Current Events > CA passes law mandating women be on the boards of publicly traded companies.

(+) Yeah! (+)

I love this state but I hate Brown with every fiber of my being. He fucked this state up once and they decided to elect him again years later. Ridiculous.
---

https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-becomes-first-state-to-mandate-female-board-directors-1538341932
---

How awful to get a position knowing that everyone gave it to you be forced. Knowing that your colleagues hold resentment.
---

I'm generally all for Women's rights and all that jazz but I find this to be a little ridiculous.

A publicly traded company needs to be as competitive as humanly possible. If having women on the board makes that possible, then they should be there. If it doesn't...then there's no place for them.

Does every NFL team need to have a female starter too? Because that's what this law is pretty much saying.
---

solid virching
---

Brown acknowledged that the law is effectively in violation of federal law and won't get implemented. He just wants his brownie points for saying he tried.
---

So is this real or a dishonest spin of a more nuanced policy?
---

Two obvious outcomes:
1) Token women, just to meet the quota.
2) Relocate to Nevada.

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

So is this real or a dishonest spin of a more nuanced policy?

Real. It's actually worse than described by TC because it scales over time, eventually ending at 50% representation for boards over 6 ppl in the next few years.
---

There is not a worse governor than Andrew Cuomo. Be glad you don't have this lowlife.
---

I think this will be challenged before the Supreme Court in the future. It doesnt seem as though it passes Constitutional muster through intermediate scrutiny.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intermediate_scrutiny
---

Nomadic View posted...

I think this will be challenged before the Supreme Court in the future. It doesnt seem as though it passes Constitutional muster through intermediate scrutiny.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intermediate_scrutiny

Well, it's a quota, which have a long history of being slapped down by SCOTUS.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Nomadic View posted...

I think this will be challenged before the Supreme Court in the future. It doesnt seem as though it passes Constitutional muster through intermediate scrutiny.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intermediate_scrutiny

Well, it's a quota, which have a long history of being slapped down by SCOTUS.

And it's a quota on something that has federal jurisdiction anyway.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShwM7gBGjWs" data-time="
---

So it wont pass Constitutional muster . . . so Dems are sinking to the level of the GOP once again in an attempt to earn virtue points, yet will only alienate moderates.

Fucking paid losers.
---

its literally like that meme where neoliberals want 50% of prison guards to be women or whatever
---

California living up to its connotations as usual
---

Eaglerulez posted...

I'm generally all for Women's rights and all that jazz but I find this to be a little ridiculous.

A publicly traded company needs to be as competitive as humanly possible. If having women on the board makes that possible, then they should be there. If it doesn't...then there's no place for them.

Does every NFL team need to have a female starter too? Because that's what this law is pretty much saying.

This was my thought. There are definitely women that would make a company more competitive, but to force a company to hire someone they don't feel will make them competitive is ridiculous. That said I can't see this law surviving.

This just doubly pissed me off as it followed Brown vetoing a bill that was to allow alcohol to be sold until 4am with the aim of making major cities in CA better able to compete with the nightlife scene in other states. Guys a joke.
---

Isn't the board of directors, by definition, shareholders (or the largest shareholders for public companies)?

By definition, it's requiring that women own a significant share of public companies. How exactly does California intend to accomplish this where it is not already the case?
---

TheMikh posted...

Isn't the board of directors, by definition, shareholders (or the largest shareholders for public companies)?

Not necessarily, no.

TheMikh posted...

Isn't the board of directors, by definition, shareholders (or the largest shareholders for public companies)?

No they are elected by shareholders to represent the shareholders and basically monitor and govern management.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

I can't count how many times I was held back in what would have otherwise been fun activities with friends/family my age because of parents ordering us to bring along a younger sibling who couldn't keep up and then cried about it.

I learned pretty quickly that just forgoing the intended activity was the optimal option.

Sure, I missed out on a movie or fair or two, but a non-existent experience is sometimes preferable to a bad one. Also I had a Gamboy and a NES, so being forced to share one meant the other was open to not share.

Lolifornia
---

Wonder how insulting it would be if you worked your way up the ladder for years only to not get on the board due to a token promotion.
---

Watch board members are going to identify as XY
---

I for one welcome our new female overlords.
---

Highwind07 posted...

Unfortunately this also means that while women are able to get in they probably wont be heard by all the others in there.

Of course they won't. Everyone else on the board will know the woman/women there are nothing more than diversity appointments mandated by law.
---

sylverlolol posted...

Highwind07 posted...

Unfortunately this also means that while women are able to get in they probably wont be heard by all the others in there.

Of course they won't. Everyone else on the board will know the woman/women there are nothing more than diversity appointments mandated by law.

I mean, half of the votes is half of the votes whether you respect them as people or not...
---

Just like affirmative action this will not work
---

fenderbender321 posted...

GregShmedley posted...

This reminds me of when parents force the older siblings to bring the younger ones along.

One of the worst things parents can do with their children, and they only do it so that they don't have to watch and deal with the younger child themselves.

I can't count how many times I was held back in what would have otherwise been fun activities with friends/family my age because of parents ordering us to bring along a younger sibling who couldn't keep up and then cried about it.

And then of course, we'd get in trouble if they cried because we weren't going easy enough on them. Just...really dumb.

"Wahhh, I wanna play video games with you guys!"

Parent: "Let him play video games with you."

*plays video games with him*

*kicks his ass because he's young and sucks*

"wahhh they're being mean!!!"

Parent: "Go easy on him or you're grounded!"

Sounds like you're a shitty brother to me
---

OMG fuck the politicians and dumbass liberals that keep voting them all in in this state sooooo hard.

And you just know with this precedent next will be CA requiring a token hispanic, black, asian, gay, trans and whatever else on corporate boards.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Brown acknowledged that the law is effectively in violation of federal law and won't get implemented. He just wants his brownie points for saying he tried.

Link? I need evidence that California politicians can be self-aware.
---

Folks want to be butthurt about this and say it's pandering, it's unfair, it's tokenism, it's not egalitarianism.

But it's a solid business decision. It's a legitimate measure to help prevent all sorts of awful decisionmaking, related to actual business and to company culture, that we've seen examples of when there is no diversity on company boards. Not that including women is a cure-all, but it's a step in a smarter, safer direction.
---

dirtycommunist posted...

Folks want to be butthurt about this and say it's pandering, it's unfair, it's tokenism, it's not egalitarianism.

But it's a solid business decision. It's a legitimate measure to help prevent all sorts of awful decisionmaking, related to actual business and to company culture, that we've seen examples of when there is no diversity on company boards. Not that including women is a cure-all, but it's a step in a smarter, safer direction.

This is entirely false.
---

lmfao

dirtycommunist posted...

Folks want to be butthurt about this and say it's pandering, it's unfair, it's tokenism, it's not egalitarianism.

But it's a solid business decision. It's a legitimate measure to help prevent all sorts of awful decisionmaking, related to actual business and to company culture, that we've seen examples of when there is no diversity on company boards. Not that including women is a cure-all, but it's a step in a smarter, safer direction.

You're right, it is a good business decision to have diversity. Let's keep it just that, a business decision, not a government decision.
---

darkjedilink posted...

dirtycommunist posted...

Folks want to be butthurt about this and say it's pandering, it's unfair, it's tokenism, it's not egalitarianism.

But it's a solid business decision. It's a legitimate measure to help prevent all sorts of awful decisionmaking, related to actual business and to company culture, that we've seen examples of when there is no diversity on company boards. Not that including women is a cure-all, but it's a step in a smarter, safer direction.

This is entirely false.

Dat username though.
---

California ber Alles
ber Alles California
---