Live data from Hacker News

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

money.cnn.com

61–70 of 128 posts

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

#61
How does something like this get implemented? A company has limited control over the gender composition of the board. The aggregate actions of myriad outside and independent shareholders may not align to produce the necessary result in aggregate. Furthermore, virtually all of these companies are foreign corporations, California has limited ability to modify the intrinsic nature of the board construction process -- it has no jurisdiction. The only obvious escape hatch that make this reliably executable in any sane legal framework is to guarantee that the CEO is female. Or to have a male member of the board exercise the "identify as female" clause if the shareholders in aggregate don't produce a board composition that meets this law. The whole thing is a setup for some absurd theatrics in the board room. I fail to see how this will produce a positive result for anyone.

That said, I am skeptical that this passes Constitutional muster. California has no jurisdiction over corporate law in the rest of the US, and (for good reason) nobody incorporates in California such that they would have jurisdiction. This is a publicity stunt that will stir up outrage by various factions and accomplish nothing.

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

#62
post #3

Shouldn'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.

[deleted]

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

#63
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If you mean it, as in get a statement from a psychologist, and are executing a meaningful transition plan, your chances are good.

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

#64
post #38

Honestly surprised at how many people are posting comments about this. You know you'll end up on some list, right? Maybe you think it's ok to debate this kind of measure now, but the line will keep moving. In three years you may have people scouring your internet history for past wrongthink to deny you that promotion, or to get rid of you. In five years, machine learning algorithms may take your comments as input for…

This reads like the summary of an episode of Black Mirror.

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

#65
post #21
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.

Seeing “quotas” in action already I can tell you they have the opposite effect than desired or imagined. Until now some people could imagine they didn’t get the job but she did because she’s a woman. Now they know and they’ll always hold this kind of law as proof. This does nothing to further women’s rights but certainly does a lot to discredit the ones that deseved to be there by casting a shadow over whether they’r…

Did school desegregation work?

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

#66
post #38

Honestly surprised at how many people are posting comments about this. You know you'll end up on some list, right? Maybe you think it's ok to debate this kind of measure now, but the line will keep moving. In three years you may have people scouring your internet history for past wrongthink to deny you that promotion, or to get rid of you. In five years, machine learning algorithms may take your comments as input for…

This reads like the summary of an episode of Black Mirror.

It does, and it's shocking and saddening that it's not unrealistic.

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

#67

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.

Ignoring the intention, California is littered with big ideas that fell on their face months/years later. But that's the next guy's problem.

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

#68

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.

If it's a start towards that, it's anything but good. Do you realize how many protected classes there are? And I'm sure that I could find a larger one than women.

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

#69
post #65
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seeing “quotas” in action already I can tell you they have the opposite effect than desired or imagined. Until now some people could imagine they didn’t get the job but she did because she’s a woman. Now they know and they’ll always hold this kind of law as proof. This does nothing to further women’s rights but certainly does a lot to discredit the ones that deseved to be there by casting a shadow over whether they’r…

Did school desegregation work?

This isn't desegregation.

This is a law requiring employers to discriminate based on gender.

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

#70

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 dest…

Hey to those down voters, maybe stop by an explain your position! I'd love a conversation.
Post reply on HN