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

well someones got to make the tea.....



..... I'll see myself out.
 
Not surprising. I don't know how that state has any rational people left in it, especially men. With affirmative consent, you basically have to film a woman consenting to sex while administering a breathalyzer to protect yourself from accusations of rape.
 
California law that would create corporate gender quotas is a textbook case of government overreach
Forcing companies to accept a token woman could have unintended consequences.
By Jessica Levinson | Sep.05.2018

180906-gov-jerry-brown-ew-943p_a881ba4a58381d718a0495f8136a527f.fit-2000w.jpg

Private companies across the country must do better to combat gender discrimination and achieve gender diversity. But governments must resist the urge to mandate gender quotas.

Unfortunately, that is just what the lawmakers of California have done. On Aug. 30, California lawmakers voted to force publicly traded companies based in California to have at least one woman on their boards by 2019 and depending on the size of the company, one to three women by 2021.

California Senate Bill 826, sponsored by California State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (D), now heads to the desk of Gov. Jerry Brown. If it becomes law, this will be the first example of a state-mandated gender quota of its kind in the U.S. I hope he doesn’t sign it.

Quotas are designed to tackle the systemic and structural reasons that make it difficult to obtain equality. For instance, women still do the lion’s share of household work and childcare. It is hard to rise through the ranks of the political, business, or legal world when you are literally doing two full-time jobs every day.

But forcing companies to accept a token woman could have unintended consequences. For one thing, women who are newly added to all-male boards may wonder if they are being asked to join because the state forced the company to do so. The larger policy problem, however, is that government overreach like this tends to have no limiting principle. Once the government decides it has the right to intercede in this arena, it is difficult to know where and when the government interference will end. What, for instance, is to prevent the government from requiring that each year, private employers hire employees from any number of classifications based on age, race, sexual orientation, or gender identity? Diversity is a vitally important goal, but one that the government should not mandate.

There are also a number of legal issues created by the bill. For instance, the bill specifically creates a classification based on gender, and therefore it raises questions of equal protection under both the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution. When the government legislates on the basis of gender, courts typically subject that legislation to a heightened scrutiny. This basically means the government has to prove it has a really good reason for doing what it is doing, and that there isn’t a better way of accomplishing that goal.

Bill proponents should be concerned. The California Assembly Committee on Judiciary found that “[t]o defend the constitutionality of this bill, it would not appear to be enough to simply cite statistics showing that women are grossly underrepresented on corporate boards.” This does not mean that the bill is certain to be overturned in a court. But it does mean there is a good chance that it might.

For all of its issues, California’s proposed law is at least attempting to address a real problem. We are nowhere near achieving gender equality. The California Assembly relied on research from the Center for American Progress which found that “the United States ranks first in women’s educational attainment on the World Economic Forum’s 2016 Global Gender Gap Index of 144 countries. But it ranks 26th in women’s economic participation and opportunity and 73rd in women’s political empowerment.”

Just over 22 percent of Fortune 500 company board seats are filled by women. In California, just over 15 percent of publicly traded corporation board seats are filled by women. While almost half of summer associates in law firms are women, less than 20 percent of all law firm equity partners are women. In reality, at least half of the members of board of directors of companies should be women, if for no other reason than that we know that gender diversity leads to better policy outcomes.

In the political arena, women are also a far cry from gaining parity. This year, just over 25 percent of state legislators and only 12 percent of governors are women. The numbers are not much better on the federal level. Only 23 percent of U.S. senators are women. Less than 20 percent of members of Congress are women.

Gender diversity also helps decrease workplace bias. Research from Pew shows that “women in majority-male workplaces report higher rates of gender discrimination.” Ask any woman in the workplace if they have been treated differently (by which I mean worse) than a male counterpart and almost all of us will say we have. This doesn’t mean, thank goodness, that we have all been the victims of sexual assault or sexual harassment. It means the vast majority of us have been treated as less than because we are women.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously said, “There will be enough women on the Supreme Court when there are nine,” meaning when all of the members of the court are women. I agree.

I am a feminist, by which I mean I am in favor of gender equality. I also believe that women deserve equality in every arena — socially, economically, politically and personally. It is better for women. It is better for men. And yet, I still believe the solution to this ongoing problem cannot be a state-mandated quota.

It’s also not clear that quotas ultimately help diversity. Take the example of Norway. The Scandinavian country has a gender quota for businesses and this has indeed increased the rate of women in senior positions. But, as Alice Lee of the New Republic noted: “It also caused what’s been dubbed the ‘golden skirt’ phenomenon: Certain women hold multiple board positions, meaning that while more board positions are held by women, not as many new women are entering the board room as hoped. And, even now, Norway has fewer women CEOs than the United States.”

Governments can certainly help to foster and incentivize an environment in which companies choose to make positive changes. But when a state mandates gender quotas on private boards, it is going too far.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...er-quotas-textbook-case-government-ncna906601
 
This is the result of social justice.
 
PrinceOfPain said:
"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?
Click to expand...

LOL

It's such a wonder how a system once owned and controlled entirely by white men, and now only so to a still-wildly disproportionate degree, could possibly not liberalize into being representative of the entire country after a few decades of not allowing white men to expressly discriminate. It's not as if power naturally replicates itself through informal social relations and that white men are more likely to transfer power to white men because they are more likely to interact with, befriend, and have existing social relationships with white men.

This also demands an answer to why black folks in America on average own far less land and are more less wealthy. Surely, if black folks weren't woefully inadequate compared to white men (and on the basis of their skin tone), the black community would have immediately attained the same level of wealth as the white community.

Smh, women and racial minorities are so incompetent and whiny, amirite.
 
I'm assuming the companies are all on board with this. Now they can pay 77 cents on the dolla lol
 
There are 300x more administrative assistants, and they do pretty well.. If you force those jobs to be equal, then maybe I'd be down.


But not really.
 
Trotsky said:
LOL

It's such a wonder how a system once owned and controlled entirely by white men, and now only so to a still-wildly disproportionate degree, could possibly not liberalize into being representative of the entire country after a few decades of not allowing white men to expressly discriminate. It's not as if power naturally replicates itself through informal social relations and that white men are more likely to transfer power to white men because they are more likely to interact with, befriend, and have existing social relationships with white men.

This also demands an answer to why black folks in America on average own far less land and are more less wealthy. Surely, if black folks weren't woefully inadequate compared to white men (and on the basis of their skin tone), the black community would have immediately attained the same level of wealth as the white community.

Smh, women and racial minorities are so incompetent and whiny, amirite.
Click to expand...

Bruh, if this is your worldview, how are we ever gonna have the world peace? We're tryna build bridges, and you're practically saying "race war now!"
 
Its been done now for a decade in norway and they are running into issues, namely "the golden skirts" issue -- in which the actual qualified women are running thin but companies still have to put the ladies into board roles, so its not best person for the job in a lot of cases.

Funny how this shit never gets implemented into blue collar jobs.
 
Hear that noise?

That's the sound of doors closing and companies packing up to move.
 
irish_thug said:
Easy solution. Get one of the men on your board to identify as a woman.
Click to expand...

That would be drawing the short straw.. Get the new guy to do it.

Or just be a bunch of genderfluids and each do one month shifts.
 
Trotsky said:
LOL

It's such a wonder how a system once owned and controlled entirely by white men, and now only so to a still-wildly disproportionate degree, could possibly not liberalize into being representative of the entire country after a few decades of not allowing white men to expressly discriminate. It's not as if power naturally replicates itself through informal social relations and that white men are more likely to transfer power to white men because they are more likely to interact with, befriend, and have existing social relationships with white men.

This also demands an answer to why black folks in America on average own far less land and are more less wealthy. Surely, if black folks weren't woefully inadequate compared to white men (and on the basis of their skin tone), the black community would have immediately attained the same level of wealth as the white community.

Smh, women and racial minorities are so incompetent and whiny, amirite.
Click to expand...

Leave it to this guy to bring up black people in a thread about women as board of directors.
 
JamesRussler said:
Bruh, if this is your worldview, how are we ever gonna have the world peace? We're tryna build bridges, and you're practically saying "race war now!"
Click to expand...

Glad my message was so clear.

Sketch said:
Leave it to this guy to bring up black people in a thread about women as board of directors.
Click to expand...

We should make a goal for you: for every daily empty post quoting me and not making a point, try to make one post somewhere else that actually has an argument or opinion or engages someone on a substantive matter of policy.

I have true faith in you that you can have an existence on this site that isn't just following around posters and hollowly punching up.
 
California is pushing it’s way as fast as it can to the bottom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,465
Messages
55,421,030
Members
174,766
Latest member
durbanik916

Share this page

Back
Top