California Becomes First State to Mandate Female Board Directors

[jonny5]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/califo...-to-mandate-female-board-directors-1538341932

California Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday signed a bill mandating that all publicly traded companies with headquarters in the state have at least one woman on their boards by the end of next year. By 2021, companies with at least five directors would need to have two or three female directors, depending on the size of the board, according to the new law. Those that don’t face financial penalties.

This obvious breaks so many laws, REQUIRING discrimination by private groups of people. Not only equal rights laws, the commerce clause, and probably any number of state laws are being violated. The law requires certain companies to only allow board directors who 'identify' as female to be elected to a board, by shareholders, if there are 'too many men' on the board, regardless of whether the shareholders want the person, or if they are less qualified than a man.

Not only is this illegal, but its also immoral to our free market system and an an inefficient way to run a business.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

This obvious breaks so many laws, REQUIRING discrimination by private groups of people. Not only equal rights laws, the commerce clause, and probably any number of state laws are being violated. The law requires certain companies to only allow board directors who 'identify' as female to be elected to a board, by shareholders, if there are 'too many men' on the board, regardless of whether the shareholders want the person, or if they are less qualified than a man.

Not only is this illegal, but its also immoral to our free market system and an an inefficient way to run a business.

I disagree with the law but I don't think it violates all those laws you suggest and definitely not the commerce clause as the company must be HQ in California, is my understanding.

 

[Samhain]

good grief is that stupid. Wonder how much money they will spend trying to defend this from lawsuits.

 

[Fishking]

I disagree with the law but I don't think it violates all those laws you suggest and definitely not the commerce clause as the company must be HQ in California, is my understanding.

Definitely violates discrimination laws.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

While I disagree with the law, these aren’t private companies. Publicly traded companies enjoy all sorts of legal benefits. It can be argued that if you want to avail yourself of those benefits you have to meet certain requirements.

Again, I don’t agree with this law. And does it mean in order to meet the deadline male directors who already have the jobs are going to have to be kicked off the board in order to make room? This will most likely be challenged.

 

[Fishking]

While I disagree with the law, these aren’t private companies. Publicly traded companies enjoy all sorts of legal benefits. It can be argued that if you want to avail yourself of those benefits you have to meet certain requirements.

Again, I don’t agree with this law. And does it mean in order to meet the deadline male directors who already have the jobs are going to have to be kicked off the board in order to make room? This will most likely be challenged.

That's true, but being part of the public exchange also means you have even a less ability to violate certain standards, to include not being allowed to discriminate based on sex.

 

[mike2810]

What happened to hire the best qualified candidate? Seems by mandating board members by sex is discrimination.

 

[trixare4kids]

This obvious breaks so many laws, REQUIRING discrimination by private groups of people. Not only equal rights laws, the commerce clause, and probably any number of state laws are being violated. The law requires certain companies to only allow board directors who 'identify' as female to be elected to a board, by shareholders, if there are 'too many men' on the board, regardless of whether the shareholders want the person, or if they are less qualified than a man.

Not only is this illegal, but its also immoral to our free market system and an an inefficient way to run a business.

It's also an insult to women and men too for that matter. Mostly because board positions will be granted not by a person's merit but by their gender.

 

[PirateMk1]

This obvious breaks so many laws, REQUIRING discrimination by private groups of people. Not only equal rights laws, the commerce clause, and probably any number of state laws are being violated. The law requires certain companies to only allow board directors who 'identify' as female to be elected to a board, by shareholders, if there are 'too many men' on the board, regardless of whether the shareholders want the person, or if they are less qualified than a man.

Not only is this illegal, but its also immoral to our free market system and an an inefficient way to run a business.

This is pointless law. Boards of directors are usually made up of majority stake holders in the company. This means that if some of them are women they are generally already on the board. If they are not women and they have, have women then what will happen is a representative who is a woman will be appointed by a board member to act as proxy and be for all intents and purposes a puppet with no power whatsoever. Whoever thought of this law is dumb.

 

[apdst]

While I disagree with the law, these aren’t private companies. Publicly traded companies enjoy all sorts of legal benefits. It can be argued that if you want to avail yourself of those benefits you have to meet certain requirements.

Again, I don’t agree with this law. And does it mean in order to meet the deadline male directors who already have the jobs are going to have to be kicked off the board in order to make room? This will most likely be challenged.

Actually, these are private companies. They aren't the property of the government.

 

[PirateMk1]

It's also an insult to women and men too for that matter. Mostly because board positions will be granted not by a person's merit but by their gender.

The women will be proxy for whomever is elected to the board generally the people with the largest stakes in the company. Basically the women end up nothing more than spokes people with absolutely no power whatsoever.

 

[jonny5]

While I disagree with the law, these aren’t private companies. Publicly traded companies enjoy all sorts of legal benefits. It can be argued that if you want to avail yourself of those benefits you have to meet certain requirements.

Again, I don’t agree with this law. And does it mean in order to meet the deadline male directors who already have the jobs are going to have to be kicked off the board in order to make room? This will most likely be challenged.

Publicly traded just means shares can be bought by anyone. They are still private property. This is as opposed to a school which is owned by the govt, and therefore can be made to do things like affirmative action.

 

[jonny5]

I disagree with the law but I don't think it violates all those laws you suggest and definitely not the commerce clause as the company must be HQ in California, is my understanding.

Headquarters no longer have meaning. The companies that exist in CA are global. They do business nationally, have offices and employers and owners all over the country, and laws in every zip code that have to be followed.

 

[jonny5]

The women will be proxy for whomever is elected to the board generally the people with the largest stakes in the company. Basically the women end up nothing more than spokes people with absolutely no power whatsoever.

Good point, and also men can just identify as a woman during the election or appointment.

 

[PirateMk1]

Good point, and also men can just identify as a woman during the election or appointment.

Now that you mention it, what exactly are the regulators going to do when that happens. Oh to be a fly on that wall.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Headquarters no longer have meaning. The companies that exist in CA are global. They do business nationally, have offices and employers and owners all over the country, and laws in every zip code that have to be followed.

Apparently HQ do have meaning and a company such as Apple has their HQ in Cupertino, CA, so they are subject to this law. I do believe that this law does not, and should not be able to apply to a company that does not have its HQ in California.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Definitely violates discrimination laws.

Which California law would that be?

 

[jonny5]

Apparently HQ do have meaning and a company such as Apple has their HQ in Cupertino, CA, so they are subject to this law. I do believe that this law does not, and should not be able to apply to a company that does not have its HQ in California.

It has meaning to bureaucrats who want any reason to tax you. In reality, businesses are not fixed to one place, and should not be treated at such. Same as the internet tax or foreign earnings. California has no say in the regulation of internal matters of a global business, only local matters that they may directly relate too, like parking.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

It has meaning to bureaucrats who want any reason to tax you. In reality, businesses are not fixed to one place, and should not be treated at such. Same as the internet tax or foreign earnings. California has no say in the regulation of internal matters of a global business, only local matters that they may directly relate too, like parking.

Reality is that Apple is HQ in California and has a license issues by the state of California. I'm sorry but nothing in the Constitution prevents a state from regulating businesses in their state, regardless of their size and regardless of whether you want corporations to be above any law. I'd prefer that a global company like Apple to not be regulated by a global organization like the UN. That seems to be the pathway you are going.

 

[ludin]

This obvious breaks so many laws, REQUIRING discrimination by private groups of people. Not only equal rights laws, the commerce clause, and probably any number of state laws are being violated. The law requires certain companies to only allow board directors who 'identify' as female to be elected to a board, by shareholders, if there are 'too many men' on the board, regardless of whether the shareholders want the person, or if they are less qualified than a man.

Not only is this illegal, but its also immoral to our free market system and an an inefficient way to run a business.

Yea this is pretty much going to get shot down by courts.
why? board of directors are voted on by the shareholders of the company.

It is not up to the company themselves who sits on the board.

 

[ludin]

I disagree with the law but I don't think it violates all those laws you suggest and definitely not the commerce clause as the company must be HQ in California, is my understanding.

It doesn't matter. it is the shareholders that determine who the board of directors are through voting.
he has 0 right to demand anything in this case.

 

[Saladin4]

Funny to see all the old white men running scared...Yee Haw!

 

[ludin]

Funny to see all the old white men running scared...Yee Haw!

It isn't constitutional they are violating shareholder rights.

 

[smallvoice]

Whatever else the libs may call it, it is clearly sexist.

I disagree with the law but I don't think it violates all those laws you suggest and definitely not the commerce clause as the company must be HQ in California, is my understanding.

 

[AGENT J]

This obvious breaks so many laws, REQUIRING discrimination by private groups of people. Not only equal rights laws, the commerce clause, and probably any number of state laws are being violated. The law requires certain companies to only allow board directors who 'identify' as female to be elected to a board, by shareholders, if there are 'too many men' on the board, regardless of whether the shareholders want the person, or if they are less qualified than a man.

Not only is this illegal, but its also immoral to our free market system and an an inefficient way to run a business.

What?! "Required"?
ill have to look into this more but on the surface and based on the info here i do not support this and if challenged it will fail.