California to become first state to require companies to have women on boards(psmag.com)
psmag.com
California to become first state to require companies to have women on boards
https://psmag.com/social-justice/california-is-about-to-become-the-first-state-to-require-companies-to-have-women-on-their-boards
60 comments
ac1000(1)
I’m a minority and consider bleeding heart, big government, free market capitalist. But I can’t agree with this. Corporate America should have “affirmative outreach” and not just recruit from Ivey league schools and even partner with colleges and high schools with large minority populations and reach out to females to widen the top of the funnel.
While I disagree with the law as well, I can't disagree with the problem the law is trying to address. Ivy league schools actively develop alma mater networks (that's the old boy's network everyone speaks about). It's not the case that board members from the Ivies see this as a problem; this is something they actively work to foster, encourage, and support. Most would never consider affirmative outreach; they actively do the opposite.
The only reason a law like this can pass is the Ivy League is now pretty evenly split on gender. It doesn't break the network.
I'll mention a lot of policies are this ham-fisted as a compromise -- allow a particular demographic (women, African Americans, etc.) into seats of power, without fundamentally breaking the power dynamics. A lot of racial issues you see are due to e.g. aggressive outreach to a very small number of African American who fit a certain cultural mould, rather than a broader outreach to poor people.
The Harvard crowd would never want to let poor people attend the school (unless they're e.g. poor but politically connected, or otherwise likely to end up in a seat of power).
The only reason a law like this can pass is the Ivy League is now pretty evenly split on gender. It doesn't break the network.
I'll mention a lot of policies are this ham-fisted as a compromise -- allow a particular demographic (women, African Americans, etc.) into seats of power, without fundamentally breaking the power dynamics. A lot of racial issues you see are due to e.g. aggressive outreach to a very small number of African American who fit a certain cultural mould, rather than a broader outreach to poor people.
The Harvard crowd would never want to let poor people attend the school (unless they're e.g. poor but politically connected, or otherwise likely to end up in a seat of power).
Good. Now also the different races. Also the different religions. Etc.
Just kidding...
Why not turn it around, let them prove the best were not hired based on these variables. For example, if a comoany has all white males in the board, start and investigation if they could also have hired a non white-male. Just putting 'a' woman in is not going to solve the deeper problem. In fact that would just be cosmetically covering up the deeper problem. also if I were a woman, I'd liked to be hired for my skills, not my vagina...
Just kidding...
Why not turn it around, let them prove the best were not hired based on these variables. For example, if a comoany has all white males in the board, start and investigation if they could also have hired a non white-male. Just putting 'a' woman in is not going to solve the deeper problem. In fact that would just be cosmetically covering up the deeper problem. also if I were a woman, I'd liked to be hired for my skills, not my vagina...
It's OK, this crowd will disregard your vagina anyway. https://twitter.com/ccchloe/status/1019633671853301762
So this person is ok with 50% of the parliment being filled with a group that represents maybe 0.00001% of the society? Great.
Wait, I'm confused: do you think there are only ~700 trans people identifying as female in the world, or do you think there are only 7 of them in the UK?
Neither - I used a small percentage without actually thinking about the value, because I don't think that the number of zeros past the decimal point changes the point I'm trying to make.
It does.
In what way exactly? can you explain please? How is my point changed whether I use 0.001% or 0.000001% or 0.00000001%? The overall idea of a "very small number" is conveyed regardless of the number of zeroes used - if that's not true, please enlighten me.
Lol, no it doesn't. It wasn't a statistical value and nothing they said even alluded to it being an accurate value.
And everybody clapped, and all the chairs clapped, and the projector flickered in a clap-like way.
This is so sad. I am a woman-- a real woman-- and I constantly wonder if I am where I am because of shit like this. And now I can't even have womanhood because it's being claimed by men who claim to be women.
What the FUCK is going on???
This is so sad. I am a woman-- a real woman-- and I constantly wonder if I am where I am because of shit like this. And now I can't even have womanhood because it's being claimed by men who claim to be women.
What the FUCK is going on???
Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic, but my first thought is how long before someone claims MtF status for the exclusive[1] purpose of not really fulfilling this requirement.
[1] i.e. do not actually identify as female. I make no statements about genuinely trans people in this post.
[1] i.e. do not actually identify as female. I make no statements about genuinely trans people in this post.
Probably not very long. There was already a man in South America who identified as female in order to take advantage of females in his country being able to retire earlier than males, a male in Canada identifying as female in order to get cheaper car insurance, and a male in Canada who identified as female in order to get sent to a female prison instead of male prison.
It's probably going to be a problem as long as "you are whatever you choose to identify as" and "people that identify as certain things deserve govt regulated special treatment" co-exist as concepts.
It's probably going to be a problem as long as "you are whatever you choose to identify as" and "people that identify as certain things deserve govt regulated special treatment" co-exist as concepts.
[deleted]
I would think identifying as a female SOLELY to get cheaper car insurance (and not identifying as a female in any other aspect of your life) is just plain insurance fraud (which is illegal). Plus you risk claims being denied even if the policy was underwritten and you didn't get into any legal trouble.
Who are we to say that a woman's identity isn't defined by her insurance rates?
The obvious biological markers are no longer requirements, so why not.
The obvious biological markers are no longer requirements, so why not.
Judges, juries, insurance adjusters, and (finally) state or provincial insurance boards say so. None of these people are stupid, they can easily tell if someone identifies as a female for the sole purpose of defrauding an insurance company. There is a huge difference between having a legitimate gender identity and simply lying in order to commit insurance fraud.
That creates a dangerous precedent that someone who can't easily express how they feel being ridiculed.
It's less money and bad press if you just let people claim what they want rather than going on a crusade of truth.
It's less money and bad press if you just let people claim what they want rather than going on a crusade of truth.
No it doesn't, we're talking about insurance fraud here, not actual gender identity issues.
This is probably an unpopular or taboo opinion, but I believe in equal rights and merit based achievements. Basing employment, status or title on a persons gender or ethnic background is the opposite of equal rights, in my view. I see it as two wrongs trying to equal a right.
Isn't discriminating on the basis of sex the very definition of sexist?
Also, what if it is a small company with only 1 person on the board? Now you are discriminating and saying "you're male, therefore you can't be the board member".
Also, what if it is a small company with only 1 person on the board? Now you are discriminating and saying "you're male, therefore you can't be the board member".
Agreed.
I’m sure my thoughts are also unpopular but if gender is a choice then maybe I do a reverse Lauren Southern and register as a woman to get a board spot and lower car insurance rates?
I’m sure my thoughts are also unpopular but if gender is a choice then maybe I do a reverse Lauren Southern and register as a woman to get a board spot and lower car insurance rates?
A man I know has already done this in order to get cheap car insurance. Kinda sad, really.
I'm surprised that you'd think yours would be an unpopular or taboo opinion on Hacker News, of all places. I opened this thread certain that it would be an echo chamber (other places where couthness is less mandatory might instead use a two-word phrase that begins with "circle...") of voices condemning this requirement--and, well, there currently appears to be one single post in support of it in the entire thread.
satokema(2)
Does this only apply to companies incorporated in the state? Most companies operating in CA (at least I assume the ones they’re trying to target) are incorporated in Delaware. Seems like this won’t make a difference if that’s the loophole.
On another note, what the flying fuck is this supposed to achieve? All this will create is scenarios where people are only there because they legally have to be, not because they’re the best person for the job.
I’m 100% for equal rights. I don’t judge a person by anything but their ability to perform the job as best as possible. This isn’t equal rights. This is a legally binding pitty-hire. Hopefully people leverage it positively, though, and start considering more women for board positions. On that note, women need to also push for these positions, too. It’s not exactly a cookie cutter issue.
On another note, what the flying fuck is this supposed to achieve? All this will create is scenarios where people are only there because they legally have to be, not because they’re the best person for the job.
I’m 100% for equal rights. I don’t judge a person by anything but their ability to perform the job as best as possible. This isn’t equal rights. This is a legally binding pitty-hire. Hopefully people leverage it positively, though, and start considering more women for board positions. On that note, women need to also push for these positions, too. It’s not exactly a cookie cutter issue.
It's really shocking how it passed both senate and house. How do people not see this as blatantly sexist? This law discriminates against men based solely on their gender.
Of course, there's always "I identify as a female board member".
Of course, there's always "I identify as a female board member".
"... would require a domestic general corporation or foreign corporation that is a publicly held corporation, as defined, whose principal executive offices, according to the corporation’s SEC 10-K form, are located in California"
Thus, out of state businesses like Delaware corps are likely exempt. For the full text of SB 826, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
Thus, out of state businesses like Delaware corps are likely exempt. For the full text of SB 826, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
It doesn't matter where they are incorporated if they have their executive offices in the state of California.
Few businesses incorporate in Delaware have offices in Delaware because it's generally not a state executives want to live in.
Few businesses incorporate in Delaware have offices in Delaware because it's generally not a state executives want to live in.
Coming up: A lot of board members' wives get board positions.
100% agree. Equal rights/opportunity != equal distribution
[deleted]
How would you legislate for companies to hire ‘the best person for the job’?
Whereever you might fall on the left-right spectrum, this law is sexist, discriminatory, idiotic, and an escalation of the brewing gender war.
If the law required a 50/50 gender split on boards, or at least one member of each gender or similar, I wouldn't find it offensive. As is, it allows all-female boards and bans all-male ones.
Laws like this are what energize the Trump political base.
If the law required a 50/50 gender split on boards, or at least one member of each gender or similar, I wouldn't find it offensive. As is, it allows all-female boards and bans all-male ones.
Laws like this are what energize the Trump political base.
>If the law required a 50/50 gender split on boards
I'm curious why you would see that as an improvement. Care to elaborate?
I'm curious why you would see that as an improvement. Care to elaborate?
As written (assuming the article is an accurate portrayal), the law is a blatent violation of the equal protection clause, as it provides a protection for women that it does not provide for men. A neutral requirement is not such a blatent violation. Although it still runs the risk of a disparite impact argurment and, perhaps more damming, seems to be in direct contradiction with federal (and likely state, but more specific wins there) anti discrimination laws. Or rather, compliance would involve violating other laws, at least in some cases.
Ah, gotcha. It seems more wrong to me, but I guess I'm thinking in terms of 'What would this do' as opposed to 'Is this law a violation of various laws / legal philosophy'.
The law permits all female boards but does not permit all male boards. This is discrimination.
Sounds like a great idea. My wife sits on the board of a nonprofit. The staff of this org is largely female yet my wife is the only female on the board. The men on the board have been truly insensitive to the needs of their staff, and my wife has had to work hard to advocate for them.
Just as important would be to require that boards have employees on them. Heck, better than that just do away with the board entirely and have worker cooperatives.
Just as important would be to require that boards have employees on them. Heck, better than that just do away with the board entirely and have worker cooperatives.
> Just as important would be to require that boards have employees on them.
Why stop there? Boards should include people from all the company's suppliers as well. And also people who live in the neighborhoods that the company does business in. And some government officials, too, since they have a vested interest in the company's tax payments.
Why stop there? Boards should include people from all the company's suppliers as well. And also people who live in the neighborhoods that the company does business in. And some government officials, too, since they have a vested interest in the company's tax payments.
Wouldn't having quotas violate Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964? Unless board members aren't considered employees?
Honestly, this is just a bad law and I'm a feminist. I don't think quotas are the right way to solve inequality and only furthers the culture wars.
A lot of the landmark civil rights cases in the 1970s involved obtaining rights for men, such as spousal social security and spousal military benefits. This is a step backwards.
Honestly, this is just a bad law and I'm a feminist. I don't think quotas are the right way to solve inequality and only furthers the culture wars.
A lot of the landmark civil rights cases in the 1970s involved obtaining rights for men, such as spousal social security and spousal military benefits. This is a step backwards.
> Wouldn't having quotas violate Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964?
As far as I can tell (IANAL), yes.
As far as I can tell (IANAL), yes.
Is there any evidence that women are actively prevented from getting on the board due to bias? If not then I worry about these kind of laws. I am seeing too many big shots desperately painting themselves as minority messiah to boost own career and get attention in press. This is very slippery slope. What’s next? Forcing businesses to hire people each race, country and sexual orientation? Once you abandon meritocracy, it’s then all about what you are born with and not in your control. Laws are supposed to protect citizens from this! I hope one of these days Supreme Court makes these kind of reservation system illegal.
This might not be so bad, since the board of directors doesn't have a huge impact on the day to day, usually.
Does it require the members have voting rights?
Does it require the members have voting rights?
To me it seems weird that the law should even consider the gender of a a person. I do realize most countries have different legislation for men and women which is just very hard for me to understand the justification for.
Can someone think of corner cases where it should matter whether a person is a man or a woman?
Can someone think of corner cases where it should matter whether a person is a man or a woman?
oh boy. So far all the responses here are negative.
Look, nobody wants to see non-merit-based appointments. The seemingly rational argument generally amounts to, 2 wrongs don't equal a right. The problem is that natural bias by existing boards and existing founders leads to over-selection of males. In many of those cases, a female would do equally as well.
Choosing the best candidate isn't a strict rank order function. Each candidate has many intangible / hard to quantify positive qualities they bring to the table, and there's always a tradeoff of which qualities are the most important. I'd wager that in 99% of cases, it's impossible to choose a single best candidate.
Instead of assuming that forcing females onto the board leads to picking less-qualified candidates, why can't people assume that females are just as qualified as males, and that this legislation just forces a representation more in line with demographics? ie, when given 2 "equal" candidates (and I'll argue there are never just 2, there are often "many"), a female candidate will be preferred so as to bring gender representation closer to population demographics.
Please do keep in mind also that board membership is not generally merit-based. The old-boy network is real.
And in practical terms, this will have near-zero effect as far as HN crowd is concerned. Tech companies incorporate in Delaware. Companies that are incorporated here that want to reject this legislate will re-incorporate elsewhere.
Look, nobody wants to see non-merit-based appointments. The seemingly rational argument generally amounts to, 2 wrongs don't equal a right. The problem is that natural bias by existing boards and existing founders leads to over-selection of males. In many of those cases, a female would do equally as well.
Choosing the best candidate isn't a strict rank order function. Each candidate has many intangible / hard to quantify positive qualities they bring to the table, and there's always a tradeoff of which qualities are the most important. I'd wager that in 99% of cases, it's impossible to choose a single best candidate.
Instead of assuming that forcing females onto the board leads to picking less-qualified candidates, why can't people assume that females are just as qualified as males, and that this legislation just forces a representation more in line with demographics? ie, when given 2 "equal" candidates (and I'll argue there are never just 2, there are often "many"), a female candidate will be preferred so as to bring gender representation closer to population demographics.
Please do keep in mind also that board membership is not generally merit-based. The old-boy network is real.
And in practical terms, this will have near-zero effect as far as HN crowd is concerned. Tech companies incorporate in Delaware. Companies that are incorporated here that want to reject this legislate will re-incorporate elsewhere.
The real advantage of this bill has nothing to do with equality. It does sort of have something to do with busting up "old boys networks."
The idea is simple. The women who will be eligible for these positions will understand who put them onto the board. Not the people who hired them, but the people who passed this law. And the people who laid the philosophical groundwork that led to this law. That will create a sort of ideological loyalty.
Now boards will be staffed by many members of a cohesive "class" that have common interests and loyalties.
Ideological loyality is awesome. Especially when the ideology is radical equity. It creates a more cohesive society. So I say more power to them, literally.
The idea is simple. The women who will be eligible for these positions will understand who put them onto the board. Not the people who hired them, but the people who passed this law. And the people who laid the philosophical groundwork that led to this law. That will create a sort of ideological loyalty.
Now boards will be staffed by many members of a cohesive "class" that have common interests and loyalties.
Ideological loyality is awesome. Especially when the ideology is radical equity. It creates a more cohesive society. So I say more power to them, literally.
After skimming the bill, I have to say that this is a bad law.
Without even considering whether or not I would support the purpose for which it was written, I can't imagine it passing constitutional muster - on its face it violates both the Fourteen Amendment's "equal protection" clause and Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964.
If what they want to accomplish is "ensure that corporate boards are not made up entirely of men", then the law should have been written to say that in a way that is not gender-specific - instead of definition "female", it should have defined "minority gender", and required minimum numbers of the minority gender on boards of given sizes.
There's also the small consideration that as far as I can tell, a corporation that has only one shareholder of record can have a board with only one member. This bill appears to literally make it illegal for anyone who does not self-identify as a woman to form and operate such a corporation. Existing corporations in this class would be forced by law to add an additional board member if and only if the owner is not female. That's absurd.
Without even considering whether or not I would support the purpose for which it was written, I can't imagine it passing constitutional muster - on its face it violates both the Fourteen Amendment's "equal protection" clause and Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964.
If what they want to accomplish is "ensure that corporate boards are not made up entirely of men", then the law should have been written to say that in a way that is not gender-specific - instead of definition "female", it should have defined "minority gender", and required minimum numbers of the minority gender on boards of given sizes.
There's also the small consideration that as far as I can tell, a corporation that has only one shareholder of record can have a board with only one member. This bill appears to literally make it illegal for anyone who does not self-identify as a woman to form and operate such a corporation. Existing corporations in this class would be forced by law to add an additional board member if and only if the owner is not female. That's absurd.
The language of 301.3(a) is "a publicly held domestic or foreign corporation". I'm not sure if it's intended to be read as "publicly held AND (domestic OR foreign)" but it seems like that is how it should be read in light of 2115.5(b). In that case, how many public corporations have one board member?
Equal rights is not the same thing as equal outcomes. This law seems very ham fisted.
On the workers-on-boards topic I mentioned this quote from Zero to One, which applies here too:
"A board of three is ideal. Your board should never exceed five people, unless your company is publicly held. (Government regulations effectively mandate that public companies have larger boards—the average is nine members.) By far the worst you can do is to make your board extra large. When unsavvy observers see a nonprofit organization with dozens of people on its board, they think: “Look how many great people are committed to this organization! It must be extremely well run.” Actually, a huge board will exercise no effective oversight at all; it merely provides cover for whatever microdictator actually runs the organization. If you want that kind of free rein from your board, blow it up to giant size. If you want an effective board, keep it small." — Peter Thiel
More board members may increase intransigence, decrease oversight (cover over who is really making the decisions and who is not), and turn US corps more bureaucratic. Never-mind who is joining the board, this is going to increase board sizes, and that's pretty unfortunate for some philosophies of effective management.
If you do not believe this will increase board sizes, then you must believe that all companies are willing to fire some number of current board members to meet their quotas, which seems terribly unlikely to me.
If currently all-male (48% percent of companies have no women on their boards), requiring at least 3 on boards of 6, unless you fire half your current board, is exploding the board size by 50%. Requiring at least 2 on boards of 5, unless you fire ~half your current board, brings the number up to 7. But then you need 3 (its over 6), so you have to add one more, so a board of 5 gets a 60% increase in size to 8 people.
If you want businesses to be successful, you probably shouldn't expand their boards against their will. It is not that female representation isn't a problem, it is that an effective company structure must be foremost, ahead of any other (more arbitrary or ephemeral) requirements. Or else there won't be as many great companies to steward in the first place.
"A board of three is ideal. Your board should never exceed five people, unless your company is publicly held. (Government regulations effectively mandate that public companies have larger boards—the average is nine members.) By far the worst you can do is to make your board extra large. When unsavvy observers see a nonprofit organization with dozens of people on its board, they think: “Look how many great people are committed to this organization! It must be extremely well run.” Actually, a huge board will exercise no effective oversight at all; it merely provides cover for whatever microdictator actually runs the organization. If you want that kind of free rein from your board, blow it up to giant size. If you want an effective board, keep it small." — Peter Thiel
More board members may increase intransigence, decrease oversight (cover over who is really making the decisions and who is not), and turn US corps more bureaucratic. Never-mind who is joining the board, this is going to increase board sizes, and that's pretty unfortunate for some philosophies of effective management.
If you do not believe this will increase board sizes, then you must believe that all companies are willing to fire some number of current board members to meet their quotas, which seems terribly unlikely to me.
If currently all-male (48% percent of companies have no women on their boards), requiring at least 3 on boards of 6, unless you fire half your current board, is exploding the board size by 50%. Requiring at least 2 on boards of 5, unless you fire ~half your current board, brings the number up to 7. But then you need 3 (its over 6), so you have to add one more, so a board of 5 gets a 60% increase in size to 8 people.
If you want businesses to be successful, you probably shouldn't expand their boards against their will. It is not that female representation isn't a problem, it is that an effective company structure must be foremost, ahead of any other (more arbitrary or ephemeral) requirements. Or else there won't be as many great companies to steward in the first place.