Up next, corporations declare their 1st Amendment rights are somehow violated by this law.
8 Likes
A key point. This doesn’t require two-guys-in-a-garage startups to let a girl into the clubhouse. (By the time that they’re ready to go public, they’ll need a lot more people.)
5 Likes
The law covers public corporations headquartered in California, not incorporated in California. By definition a company is headquartered wherever its executive officers have their primary offices. Silicon Valley start-ups, a main target of this law, have no easy way to dodge that since it’s very important to have their c-suites on-site in the Valley. Public companies have to file a form with the SEC that includes the address of the location where the company’s executive officers primarily reside.
However when signing the law the governor admitted that it the courts are likely to kill it due to fatal constitutional issues. It’s more a political stunt than something that’s really going to impact board compositions.
4 Likes
In before the flood of incels screaming about meritocracy.
1 Like
There are plenty of places where taxation is lighter, but there are significant regulatory advantages, (not least of which is Delaware’s Chancery Court) plus it’s extremely quick and easy to incorporate in Delaware.
See above. Note that if you incorporate in California, your corporate directors have to be “prudent” and “reasonable” or words to that effect; but in Delaware, you just have to not be “grossly negligent”. Negligence that isn’t gross is OK!
2 Likes
I was just thinking, I wish this would apply to some non-profits I know.
2 Likes
In Iceland I think there needs to be at least 40% of one gender or the other, at least with the banks.
… and chiming in will be the GOP. Good. More female voters than men out there, then… come the midterms…
2 Likes
ETA: Your concern for minorities lacking ladyparts aside, there is an easy answers to the hypothetical scenario you outline: add both candidates to the board. Corporate charter doesn’t allow that? Retire one of the rich old white dudes to member emeritus status.
9 Likes
Somewhere, sometime, there is a highly qualified woman who will lose out at the short list stage due to systemic sexism.
And by “somewhere, sometime” I of course mean “most places, most of the time.”
12 Likes
With respect, DukeTrout, I don’t see where Nobby_Stiles ’s hypothetical “gay, black, handicapped 60 year old veteran who lost a leg saving Iraqi kids” is necessarily lacking ladyparts.
I read their comment as suggesting that once the short list of women has been made, it’s still going to be the corporate-palatable woman with an MBA who gets the nod over the woman who is a minority with a non-typical career path.
1 Like
That doesn’t make any sense. If the law says that a woman (or women, post-2020) need to be on the board, how does a female, “gay, black, handicapped 60 year old veteran who lost a leg saving Iraqi kids” get “crowded out” by a female MBA? They both would count where this law (that is the topic of the post) is concerned.
[why not both gif]
2 Likes
I guess we’ll have to ask @Nobby_Stiles to clarify what their comment meant. I can’t speak for them, of course.
I just thought that you and I seemed to have different readings of it.
I’m not sure there is any clarification needed. You don’t need to invite him to backpedal. Either there is a logical fallacy in his hypothetical scenario (that anyone would be pushed out of a board by a female MBA) or your assertion that I’m unfairly assuming that his hypothetical super-minority isn’t female is incorrect. It’s either A or B, but not both. If it’s either A or B, Nobby was concern-trolling. I’m not backing down from that assertion.
3 Likes
Totally agree. Sadly I am concerned that the Board may consider it has done enough for equal opportunities and meritocracy.
Sometimes I think the best thing we can do for Americas poor is pay for golf lessons for black girls in high school. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to see why this might not work.
And I’m not backing down from my observation either.
I’m sure women are the largest disadvantaged group in this US. However I am also sure that minority women are far more disadvantaged. When coalitions of the disadvantaged unite to achieve equal rights the first group to succeed seems to always be white ladies. Take for example the right to vote. Probably because they have influential relatives who can guide them and who sympathize with them and also because the justice of their cause is undeniable and the represent such a large proportion of the population.
I wonder how many successful white ladies have successful parents. Any hoo, I’m not arguing that white ladies don’t deserve equal rights and opportunities. I’m arguing that legislating it for them probably wont help our black or handicapped brothers and sisters much. Rather I would guess we will lose minority representation. Are you disagreeing?
The law is in place BECAUSE boards have an observed disinclination to hire women. Putting the law in place will require them to hire women. They will hire a woman who best fits their current preference set. That will be a woman who most closely resembles their current hires. A golf playing MBA from Stamford who went to the same prep school they did.
The law will not require them to make any further hires. They will have been compelled to make one. Why do you think they would hire another? Cos they want to help black women?
But that’s just the natural order because women aren’t naturally good at CEOing as men… /d
4 Likes
So your point is, forcing companies to do one right thing might disincentivize them to another right thing? Again, that defies logic. Corporate boards are 99% old, rich, white dudes. Forcing them to hire women gets the ball rolling. The more under-represented people who are on a board, the more likely they will recruit more minorities, not less likely. That has been well established.
Yes. Because your point is demonstrably false. Find boards with some minority representation and you find boards with more minority representation. Evidence suggests even your hypothetical golf-loving, Stanford (or Stamford?)-alumnus white female is more likely to recruit and vote for additional minorities on the board than her hypothetical old, rich, white dude counterpart.
Who is still more likely to recommend, recruit, and vote for board membership for your hypothetical “gay, black, handicapped 60 year old veteran who lost a leg saving Iraqi kids” than this guy:
or this guy
or this guy
Since we’re Just Asking Questions, are you aware of the definition of concern driving trollies? It’s when someone presents hypothetical problems to doing something good as part of an argument against doing anything at all. That’s what you’re doing.
9 Likes
I wasn’t aware of the definition of concern trolling. Thank you.
My point isn’t that there shouldn’t be more women in senior levels of business. My point is that you will get the women that the guys you have posted above prefer. I note you haven’t denied that.
So this is fine legislation for promoting privileged women into senior positions in the work place. And god knows why not. Why discriminate against privileged women who are less privileged than their male counterparts? But would it really shock you if I said i didn’t consider it a priority for improving the lives of most women or non-white people. What might really do some good would be
- Free health care
- Free childcare
Rich old white men will hire the women they prefer. Their daughters. Who play golf. Like they always have. See above.
Good luck anyone else getting a look in.
1 Like
