Law California Imposing (Unconstitutional) Gender Quotas on All Corporate Boardrooms

[irish_thug]

We're tryna build bridges,

How's that working out?

 

[irish_thug]

California is pushing it’s way as fast as it can to the bottom.

of the ocean

 

[VivaRevolution]

I'm pretty sure government-mandated gender quotas are Unconstitutional

What say you @alanb @Quipling @Zankou ?

California moves closer to requiring women in boardrooms
By Rebecca Aydin | Aug. 29, 2018

California is one step closer to becoming the first state to mandate that women be included in corporate boardrooms with the passage of SB826 through the Assembly today.

The bill requires that publicly traded California companies instate at least one woman on their boards of directors by the end of 2019. By 2021, this requirement expands to two women for five-member boards and three women for boards of six or more members.

The bill passed the Assembly 41-21 on Wednesday and will return to the Senate for a concurrence vote before the legislative session ends on Friday at midnight. If it clears the Senate, the bill will go to the desk of Gov. Jerry Brown, who will have one month to sign it.

More than two dozen organizations officially oppose the bill, stating in a coalition letter that it prioritizes a single element of diversity and violates the U.S. constitution.

Only 15.8 percent of board seats in publicly traded California companies included in the Russell 3000 index belong to women, according to Bloomberg. Locally, more than one out of five directors of companies headquartered in San Francisco were women, while companies based in Santa Clara, San Mateo and Alameda counties were close to the national average, according to a report by Board Governance Research.

“We need to see women in these leadership positions. It creates a more realistic view of what women are capable of doing. It’s also good for the businesses,” said the bill’s author, State Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/busines...to-requiring-women-in-13191597.php?source=nlp

So you can say joe's cafe has to serve black people, but you can't say Trader Joe's has to have a female on the board?

Don't get me wrong. The idea sounds stupid. But at the same point fuck corporate America, bunch of fucking traitors can burn.

 

[Arkain2K]

So you can say joe's cafe has to serve black people, but you can't say Trader Joe's has to have a female on the board?

Don't get me wrong. The idea sounds stupid. But at the same point fuck corporate America, bunch of fucking traitors can burn.

"Unconstutional" doesn't have anything to do with what you and I might say on the subject matter. It means the Constitution actually forbids Racial/Gender/Religious quotas in employment from the get-go, and for good reasons.

It's forbidden by both the U.S Constitution as well as the California Constitution, actually.

This illegal quota business is pure idiocy, and I hope they will get their ass handed to them by the court if the Governor is stupid enough to sign it.

 

[VivaRevolution]

"Unconstutional" doesn't have anything to do with what you and I might say on the subject matter. It means the Constitution actually forbids Racial/Gender/Religious quotas in employment from the get-go, and for good reasons.

It's forbidden by both the U.S Constitution as well as the California Constitution, actually.

This illegal quota business is pure idiocy, and I hope they will get their ass handed to them by the court if the Governor is stupid enough to sign it.

What about affirmative action, isn't this the same as that?

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Well that wasn't what was said. It was said that demographic quotas were a good faith attempt to address an undeniable problem. That you mistake the two concepts speaks to the limits of your intelligence. That you don't understand that something you don't like can be sought in good faith speaks to the limits of your desire to understand.

You could be right that I am making a mistake here. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain the difference between demographic quotas being a "good faith response", and "good faith demographic quotas".

In any case, it should have been pretty clear that I was stating that I don't think of demographic quotas as being pursued in good faith, and that the idea that they could be described as such is laughable.

There was no context that was disregarded.

You cut and ignored the actual point of my post ("employment quotas are disgusting") and focused on isolating and inventing the intent of the question that introduced it.

You're trying to pass off a stupid statement as meaning something else, despite having no grounds to do so (even you're not trying to present actual context), instead of owning up to your brain fart.

That you only seem able to argue with me when you fabricate the intended implication of my words doesn't really say anything good about your position in the fight you decided to pick.

Then, when realizing how transparent that is, you instead resort to calling my analogy "race baiting" in hopes of deflecting the conversation away from the logic of the analogy itself, which you still haven't attacked.....at all.

Again, if you have to invent my intent, your position is weak.

I called it race baiting because within one line, you resorted to "wah! White males!" I didn't confront the 'logic' of the post because if that's how you start the discussion, why would I?

I have no problem conceding the fact that historical and leftover discrimination probably impacts the reported numbers. I do have a problem with the idea that current discrimination is a major factor. The residual impact of historical discrimination is working itself out, and I doubt it'll take a thousand years to do so - another of your ridiculous projections of intent that has made yourposts very difficult to take seriously.

For all I (or likely anyone reading this) can tell, you completely agree with my posts, but are too proud to admit it. But it's undeniable that you can't proffer an actual disagreement.

What I am too proud to admit to is the disingenuous implication that

It's hard to agree or disagree with the nonsense that you opened with. You made sarcastic implications but failed to really commit to anything, which is the only reason you're able to make the following claim:

You also don't seem to understand what a strawman argument is. You really should have taken the out I gave you with the "language barrier" bit, instead of wildly referring to logical fallacies.

Because the strawman I am referring to is the sarcastic and extreme misrepresentation of my position that you opened with. Are you so stupid as to say that a strawman is not a misrepresentation of someone's position?

You'll need to explain what this means. I could very easily infer what you're saying and attack what I think is the implicit argument, but you'd then accuse me of "strawmanning" and refuse to articulate what you meant. That's the entire playbook for dog whistle arguments.

You put shit in, you get shit out.
You put shit into your response to me, and you got shit back.
The bracketed bit is pointing to the idea that demographic quotas are shit and will probably return shitty results.

Now you're switching your argument again.
But, nevertheless, the burden is on you to support this statement.

Oh shit, sorry. I am at work and mildly distracted. Started going off nonsensically there.
The core of this'll be covered later in your post, I'm sure. So, I'll tackle it then.

You don't seem to disagree that disproportionate representation of men versus women is probably in part due to lingering persistence of historical inequalities, and not any merit-based metric that is inherent to sex (at least you haven't made an argument to the contrary).

Ftfy.

And this policy mandates redressing that admittedly-arbitrary disparity. So it is very basically practical and sensible. As far as "pragmatic" goes, that's a matter argument.

Again, I do not think that demographic quotas are practical or sensible.

So....still can't form an actual criticism of the analogy? You still haven't attacked it once. You just cry "racebaiting!!!!" and expect that to punctuate the argument and allow you to strut away.

There's no good reason to confront the analogy, as it was based on a false premise.

You started with "Wah! White men!" and concluded with:
"Smh, women and racial minorities are so incompetent and whiny, amirite."

That's race-baiting nonsense and not worth more than the dismissal it received.

Yes, there are a myriad of factors, but the presence of these factors does nothing to support you argument that a back-end solution is thus most appropriate.

I thought I didn't have an argument?
Could you please elaborate upon this "back-end solution" you say I'm arguing for?

Pointing to the many mitigating factors in an effort to paint the issue as hopelessly opaque is not a tactic of which I am fond.

I am not trying to paint the issue as hopelessly opaque. I am painting demographic quotas as disgusting and not really a solution.

But that "standard talking point" is without merit, as metrics on "preferences and personal choices" do not validate the existing disparities (at least in the United States). While women make up only 15% of corporate directors, 35-40% of MBA graduates are women.

Most corporate directors are also in their sixties. You don't think that that might have an impact? Or do you think that men and women's ambitions, states of mind, etc run parallel as they age?

From what I can recall (and I may be way off) women maintain a better handle on many of their cognitive faculties than men as they age, so capability is unlikely to be holding them back, but they also experience a greater sense of fulfillment and self-actualisation as they get older.
Maybe fulfilled people are less likely to have an interest in sitting on a board of directors?

Also, the fact that you say I'd "jump straight into the assumption of discrimination," when I explicitly said and then restated that conscious discrimination was not the primary issue, is telling of your bad faith. Only being able to conceptualize discrimination, and not being able to understand the natural replication of inequity through social relations (as I stated twice) is your problem, not mine.

Conscious or unconscious - the assumption was one of discrimination and its wildly disproportionate effect. I've acknowledge social relations and their possibly discriminatory effect. So, apparently, neither of us has that problem.
My assertion stands though. You jumped straight to assumptions of discrimination.

Why do you space out these quotes so much.

Do I? Not really paying a lot of attention to the formatting.
Is it distracting?

And you still don't get what a straw man argument means. I have laid out very clear arguments, and you're still refusing to rely on any one argument of your own.

You opened with a straw man and have been arguing with him ever since.
Seeing as your argument is based on the premise that I think "women and racial minorities are so incompetent and whiny" there isn't really much for me to argue in defense of.

In all honesty, you haven't really made much of an argument at all. We've been sort of insulting each other, I guess, but otherwise your argument is basically summed as "I don't think demographic quotas are such a bad thing, even if they're not perfect in the long-term."
That's not really an argument. It's a statement of belief.
And my belief, as stated in the ignored bit of my first post is that "employment quotas are disgusting". "Demographic quotas" would have been more accurate and I'd apologise for my lack of precision, if you'd cared enough to argue with my actual point rather than whining about the lead-up to it.

Your sarcastic rant might have been making an argument, but I really didn't and don't care too much since it has very little to do with any belief I hold or have expressed. So if you want someone to argue that with, go find someone.
I do not think that expecting a 50-50 gender split in board members is a realistic expectation. Nor do I think that historical discrimination is the leading cause of the current disparity.
I would like some evidence other than 'well, roughly half all people are women, and that representation isn't reflected in high power positions.'

Glad to see you aren't drawing from their talking points consciously. But you'd likely have bought them hook, line, and sinker, and you're co-opting the logic.

I am? Please tell me how, 'cos I think you're closer to employing apartheid logic than I am.

Is this just your method of arguing? Making vague statements that can be clearly construed in only one way, and then going "ahhh golly jee that's not what I meant" later, without clarifying what you were trying to say in the first place?

Dude. Sorry, but if you could not read, "Lol. Yup, because discriminatory hiring practices based on arbitrary circumstances of birth have never done damage before." as being sarcastic, then you're fucking stupid. Especially when you consider that I've been saying the exact opposite from my first post in this thread.

Look at where I live, you idiot. Of course I am going to be opposed to discriminatory hiring practices. Look at what they've done to my country over the course of the past 70-odd years.

Hell, just look at the context in which I made the statement.
Seriously. This back-and-forth is kinda fun, but this issue here seems incredibly blind on your part, and it serves as an illustration of my criticism of the mindset from which you are arguing. You're going out of your way to find devils. Your bias blinds you and makes you very difficult to take too seriously.

 

[panamaican]

And hilarity ensues.

I don't see the hilarity. Title IX is pretty much settled law at this point. In the college sports world, it basically mandates gender equality in assigning money for athletic scholarships. Viewed from another angle, it's quotas for female college athletes.

In order to properly explore the concept of the California government's ability to legislate the gender make up of corporate boards, I think a better understanding how the gender make up of athletic scholarships is defended and enforced is necessary.

Being better informed shouldn't trigger "hilarity".

 

[trident]

Easy solution. Get one of the men on your board to identify as a woman.

Brilliant, love it.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

"It creates a more realistic view of what women are capable of doing."

If it's more realistic, why isn't it happening on it's own in real life?


Anyway, employment quotas are disgusting.

there probably is a general bias against putting women in this type of power, AND there has been some evidence to suggest that women do not seek out such jobs, in general. probably culturally ingrained into them at a young age that they do not belong in such places.

however, i dont think that forcing companies to do this is the answer.

 

[trident]

I hate this shit so much.

Listen, I think women are under represented in the garbage collecting industry. I dont think there is enough women in the coal mine of out country.

I certainly dont see any women driving municiple busses or working the street cleaning crews.

I landscaped for years. I didn't see any women pushing wheelbarrows and shoveling yards of soil each day.

Severely under represented. You know what. This needs to end. Their needs to be equality. It needs to start now.

 

[MPD-Psycho]

Glad there are sane people here who can see what’s obviously wrong with this.

 

[HockeyBjj]

Man, I really wouldn't be surprised if California didnt declare its independence, but rather passed a law that they're no longer bound by the constitution of the United States and only their own so that they can do whatever they want

Judges there are so batty they'd go with it

 

[woodguyatl]

"It creates a more realistic view of what women are capable of doing."

If it's more realistic, why isn't it happening on it's own in real life?


Anyway, employment quotas are disgusting.

I don’t support this law but your question is obtuse. It may not be happening for the same reason that there were no black quarterbacks in the NFL despite obviously qualified athletes. That fixed itself and this will too.

 

[nostradumbass]

I'm hesitant to speak too soon on this. Corporations are fictitious entities and so the make up their boards doesn't have to be broadly meritorious, it can be defined by the legislature. I'm curious about how Title IX works regarding women's sports. I could see a parallel here.

Title IX is for places receiving federal assistance, like universities, not private sector companies. You can't have the government mandate who they can and can't hire while opposing corporate welfare.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

A women on teh board? Oh noes! This is it!

Way to completely and intentionally miss the point because people you like are doing it

 

[Lord Coke]

I don't see the hilarity. Title IX is pretty much settled law at this point. In the college sports world, it basically mandates gender equality in assigning money for athletic scholarships. Viewed from another angle, it's quotas for female college athletes.

In order to properly explore the concept of the California government's ability to legislate the gender make up of corporate boards, I think a better understanding how the gender make up of athletic scholarships is defended and enforced is necessary.

Being better informed shouldn't trigger "hilarity".

I don't know a lot about title IX but isn't that because the schools take public funds? Does that requirement apply to a solely private school?

Also and I had to say it. Would a transgender women qualify on this one?

 

[Black Helicopters]

^ important viewing for anyone interested in this topic of female quotas

 

[Ripskater]

How's that working out?

Like

 

[Arkain2K]

Would a transgender women qualify on this one?

Yes. The SB826 bill define "female" as someone who "self-identifies" as such. So @irish_thug 's joke is not actually a joke at all, for good old Sacramento already got that covered:

SEC. 2.
Section 301.3 is added to the Corporations Code, to read:

301.3.
(a) No later than the close of the 2019 calendar year, a publicly held domestic or foreign corporation whose principal executive offices, according to the corporation’s SEC 10-K form, are located in California shall have a minimum of one female director on its board. A corporation may increase the number of directors on its board to comply with this section.
(b) No later than the close of the 2021 calendar year, a publicly held domestic or foreign corporation whose principal executive offices, according to the corporation’s SEC 10-K form, are located in California shall comply with the following:
(1) If its number of directors is six or more, the corporation shall have a minimum of three female directors.
(2) If its number of directors is five, the corporation shall have a minimum of two female directors.
(3) If its number of directors is four or fewer, the corporation shall have a minimum of one female director.
(c) No later than July 1, 2019, the Secretary of State shall publish a report on its Internet Web site documenting the number of domestic and foreign corporations whose principal executive offices, according to the corporation’s SEC 10-K form, are located in California and who have at least one female director.
(d) No later than March 1, 2020, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State shall publish a report on its Internet Web site regarding, at a minimum, all of the following:
(1) The number of corporations subject to this section that were in compliance with the requirements of this section during at least one point during the preceding calendar year.
(2) The number of publicly held corporations that moved their United States headquarters to California from another state or out of California into another state during the preceding calendar year.
(3) The number of publicly held corporations that were subject to this section during the preceding year, but are no longer publicly traded.
(e) (1) The Secretary of State may adopt regulations to implement this section. The Secretary of State may impose fines for violations of this section as follows:
(A) For failure to timely file board member information with the Secretary of State pursuant to a regulation adopted pursuant to this paragraph, the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000).
(B) For a first violation, the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000).
(C) For a second or subsequent violation, the amount of three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000).
(2) For the purposes of this subdivision, each director seat required by this section to be held by a female, which is not held by a female during at least a portion of a calendar year, shall count as a violation.
(3) For purposes of this subdivision, a female director having held a seat for at least a portion of the year shall not be a violation.
(4) Fines collected pursuant to this section shall be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for use by the Secretary of State to offset the cost of administering this section.
(f) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) “Female” means an individual who self-identifies her gender as a woman, without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.
(2) “Publicly held corporation” means a corporation with outstanding shares listed on a major United States stock exchange.


SEC. 3.
Section 2115.5 is added to the Corporations Code, to read:

2115.5.
(a) Section 301.3 shall apply to a foreign corporation that is a publicly held corporation to the exclusion of the law of the jurisdiction in which the foreign corporation is incorporated.
(b) For purposes of this section, a “publicly held corporation” means a foreign corporation with outstanding shares listed on a major United States stock exchange.​

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB826

 

[Arkain2K]

What about affirmative action, isn't this the same as that?

Affirmative Action is banned by the California Constitution since 1996, by way of voters-approved Proposition 209. Possibly one of the Governator's greatest achievements in California, after his swift elimination of Extreme Partisan Gerrymandering in our state.