California Requires Women on Corp Boards by law.

[CapnAwesome]

What bullshit.

I'm all for making sure hiring practices are not sexist. But I don't support having separate slots in roles that discriminate.

I think the logic is supposed to be that if there aren't many/any women doing a job, then the hiring practices are sexist. This is not necessarily true. It may be that women just don't generally want to do that job, or that those that do don't happen to be as good at it as the men who apply.

An absence of women may give grounds to investigate for sexist hiring practices; but you don't eliminate sexism with more sexism.

Fuck all this forced diversity. As my hero Noel Plum point out: no one is trying to make sure lots of men go into nursing. They don't give a shit.

We aren't talking about mandating women do jobs they aren't as capable of doing. Like they aren't saying half of oil workers or firefighters be women. Board members should be half women anyway if things were working well and they were choosing the most qualified candidates.

I'm not sure what the alternative thought process is. You either believe that the status quo is okay, and by coincidence it's just a bunch of old white dudes who are the best at running pretty much everything or you believe that it is a problem but that problem should be dealt with in a different way. Which sort of reminds me of other arguments against forced intergration, like we want to get more women on boards, but we need to do it the right way.

I think the important question is will this be good for California bussiness? I would argue yes. Forced intergrations of various kinds have a history of success.

While it doesn't seem fair, what actually happens is that companies are forced to look at a wider variety of candidates and because of that end up with better people.

Example Let's say there are 10 board slots and 100 potential candidates, 50 women and 50 men. So chances are that it would split pretty evenly does the middle in terms of who is the smartest, hardest working, best to run a company. Even if 6 men were the best to 4 women, you'd still end up with better people overall if you forced.a 5-5 split than if you kept the current split, which is 9-1

To not see this as an instant improvement means you'd have to believe that the 9th best guy is more qualified than the second best woman. Which is nonsense. So this law is an instant improvement is the higher functioning of bussiness.

[Angrboda]

"By the end of July 2021, a minimum of two women must sit on boards with five members, and there must be at least three women on boards with six or more members."

Gov Brown states "...recent events in Washington, D.C. — and beyond — make it crystal clear that many are not getting the message."

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-c...story.html#

I fail to see the logic other than misguided forced diversity. This is not something that should be legislated. Maybe I'm just a C. Pig.

What say you?

I suppose it depends upon whether you see it as affirmative action, or as simple discriminatory hiring quotas. There's also a much broader argument based on the responsibilities of boards to their companies, and to people as a whole, which I won't go into, other than to drop the following:

MYTH NO. 2

Corporations must be run to maximize value for shareholders.

This is an almost universal belief among corporate executives and directors — that it is their principal mission and legal obligation to deliver the highest possible return to their shareholders. The economist Milton Friedman first declared in the 1970s that the “one social responsibility of business [is] . . . to increase its profits,” but the corporate raiders of the 1980s were the ones who forced that view on executives and directors, threatening to take their companies or fire them if they didn’t go along. Since then, “maximizing shareholder value” has been routinely used to justify layoffs and plant closings, rationalize an orgy of stock buybacks, and defend elaborate corporate schemes to avoid paying taxes. It is now widely taught by business schools, ruthlessly demanded by Wall Street’s analysts and “activist” investors, and lavishly reinforced by executive pay packages tied to profits and share prices.

In fact, corporations are free to balance the interests of shareholders with those of customers, workers or the public, as they did routinely before the 1980s, when companies were loath to boost profits if it meant laying off workers or cutting their benefits. Legally, corporations can be formed for any purpose. Executives and directors owe their fiduciary duty to the corporation, which is not owned by shareholders, as widely believed, but owns itself (in the same way that nobody “owns” you or me). The only time a corporation is obligated to maximize its share price is when it puts itself up for sale.

Washington Post | Five myths about capitalism

[GrandizerII]

Plenty of women capable of being good leaders and handling chief managerial/executive roles, but it almost always seems to be old white men (as someone else pointed out) who are in these committees, and it's clearly not because they are more capable than women at being good leaders/decision-makers. It's often mainly about networking [with other old white men] and/or shoving your way upwards to get to these positions, rather than because of skills or talents.

It's also pretty clear that lots of women would not mind to partake in these roles. Especially when society doesn't keep lecturing them that these jobs are not for them.

[robvalue]

What bullshit.

I'm all for making sure hiring practices are not sexist. But I don't support having separate slots in roles that discriminate.

I think the logic is supposed to be that if there aren't many/any women doing a job, then the hiring practices are sexist. This is not necessarily true. It may be that women just don't generally want to do that job, or that those that do don't happen to be as good at it as the men who apply.

An absence of women may give grounds to investigate for sexist hiring practices; but you don't eliminate sexism with more sexism.

Fuck all this forced diversity. As my hero Noel Plum point out: no one is trying to make sure lots of men go into nursing. They don't give a shit.

We aren't talking about mandating women do jobs they aren't as capable of doing. Like they aren't saying half of oil workers or firefighters be women. Board members should be half women anyway if things were working well and they were choosing the most qualified candidates.

I'm not sure what the alternative thought process is. You either believe that the status quo is okay, and by coincidence it's just a bunch of old white dudes who are the best at running pretty much everything or you believe that it is a problem but that problem should be dealt with in a different way. Which sort of reminds me of other arguments against forced intergration, like we want to get more women on boards, but we need to do it the right way.

I think the important question is will this be good for California bussiness? I would argue yes. Forced intergrations of various kinds have a history of success.

While it doesn't seem fair, what actually happens is that companies are forced to look at a wider variety of candidates and because of that end up with better people.

Example Let's say there are 10 board slots and 100 potential candidates, 50 women and 50 men. So chances are that it would split pretty evenly does the middle in terms of who is the smartest, hardest working, best to run a company. Even if 6 men were the best to 4 women, you'd still end up with better people overall if you forced.a 5-5 split than if you kept the current split, which is 9-1

To not see this as an instant improvement means you'd have to believe that the 9th best guy is more qualified than the second best woman. Which is nonsense. So this law is an instant improvement is the higher functioning of bussiness.

Well no, if it so happens that 99% of applicants in a particular job are men, you wouldn't expect there to be 50% women employed. I don't know what the stats are. You'd only expect 50/50 if applications were also 50/50.

[Divinity]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Who's going to represent the interests of 50% of their customers? And that's not to mention their employees. An all male board is just making it a boys club. And of course, more female board members means more female CEO's. There shouldn't be such a gender gap in boardrooms across the country.

Is this a perfect solution? Fuck no. But it's necessary because right now so many of these boardrooms are nothing more than boys clubs. They certainly aren't hiring the 'best people' anyway. They're hiring the people with all the right connections.

[Lucanus]

Feminism ≠ more women CEOs

Quotas don't fix the structural problems of a capitalist "patriarchy" (ugh)

I'm tired

[Dr H]

I suspect this isn't going to pass the "equal protection" test if (when) it's challenged in court.

I've written a lot of grants, government and private.  Most funders have a requirement that the agency pursuing the money make positive efforts towards achieving a client, staff, administrative, and board population that mirrors the diversity of the community in which the agency primarily functions.  They all stop short of saying "you need three women, two African-Americans, one Jew, and a Native American on your board".  

There is a significant difference between affirmative action and mandatory hiring quotas.

[epronovost]

Fuck all this forced diversity. As my hero Noel Plum point out: no one is trying to make sure lots of men go into nursing. They don't give a shit.

Apparently you are wrong on this point. There has also been tuition offered for men to join nursing and teaching. Of course area of high power and authority are more frequently subject to debates on gender representation because women as a class of people are concerned about their cultural, economical and political influence on our societies.

[Amarok]

Fuck all this forced diversity. As my hero Noel Plum point out: no one is trying to make sure lots of men go into nursing. They don't give a shit.

1. Umm.. yes there are 

2. Those jobs are not equivalent

[Seraphina]

"By the end of July 2021, a minimum of two women must sit on boards with five members, and there must be at least three women on boards with six or more members."

Gov Brown states "...recent events in Washington, D.C. — and beyond — make it crystal clear that many are not getting the message."

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-c...story.html#

I fail to see the logic other than misguided forced diversity. This is not something that should be legislated. Maybe I'm just a C. Pig.

What say you?

There's no logic either with companies that are unable to place any women at all in their boardrooms for no identifiably good reason, as is the case with 25% of publicly traded companies in CA, per your cited article. Boards are often old-boy networks who don't take kindly to women encroaching on their space. It's too bad that there has to be a law passed to ensure women get a place at the boardroom table but if that's what it takes to break through inequality, so be it. I voted for Brown and he made the correct decision here.

-Teresa