Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards

money.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 128 posts

Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards

#41

Post by arcticbull »

I (a man) for one am happy about this decision. Not because this, the intermediate state, is one I'm happy with, but because it creates female role models that girls can look up to. This in turn will show girls that it's something they can achieve and aspire to, and ideally, soon, this legislation won't be required anymore. It's a bootstrapping tool.

We're talking about a single board member. This isn't going to destroy companies. It's not going to force companies to do without the best and brightest, that's incredibly hyperbolic. If you really want to add a specific man, add a seat, or drop someone.

Especially since as the article points out, companies with female board members tend to be more profitable [1]. Correlation is not causation. On the other hand, there's no apocalyptic collapse coming because they let a lady into the boardroom, my lord, what's becoming of California?! I do believe I've got a case of the vapors.

It's really amazing how little empathy is being displayed here. I'm sure each of you would feel differently if 90% of board members were women. Maybe it's just the demographics on here? Maybe it's because as engineers we live in a world we can control by simply moving a letters around on a computer screen. The real world, society, is messy. It's not as simple as declaring meritocracy and suddenly equality arrives. Change requires making uncomfortable decisions, making compromises and taking real steps. And yes, rolling them back if they don't work out as planned.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/41365364

Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards

#42

Post by Kalium »

neonate wrote: post #32
doodliego wrote: post #27

Aren't most corporations incorporated in Delaware for tax reasons anyway?

Is incorporated-in the same as headquartered-in? for the purposes of this law?

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

> 301.3. (a) No later than the close of the 2019 calendar year, a publicly held domestic or foreign corporation whose principal executive offices, according to the corporation’s SEC 10-K form, are located in California shall have a minimum of one female director on its board. A corporation may increase the number of directors on its board to comply with this section.

Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards

#43

Post by patrickg_zill »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #23

Fascinating to see all comments against this at the moment. Some level of mandatory female board presence seems to work OK in plenty of places elsewhere in the world without a great backlash. No visible campaigns to repeal because of the great damage or tokenism that's resulted.

Of these companies how many are competitive with American business?

Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards

#44

Post by stmfreak »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #23

Fascinating to see all comments against this at the moment. Some level of mandatory female board presence seems to work OK in plenty of places elsewhere in the world without a great backlash. No visible campaigns to repeal because of the great damage or tokenism that's resulted.

This outlaws freedom of association. If I am a woman creating a company for women’s products and want an all woman board, why should that be a problem or any business of the government? If the shareholders don’t like it, they can vote in/out whomever they want.

And if an all woman board is okay, then what hypocrisy is this new law?

Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards

#45

Post by testfoobar »

Requiring a private entity to spend resources in favor of one class of citizens is almost certainly unconstitutional. There are many actionable avenues available to California to promote equality in workplaces, by signing this soon to be struck down law, California’s leaders are exploiting politica division for political gain. Politicians going to politician.

Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards

#47

Post by skybrian »

mooseburger wrote: post #34
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #23

Fascinating to see all comments against this at the moment. Some level of mandatory female board presence seems to work OK in plenty of places elsewhere in the world without a great backlash. No visible campaigns to repeal because of the great damage or tokenism that's resulted.

Which are the other places in the world that have done this?

Belgium, France, Germany, Iceland, India, Israel, Italy, Norway and Spain have quotas according to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_representation_on_corpo...

Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards

#48

Post by j0nathanB »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #11

This is one hell of an overreach and will absolutely not improve the problem that it tries to solve. I am against identity politics on principle, but a much more amenable solution would have been something like offering tax incentives for companies who do. But aside from being way too heavy handed for a state, are they planning to do this for every “protected” class? Why only women?

> Why only women?

Women are the largest "protected" class and the most visible, so a good start on getting "protected" classes on more equal footing.

Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards

#49

Post by arcticbull »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #18
ajspencer wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Agreed. Allowing the governments to dictate the demographic makeup of private organizations is just asking for trouble. If we continue down this path I'm sure people will screw it up and use it for bad things (like universally bad, not just considered bad by the affected minority) within a generation or two.

So how about we change it then instead of giving up an not tying because something might happen?

Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards

#50

Post by obpacheco »

roenxi wrote: post #37
hueving wrote: post #7

Why 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.

A slippery slope argument seems really justified here as this legislation applies to boards that are quite small in size. If women need this special advantage, we only have to find a few other deserving minorities (race, religion and age seem like reasonable choices) before it is illegal to use merit as the first criteria for making up a corporate board. There is also a real concern with regulation like this is that…

Just as a point of contention if I hypothetically identify as a trans women can I count as a women in the opinion of california
Post reply on HN