Law California Imposing (Unconstitutional) Gender Quotas on All Corporate Boardrooms

[Arkain2K]

 

[MicroBrew]

I'm hesitant to speak too soon on this. Corporations are fictitious entities and so the make up their boards doesn't have to be broadly meritorious, it can be defined by the legislature. I'm curious about how Title IX works regarding women's sports. I could see a parallel here.

I don't understand your use of the term "fictions" in this context, because the Supreme Court did say they can be classed as people and can donate money to politicians in federal , local and state elections.

Re. women on the boards
If it is a large enough corporation, then why not. Would it be any different to large German corporations being required by law to have Union representatives on their boards? But this begs the question : do we stop at just women, or do we also include Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, minority women, LGBTQ ? Yeah I can see how this could snowball into a bloated board that coporate America and a lot of people - moderates and conservatives - will see as overreach of government. I think it would be fine if the corporation is sufficiently large, like General Motors, G.E. , Amazon, Microsoft, Raytheon, Lockheed, Boeing , JP Morgan Chase, Bloomberg etc.. Especially if the companies are of the too-big-to-fail type.

 

[panamaican]

I don't understand your use of the term "fictions" in this context, because the Supreme Court did say they can be classed as people and can donate money to politicians in federal , local and state elections.

They are fictitious in that they do not arise naturally. They are a classification created by law. Once created, they might be treated as "person" in terms of rights and such granted by the law. You are a real person, I am a real person, A corporation is a fictitious person.

As something created by law, that means that its characteristics, rules and requirements can be changed by changing the law.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

Hopefully this will be one of the first cases tried before the Kavanaugh court.

 

[BearGrounds]

LOLing hard at the solution to perceived sexism being....sexism.

 

[JohnMc]

What's the over/under on some of these companies leaving California then? CEO's aren't going to risk the stability of their companies to put people on the board who more than likely have no business being on it.

 

[Teppodama]

At this point, I'm inclined to just let California do what it wants to its citizens. If the current politicians aren't representing you in the manner you believe they should and not upholding your interests vote them out. If that doesn't work then protest and if that doesn't work then riot and set a bunch of fires.

 

[panamaican]

This also demands an answer to why black folks in America on average own far less land and are more less wealthy. Surely, if black folks weren't woefully inadequate compared to white men (and on the basis of their skin tone), the black community would have immediately attained the same level of wealth as the white community.

I have an interesting new set of experiences arising from sending my kid to prep school. I'll share them with you but not in this thread.

 

[Andy Capp]

Man, I really wouldn't be surprised if California didnt declare its independence, but rather passed a law that they're no longer bound by the constitution of the United States and only their own so that they can do whatever they want

Judges there are so batty they'd go with it

In what way are they not the same thing? Just curious.

 

[Andy Capp]

I have an interesting new set of experiences arising from sending my kid to prep school. I'll share them with you but not in this thread.

Feel free to share them with me also. I have no kids and the idea of private schools makes me think unkind thoughts so I'm interested in the perspective of someone living that dream, to see if my beliefs are misinformed.

 

[HockeyBjj]

In what way are they not the same thing? Just curious.

The people/twisted courts would see it as "it's not really separating from the United States so it's just more states rights" as a way to sell it. Also, they still get all the federal benefits that way

 

[Arkain2K]

Will California mandate of women on corporate boards start a trend?
By Joan Quigley | Oct 22, 2018

California often leads the country in legislation designed to protect or promote minorities or marginalized individuals. Or - putting it another way - California often drives people nuts with legislation mandating things those people think government should just leave alone.

California is doing both right now.

Last month the California legislature passed a bill to require all publicly-traded companies doing business in that state to have female representation on corporate boards or face stiff penalties. By the end of next year each board would need to have at least one woman as a voting member. By 2021 boards with five members would need two women and boards of six or more would need at least three women.

The sponsor of S826, Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara, said "Gender diversity on corporate boards is associated with increased profitability, performance, governance, innovation and opportunity."

The National Association of Women Business Owners agrees with her. They cite "numerous independent research studies" showing gender diversity on boards is beneficial to corporations and creates meaningful cultural change in the workplace.

Gov. Jerry Brown signed the legislation the last day of September after women's groups strongly pressed him to do so. Bill opponents dislike quotas in general and also argued such a law would discriminate against men and force companies to place unqualified women in positions of power. Companies that don't comply could be fined $100,000 for a first-time violation and $300,000 for subsequent violations.

And as you'd expect in California, the new law defines a woman as any person who self-identifies as female regardless of that person's designated sex at birth.

A majority of major US corporations on the S&P 500 have at least one woman on their boards, reports show, but only 25 percent have two or more. California is slightly behind the norm with only 15.5 percent of corporate board seats held by women. That's 565 women compared to 3,080 men. Half of the most recent California IPOs went public with all-male boards.

Last year the Pennsylvania legislature passed a resolution urging both public and private companies to have a minimum of 30 percent women on their boards. California previously tried to accomplish that by passing several resolutions, but there were no enforcement powers. So when board composition didn't change significantly, the legislature took a tougher stance.

Several European countries have mandated female representation for years. Norway, for instance, requires boards to consist of 40 percent females.

It's not going to be easy for California to enforce this law. Most corporations also have stockholders who must approve any changes to charters and bylaw requirements. Director candidates generally also have to be approved by stockholder votes.

It's going to take time for corporate leaders to identify and vet female board candidates, prepare proxy statements, schedule meetings and do all the other things necessary for stockholder approval. Then I wonder what might happen if stockholders don't vote to approve the nominated females by the state's deadline.

Opponents of the bill point out it is likely to be challenged on constitutional grounds of equal protection, and others warn no state can make laws affecting the governance of companies incorporated elsewhere.

Companies and agencies receiving significant amounts of state or federal monies must often comply with government-mandated rules for board composition. That makes sense when they're spending public money, but I'm not sure it makes sense for stockholder corporations. I understand the good intentions of the bill sponsors but their approach to diversity seems very heavy-handed.

New Jersey often follows California's lead. I wonder if we will this time.

https://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2018/10/will_california_mandate_of_women_on_corporate_boar.html

 

[ElKarlo]

That's dumb and a good way to chase out tech companies . THE ceo of Pepsi was a woman and she did well. But most tech companies that have been run by women have done poorly. IBM, HP, Lucent, Xerox and all. Some destruction of good companies right there. No thanks. I'd move if I were in California. I am also not sexist. I have problems with sexism and sexual harassment . But pushing this is idiocy

 

[Arkain2K]

Its been done now for a decade in norway and they are running into issues, namely "the golden skirts" issue -- in which the actual qualified women are running thin but companies still have to put the ladies into board roles, so its not best person for the job in a lot of cases.

Funny how this shit never gets implemented into blue collar jobs.

Since the number of qualified female execs (the "Golden Skirts") in the work force stays the same, they are recruited by multiple corporations who would rather have a Golden Skirt (who don't actually have the time to do the job they're paid for), rather than recruiting an unqualified female exec for that role.

Mimi Berdal is Norway's most sought-after Golden Skirt, and she's sitting on a whopping 90 different boards of directors:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...inesswomen-and-the-boardroom-bias-debate.html