally leads to ‘socially beneficial consequences.” To this end, the Entrepreneur must be free to hire, without intervention, the people whom he believes are ‘right’.

I remain eternally in praise of free-market capitalism as the inimitable economic system that cherishes the individual. Now, as in all of human history, minorities rail. However, Ayn Rand said it best: “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”

Not Necessarily Stronger
By David Gerhard (DG) Ulrich

A Consulting Quality Manager from Germany – highlights the problems behind the European Union and Angela Merkel.

The President of European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, recently congratulated the Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel for her 15 years in power and praised her for helping to make Europe stronger.

Of course, when Lagarde says Europe, she really means the European Union, and this is where I disagree with her sentiment. Contrary to what we have been taught to believe, the EU has not made Europe stronger. What it is, instead, is a bureaucratic monster that has eaten into our sovereignty and which creates more problems than it is able to handle.

The issuing of Eurobonds, which have been introduced with corona used as a convenient excuse for doing so, is a case in point. They will only increase our debt, which along with unfettered immigration and the totalitarian attitudes of Brussels are why the citizens of the UK voted to leave the EU. In my opinion, Brexit is inevitable and welcomed, and Germany should follow suit.

Nor has the EU united Europe. In fact, it has divided Europe, and I can see this from my many friends from East European countries who express dissatisfaction and ask me, why do we do handle things like we do? The problem is that these grievances are never reported because the media are selective on what they choose to report, and they are the ones with a pro-EU, liberal agenda.

The media coverage of Angela Merkel is a good example of this. In my opinion, she has not been making good decisions for Germany. And if you look beyond the media coverage, you will find her reign to be exhausting. If we react as she does by waiting for problems to be resolved by themselves, we will soon be unemployed.

However, back to the EU. In my opinion, the EU should be an economic association, which should work together on issues such as border management, defence, the fight against crime and epidemic prevention.

As things are though, all we have in the EU is panic mode. And I for one don’t like to put my fate into the hands of people who need more money to make up the shortfall when a member leaves, who announce big plans even though they are not even able to agree on uniform sockets, and who allow themselves to be blackmailed by truant children and blindly do things for the sake of doing things.

The European Union would not survive an independent audit.

Equal Access, Not Equal Outcome
By Kathy Graham

A Executive Assistant from Canada – expounds on why mandatory quotas for women in management roles is a bad idea.

So, Germany’s government has decided to introduce a mandatory quota where boards of listed companies that have more than three members include at least one woman. I can’t possibly be the only person who believes this isn’t a good thing.

Men and women aren’t interchangeable parts. Equally educated, doesn’t mean equally qualified, nor does it mean an equal fit. Men and women are different. Men and women often follow different life paths. That’s not bad or good…it simply is.

Replace “woman” with “short”, “tall”, “black”, “old”, “young”, “brunette”, “ginger”, “blue eyes”. “brown eyes” etc, it makes just as much sense. None.

I believe in merit and that companies have the right to pick the individual who is the best fit for them at the time of hiring, without the added pressure of having to hire female, hire black, hire disabled, hire short, hire tall, hire two spirit binary fluid, hire young, hire old, hire male, hire refugee, hire (insert identity politics candidate here).

I believe in equal access, not equal outcome. Constantly pairing us up against each other in these faux couplings of black v white, brown v black, yellow v white, female v male, young v old rich v poor, high school v college/university, white collar v blue collar, etc, is divisive and doesn’t help improve us as individual, nor as society.

There are significantly more men being passed over than women.

Yet, nobody ever talks about the qualified men who don’t get the senior management jobs. Nobody ever talks about the countless men who don’t become the CFO, CEO, CTO. Nobody ever talks about the men who don’t make it on the board.

If a man gets passed over for a CEO job, what does he do? He can choose to stay in a Sr VP or VP role and bide his time until retirement. Or he can look for a CEO role at another company. Or he can start a new company where he’s the CEO/ Or he can become a consultant. Or he can retire and volunteer in his community. Or some other thing.

Now, replace “man” with “woman” and replace “he” with “she”. Women do the exact same thing as the men who got passed over.

Mature high powered women and men tend to hire those who are competent and a good fit for the job within the constraints of budget and resources available.

So, if the high powered women who get passed over, a) settle, b) get CEO role elsewhere, c) start their own company, then where is the push for more women here and more women there coming from? Because that push isn’t organic, when the women in the game are taking action.

If the government wants x # represented, then the government can do so within their areas of hiring. However, it will appear to go against anti-discriminatory laws.

I don’t like being yanked around and manipulated by social engineer freaks, who must be sociopaths as their meddling doesn’t raise us up to be better and improve. If what is being offered isn’t an improvement, then why is it being offered? We’re being used to sow discord. I’d rather have an organic garden with good people.

Let businesses do what works for them.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp

Leave a comment

Open chat
Hello, how can we help you?