5 ms·

Why 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

Why 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 ago
It’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 ago
Seeing “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”?
- api 8y ago
  Did school desegregation work?
  - leereeves 8y ago
    This isn't desegregation. This is a law requiring employers to discriminate based on gender.
    - api 8y ago
      I didn't post the parent because I agree with this law completely, but to bring up the point. The advocates of this law would probably argue that everyone discriminates all the time, including by gender. I am on the fence. When I was younger I would have been firmly on the hands off libertarian side. Then I saw what a sham meritocracy can actually be and how much success is based on who you know. The more I saw of the high corporate and financial world the more liberal I became. Do some business consulting work and meritocracy starts to looks like survivorship bias.
      - justtopost 8y ago
        Success =/= Merit
  - close04 8y ago
    I don’t know, was a law ever passed that mandated at least one black student in every school? Or just that thay had the right to compete for a spot? So then why still allow all white boards? All Christian boards? All binary gender boards? Unless maybe it’s just a shrewd political move.
    - LyndsySimon 8y ago
      Yeah, they bussed kids in in the South.
      - anon7429 8y ago
        Uppercase Liberal politicians and their education wizards (those who forgot liberal values, but would rather inflict collective punishment as a "solution") had forced bussing of kids in Northern California in the 80's and 90's. I had to ride the bus for an hour and a half each way, three hours total per day, because there were "too many" whites and Asians at a better school one block from where I lived. And I got to deal with gangs (XIV and XIII), drug dealers and far worse. Getting up at 4:15 am and not getting home until after 5 pm... at 8-11 years old. Affirmative action, my left foot.
- covermydonkey 8y ago
  Quotas have been a disaster in my country. Instead of hiring the best people so that we can compete better we've had to optimize for this variable q and often those seats have been kept empty as we haven't found that special person.
roenxi 8y ago
A slippery slope argument seems really justified here as this legislation applies to boards that are quite small in size. If women need this special advantage, we only have to find a few other deserving minorities (race, religion and age seem like reasonable choices) before it is illegal to use merit as the first criteria for making up a corporate board. There is also a real concern with regulation like this is that the current climate of discussion is such that the negative effects are difficult to discuss in civil society. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the people who object to this are sexists. EDITED because I'd interpreted the article wrong
- obpacheco 8y ago
  Just as a point of contention if I hypothetically identify as a trans women can I count as a women in the opinion of california
  - ddingus 8y ago
    If you mean it, as in get a statement from a psychologist, and are executing a meaningful transition plan, your chances are good.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      And what if you're gender fluid?
      - obpacheco 8y ago
        Isn't that obvious you'll only be able to come to work when you identify as a women or the company gets fined hundreds of thousands of dollars
      - ddingus 8y ago
        It will be super interesting to see that play out in court! I am getting downvoted. That is OK. CA requires a few things for Trans people to qualify as a gender other than the one indicated at birth. A complete transition is not required. Frankly, gender fluidity and greater gender role freedom are two things I fully expect to play out in court. Both need to be addressed, and then more normalized. Interesting times ahead.
throwaway00991 8y ago
Board members don't represent the public. In the U.S., they are elected by, and represent the shareholders. Evidently now for half the seats, the shareholders can elect whoever they want, as long as they identify as a woman.

azinman2 8y ago

It’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 ago

Seeing “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”?

api 8y ago
Did school desegregation work?
- leereeves 8y ago
  This isn't desegregation. This is a law requiring employers to discriminate based on gender.
  - api 8y ago
    I didn't post the parent because I agree with this law completely, but to bring up the point. The advocates of this law would probably argue that everyone discriminates all the time, including by gender. I am on the fence. When I was younger I would have been firmly on the hands off libertarian side. Then I saw what a sham meritocracy can actually be and how much success is based on who you know. The more I saw of the high corporate and financial world the more liberal I became. Do some business consulting work and meritocracy starts to looks like survivorship bias.
    - justtopost 8y ago
      Success =/= Merit
- close04 8y ago
  I don’t know, was a law ever passed that mandated at least one black student in every school? Or just that thay had the right to compete for a spot? So then why still allow all white boards? All Christian boards? All binary gender boards? Unless maybe it’s just a shrewd political move.
  - LyndsySimon 8y ago
    Yeah, they bussed kids in in the South.
    - anon7429 8y ago
      Uppercase Liberal politicians and their education wizards (those who forgot liberal values, but would rather inflict collective punishment as a "solution") had forced bussing of kids in Northern California in the 80's and 90's. I had to ride the bus for an hour and a half each way, three hours total per day, because there were "too many" whites and Asians at a better school one block from where I lived. And I got to deal with gangs (XIV and XIII), drug dealers and far worse. Getting up at 4:15 am and not getting home until after 5 pm... at 8-11 years old. Affirmative action, my left foot.
covermydonkey 8y ago
Quotas have been a disaster in my country. Instead of hiring the best people so that we can compete better we've had to optimize for this variable q and often those seats have been kept empty as we haven't found that special person.

roenxi 8y ago

A slippery slope argument seems really justified here as this legislation applies to boards that are quite small in size. If women need this special advantage, we only have to find a few other deserving minorities (race, religion and age seem like reasonable choices) before it is illegal to use merit as the first criteria for making up a corporate board. There is also a real concern with regulation like this is that the current climate of discussion is such that the negative effects are difficult to discuss in civil society. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the people who object to this are sexists. EDITED because I'd interpreted the article wrong

obpacheco 8y ago
Just as a point of contention if I hypothetically identify as a trans women can I count as a women in the opinion of california
- ddingus 8y ago
  If you mean it, as in get a statement from a psychologist, and are executing a meaningful transition plan, your chances are good.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    And what if you're gender fluid?
    - obpacheco 8y ago
      Isn't that obvious you'll only be able to come to work when you identify as a women or the company gets fined hundreds of thousands of dollars
    - ddingus 8y ago
      It will be super interesting to see that play out in court! I am getting downvoted. That is OK. CA requires a few things for Trans people to qualify as a gender other than the one indicated at birth. A complete transition is not required. Frankly, gender fluidity and greater gender role freedom are two things I fully expect to play out in court. Both need to be addressed, and then more normalized. Interesting times ahead.

throwaway00991 8y ago

Board members don't represent the public. In the U.S., they are elected by, and represent the shareholders. Evidently now for half the seats, the shareholders can elect whoever they want, as long as they identify as a woman.