Slashdot Mirror
California Has a New Law: No More All-Male Boards (cnn.com)
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.
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.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Do non-binaries count against the new gender quota?
Just get two male members to identify as female. It would hold the courts up for months.
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...
are ruled out, too?
If we're going to pass laws like this then shouldn't we require an equal mix of POTUS?
That would mean that the next election would require only women candidates.
I find myself strangely attracted to that idea, not because they're women but because it would throw the status-quo into turmoil.
No sig today...
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 viewed by pre-existing board members? The idealists (that's being charitable) who came up with this idea don't bother to consider the psychological effects on the "diversity quota" board member either. Can you imagine a more demeaning setup than to know you only got the position because a law required someone without a penis to sit in a chair?
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
"Currently my post is scored 20% flamebait and 20% overrated."
Your post is scored 5 insightful. My post is scored 2 Troll.
""Most importantly this is a LAW, it is forever"
That's not how laws work."
That is exactly how laws work, at least by default.
"There are people out there for whom merely disagreeing with them on this topic, merely contradicting their narrative is incitement. It angers them so much that they can't allow it to be discussed or visible at +2."
Yes, and your posting history over the last couple days suggests you may be one of them or you might just be trolling. They are the people modding you up and me down.
Your post contained a vague undefined reference to a "specific objective" as well as a suggestion without any logical support that a debate could not be had.
I extrapolated based on the actual underlying agenda in the story for the sake of debate and provided logical refutation as well as specific facts. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong but I logically supported my statements and someone who disagreed is welcome to refute them logically.
In any sane world your post would have been correctly moderated as a troll or flamebait because you were vague, attacked the integrity of the forum, and provided no coherent rationale or logical support for any position. What your lean or position is on the actual topic being discussed is beside the point. You added no value to the arguments of any position.