Women now required to be on corporate boards in California
California now requires women to be on corporate boards... thoughts?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/business/women…
Trending Content
| +46 | Interviews Are So Fake | 28 | 12h | |
| +33 | 2024 UK Election - Tories finished? | 21 | 15h | |
| +29 | Being Christian in investment banking | 14 | 1d | |
| +26 | Non-Competes Banned | 26 | 5h | |
| +22 | ADHD ! | 5 | 19m | |
| How do I become Sigma | 15 | 7h | ||
| +19 | Moelis has the cutest Analysts? | 4 | 1d | |
| +18 | Best NYC neighborhood for single 30M | 12 | 3d | |
| +16 | Underage intern, drinking? | 7 | 1d | |
| +13 | Secretive vs Universal Prestige? | 7 | 1d |
Career Resources
Classic California, trying to drive the businesses out again...
If the women are on the board, California won't have anyone to make sandwiches anymore :(
Who cares. A bunch of waspy white men will identify as minority disabled veteran women.
This will get challenged and struck down in court. That said, the radical leftists who define "equality" not as equal opportunities but as tyrannically-imposed equal outcomes are becoming more and more mainstream. That is extremely dangerous and should scare everyone, not just on this site, but in this country. It's so critical to recognize the distinction between trying to give people equal opportunities vs ignoring the differences between the sexes and attempting to impose equal outcomes. The former is a laudable goal, whereas the latter is evil and wrong and will destroy society completely if implemented.
Wait until they require LGBT presence on the board.
LGBT? I won't rest until they give proper consideration to the transgender puppies. Transgender puppies literally can't speak for themselves, WE NEED TO GIVE THE TRANSGENDER PUPPIES A VOICE!
First off, as you say, this is going to be struck down and therefore should be viewed as a message being sent and not a practicable piece of policy.
That being said, the history of civil rights in this country is proof positive that there MUST be a place we arrive at that is beyond "equal opportunities for all," because s nice as that sounds, it doesn't exist right now and we as a society have never made any progress towards it without top-down government intervention. Like it or not, white supremacy, misogyny... these are real attitudes and have real political potency. It's very easy to be an all-male, all-white board and continue to appoint more of them same out of inertia and a collective refusal to acknowledge one's own bias. It just isn't practically possible to get to a position where we have true "equal opportunities" without having some sort of imposed requirement to start the process of getting there. Black people are and were denied loans despite being more creditworthy than white counterparts. Black people are sentenced more harshly for identical crimes. Women receive less pay for similar work. All of these, and the socio-political historical circumstances that gave birth to them, show that we as a society are not yet at a place where everyone has "equal opportunity," and to pretend that we, as a polity, don't bear some measure of responsibility for correcting a cultural phenomenon borne out of active governmental and social policy is just another way of burying your head in the sand, maintaining the status quo, and pretending you've done your best.
Do you actually think going on and on about misogyny, white privilege and other grievances will get you laid?
Stay woke bro. At the end of the day, you are still going to be an incel no matter how much SJW screed you spew.
I believe it’s already been decided that it’s only for companies that incorporate in California, which almost no one does.
CA and gov moonbeam just can’t realize anti business shit will eventually hurt their state.
How would y'all feel if there was a law requiring someone of your class (e.g. male, Asian/black/white) to be on a board?
I think I'd find it a bit insulting/condescending. I wouldn't want to be there because I was the token checking off a box. I may be wrong, but that's my initial thought.
Let's command the NBA to have at least one starting point guard be a member of the protected dwarfism class for equality for all. Not a single team has a dwarf on the roster.
Random thoughts:
I always wonder how these things work out? Does someone on the board look at the "placed" members as equal? Do they get the same respect? I guess some of it is an "old boys club", but will someone new who is placed even be listened to?
I think a lot of the problem comes from different views; meaning, some women clearly want equality on these things, but others could care less. It's kinda like how a lot of women/commercial need to tell you they are "strong, independent, smart" women. I'm not saying that bad, but we never talk about men that way, they just kinda do it.
These things have already been tried in select cases and countries (France I believe). What has been shown to happen is that there is a pipeline problem, and the smaller number of board savvy women end up being on a ridiculous number of boards to the detriment of all. I think in France a select group of 15-20 women were each on 15 boards or something, which belies fiduciary duty IMO.
In the end it is both difficult and dumb to mandate such things.
I agree, but from a historical standpoint this country has made nearly no progress on advancing civil rights and equality on its own, without some form of government intervention. Quite the opposite. So yeah, in a perfect world, this is a dumb and counterproductive law. But in a perfect world, there wouldn't be any need. I haven't read the whole study, so draw your own conclusions, but this McKinsey study women make up 48% of entry level jobs, and 21% of C suite appointments. Even assuming that there are other reasons for women to quit before reaching a level of experience necessary to join a board, that's not a reassuring number.
Besides which, I would imagine that most boards which don't have a woman on it, are doing so deliberately, because it's extraordinarily hard to imagine that any company wouldn't benefit from a female voice in a position of power. Half the human population is a truly meaningful base of customers/users/etc, to not have that perspective can't help but be detrimental to business on a whole bunch of levels.
You are not sure why women quit before reaching C suite?
"Considering taking my company private at common sense. Meritocracy secured"
-Every public company in California
I have two trains of thought on this issue.
The premise of wanting to include women in higher level positions in of itself is great. If you look back throughout history, you can see examples of exclusion of people. When my great grandparents came to America from Russia they changed their last name from Rosenberg because they realized the area they lived in (in America) was pretty antisemitic. There are countless more examples of some sort of discrimination, and people are terrible at changing against discrimination. Status quo is so much easier.
I think a lot of people think forcing women into boards is having the poster child of the far left sitting on the board of a F100 company (the short blue hair screaming about man spreading). But there are a lot of very sharp, competent women who would make great executives. Forcing them into boards doesn't seem right because having the quota isn't good, but leaving things be where there is that "good old boys club" isn't right either.
I don't really have a solution to the problem; hence why I'm not going into politics.
It sounds ridiculous. If CA wants to have a law that prohibits discrimination in hiring board members, I think that might be okay. That would be similar to anti-discrimination laws in employment for corporations.
With all of that said, I do not think that boards are very interested in hiring objective or different voices. My impression is that they want to hire people who express views consistent with those of senior management. It would probably be a good thing to have more diversity on boards but I just know how you could or should ever turn that into a reasonable law.
California is the heart of "the resistance", just like Virginia in 1954...quite ironic.
Dolore fugiat iure aut unde. Odit fuga corrupti est doloribus dolores. Quia ea voluptate incidunt voluptas. Aut recusandae qui nisi est. In in voluptas ipsa dolor quasi. Nam sapiente ullam voluptas atque laboriosam voluptas iure.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...