Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses United States Technology

California Has a New Law: No More All-Male Boards (cnn.com) 810

Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards. From a report: That's according to a new law, enacted Sunday, which requires publicly traded firms in the state to place at least one woman on their board of directors by the end of 2019 -- or face a penalty. It also requires companies with five directors to add two women by the end of 2021, and companies with six or more directors to add at least three more women by the end of the same year. It's the first such law on the books in the United States, though similar measures are common in European countries. The measure was passed by California's state legislature last month. And it was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday, along with a trove of other bills that look to "protect and support women, children and working families," the governor's office said in a release. A majority of companies in the S&P 500 have at least one woman on their boards, but only about a quarter have more than two, according to a study from PwC.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California Has a New Law: No More All-Male Boards

Comments Filter:
  • by Calydor ( 739835 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @01:02AM (#57401580)

    What happened to simply choosing the best candidate for the job instead of meeting quotas?

    And did that law seriously just assume the gender of someone sitting on the board of directors?!

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01, 2018 @01:06AM (#57401588)

      What happened to simply choosing the best candidate for the job instead of meeting quotas?

      ...And what about simply letting the shareholders decide? Whatever the state owns, they can do with as they please, but ONLY shareholders should decide who they want on their board---the government shouldn't say who is and who isn't eligible to be on the board :-/

      • Re:Virtue signalling (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Calydor ( 739835 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @01:19AM (#57401634)

        I am really looking forward to the lawsuits deciding whether a post-op or pre-op transgender person (is transgender the right term to use? I honestly don't know) is one gender or the other as it comes to sitting on the board for some company.

        • Re:Virtue signalling (Score:5, Informative)

          by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @01:27AM (#57401676)

          The London Pride march this year saw scenes where an activist lesbian group hijacked the front of the parade, laying down in front of it, protesting "trans activism" which they claimed "erased lesbianism". They then led the march after refusing to move from the head of the parade, so spectators were bemused to see anti-trans posters and slogans leading the LGBTQ+ event...

          You literally cannot make this shit up.

          https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]

          • by Kokuyo ( 549451 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @04:13AM (#57402192) Journal

            Am I the only one thoroughly enjoying the fracturing that is happening in this movement?

            The only thing that makes me sad here is that people who are truly fighting for us being decent to each other get a bad rep by proxy...

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward

              The fundamental inconsistencies are too great for this dynamic not to collapse on itself sooner than later. It's one thing to badger conservative straight white men into saying "ma'am" through clenched teeth when some bald potato of a man in a dress [4pcdn.org] walks up to the counter, but it's different when you start badgering the very people who are used to doing the badgering. Feminists are now faced with a world where all the women's sports records are held by dudes [thegatewaypundit.com] and a lesbian who won't suck cock is called a [dailywire.com]

            • by dfghjk ( 711126 )

              "Am I the only one thoroughly enjoying the fracturing that is happening in this movement?"

              No you are not, but the fact you have company doesn't say anything good about you.

        • by drnb ( 2434720 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @01:36AM (#57401702)

          I am really looking forward to the lawsuits deciding whether a post-op or pre-op transgender person (is transgender the right term to use? I honestly don't know) is one gender or the other as it comes to sitting on the board for some company.

          Is an operation even necessary? I mean can't a person merely say they personally identify as a female and as per California values that's the end of the story, the person's declaration MUST be honored.

      • by michelcolman ( 1208008 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @02:17AM (#57401834)

        And what about companies that only have female board members? Shouldn't they be required to have at least one male board member? If there's no such requirement, this law is clearly sexist and can probably be legally challenged on that ground.

        • by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @03:51AM (#57402112) Journal
          As with most affirmative action laws, this one is probably made around the idea that women are being excluded from boards for reasons other than a lack of qualities relevant to the job, and forcing companies to take on women in such roles will reduce such sexism over time to the point where affirmative action isn't needed anymore. A bit like offering a free sample at a supermarket: if you like it, you'll hopefully buy more. Except this is mandatory. And not free.

          So no: there will be no law that says you can't have an all female board, because there's no widespread bias against men when selecting board members. The all-male boards aren't the problem, the bias is. And once that has been addressed, presumably the law will be repealed and it'll be ok again to have an all male (or all female) board.

          With that said, I am not so sure if there really is a significant bias against women in this day and age. There are other factors that affect a woman's career differently than a man's, both cultural and biological. And I don't think we should compensate for any natural disadvantages certain groups may or may not have, because then you're definitely doing away with selecting the best person for the job. I also don't know if affirmative action laws are terribly effective at addressing that bias, if it exists.
          • by michelcolman ( 1208008 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @04:30AM (#57402230)

            You can try to find arguments as much as you like, and I do understand your point, but in this day and age you simply cannot make laws that apply to one sex but not the other. If you want to abolish sexism, don't use sexist laws.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by radja ( 58949 )

              if you can't use sexist laws to combat sexism (which is a fair point), what alternatives are there? Many people keep saying "this law sucks", but I don't see anyone providing an alternative.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Anonymous Coward

                How about "do nothing"? If a company excludes the best qualified workers for whatever reason - gender, ethnicity, hair color - then the company and its shareholders suffer the consequences of poorer overall performance. That's a choice that should be allowed - as adults, we all know actions have consequences, and we live with our choices. (And the high-perfoming people who were excluded can go someplace else, maybe even form a competitor, and improve that business's results. Payback time.)

          • by djinn6 ( 1868030 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @05:00AM (#57402342)
            Replace "women" with "blacks" and you have 60 years of affirmative action to look back on. If it really does work, then why are blacks still at the bottom of society by just about every metric?

            If you take affirmative action to its logical conclusion, what you end up with is South Africa. Having dismantled apartheid in 1994, South Africa has turned the tables on its white citizens and has been actively oppressing them for 2 decades. Any white person that had the means to leave has already left. And now the country is falling apart. The government is hopelessly corrupt, murder rates are through the roof, and the economy is declining year over year.

            Did one cause the other? I wouldn't know. But I do wonder, if we try too hard to put unqualified people in charge, would we also end up in such a downward spiral?
            • by mpercy ( 1085347 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @07:23AM (#57402838)

              It's like they looked over at Zimbabwe and said "Hold my beer..."

            • Yes, if we abandon Meritocracy, we will eventually end up with a downward spiral. This is the danger that movements like https://postmeritocracy.org/ [postmeritocracy.org] cause.

              History has proven this, but we forget. This is exactly what happened in Russia. There was inequality (wealth), so those with resources "obviously" must have been hoarding it--they were biased against those with less. So those in power seized the wealth and imprisoned the farmers (Kulaks) in 1918-1933+[1]. This resulted in the Kulaks slaughtering
          • this one is probably made around the idea that women are being excluded from boards for reasons other than a lack of qualities relevant to the job.

            This has the same problem as third party presidential candidates. Most presidential candidates are governors first. Because there are no libertarian or green party governors, it's hard to have decent presidential candidates. Most fortune 500 board members and CEOs were previously board members and CEOs on smaller companies. Starting at the top doesn't make any sense.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            forcing companies to take on women in such roles will reduce such sexism over time to the point where affirmative action isn't needed anymore.

            A noble goal in theory but in practice this never happens. Once enshrined, such race/gender/whatever quotas become permanent fixtures, as no politician has the courage to suggest they be removed. The cries of "they want a return to sexism/bigotry/whatever" would be so deafening they'd be drummed out of office before the ink was dry on the proposal. This is why such laws should never be implemented in the first place.

            For that matter, how do you think this "diversity quota" appointee to the board will be v

    • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @01:43AM (#57401732) Journal

      What happened to simply choosing the best candidate for the job

      You actually think board selection is a meritocracy? The further one goes from doing measurable tasks, the more social issues play into selection. The office is chock full of politics and social maneuvering. I can tell you boatloads of stories.

    • by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @01:55AM (#57401766) Journal

      Lol choosing the best candidate. Listen to yourself.

      95% of the time on slashdot we rightly bitch and moan about how incredibly shit upper management is. You know making short term decisions that benefit them personally and not the company. But now it's forced not to be all men all of a sudden they were all the best people for the job.

      So the your loaded about "what happened to simply choosing the best candidate?": that was never the case and we both know it.

  • Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)

    by war4peace ( 1628283 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @01:05AM (#57401586)

    Yes, I am a white male.
    Yes I have witnessed discrimination against women.
    Yes, I have also witnessed discrimination against men.
    Yes, I have witnessed discrimination against minorities too.

    Yes, I do believe measures must be taken to eliminate discrimination.

    No, I do not think laws such as this would fall under the measures to eliminate discrimination” category, nor that they would do any good.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      > Yes, I am a white male.

      who the fuck cares what you think?

      Who even told you, that you can speak?

    • Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Freshly Exhumed ( 105597 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @01:26AM (#57401662) Homepage

      If only 's/witnessed/fought against/g'

      • Re:Ridiculous (Score:4, Informative)

        by war4peace ( 1628283 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @05:07AM (#57402372)

        Situation 1: female co-worker discloses her salary to me. I witness her being discriminated, because I know of another male colleague with a similar function and less skill who is better paid, but I can't do anything about it because salaries are supposed to be confidential (in my country, at least). I can't fight against it, because it's based on proof obtained illegally, so-to-speak.

        Situation 2: Minority fellas can't get jobs because employers don't trust them. Authorities themselves turn a blind eye. What am I supposed to do, start a holy-one-man crusade? A decade ago I helped one guy I knew (minority) get hired as a first level support in the company I work for, now he's a manager and makes more than I do. He probably wouldn't have been hired if I hadn't vouched for him. he doesn't know it and I won't tell him because it was not a big deal. But yes, discrimination towards minorities is a thing.

      • If only 's/witnessed/fought against/g'

        Which is what California thinks it is doing.

        Your "fighting" is often just injustice of a different flavor.

    • by Bert64 ( 520050 )

      Laws such as this not only don't eliminate discrimination, they directly cause it.
      Companies will now be forced to appoint women to the board even if there are no qualified women available, and they will have to do this by discriminating against any qualified men who were available.
      If there are qualified women available then they would have been appointed anyway:

      A majority of companies in the S&P 500 have at least one woman on their boards

      Even without being forced to do so, it seems these companies already appoint women to their boards if female candidates are available and suitably q

    • Re:Ridiculous (Score:4, Informative)

      by Hasaf ( 3744357 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @07:23AM (#57402834)

      I sat in a training meeting, in a government agency, and a ranking member (yes, female) made the statement, "I majored in sociology and I know for a fact that all of the worlds problems are caused by white males." It was quite clear that the men in the room were not to object.

      That was the place where I was marked down for not socializing. My supervisor even made the comment, during the review, "after work we all go to curves (a women only gym) you don't seem to even try to take part." As a comment, every day I went to the officers gym; however, the women in the department, including my supervisor, didn't use it, preferring to go to curves. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with curves, or other single gender facilities. I was bothered by being marked down for not using them.

  • This is sexist (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01, 2018 @01:16AM (#57401618)

    Should be placed due to qualifications, not gender.

    This is the same misconception I see time an time again.

    Equal representation does not equal not being sexist. It is actually just more sexism as you have to fill the role taking into account their gender.

    There is also a second sexist thing that is going on, as long as it sexism is against the gender that is thought to be in the wrong. This type of sexism is deemed ok. I strongly disagree with this. It just more sexism.

    Equality is for all, not just one gender.

  • Here we go... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Freshly Exhumed ( 105597 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @01:16AM (#57401620) Homepage

    On one side, we have those who believe that the "best" candidate should always get the job. They don't really know what "best" means, because they clearly keep hiring the guy who is not the "best", but he's a great guy from a great family from the best schools, so there.

    One the other side, we have those who believe that the government should phone them up with a great job while they finish another game level and devour another bag of Cheetos in mom's basement.

    There, that about sums up the flaming about to happen here.

    • Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Roger W Moore ( 538166 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @02:33AM (#57401884) Journal
      How about those who just believe that discrimination based on gender, age, religion or race is just wrong? Yes, such discrimination still goes on society but you are not going to get rid of it by legally requiring such discrimination in the same way that you cannot get rid of corruption by bribing politicians to take action against it.
  • by Spy Handler ( 822350 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @01:17AM (#57401628) Homepage Journal

    fairness and justice will only be reached when 3 of those seats are mandated to be filled by African-Americans, and 3 are reserved for Hispanic Americans.

    • Proportional representation scares the hell out of the establishment (right and left). It will always be dead in the water.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Furthermore it is now required to have at least one moron, one down syndrome, one bozo the clown, one batman, one hippie, one streetsweeper, one biker, one dog and one skeleton on the board.

    Merits are overrated according to people without merit.

  • by mveloso ( 325617 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @01:24AM (#57401650)

    Do non-binaries count against the new gender quota?

    • by drnb ( 2434720 )

      Do non-binaries count against the new gender quota?

      They get two seats/votes

    • Non-binaries oppress post-brain uploading transhumanists.

    • by truedfx ( 802492 )
      The law requires a certain number of female directors, not a certain number of non-male directors. California is one of the states that recognises and and is scheduled to allow "nonbinary" as a third gender in addition to "male" and "female", with no distinction between "neither male and female", "both male and female", and any other options, so presumably anyone using that option would not be counted. If challenged, it could result in an interesting discrimination lawsuit.
  • by Cito ( 1725214 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @01:25AM (#57401654)

    Aldous Huxley would definitely be laughing and saying he told us so.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PopeRatzo ( 965947 )

      Aldous Huxley would definitely be laughing and saying he told us so.

      Aldous Huxley was a communist and user of entheogens. He was a proponent of sustainable living and production, environmentalism, and cooperative living. Also a good buddy of Timothy Leary. I'm surprised you think you can predict his opinion on anything.

      • I knew Aldous Huxley. I worked with Aldous Huxley. Aldous Huxley was a friend of mine, and I can tell you, sir... that I'm standin' next to a mountain, choppin' down with the edge o' my hand.

  • How patronizing! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ARos ( 1314459 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @01:26AM (#57401670)

    What could possibly be more insulting to women than to suggest that they cannot negotiate power on their own as individuals? What's next? CA demands that VC invest at most 50% of their capital investment into companies started by men? These people need to be driven out of Sacramento with pitchforks and blowtorches.

  • by rossz ( 67331 ) <ogre&geekbiker,net> on Monday October 01, 2018 @01:34AM (#57401692) Journal

    Watch as a bunch of businesses re-incorporate in another state. The politicians in Sacramento haven't figured out that a lot of businesses are not physically tied to California. My state already has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the country and the fees are never ending.

    • Are the powerful, white, greying power elites really that mobile that they'd up and move to another state? It happens, but not the way you're imagining. A smart person would check out the lay of the land before making a knee-jerk, anger-based life change.

      • by drnb ( 2434720 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @02:06AM (#57401798)

        Are the powerful, white, greying power elites really that mobile that they'd up and move to another state? It happens, but not the way you're imagining. A smart person would check out the lay of the land before making a knee-jerk, anger-based life change.

        Actually a smart person would know that you can incorporate in Delaware, become a client of a Delaware attorney (i.e. give him/her a modest retainer payment), pay for a service that is your legal mail drop and answering service in Delaware (a modest annual fee), and then you can run your business from and have offices in whatever state you want including California. Most US corporations, in general and fortune 500, are incorporated in Delaware.

  • Easy workaround (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Daniel Tanner ( 5499440 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @02:03AM (#57401788)
    Just get two male members to identify as female. It would hold the courts up for months.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01, 2018 @02:04AM (#57401794)

    "Though similar measures are common in European countries" - Er... no, they're not. There is no remotely similar law in the EU.

  • by Karmashock ( 2415832 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @02:12AM (#57401816)

    ... No really. Just say "I identify as a woman".

    Game over.

    why? Because the inter-sectional Marxists have swallowed a whole lot of contradictions and conflicting interest groups in their quest for power.

    Opposing forces have behaved in a dumb "reactionary" pattern where they don't really change what they're doing but merely cite their disagreement with things. This is idiotic.

    The point of intersectionalism is to conflate as many interest groups as possible with analogs of classical "class struggle".

    The way to fight this is to not treat these various ploys separately and not appreciate the wider context but rather to hammer at the very glue that holds these groups together... which is generally a deceit that suggests that if you give X power then all these contradictory interest groups will get what they want.

    So the black power groups will get what they want, the feminist groups will get what they want, the islamic organizations will get what they want, the hispanic groups will get what they want, the trans activists will get what they want.

    It isn't possible to satisfy these agendas at the same time. Which is why in practice they're not satisfied at all. Look at Detroit. It went from being a mecca of blue collar success to a warren of endless crack dens. But the people that took power when that started are still in power.

    Weird, huh? The only people that will ultimately get power are a few elites and some politicians and some political party here or there might pick up power. But the endless ranks of dupes that fuel this nonsense will get nothing.

    Women will get nothing.
    name the racial group will get nothing.
    The various agitating ethnic religious factions will get nothing.

    It is a big silly game.

    And THAT is the weakness.

    By declaring yourself a woman, you hammer on one of the more glaring incompatibilities in "intersectionalism" which is the conflict between Feminism and Trans-sexualism.

    The Feminist movement holds that all gender norms are social constructs and that women should be advanced above men generally to address historic favoring of men.

    The trans movement holds that gender is biological and that one can "feel" like a woman inside or a man or whatever indifferent to social constructs. And that one can shift between being "male" or "female" simply by citing yourself as one or the other. A medical procedure is not required, nor is changing your sexual partners, nor is changing your preferred clothing, etc. So a 55 year old guy in a suit can just say he's a woman according to the Trans sexual movement. He doesn't have to do anything besides that.

    The feminists have predictably been giving ground to the Trans movement even though they make up at best something like .01 percent of the population or something. It is a pretty common tell with intersectionalism that individual interest groups will always subordinate their interests when they come into conflict with the collective intersectional power structure. This has already lead several feminist conventions to stop performing the vagina monologues. And quite a few of these things will have it openly cited that "not all women have vaginas".

    This is the weakness of intersectionalism. The greediness of it to gather too many conflicting interests under one banner.

    So don't attack any of the hydra heads. Attack the body that connects them. The hydra heads are endless. A giant waste of time to argue with any of these interest groups directly. Rather go after what gives them the national thrust they have... break up the alliances by forcing them into conflict with each other.

    Short of that, intersectionalism will continue until the people primary interested in their own personal power have total control over everything... and then basically tyranny until systemic corruption and inefficiency destroys the society.

    Either/or.

    Here some zealot for the cause may tell me that a zillion contradictory interests can be satisfied at the same time. Not without divine intervention, bucko. Only one planet and one reality. The oppression pyramid is a pyramid scheme. Wise up.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      ... No really. Just say "I identify as a woman".

      Game over.

      I think you should definitely try to get this in front of a judge.

      I didn't really read the rest of your post; I'm sure it's excellent, so much so that I think you could probably represent yourself. I hear judges absolutely love it when people find cute loopholes to the law.

  • Oppsite Effects (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01, 2018 @02:14AM (#57401822)

    These types of laws have the opposite effect. Women on these boards will be seen as only having the position because the laws demand it, so they won't be taken seriously. This is a blow to female advancement, not an improvement.

    It'll also stifle new companies. A group of male friends won't be able to form a public company if they can't find a female to help. And where is the corresponding law which says all female boards need a male member? I wish people in the government used their brains more for the overall benefit of the population rather than their own benefit.

  • by mentil ( 1748130 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @02:28AM (#57401874)

    If the law doesn't also require at least one man on a board of directors, I don't see this passing a challenge that it violates the Equal Protection Clause [wikipedia.org] of the 14th Amendment.

  • Yes there is a male-only culture in many places but this just replaces that with the same plus a token female - and legally enforcing a gender based agenda at that.
    And that my friends (and enemies) is inherently sexist!

    • Not only that, but it promotes sexism. Any woman that now manages to get on the board will be dismissed as the "token bitch", even if she rightfully has that position due to qualification and hard work.

  • by Bruce66423 ( 1678196 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @02:43AM (#57401920)

    I got censored from the Guardian for pointing out that a non-white female writer who won a Hugo would never know if she was the best, or merely the best available woman writer. In the same way a female director will never know if she is on the board because she is competent, or merely making up the numbers...

  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @02:50AM (#57401944)

    So every woman from now on that actually manages to climb the corporate ladder and punch through the glass ceiling will be dismissed as the "quota bitch". Great work, feminists, turn your own movement of empowerment where women were supposed to become self-confident and self-reliant into a social program that reeks more like a hand-up for handicapped people who can't accomplish anything themselves.

  • The main problem with how management is selected, is that "merit" is actually an excuse for a system that is really more like aristrocracy. If you force management to add women, it won't change much, since nobles, naturally, have an amount of women roughly equal to those of men. However, if you forced nobles to add people from outside their circles, that would be much more interesting.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • All female boards? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ReneR ( 1057034 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @03:47AM (#57402094)
    are ruled out, too?

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Working...