California Becomes First State to Mandate Female Board Directors

[Erod]

This makes women in those positions officially and automatically token hires, which is the same thing as inferior.

Way to go, California.

 

[jimbo]

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.

Another reason to move your business outside California.

 

[PeteEU]

I disagree.

One should hire the best qualified person they can get. Gender does should not matter.

Oh I don't disagree gender, race and religion should not matter... but in the real world it does.

The lack of women in everything from politics to business is because of discrimination against women...both directly and subconsciously so to say. You see it all over this thread.

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk

 

[jimbo]

mandated discrimination?! I cant wait for that to get Kavanaughed.

We've already got mandated discrimination. Even on high level positions.

Circuit City was sued over this years ago. They lost. They are not the only ones.

 

[PeteEU]

This makes women in those positions officially and automatically token hires, which is the same thing as inferior.

Way to go, California.

Funny you say that... that argument was used 10 years ago when European countries put in similar quotas. One famous female board member was the former French presidents wife who got on the board because "she attended fashion shows" according to the company.

Now 10 years later we know that the "token" part is utter bull**** as a vast majority of women on boards are more than qualified to be there... unlike some men who were/are token board members...

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk

 

[mike2810]

Oh I don't disagree gender, race and religion should not matter... but in the real world it does.

The lack of women in everything from politics to business is because of discrimination against women...both directly and subconsciously so to say. You see it all over this thread.

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk

I disagree to some extent. Yes, some discrimination has taken place against females. You have to look at our social history. The role of women has changed from stay at home mom to having a career. There was a time for example when a female would not consider being a firefighter or construction worker. Their are more today that have taken that up as a career. To promote a female just because they are qualified over someone more qualified is just plain stupid. Over time, females will have the work experience of their male counterparts.

 

[Erod]

Funny you say that... that argument was used 10 years ago when European countries put in similar quotas. One famous female board member was the former French presidents wife who got on the board because "she attended fashion shows" according to the company.

Now 10 years later we know that the "token" part is utter bull**** as a vast majority of women on boards are more than qualified to be there... unlike some men who were/are token board members...

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk

Europe is no example of anything. You're still like our dependent 25-year-old kids who won't get a job and move out of the house.

And where are all the black people in Europe in high-ranking positions? You love to preach to us about race, but advancement is a brick wall over there for minorities unless they can kick a soccer ball.

Run off, little guy.

 

[chuckiechan]

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 just goes to show how democrats see private business as their little SJW sandbox.

Next, each board will have to have a GLTQU and the rest of the sexual and racial permutations on their boards. Then since the fine print will have some way to prevent firing them, they will be obstructionists with no way to unseat them.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

How about the one that says you can't discriminate?
again the state of California cannot tell stock holders who to vote for.

Quite right, but the Republic of California CAN tell those which it licenses to do business within its boundaries how to conduct business.

That would include requiring them to have divided ballots with "x" to be elected in Category 1 and "y" to be elected in Category 2.

In fact, if the state government wanted to, it could impose a requirement that a company have "z" members of its Board of Directors selected at random from its employees.

the problem with you is you don't know how board of directors work.
so you are arguing from a point of ignorance.

Which applies equally to your knowledge of how the law can be made to work.

people on the board are nominated then voted for by the stock holders.
the CA can't force stock holders to vote for a women.

True, but it can force a company to have women on the ballot and to have male and female nominees in separate categories and to require that certain numbers of directors come from each category.

He evidently doesn't know how board of directors work either.

He appears to have a "slightly" better idea than you do.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

as usual you arguments are nonsense.

we have anti-discrimination laws in this country.
no you don't know how board of directors work.

if you did then you would know that CA can't force stock holders to vote for a women.
he doesn't even know what he is doing.

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

[PeteEU]

I disagree to some extent. Yes, some discrimination has taken place against females.

Some? Men sold women for **** sake! Women were second class citizens officially until the early part of the 1900s and realistically still up to the 1980s.

You have to look at our social history. The role of women has changed from stay at home mom to having a career.

Yes things have changed because women had too and still have to fight for every single change and only came after the role of the church diminished dramatically.. a church that is still very much male dominated... and here we get to the root problem even today. The role of women was defined by the catholic Church and all its splinter groups. Women were simply not allowed to first read or write, and when they managed to get that right, they were still second class citizens who were no more than birthing machines. That is what conservatives like the Church try to cling onto. You should look at Spain and what has happened to women since Franco died and democracy came too..

There was a time for example when a female would not consider being a firefighter or construction worker.

Yea that was like 20 years ago some places, but is still considered unfit by MANY on the right wing of politics and the older generation. I still remember GOPers fighting against letting women serve in the armed forces and many STILL refuse to have them in combat roles.. why?

Their are more today that have taken that up as a career.

And why are there female firefighters and police and construction workers? Because of legislation and court rulings.

To promote a female just because they are qualified over someone more qualified is just plain stupid.

I dont disagree, however that aint how it works. More qualified women are routinely ignored because they are... women. Just like more qualified muslims, black men, latinos and other minorities are routinely ignored because of who they are..

Over time, females will have the work experience of their male counterparts.

And they HAVE that.. that is the problem. Women in the work place has been normal for at least 30 years, and yet women still have a damn hard time breaking into business and finances.. why? Who controls these areas mostly? Conservatives..aka old white men. It is a generalization of course but it is also true since that trend goes into things like conservative politics as well. Ever read about how Maggie Thatcher got into power back in the day and how she had to fight the old white mans club? While it has gotten better in politics, the same can not be said about business.

I remember when Spain appointed the first female defence minister a few years ago... many conservatives were in shock and questioned it.. she was also pregnant at the time. Irony was of course, it was a conservative government that appointed her. Or the conservative backlash in New Zealand and elsewhere that raised an eyebrow or two (plus the usual sexist comments) when a pregnant unmarried female became Prime Minister of New Zealand.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I disagree.

One should hire the best qualified person they can get. Gender does should not matter.

The problems with your second and third sentence is the confusion between "should" and "will always" in the second and between "should not" and "does" in the third.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I disagree to some extent. Yes, some discrimination has taken place against females. You have to look at our social history. The role of women has changed from stay at home mom to having a career. There was a time for example when a female would not consider being a firefighter or construction worker. Their are more today that have taken that up as a career. To promote a female just because they are qualified over someone more qualified is just plain stupid. Over time, females will have the work experience of their male counterparts.

Your point would be a whole lot more valid if Mr. Trump weren't trying to take America back to the 1950s as far as social roles are concerned.

Now, if you think that __[fill in the blank]__ discrimination will end when __[fill in the blank]__ get the work experience required to progress up the career ladder, you could be quite correct.

On the other hand, exactly how do __[fill in the blank]__ get the work experience required to progress up the career ladder if __[fill in the blank]__ discrimination precludes __[fill in the blank]__ from being hired in the first place and/or from being considered for promotion - on an equal basis - with non-__[fill in the blank]__?

 

[ludin]

Quite right, but the Republic of California CAN tell those which it licenses to do business within its boundaries how to conduct business.

To a certain point it is still bound by the constitution of what it can and can't do.

That would include requiring them to have divided ballots with "x" to be elected in Category 1 and "y" to be elected in Category 2.

Not really that is over stepping it's bounds.

In fact, if the state government wanted to, it could impose a requirement that a company have "z" members of its Board of Directors selected at random from its employees.

Not really again outside of it's bounds.

Which applies equally to your knowledge of how the law can be made to work.

No i am pretty sure how the laws work.

True, but it can force a company to have women on the ballot and to have male and female nominees in separate categories and to require that certain numbers of directors come from each category.

Not really. Shareholders decide who the board is the government has no say in it.

He appears to have a "slightly" better idea than you do.

No he doesn't.
https://www.law.com/therecorder/201...l-doctrine-403-22914/?slreturn=20180909140526

 

[ludin]

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

pretty much sums up most of your posts.

 

[MTAtech]

have none of you people ever taken a businesses class?
it is stock holders that elect board members not the company itself.

board members can be nominated but then the stock holders vote on it.

Stockholders vote for a slate put up by management.

 

[ludin]

Stockholders vote for a slate put up by management.

you didn't read thanks enjoy.

 

[mike2810]

The problems with your second and third sentence is the confusion between "should" and "will always" in the second and between "should not" and "does" in the third.

I agree. Bad typing on my part.

One should hire the best qualified they can get. Gender should not matter.

 

[mike2810]

Your point would be a whole lot more valid if Mr. Trump weren't trying to take America back to the 1950s as far as social roles are concerned.

Now, if you think that __[fill in the blank]__ discrimination will end when __[fill in the blank]__ get the work experience required to progress up the career ladder, you could be quite correct.

On the other hand, exactly how do __[fill in the blank]__ get the work experience required to progress up the career ladder if __[fill in the blank]__ discrimination precludes __[fill in the blank]__ from being hired in the first place and/or from being considered for promotion - on an equal basis - with non-__[fill in the blank]__?

Women and minority preference in hiring has been in place long before Trump. It is out of date in today's work place.

From my personal experience , women were able to get hired as wildland firefighters. They had to pass the same standards as their male counterparts. They moved up the organization as they gained experience and training. One of the best National Type I Incident Command Teams has a female IC.(Day). The experience and training is not acquired over night. It takes years.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

To a certain point it is still bound by the constitution of what it can and can't do.

True, but it would be up to the courts to decide that point - wouldn't it?

Not really that is over stepping it's bounds.

Exactly how much experience do you have in either writing constitutions, or in legal interpretations of what the written words of a constitution actually mean at law?

Not really again outside of it's bounds.

See above.

No i am pretty sure how the laws work.

And its the people like you that the ones who know how the laws can be made to work just love.

Not really. Shareholders decide who the board is the government has no say in it.

See above.

"The Gummint" is NOT dictating WHO goes on the Boards of Directors, it is only "regulating the administrative conduct of elections".

No he doesn't.
https://www.law.com/therecorder/201...l-doctrine-403-22914/?slreturn=20180909140526

Interesting "Is California Gender-Balance on Boards Law Set to Collide With Delaware Legal Doctrine?".

Since I don't feel like paying $250.00 to follow your link, possibly you'd employ some "fair use doctrine" and C&P the relevant parts of the article where it shows that the California government is incompetent to legislate in respect of businesses BASED in California.

 

[ludin]

True, but it would be up to the courts to decide that point - wouldn't it?

Which is why I figure someone will sue as it is unconstitutional. They are interfering in the election of board officials.

Exactly how much experience do you have in either writing constitutions, or in legal interpretations of what the written words of a constitution actually mean at law?

Nothing to do with my argument. I can argue that they are not allowed to interfere with stockholder elections. There is a good founding principle for it as well.

And its the people like you that the ones who know how the laws can be made to work just love.

There is a reason that we have limited clauses written into the constitution. it is to stop government overreach such as this.

"The Gummint" is NOT dictating WHO goes on the Boards of Directors, it is only "regulating the administrative conduct of elections".

Actually they are.

Interesting "Is California Gender-Balance on Boards Law Set to Collide With Delaware Legal Doctrine?".

Since I don't feel like paying $250.00 to follow your link, possibly you'd employ some "fair use doctrine" and C&P the relevant parts of the article where it shows that the California government is incompetent to legislate in respect of businesses BASED in California.

many companies have multiple corporate offices, but are headquartered elsewhere.
These are usually regional offices that allow for quicker action for a region.

Yet the actual headquarters could be in a different state.

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/10/04/californias-unconstitutional-gender-quot

again it is the stock holders that determine the board of directors.
so there you have it.

YOu can't force stock holders to vote for a women and telling them that they have to is a violation of their free speech rights as well.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Which is why I figure someone will sue as it is unconstitutional. They are interfering in the election of board officials.

Your opinion is duly noted.

Nothing to do with my argument. I can argue that they are not allowed to interfere with stockholder elections. There is a good founding principle for it as well.

One can "argue" almost anything one wants to "argue". The state government has the power to "regulate the conduct" of companies within its jurisdiction. There is a good founding principle for THAT as well.

There is a reason that we have limited clauses written into the constitution. it is to stop government overreach such as this.

No, it's to parcel out which areas the several governments are allowed to "overreach" in. If the "regulation of corporate behaviour within the boundaries of a state" is NOT a federal power, then it is a state power. That means that the federal constitution doesn't apply and only the state constitution is relevant.

Actually they are.

You do know what the meaning of the word "who" is, don't you?

Using your definition of "who" then every election in the United States of America prior to the granting of the "right" to vote to women was "unconstitutional" since only men were eligible to run for public office and that means that the laws interfered with "who" people could elect.

many companies have multiple corporate offices, but are headquartered elsewhere.

Quite a few.

That, however, does not mean that the companies have their "Head Offices" in all of the states in which they operate. And that means that they do not have a "Board of Governors" located in all of the states in which they operate.

There is a significant legal difference between:

1. a "national" company that is "doing business" in a state;
2. a company that "has a presence" in a state;
3. a company that "operates" in a state; and
4. a company that "does business" in a state.

These are usually regional offices that allow for quicker action for a region.

Yep, and they are all governed by employees who are governed by the policies and directives of a Board of Governors located elsewhere.

Yet the actual headquarters could be in a different state.

In which case the California state law would have absolutely no force or effect.

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/10/04/californias-unconstitutional-gender-quot

An arguable position. I'm not saying that it MIGHT not prevail. Equally the view that "regulating the conduct of California companies" falls within the legislative competence of the government of California MIGHT not prevail.

I know which way I'd bet.

again it is the stock holders that determine the board of directors.

No one is saying that it isn't.

so there you have it.

YOu can't force stock holders to vote for a women and telling them that they have to is a violation of their free speech rights as well.

The stock holders would be prefectly at liberty to leave the ballot portion listing the female candidates blank.

Tell me, in the states which DO NOT make provision for "write in" candidates, are their elections "unconstitutional" because that is a "violation of (the voters') free speech rights"?

Tell me, in the states which require a certain minimum number of "nominators" before a person's name can be placed on the ballot "unconstitutional" because that is a "violation of (the voters') free speech rights"?

 

[Fishking]

Which California law would that be?

1964 Civil Rights Act. You cannot discriminate based on gender.

 

[Maccabee]

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.

Easy loophole: have one of your male directors identify as a female during inspection.

 

[The Mark]

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.

Be interesting to see how that plays out in a legal case.
I don't know the various laws that may apply.