California now the first state to require women on corporate boards - Polidicks

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/article219285335.html SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California has become the first state to require publicly traded companies to include women on their boards of directors, one of several laws boosting or protecting women that Gov. Jerry Brown signed Sunday. The measure requires at least one female director on the board of each California-based public corporation by the end of next year. Companies would need up to three female directors by the end of 2021, depending on the number of board seats. The Democratic governor referenced the objections and legal concerns that the law has raised. The California Chamber of Commerce has said the policy will be difficult for companies to implement and violates constitutional prohibitions against discrimination. "I don't minimize the potential flaws that indeed may prove fatal to its ultimate implementation," Brown wrote in a signing statement. "Nevertheless, recent events in Washington, D.C. — and beyond — make it crystal clear that many are not getting the message." It is one of several measures affecting women that Brown signed Sunday, his last opportunity to approve or veto laws before the term-limited governor leaves office. He also approved legislation requiring smaller employers to provide sexual harassment training and banning secret settlements related to sexual assault and harassment. But he vetoed a bill that would have required California's public universities to provide medication for abortion at campus health centers, saying the services are already "widely available" off campus. The author of the California measure on corporate boards, SB 826, said she believes having more women in power could help reduce sexual assault and harassment in the workplace. Having more women on the boards also will make companies more successful, state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson said. Women tend to be more collaborative and are better at multitasking, the Santa Barbara Democrat said. A fourth of publicly held corporations with headquarters in California don't have any women on their boards of directors. These companies have not done enough to increase the number of women on their boards despite the Legislature's urging, making government intervention necessary, Jackson said. "This is one of the last bastions of total male domination," she said. "We know that the public and business are not being well-served by this level of discrimination." The law applies to companies that report having their principal executive offices in California. Companies can be fined $100,000 for a first violation and $300,000 for subsequent violations. Some European countries, including Norway and France, already mandate that corporate boards include women

Ehhh. I agree women are massively underrepresented as executives, but is this really necessary? This shit's only going to fuel the far-right narrative that unqualified individuals are being hired to fill quotas based on hereditary traits while hard-working people are passed over, no matter how full of shit that claim is.

I can see this possibly playing out both positively and negatively. For now I'm neutral on this until the results are in. It could be a valuable experiment.

I don't get how this can possibly be legal.

People who become executives usually aren't the nicest/most sharing person anyway, man or woman.

This is such a nothing solution

it does remind me of that icelandic financial company Audur that was founded by and primarily staffed by women.

Well easily, they just made it legal

This has the potential to create members who are merely under-qualified diversity hires

I'm curious to see how that number would fare against nepotism or corruption hires, because I bet there's probably a fuckton of those on corporate boards.

Do Californians try and do the most stereotypical thing all the time?

Yes, and that wouldn't be a problem, because the amount of people who pretend to be transgender to make a point is basically zero. You'd have to be an established business professional to even be considered, anyway. What kind of professional would risk destroying their reputation by pretending to be trans, just to make a quota work for them? They'd very certainly be found out sooner or later, probably sooner. You haven't thought this through at all.

You really wouldn't be able to get that information first hand if it happened to you but I know I'd be pretty pissed if I suspected that someone got a job over me for the sole reason of being a woman. Maybe she would have been more qualified but with standards like these it just create more problems and it solves I think because you'll never know for sure whether it was because of meritocracy or just positive sexism.

Just another reason to move out of this state that just keeps getting shittier over time. Forget actually solving issues, let's pass bullshit like this that does nothing but potentially do harm.

Okay, so this theoretical person has gotten hired, and he decides to "come out" as a trans woman. Okay, fair enough. It's California so his fake identity will probably be welcomed. But being trans is an incredible time, money and effort commitment. If he wants to keep up the illusion, he's probably going to have to change his legal name, a lengthy and annoying process. He's likely going to have to get an entirely new, feminine wardrobe, for appearances' sake. He's going to have to go through voice training so that he can sound like a woman while speaking. He'd have to go on hormone replacement therapy, which will eventually cause irreversible changes to his body that, as a man, he probably doesn't want at all. He'll probably also develop legitimate gender dysphoria if he fully goes through with his fake transition. That's absolutely zero fun whatsoever. All in all this is all way too much effort and self-destruction to be worth it for just a position on a board of executives.

I mean, wouldn't this prove this claim, at least in this instance?

Not necessarily. The fact that women are underrepresented on corporate boards does not imply there aren't women who are more qualified than the men already there. It's just that the people in such positions tend to subscribe to old ways of thinking. Sometimes the discrimination in hiring practices is completely unconscious, systemic. What I'm saying is that such legislative measures feed into that sort of right-wing narrative of white men being oppressed. And there will absolutely be cases in which more qualified candidates are passed over in favour of your token diversity hire, even if I suspect that'll be the exception rather than the norm.

Is there anything preventing current board members to just hire their spouse/offspring for these spots?

I guess I'm sort of in the same place right now. I do think women need to be represented more on boards, but mandating these things by law probably isn't the best way to do it - I tend to think educating people on the merits of diversity is a more effective way to change hearts and minds, even though it's a slower process.

I agree but I also think this could be an effective, if uncomfortable and morally questionable, way to forcibly kick women into higher positions of power, which is obviously a good thing. I don't like this method much, but I'm generally an 'ends justify the means' type of person, and this could be a push that women need to become respected in the corporate world.

I think I'd liken it to something like the Equal Pay Act or Title IX (I think that's what they're called, but I'm not American, so forgive me if I'm wrong.) I'm sure those policies were hated at the time and they are technically forcing employers & institutions to do things a certain way to force equality, but they were hugely invaluable and successful, so I think I'll keep my fingers crossed that this goes the same way.

I don't agree exactly, my hope is that this kind of legislation will be able to become obsolete eventually, this definitely isn't something I'd want as a permanent institution. But if the end outcome is the same, I'm not overly concerned, either.

Weirdly, a story somewhat like this actually happened in the UK, although the man in question said he only identified as female between the hours of 6:50am and 6pm, or something like that. Here's an article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/22/labour-allows-male-activist-stand-womens-officer-identifies/

Have you ever seen the type of people who get on corporate boards? There is no such thing as under-qualified there, it's pretty much based entirely on nepotism and inheritance, which consequently leaves women and minorities out in the cold more often than not. “When I'm sometimes asked when will there be enough [women on the Supreme Court] and I say, 'When there are nine,' people are shocked. But there'd been nine men, and nobody's ever raised a question about that.” ― Ruth Bader Ginsburg There's plenty of women out there who are without doubt more qualified than several men who already are on corporate boards, the only way a poorly qualified person could be hired is through either nepotism or actively attempting to sabotage the chances.

Technically speaking this should have no negative effect at all since when you hire for corporate boards you pick people who are at the high end of aggressiveness and conscientiousness traits and that space is filled with both men and women (there is more men in this arena granted however there is still a lot of women there too) and since the pool of people is so big and so few positions like this getting this "quota" up wont sacrifice quality in board members. However the negative effect this will have is on women and is psychological, ive seen this in my work place with people ive talked to. I work in an industry that had a strong governmental push for gender equity over the last 10-15 years and were successful in basically leveling out the playing field when it comes to managerial positions to the point where we are at 50% male/female, everyone pats each other on the back and its business as usual, however there is damage and at this stage its hard to quantify exactly how bad it is at this point. The damage is that every single woman in all positions in the hierarchy have doubts, they feel like they may only of got to where they are to fill a quota and self doubt creeps in and affects the decisions they make and potentially their ability to progress. I have talked to so many at this point and its the same every single time, even highly competent individuals that absolutely deserve to be where they are question themselves, there is no doubt in my mind that they should be where they are but how do they know for sure?. Im not sure what to do about it or how I can help fix the problem, even women at the bottom of the organization start doubting themselves immediately before they progress because they aren't sure if its "real" or not. Its terrible.

This seems really unnecessary to me. Not only do the vast majority of companies have women on their board of directors but why is the government telling a company that they have to hire a certain amount of women? I'm hardly a libertarian but this just seems excessive. Obviously if there is a reason to believe a company is going out of its way to discriminate against women then bring the hammer down but we already have legislation for that. I don't agree with the law but this isn't how a board of directors works at all.

They just passed the strongest net neutrality rules in the country though

so does anyone rating this dumb even know what a board of directors is and what they do

YAAAS MORE FEMALE OPPRESSORS

hell yeah man #gamersriseup