Earlier quoted context omitted.
Edit: deleted because original comment has changed.
"he" because the article says "all-white-male"
[deleted]
California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America
121–130 of 208 posts
Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that someone must be fired because he is a white male
It doesn't mean that at all. You can hire a black person and not fire anyone. They may choose to fire someone, but given these are board positions, and it literally takes just one person -- they can easily accommodate simply hiring someone.
Oh, so if, hypothetically, someone did have to be fired to be replaced by a non-white-male, would you be against it?
Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America
#123Road the hell is paved with good intentions. As much as I support equality and diversity, I'm even more strongly opposed government over-reach. The state shouldn't have a say in who gets a job at a private (non owned by state) company. As the article state, I hope this will get over-turned by the courts. This would set a bad precedent. If the state can dictate the kind of person gets a highly coveted job, what else c…
I'm not sure whether I agree with the CA policy. But this argument against it is extremely unconvincing. It's almost word-for-word what segregationists argued against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. e.g. https://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2014/06/barry-goldwater-decla... "The two portion so this bill to which I have constantly and consistently voiced objections, and which are of such overriding significance that they are dete…
But this CA law is basically the exact opposite of the 1964 Civil Rights act, which says you can not discriminate based on gender or race in areas like housing and hiring.
This law is saying that you must take into account race and gender in your hiring decisions.
Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America
#124The funny thing is that any actually bigoted company has a built in out. "Johnson, as the youngest member, the board has decided that you must identify as a woman for regulatory compliance." What are woke progressives going to do, deny that a man can identify as whatever gender she wants?
[deleted]
Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
Federal government already says you can't discriminate. They aren't saying, "you have to hire this person". They're saying you can't hire exclusively this type of person that currently dominates the top of society. Given that these boardrooms don't diversify themselves, what is the actual problem with it?
> They aren't saying, "you have to hire this person". They're saying you can't hire exclusively this type of person that currently dominates the top of society. No, that's not what Federal anti-discrimination law says. It only says you can't refuse to hire certain people on the basis of a protected characteristic (of which race is one, but not the only one). It says nothing about refusing to hire certain people for o…
> No, that's not what Federal anti-discrimination law says.
I wasn't referring to Fed Discrimination Laws. I was referring to the California law. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
> The people who are attracted to government jobs where they get to tell other people what to do aren't benevolent helpers; they're people who like power. All history shows that such people are precisely the people you don't want telling other people what to do.
Why do you think that's not already the world we live in? Police officers are the epitome of this. I'm just not convinced things get much worse with this.
> The second problem is that dictating that people of certain races must belong to corporate boards is just as wrong as dictating that people of certain races can't belong to corporate boards.
I disagree with this. They are vastly different. One is completely excluding a group from the table. The other is ensuring that a group has a spot at the table. And boards, in particular, are the type of position where there are many qualified people. If we did a controlled study I'd be shocked if there was a negative difference in performance of companies with Black board members.
> The only real way to fix corporate governance is for people who would do better jobs than the board members of current corporations to form their own corporations and out-compete the current corporations.
In order to do that you have to fix a bunch of other stuff in society as well. Companies don't live in a meritocratic bubble.
Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to think that hiring decisions aren't already largely made on the basis of race and gender.
I'm baffled how one could think that statement is any sort of defense for allowing a government to dictate racial quotas for private company hiring.
The only way you could be baffled is if you're on the receiving end of such benefit.
Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America
#127Road the hell is paved with good intentions. As much as I support equality and diversity, I'm even more strongly opposed government over-reach. The state shouldn't have a say in who gets a job at a private (non owned by state) company. As the article state, I hope this will get over-turned by the courts. This would set a bad precedent. If the state can dictate the kind of person gets a highly coveted job, what else c…
Federal government already says you can't discriminate. They aren't saying, "you have to hire this person". They're saying you can't hire exclusively this type of person that currently dominates the top of society. Given that these boardrooms don't diversify themselves, what is the actual problem with it?
If you have an open board seat, and your other five positions are currently held by "white males", you are now forced to discriminate based on race/gender. By law you would not be allowed to appoint a qualified potential candidate because they have the "wrong" physical attributes. It's abhorrent.
Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't mean that at all. You can hire a black person and not fire anyone. They may choose to fire someone, but given these are board positions, and it literally takes just one person -- they can easily accommodate simply hiring someone.
Oh, so if, hypothetically, someone did have to be fired to be replaced by a non-white-male, would you be against it?
If that was the literal rule (you had to fire a white male) then yes, I would be against it. The intent isn't to be spiteful against white males. It's to give space at the table for other groups that are intentionally excluded due to their race.
Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America
#129I couldn’t think of a more Californian approach to fixing racial inequity. Instead of providing more economic opportunities for minorities to become executives, just make it illegal for the companies to not make them executives. Meanwhile, continue your state tradition of gentrifying diverse neighborhoods and letting techies take over San Francisco and LA. I think a lot of these dumb laws get pushed through because f…
If your belief is minorites aren't promoted by all-white executive boards, this is a very rapid fix that could work across all levels within a company. Worth a shot.
Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
A national government requiring that hiring decisions be made on the basis of gender or race, and the response is "what is the actual problem with it?"
You seem to think that hiring decisions aren't already largely made on the basis of race and gender.
Great, where's the California bill that outlaws all Black boards or all Hispanic boards?