11 ms·
Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards
- smsm42 8y agoI read in Wikipedia that: As of August 2015, only 2% of S&P 500 companies had all male boards of directors Is California trying to solve a problem that has already been solved?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- jjeaff 8y agoShouldn't they also be required to have at least one black person, one Asian, one gay, one handicapable person and one non-cisgender member? Imagine the job prospects of your average handicapped, transgender blasian lesbian? You could have your pick of any company board. I kid, but I can't help but imagine there will be some unintended consequences of legislation like this.
- ajspencer 8y agoI agree. I support the principle behind this legislation, but it seems to set a dangerous precedent for giving the state government the authority to mandate demographics.
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoAgreed. Allowing the governments to dictate the demographic makeup of private organizations is just asking for trouble. If we continue down this path I'm sure people will screw it up and use it for bad things (like universally bad, not just considered bad by the affected minority) within a generation or two.
- arcticbull 8y agoSo how about we change it then instead of giving up an not tying because something might happen?
- hueving 8y agoHow about we don't pass blatantly sexist laws in the first place instead? What is the problem you're 'trying' to fix that doesn't apply to any other minority?
- arcticbull 8y ago(1) It's sexist in an attempt to solve sexism in the same way that affirmative action is racist in an attempt to solve racism. Sometimes, the ends justify the means. Unless you believe that only old white men are capable of being on the board you should ask yourself why only old white men are on the board. What is it about society, or the system, that has gotten us to where we are? What if we tried this and see what happens? If it doesn't work maybe let's roll it back? I do know for sure doing nothing won't change anything, at least based on the trendline. It's really easy to sit there and say this law is sexist if you stand to benefit from the status quo. I'm not sure you do, I know nothing about you - this is an observation in general. (2) We can have two problems. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to solve one. This is akin to the argument that California should be dealing with the homeless instead of banning straws. It should be, and is, doing both. We can have two problems. We can work on multiple problems simultaneously. And having two problems isn't a license to sit on your hands and do nothing until you have a way to solve both at the same time. Further, if this works remarkably well in some way maybe it'll be a good template for future change? Or a lesson as to why we shouldn't do it this way.
- albertkass 8y ago> Unless you believe that only old white men are capable of being on the board you should ask yourself why only old white men are on the board. Have you asked that question and looked for a scientifically valid answer instead of jumping to bigotry? There are many objective reasons for that, one being: > Fewer women than men become executive managers. They earn less over their careers, hold more junior positions, and exit the occupation at a faster rate. We compiled a large panel data set on executives and formed a career hierarchy to analyze mobility and compensation rates. We found that, controlling for executive rank and background, women earn higher compensation than men, experience more income uncertainty, and are promoted more quickly. Amongst survivors, being female increases the chance of becoming CEO. Hence, the unconditional gender pay gap and job-rank differences are primarily attributable to female executives exiting at higher rates than men in an occupation where survival is rewarded with promotion and higher compensation. > There is still a question of why women have a higher nonmarket outside option than men. One explanation is that women acquire more nonmarket human capital than men throughout their lives, and hence find retirement a relatively attractive option. Women in the top executive market are mostly beyond childbearing age, but there is evidence that such women are more likely to leave for personal and other household reasons than their male counterparts. For example, Sicherman (1996) finds that in a case study of a large insurance company, female executives were more likely than their male counterparts to exit the firm because of better working conditions elsewhere, to be near home, change of residence, household duties, personal health, illness in the family, and positions abolished. Most of those reasons, except position abolished, are voluntary departures related to home or family. http://humcap.uchicago.edu/RePEc/hka/wpaper/Gayle_Golan_Miller_2011_gender-differences-executive.pdf http://humcap.uchicago.edu/RePEc/hka/wpaper/Gayle_Golan_Mill...
- egypturnash 8y agoThe perfect is the enemy of the good, darling. Give it time.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- PopePompus 8y agoDoes this mean that all-female boards are also forbidden?
- simcop2387 8y agoI haven't been able to find the law itself to read it (probably not looking the in the right places), but all the reporting on it says that they must have at least 1 (or 2 or 3 depending size of the board) female member. I'm not sure how that's going to play out in the long run if it's actually worded that way since I suspect it would run afoul of federal EEOC set of regulations/laws. It'll be interesting to see the law itself and how it shakes out in the courts (regardless of how you feel about this law, I'm 110% certain it will end up in the courts).
- throwaway93832 8y agoI believe this is the law: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB826 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
- cobookman 8y agoI'm curious how trans people are counted as well. Say you have 1 Cis female, 1 cis male, 1 trans male, 1 trans female. Can the fifth person be a cis male or trans male?
- azinman2 8y agoIt’s an interesting question, but I’d assume the law would say a trans female counts, a trans male does not. After all, if you’re transitioning into the gender you feel inside, then your birth sex is probably irrelevant from how you think and approach situations. But that said, the vast majority of boards are all cis males. That’s the real thing being challenged.
- androidgirl 8y agoA trans woman is legally a woman and could be placed on the board to count. A trans man is legally a man and would not count. In California, transgender people are granted a lot of protections and rights, like the right to change their birth certificate gender, ID gender, etc. without surgery. It's one of the most progressive states on that issue.
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoThere's no way this doesn't backfire in the long term. We're gonna see "yes women" added to boards which will discredit the women who are there for reasons other than to just check a box.
- exabrial 8y agoThey'll also likely choose a woman they can walk all over to accomplish this end. I feel like this will hit the supreme court like a lead balloon fortunately.
- TheDong 8y agoAs opposed to now where all the members of a board are qualified unrelated men, not a bunch of cronies of one of the members. I wonder when the rampant cronyism among male-dominoated boards will discredit the men who are on boards for reasons other than cronyism...
- gameswithgo 8y agosometimes two wrongs can make a right but I don't think this will.
- WalterSear 8y agoThey will hire female cronies.
- hueving 8y agoWhy isn't the excuse of "representing the public" used to require certain members have a particular religion or race as well? What about income? Board members are about as far from representing society as you can get (and that's not the purpose of a board anyway) so I don't understand why this is being mandated. Seems like a strategy for cheap political points rather than any kind of well-reasoned reform.
- azinman2 8y agoIt’s a bold move, and I don’t know that I think it’s the right way to do things. That said, it should start to break down glass ceilings and likely lead to behavior changes by adding female perspectives into the mix. It’ll probably also trickle down in hiring practices and possibly even product changes that are less male-focused. I’d prefer it if women could achieve this on their own because they’re good and deserve it, but so far society seems to be stagnating... and with the recent Kavanaugh hearing and what Trump says and who he backs, I fear women’s rights are in danger and role is receding. I’m very curious to see how this plays out and what meaningful changes (if any) come from it.
- close04 8y agoSeeing “quotas” in action already I can tell you they have the opposite effect than desired or imagined. Until now some people could imagine they didn’t get the job but she did because she’s a woman. Now they know and they’ll always hold this kind of law as proof. This does nothing to further women’s rights but certainly does a lot to discredit the ones that deseved to be there by casting a shadow over whether they’re there to legitimize the board in the eyes of the law. This legitimizes the question “was it the skills or the legal requirement”?
- throwaway93832 8y agoThis makes no sense. So a company that has a target market of men must have a woman on the board? So an all woman board will be legal? How female is female enough for them? Can someone just identify as a woman, or will there be a mandatory screening of what's between their legs (or what their DNA has)? I predict the outcome will just be companies will move headquarters to another state (already happening because of taxes!) and/or the company will go private.
- paulsutter 8y agoTake a look at companies whose target customers are all women. Are you surprised to see a man on their board?
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago> Take a look at companies whose target customers are all women. Are you surprised to see a man on their board? Are you surprised if they don't? Should they be required to?
- throwaway93832 8y ago> Take a look at companies whose target customers are all women. Are you surprised to see a man on their board? I actually agree with your point. I would mostly be surprised to see a man on their board. I also wouldnt expect legislation to require a man on their board. However, the discussion also brings up the idea that a woman (and any other gender of person) could have expertise of value to that board despite their differing genderedness . The idea is like "You dont have to have cancer to be an oncologist" . Still the idea of requiring it bothers me. I would have expected other forces to handle this situation instead of men w/ guns.
- lawnchair_larry 8y agoThis is one hell of an overreach and will absolutely not improve the problem that it tries to solve. I am against identity politics on principle, but a much more amenable solution would have been something like offering tax incentives for companies who do. But aside from being way too heavy handed for a state, are they planning to do this for every “protected” class? Why only women?
- j0nathanB 8y ago> Why only women? Women are the largest "protected" class and the most visible, so a good start on getting "protected" classes on more equal footing.
- lawnchair_larry 8y agoIf it's a start towards that, it's anything but good. Do you realize how many protected classes there are? And I'm sure that I could find a larger one than women.
- SpecialistEMT 8y agoWhich one?
- barrow-rider 8y agoOutside of Christianity, and obesity -- which isn't a protected class IIRC -- I can't think of any that make up more than 51% of the population. The US Black population is around 13%; Hispanic population is closer to 18-19%. Asian and Pacific Islander is around 5%. LBGT population is estimated at around 5-6%; transgender estimated at around 0.3%. Muslims are <2%, and Jews roughly the same. Old people, defined as those over 65, are around 17% and rising to around 24% because of the baby boom. Kids, defined as 0-14 years, are about 18-19%, and are unlikely to be in the company boardroom. About 19% of the population had some sort of disability, with the majority of those being older (50+). In 2017, 80.4 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.3 percent of all wage and salary workers. Minimum wage isn't a protected class though.
- x0x0 8y agoCurious - as article mentions - if this can be enforced on the standard Delaware C / California foreign that almost all of us work for.
- Kalium 8y agohttps://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB826 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... > 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.
- citrus1330 8y agoLegislating people to make decisions based on gender? Wow! So progressive and nondiscriminatory!
- en4bz 8y agoAren't most companies "based" in Delaware anyway for tax purposes?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- shafyy 8y agoA lot of tech companies are Delaware C Corps, but they are still headquartered in other states.
- mujoco 8y agoThe article seems light on explaining the reasoning behind the law. Its proponents clearly want to increase the average female-male ratio on corporate boards. But that doesn't mean that a few boards being nearly all-male is necessarily bad. There must be a better, less blunt way to encourage companies to open more board seats up to women.
- arcticbull 8y agoHasn't happened so far but I'm sure they're taking suggestions. Feel free to raise some, and take it up with your legislature. But at least they're trying something.
- repolfx 8y agoIt does explain, but unfortunately the justification itself is light: > "despite numerous independent studies that show companies with women on their board are more profitable and productive" The scourge of biased 'social science' strikes again. The politician believes that science has shown that women make companies better (but oddly, men don't make companies with all female boards better). I've encountered a few studies over time claiming to show this. Every single one was junk. Common problems are: 1) No ability to replicate, e.g. citing private databases and then just asserting the outcome. This is a frequent problem with studies that come out of management consultancies and other such groups. 2) Dropping data points. One study I read that concluded women on boards = more profit started by excluding all the unprofitable companies from the analysis. 3) Confounding variables. It's typical for such studies to simply compare profitability against gender without controlling for other factors. For example they look at firms in the middle east (all men) and say, look, western firms are more profitable, it must be because of women. This is especially problematic when they include countries in the analysis where there are already laws forcing women onto boards - invariably it's the richest countries that do this i.e. those without bigger problems to worry about. I have never encountered a study that showed with any scientific validity that companies make more money when they have women on the boards. Yet now these faux 'studies' are causing major law changes throughout the world. This is of course exactly what the (invariably female) authors of these studies wanted in the first place. It is sickening and may eventually result in severe blowback.
- userbinator 8y agoThis is only going to lead to "We don't have a female, let's just find one and put her there because the law says so." First and hopefully last state, but I'm not optimistic...
- arcticbull 8y agoNo it's not, because board members are important. The conversation, at worst, will be "how can we find the best qualified woman we can to fill the board seat required." They can expand the board to meet this requirement so they won't be unable to hire anyone.
- thisgoodlife 8y agoHow does the law prevent the founders from putting some of their wives to the board?
- arcticbull 8y agoIt doesn't. Looking the other members of the board in the eye and telling them you couldn't find anyone in the world more qualified for one of the most important jobs at YOUR company - responsible for hiring and firing the CEO - than your girlfriend or wife based on no other parameters should stop you from doing that. I'd imagine you'd have a difficult time raising money too - let alone the publicity. The law doesn't stop me from running each board meeting in the form of interpretive dance, either. As a board member, I would likely seek to fire that founder immediately in either case.
- NeedMoreTea 8y agoFascinating to see all comments against this at the moment. Some level of mandatory female board presence seems to work OK in plenty of places elsewhere in the world without a great backlash. No visible campaigns to repeal because of the great damage or tokenism that's resulted.
- mooseburger 8y agoWhich are the other places in the world that have done this?
- skybrian 8y agoBelgium, France, Germany, Iceland, India, Israel, Italy, Norway and Spain have quotas according to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_representation_on_corporate_boards_of_directors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_representation_on_corpo...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- tokyodude 8y agoneither pro or against but just googled it and this came up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_representation_on_corporate_boards_of_directors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_representation_on_corpo...
- patrickg_zill 8y agoOf these companies how many are competitive with American business?
- arcticbull 8y agoI forgot how America's man-only board driven companies are the only competitive ones in the world :P Thanks for reminding me?
- 8y ago
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- cam_l 8y agoIt would be great if all the comments in this thread could give full disclosure for their position. As you would for any other potential conflict of interest. For my part, I think legislation like this could be immeasurably improved if there was a sunset clause once parity was reached (in the state). Which would prove that this is only instituted due to the compete failure of the status quo of the old boys clubs. Full disclosure: blokes opinion.
- doodliego 8y agoAren't most corporations incorporated in Delaware for tax reasons anyway?
- neonate 8y agoIs incorporated-in the same as headquartered-in? for the purposes of this law?
- Kalium 8y agohttps://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB826 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... > 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.
- sxcurry 8y agoThe comments so far might give insight into the terrible sexism of tech in general.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- SamReidHughes 8y agoThis is no different than outlawing all-male marriages.
- arcticbull 8y agoNo, it's completely different.
- outis 8y agoHonestly surprised at how many people are posting comments about this. You know you'll end up on some list, right? Maybe you think it's ok to debate this kind of measure now, but the line will keep moving. In three years you may have people scouring your internet history for past wrongthink to deny you that promotion, or to get rid of you. In five years, machine learning algorithms may take your comments as input for your Ethical Credit Score. Hacker News is not going to delete your comments if you come to regret them. It's best not to think about these things at all. What can you do, anyway? Suppress your mind's wandering. Focus on that algorithm on that refactoring, someone needs to get that work done, and it's you. You need that promotion. You need to make a lot of money for the federal government, for the state of California, and for your landlord, and you better make enough that there is something left to save. You don't want to look back in ten years and realize your youth disappeared while you were sitting in front of a monitor, you're still unmarried, you don't own a house, and you haven't had an independent thought in a decade, right? At least you've got to have some money saved up, that's going to make it worth it. So put your head down and get back to coding.
- testfoobar 8y agoSelf censorship is a feature not a bug.
- arcticbull 8y agoThis reads to me as "don't say things that leave you on the wrong side of history" - a solid recommendation for life in general.
- leereeves 8y agoYou mean "on the wrong side of people who don't tolerate differences of opinion". It's sad to see the left becoming so intolerant. In this very discussion we see people claiming that it's sexist to be against this law. Personally, I think the law should treat all people equally, not single out groups for favorable treatment.
- arcticbull 8y ago
- stmfreak 8y agoSix person board? “At least” three women. Says it all.
- seivarden 8y agoSix or more.
- arcticbull 8y agoI (a man) for one am happy about this decision. Not because this, the intermediate state, is one I'm happy with, but because it creates female role models that girls can look up to. This in turn will show girls that it's something they can achieve and aspire to, and ideally, soon, this legislation won't be required anymore. It's a bootstrapping tool. We're talking about a single board member. This isn't going to destroy companies. It's not going to force companies to do without the best and brightest, that's incredibly hyperbolic. If you really want to add a specific man, add a seat, or drop someone. Especially since as the article points out, companies with female board members tend to be more profitable [1]. Correlation is not causation. On the other hand, there's no apocalyptic collapse coming because they let a lady into the boardroom, my lord, what's becoming of California?! I do believe I've got a case of the vapors. It's really amazing how little empathy is being displayed here. I'm sure each of you would feel differently if 90% of board members were women. Maybe it's just the demographics on here? Maybe it's because as engineers we live in a world we can control by simply moving a letters around on a computer screen. The real world, society, is messy. It's not as simple as declaring meritocracy and suddenly equality arrives. Change requires making uncomfortable decisions, making compromises and taking real steps. And yes, rolling them back if they don't work out as planned. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/41365364 https://www.bbc.com/news/41365364
- arcticbull 8y agoHey to those down voters, maybe stop by an explain your position! I'd love a conversation.
- justtopost 8y agoI can't downvote, but I can read. Many people feel sexism, and bigotry in general is not solved by more of the opposite kind of bigotry. I feel their theory that it will somehow lead to more rolemodels is optimistic, but misplaced.
- testfoobar 8y agoRequiring a private entity to spend resources in favor of one class of citizens is almost certainly unconstitutional. There are many actionable avenues available to California to promote equality in workplaces, by signing this soon to be struck down law, California’s leaders are exploiting politica division for political gain. Politicians going to politician.
- lykr0n 8y agoIgnoring the intention, California is littered with big ideas that fell on their face months/years later. But that's the next guy's problem.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- jandrewrogers 8y agoHow does something like this get implemented? A company has limited control over the gender composition of the board. The aggregate actions of myriad outside and independent shareholders may not align to produce the necessary result in aggregate. Furthermore, virtually all of these companies are foreign corporations, California has limited ability to modify the intrinsic nature of the board construction process -- it has no jurisdiction. The only obvious escape hatch that make this reliably executable in any sane legal framework is to guarantee that the CEO is female. Or to have a male member of the board exercise the "identify as female" clause if the shareholders in aggregate don't produce a board composition that meets this law. The whole thing is a setup for some absurd theatrics in the board room. I fail to see how this will produce a positive result for anyone. That said, I am skeptical that this passes Constitutional muster. California has no jurisdiction over corporate law in the rest of the US, and (for good reason) nobody incorporates in California such that they would have jurisdiction. This is a publicity stunt that will stir up outrage by various factions and accomplish nothing.
- SilverSlash 8y agoBut I thought gender was a social construct. So why include quotas based on gender?
- animex 8y agoThey should have went all the way: 50% women, 10% african-americans, 5% asian, 5% choose-some-other-race, of which 5% must be LGBT, 20% catholic, 50% christian, 25% none/agnostic/atheist, 5% "other" and 99% should NOT be in the 1% :-) I suspect a working-class Lesbian Asian Hindu is gonna find themselves in demand!
- darawk 8y agoThis is just staggeringly stupid and makes me ashamed to live in California. I'm all for having women on boards, when there's a qualified female candidate. I am categorically not for forcing them to be on boards for some misguided sense of social justice.
- gfredtech 8y agoImagine being a female on the exec board of a California company and knowing the reason why you're there.
- cam_l 8y agoImagine being a man on any other board and knowing why you are there..
- kyriakos 8y agoThis is ridiculous. I hate discrimination but enforcing this I believe has the opposite effect.
- seattle_spring 8y agoI wish these laws would focus on the issues with the pipeline, instead of bandaid "fixes" like this. It's insane to me that we can look at women still being encouraged to study soft majors like art, history, teaching, etc, and then be surprised that they're not becoming board members of huge companies 20-30 years later. There are SO MANY reasons that women are not becoming leaders of companies at the same rate as men, and the glass ceiling is such a small part of the larger picture. This seems like an unbelievable lazy and dishonest attempt at fixing a real problem.
- subjectsigma 8y agoExtreme left-wing politics is basically defined by hypocrisy at this point. "Discrimination is bad... Unless we do it!" "Violence is bad... Unless you're punching people the mob deems Nazis!" "Free speech is good... Unless you say something we don't like!" I'd like to imagine that most moderate liberals are seriously embarrassed by this kind of stuff. It seems from the thread that this is true, so that gives me hope that it's not all bad.