But I thought gender was a social construct. So why include quotas based on gender?
Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards
91–100 of 128 posts
Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards
#92This is only going to lead to "We don't have a female, let's just find one and put her there because the law says so." First and hopefully last state, but I'm not optimistic...
No it's not, because board members are important. The conversation, at worst, will be "how can we find the best qualified woman we can to fill the board seat required." They can expand the board to meet this requirement so they won't be unable to hire anyone.
How does the law prevent the founders from putting some of their wives to the board?
Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it's not, because board members are important. The conversation, at worst, will be "how can we find the best qualified woman we can to fill the board seat required." They can expand the board to meet this requirement so they won't be unable to hire anyone.
How does the law prevent the founders from putting some of their wives to the board?
It doesn't. Looking the other members of the board in the eye and telling them you couldn't find anyone in the world more qualified for one of the most important jobs at YOUR company - responsible for hiring and firing the CEO - than your girlfriend or wife based on no other parameters should stop you from doing that. I'd imagine you'd have a difficult time raising money too - let alone the publicity.
The law doesn't stop me from running each board meeting in the form of interpretive dance, either. As a board member, I would likely seek to fire that founder immediately in either case.
Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards
#94They should have went all the way: 50% women, 10% african-americans, 5% asian, 5% choose-some-other-race, of which 5% must be LGBT, 20% catholic, 50% christian, 25% none/agnostic/atheist, 5% "other" and 99% should NOT be in the 1% :-)
I suspect a working-class Lesbian Asian Hindu is gonna find themselves in demand!
Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Hey let's cross that bridge when we get there maybe?
Your response to blatant hypocrisy is really just saying it doesn't matter right now?
Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Which one?
Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
How about we don't pass blatantly sexist laws in the first place instead?
What is the problem you're 'trying' to fix that doesn't apply to any other minority?
Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards
#98Why 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…
> I wouldn't be surprised if most of the people who object to this are sexists.
What? You point out the problems with how dumb this law is and then turn around and accuse anyone of objecting to it being a sexist?
Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
So how about we change it then instead of giving up an not tying because something might happen?
How about we don't pass blatantly sexist laws in the first place instead? What is the problem you're 'trying' to fix that doesn't apply to any other minority?
(1) It's sexist in an attempt to solve sexism in the same way that affirmative action is racist in an attempt to solve racism. Sometimes, the ends justify the means. Unless you believe that only old white men are capable of being on the board you should ask yourself why only old white men are on the board. What is it about society, or the system, that has gotten us to where we are? What if we tried this and see what happens? If it doesn't work maybe let's roll it back? I do know for sure doing nothing won't change anything, at least based on the trendline.
It's really easy to sit there and say this law is sexist if you stand to benefit from the status quo. I'm not sure you do, I know nothing about you - this is an observation in general.
(2) We can have two problems. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to solve one. This is akin to the argument that California should be dealing with the homeless instead of banning straws. It should be, and is, doing both. We can have two problems. We can work on multiple problems simultaneously. And having two problems isn't a license to sit on your hands and do nothing until you have a way to solve both at the same time. Further, if this works remarkably well in some way maybe it'll be a good template for future change? Or a lesson as to why we shouldn't do it this way.
Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey let's cross that bridge when we get there maybe?
Your response to blatant hypocrisy is really just saying it doesn't matter right now?
Ah I see what you're saying. That's fair criticism, let me try again.
This does only apply to publicly traded companies, and lots of other employment legislation does similarly limit association within companies does it not? For instance, discrimination on the basis of race or gender in the hiring process is illegal (making exception on the basis of “bona-fide occupational qualifications”). Setting aside the gender component here, it would seem that this is settled law, does it not? It appears if the argument is restriction of free association, that ship sailed, and you do not have that right at work on an absolute basis.
Is it hypocritical? Yes. Without sounding like a broken record, I don't believe that only old white men are capable of being on boards, yet they're massively overrepresented, which tells me there's some other intrinsic issue with the system or society that is creating this environment. I support this measure as an attempt to rebalance the scales. To me, the ends justify the means. If it doesn't work out, it can of course be rolled back.
Hypocrisy isn't illegal. I'm not sure whether this runs afoul of any other legislation but I'd imagine that's been thought through.
To me, the argument is: "if I am a woman creating a company for women’s products and want an all woman board..." -- you're not. Statistically, nobody is. That's the problem. If they were, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. And when that changes, we can absolutely revisit this.