Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards
1–10 of 128 posts
Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards
#2[deleted]
Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards
#3Shouldn't they also be required to have at least one black person, one Asian, one gay, one handicapable person and one non-cisgender member?
Imagine the job prospects of your average handicapped, transgender blasian lesbian? You could have your pick of any company board.
I kid, but I can't help but imagine there will be some unintended consequences of legislation like this.
Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards
#4Shouldn't they also be required to have at least one black person, one Asian, one gay, one handicapable person and one non-cisgender member? Imagine the job prospects of your average handicapped, transgender blasian lesbian? You could have your pick of any company board. I kid, but I can't help but imagine there will be some unintended consequences of legislation like this.
I agree. I support the principle behind this legislation, but it seems to set a dangerous precedent for giving the state government the authority to mandate demographics.
Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards
#5Does this mean that all-female boards are also forbidden?
Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards
#6There's no way this doesn't backfire in the long term. We're gonna see "yes women" added to boards which will discredit the women who are there for reasons other than to just check a box.
Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards
#7Why isn't the excuse of "representing the public" used to require certain members have a particular religion or race as well? What about income?
Board members are about as far from representing society as you can get (and that's not the purpose of a board anyway) so I don't understand why this is being mandated. Seems like a strategy for cheap political points rather than any kind of well-reasoned reform.
Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards
#8This makes no sense.
So a company that has a target market of men must have a woman on the board? So an all woman board will be legal?
How female is female enough for them? Can someone just identify as a woman, or will there be a mandatory screening of what's between their legs (or what their DNA has)?
I predict the outcome will just be companies will move headquarters to another state (already happening because of taxes!) and/or the company will go private.
Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards
#9Does this mean that all-female boards are also forbidden?
I haven't been able to find the law itself to read it (probably not looking the in the right places), but all the reporting on it says that they must have at least 1 (or 2 or 3 depending size of the board) female member. I'm not sure how that's going to play out in the long run if it's actually worded that way since I suspect it would run afoul of federal EEOC set of regulations/laws. It'll be interesting to see the law itself and how it shakes out in the courts (regardless of how you feel about this law, I'm 110% certain it will end up in the courts).
Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards
#10Does this mean that all-female boards are also forbidden?
I'm curious how trans people are counted as well. Say you have 1 Cis female, 1 cis male, 1 trans male, 1 trans female. Can the fifth person be a cis male or trans male?