11 ms·
Governor signs bill requiring California corporate boards to include women
- kichik 8y agoFor "publicly traded corporations headquartered in California".
- weberc2 8y agoI wonder how hard it is to legally change your headquarters. I hear Delaware is nice this time of year...
- toomuchtodo 8y agoTexas is calling.
- jasonlotito 8y agoYou are confusing incorporations and headquarters. You can be incorporated in Delaware (as is popular) and headquartered in California (this already happens).
- coolspot 8y agoYes, for example both Google and Facebook incorporated in Delaware and having Principal Executive Offices in California.[1][2] [1] - https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000165204416000012/goog10-k2015.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000165204416... [2] - https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680116000043/fb-12312015x10k.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680116...
- mmmmmmmmm 8y agoWhy only women? Why not men? Why not all 30+ genders? I think public companies should be required to have representation from every gender. Shame on the governor for being so transphobic.
- lightbyte 8y agoDoes this mean companies with no women on their board need to fire a current board member on the sole basis of their gender? Isn't that discrimination based on a protected class?
- andrewla 8y agoTechnically, no -- the person selected to be fired could not be fired on the sole basis of their gender because they are the same gender as everyone else on the board.
- cowpig 8y ago..unless there is a woman on the board?
- cphoover 8y agoOn the flip side though the Equal Opportunity Employment act disallows hiring as well as firing based on gender or discrimination thereof. So if it can be proven that someone has a hiring preference for women over men that is a violation of existing law.
- s73v3r_ 8y agoNo. You can expand the board.
- 8y ago
- CompelTechnic 8y ago>By the end of July 2021, a minimum of two women must sit on boards with five members, and there must be at least three women on boards with six or more members. Companies that fail to comply face fines of $100,000 for a first violation and $300,000 for a second or subsequent violation. This is so utterly bizarre. I suspect that this law will be struck down in court fairly quickly, and the politicians who pushed it through were just doing it for the sake of virtue signalling.
- hardoncollider 8y agoAffirmative action what?
- shredprez 8y agoDefinitely possible. I'm curious why they went the punitive route rather than providing some kind of incentive structure. In some ways it works out to the same thing, but tax breaks for businesses committed to the cause seem way easier to enact and defend than authoritarian quotas. Anyone with public policy or legal experience who can chime in here?
- RangerScience 8y agoI don't have any experience here, but, fines are revenue for the state and tax breaks are costs.
- godelski 8y agoThe really interesting part is that the amount of money seems to be one that would be extremely harmful to small companies but basically chump change to large corporations.
- Zarath 8y agoI can just see the attack ads from the opposition now. "So-and-so voted to strike down legislation that would promote diversity in the work force"
- 8y ago
- frgtpsswrdlame 8y agoJust deck-chair rearranging for elites. What if corporate boards were required to include non-managerial employees? What if corporate boards were required to include random low-income people? What if corporate boards were required to include a random selection of consumers of the product? Maybe then we'd see some real change. This is a mirage of progress, unfortunate that it's adequate for so many.
- cowpig 8y ago> “There have been numerous objections to this bill, and serious legal concerns have been raised,” Brown said. “I don’t minimize the potential flaws that indeed may prove fatal to its ultimate implementation. Nevertheless, recent events in Washington, D.C. — and beyond — make it crystal clear that many are not getting the message.” I feel like passing a flawed or badly-implemented law that forces companies to restructure their boards in order to send a political message will have the opposite of the effect you want. Surely it'll just galvanize peoples' negative opinions of "liberal policies," and do little to actually change anything substantial?
- blattimwind 8y agoIt's funny how state regulation is considered liberal policy in the US.
- nostromo 8y agoThis policy is deeply anti-liberal. But “liberal” has lost all meaning in the US and now is synonymous with “Democratic” or “progressive.” This sucks because us actual liberals are feeling more and more homeless in US politics.
- shredprez 8y agoWould you elaborate on the ideal liberal platform? I see and hear comments like this quite frequently (from folks of all political alignments, interestingly) and I'm always interested to hear what beliefs and policies people around me want to see in their government but don't.
- briandear 8y agoLiberal is supposed to mean “freedom.” When a government tells you what to do, that isn’t liberal. Of course there is a government and even classical liberals acknowledge the need for some government, but liberal really should mean a support of a government that provides for a common defense and has a court system that would provide for the enforcement of civil contracts. A “liberal” government doesn’t mandate actions of private entities unless those mandates are to protect the life, liberty or property of other individuals. Mandating gender on corporate boards doesn’t protect any of that. Nobody has a right to serve on a board and not serving on a board isn’t threatening anyone’s right to pursue happiness or live their life as they see fit. In fact, it does the opposite: it imposes a requirement that limits the freedom of people to run their business how they see fit. Unless the running of that business infringes on the rights of others, the government really has no business with that sort of mandate. And the key to understanding this is that no person has a “right” to success or a right to a specific job — they have a right to pursue happiness, but not a right to actually be happy. Progressivism is well-intentioned totalitarianism. There is nothing wrong with supporting progressivism, but let’s not pretend is has anything to do with liberalism.
- buboard 8y agoThis is good for 49 states.
- someone454 8y agoSo if a board position opens up and a male is denied an opportunity solely on hos sex, how will CA reconcile the lawsuit?
- hardoncollider 8y agoBecause he can't being denied a position which wasn't legally available for him to have in the first place.
- sdinsn 8y ago> which wasn't legally available for him to have That's exactly the problem- you can't create a state law that trumps federal law. The law itself is illegal, it's existence violates gender discrimination laws already.
- joeblow999 8y agoHow about a law that requires a certain percentage of non-black, non-gay people?
- skookumchuck 8y agoThis legitimizes tokenism for every diversity agenda. But it raises the problem of how do you set up, say, a 5 member board with the correct numbers of white, black, asian, women, Indian, gay, hispanic, etc. on it?
- truthwhisperer 8y agodon't forget gender neutral ones, half man half woman and the ones who feel inside white but have a dark skin. They should not be forgotten too.
- emiliobumachar 8y agoWell, a woman can be both gay and of any given race.
- zbyte64 8y agoThis may come as a shock but people often have multiple backgrounds.
- skookumchuck 8y agoIf you're a bi-racial gay woman, you'd be in high demand!
- zbyte64 8y agoWhy wouldn't they be already? If that person is still a high functioning adult then they have an accessible insight to people you and I do not.
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoHe means they'd be in higher demand than someone who's equally high functioning but checks fewer diversity boxes.
- dx87 8y ago
- knicholes 8y agoWhile I'm all for women serving on boards, I'm not keen on this being a legal mandate. I'll be sure to not incorporate in CA. Furthermore, how do they determine "female"ness?
- hardoncollider 8y agoUh, the gender the person identifies with. That's all.
- hulton 8y agoYou mean, encouraging delusion and avoidance of reality
- knicholes 8y agoThen I hardly see how this law changes anything. Can't one identify one's gender fluidly, sometimes including both at times?
- MagnumOpus 8y agoNo, legally one can't. One can change their legal gender, but one has to decide.
- knicholes 8y agoAh, of course. Thank you for helping me realize what should have been painfully obvious. (but seriously, though, thank you)
- pkaye 8y agoI've read that only like 90 corporations are headquartered in CA for which this law is applicable. Most of the others are headquartered in Delaware or other states. One exception I've heard of is Apple.
- tyingq 8y agoDepends on your interpretation of "headquartered". The article points out that many companies are headquartered in California, but incorporated in Delaware.
- pkaye 8y agoYes my mistake. I meant incorporated.
- claar 8y agoThe text of the bill defines this: whose principal executive offices, according to the corporation’s SEC 10-K form, are located in California https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB826 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
- commandlinefan 8y agoAnd it would be PR suicide for any of those corporations to re-headquarter any time in the next couple of years, now...
- cwkoss 8y agoWhy is that?
- joeblow999 8y agoI would be impressed if they did so. This law is BS and circumventing it is heroic.
- commandlinefan 8y ago
- ntumlin 8y agoIs there any requirement in the law that the women on the board actually do anything other than be a member of it? Would anything stop a woman from offering to sit on your board and pinky promise not to vote for $1k a year? Someone could do that with a whole bunch of companies and everybody wins.
- derefr 8y agoWhat’s stopping a lobbyist from paying them a lump sum greater than their NPV of $1k/yr to just vote once at a decisive moment? Also, what is such a person supposed to do if they’re the tie-breaker vote?
- RobertSmith 8y agoThere is a real problem with underrepresentation of women on corporate boards. It's not hard to find talented women
- rsl7 8y agoThank you. Instead of acknowledging this reality, many here seem to be proposing technical ways to get around it.
- aero142 8y agoIs there a legal definition for when transgender people count for legal purposes? I'm genuinely curious here.
- RangerScience 8y agoAFAIK, there is a process by which you change your legal gender. Each person is also assigned a legal gender identity; AFAIK, it's used for which prisons population you go to, what it means to request same-gender officers/doctors/etc. IANAL in any way, but my guess would be the same set of laws and systems would apply. The more interesting thing is if/when there's someone legally identified as neither male nor female.
- kradroy 8y agoIn California: "Gender identity is a person's understanding of their gender, or perception of their gender identity (which may include male, female, a combination of both, or neither of those), a gender differing from the one assigned at birth, or transgender." So it's essentially whatever the individual defines their gender to be. A person can have their gender changed by court order on various documents if certain criteria are met; federal documents are more difficult to change than CA-issued documents.
- debacle 8y agoBut is the law written in the context of gender or sex?
- kradroy 8y agoAccording to CA SB 826: (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.
- debacle 8y agoIs someone allowed to self identify as more than one gender? Is there any burden of proof on identity?
- skookumchuck 8y agoDoes that also mean that current all women boards have to include some men?
- kradroy 8y agoNo. Interpreting CA SB 826: a board of all women would be in compliance. The bill itself does not mention men at all.
- billylindeman 8y agoi swear i'm about to give up on california
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- cft 8y agoLast submission of this news was sunk or flagged by HN moderators within an hour. Let's see if this one lasts.
- dang 8y agoWhat posts are you referring to? This topic has already been repeatedly discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18109162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18109162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18110316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18110316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17885236 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17885236 The current submission is clearly a dupe, since it's the exact same news from 4 days ago. Moreover, the discussion is predictable; it consists of the same two things over and over: (1) "discrimination"; (2) "it works in Europe". Plus trolls. Nobody participates in these threads out of intellectual curiosity, so they're actually off topic by HN's core standard: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
- cft 8y agoIt's bad both ways: having these news creates sort of unconstructive discussion, but removing it creates a perception of bias/censorship. I think between these two bad options not removing them is a better option: news of this magnitude are rare and it will blow away after a few days. It relates to California corporate law and thus is pertinent to HN nevertheless I think.
- dang 8y agoThanks for the thoughtful reply. No question it's pertinent. I'm not sure we need a fourth thread though. Re perception of bias/censorship: that's a tough one. This perception arises no matter what we do; there seems to be no way to avoid it.
- thisgoodlife 8y agoBeing the only female board member sucks. A lot of people would assume this is the reason why you are in the position no matter how capable you are.
- debacle 8y agoEven if you've received your position by merit, this law will be the reason you remain - your merit can't be questioned because the law supplants it.
- jotux 8y agoWill this mean we'll see job postings in the future that state, "Men need not apply"?
- dak1 8y agoI can't help but feel like this is falling into the trap of Goodhart's Law[1]. While granting that the relationship can be somewhat complex and potentially reinforcing, it feels like this is really primarily treating the symptom and not the cause. This may be a good proxy for gender equality with regard to economic opportunities; however, forcing it to hit a certain threshold merely makes the measure meaningless without appreciably impacting actual gender equality (this only impacts a vanishingly small percentage of the overall population). I strongly support efforts to increase gender equality, but I also believe they should be evidence-based and ideally on their face gender neutral (for example: banning gender-based discrimination is neutral, even though it would currently be far more beneficial to women than men). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- anon4lol 8y agoI'd like to introduce my new matchmaking service where you can pick female board members in foreign countries. Since board members don't have to be residents, they can skype in. They don't even have to vote. For the low-low-low price of $x a month, I'll pay a part time mom in India or some other country to be your extra board-member. Anyone want in on a ground-breaking new web 3.0 business? I'll take 90% of the stock, and give you RSUs that you will never be able to redeem because I will sell my unicorn and you'll get nothing. I'm not sure that is what the law intended. But I can smell money my friends.
- RegicidalManiac 8y agoI will offer myself to be board member for merely paying my cellphone bills.
- shredprez 8y agoI'm pitching my board-member verification platform to the state authorities right now. Would love to grab coffee sometime and synchronize!
- dominicr 8y agoThere’s a lot of people getting riled about this but recent history in Europe shows that it has little effect either way. Not a great way to solve the imbalance but it’s not going to cause anyone’s collapse. The Economist sums it up: “While quotas have not been the calamity that many had feared, they have also so far failed to achieve what governments had promised they would.“ https://amp.economist.com/business/2018/02/17/ten-years-on-from-norways-quota-for-women-on-corporate-boards https://amp.economist.com/business/2018/02/17/ten-years-on-f...
- cft 8y agoEurope is only globally competitive in the entrenched industries that were created before WW2. It entirely missed the computer revolution. The general economic direction of Western Europe is downward.
- marsdepinski 8y agoHardly. Europe who you can credit for inventing the www missed the computer revolution? Funny how banking, payments, government services, car tech, happen to be at a higher level than in the US.
- dominicr 8y agoPeople tend to underestimate Europe and the EU. When asked what the world's leading financial power is almost half of people say the USA. The USA is third, with China first and the EU second. The EU's share of the world's GDP is shrinking because the rest of the world, especially the developing world, is catching up, which is a good thing. What people think depends upon perspective. US tech companies are in the news more but there are unicorns and big tech companies in Europe, some of which I couldn't tell you what they do. As well as many large older IT companies there are also big new tech companies like Spotify, ASOS, Just Eat, skyscanner, Deliveroo. All big, all tech, all headquartered or started in the EU recently. This is also ignoring the current shift to offshoring development to Europe. Eastern Europe is getting the lion's share of that but the western side is home to a lot of big divisions of international companies. It does like you have the tech blinkers on, which happens to a lot of people working in tech. "Tech is the future and tech is everything." People tend to forget that the traditional industries are massive (the biggest companies in the world by revenue aren't tech companies) and they tend to play a larger role in a country's economy that tech does. These are companies that build their own towns if they need to and cause massive effects when they move. Manufacturing is huge and ultimately everything tech uses is a product of manufacturing. Foxconn is as much a manufacturer as a tech company. The biggest companies working on self driving cars are the traditional car manufacturers, including European giants Volkswagen and Daimler. Other players like Uber use other people's cars. And when these cars go on sale half or more of the profit will be to the company that makes the metal. Finally, a large part of Trump's promises were to bring back these old industries to the US because they're the industries that create long term jobs and transform towns.
- thanatos_dem 8y agoSo Alphabet will need to add two women (currently 8 board members, 1 woman). Apple, Tesla, and Facebook will need to add 1 (7/2, 9/2 and 9/2 respectively). Uber surprisingly enough already has 3 female board members, so they’re all set. That’s all assuming that this bill sticks of course. I’m sure there’ll be some heavy opposition to it. I’m a bit surprised Alphabet’s board is one of the more gender imbalanced right now among the giants.
- jotux 8y agoAlphabet seems to have [1] 11 directors, two of which are women. So they can either (1) hire one more women director, or (2) fire six of the male directors. [1] https://abc.xyz/investor/other/board.html https://abc.xyz/investor/other/board.html Edit: the law only requires three women directors for board over six in size, not 50% of the board. Corrected.
- thanatos_dem 8y agoAh, you’re right, I was looking at an out of date list of board members. So they’ll only need to hire 1 additional woman. The bill requires there to be at least three women on boards with six or more members. Not pairity, just 3.
- jotux 8y agoYou are correct and I fixed my comment to reflect that.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- hulton 8y agoBad laws in a degenerating state equals potent irony: http://www.courts.ca.gov/genderchange.htm http://www.courts.ca.gov/genderchange.htm
- ummonk 8y agoA few years from now, a lot of board members will start identifying as female.
- AckSyn 8y agoSuddenly the boss' secretary is on the board without voting authority. Business goes on.
- genderflexible 8y ago"While acting as a board member of this company, I hereby agree to self-identify as female during all board activities." An absurd response to an absurd bill.
- chmln 8y ago> high time corporate boards include the people who constitute more than half the ‘persons’ in America Why everything need to match the country's overall demographics? This is legislating a desired outcome without regard for basic logic and sovereignty. Are they also gonna force NBA to become racially diverse? Or for K-12 to have an equal amount of male to female teachers? You know the answer is no, but why not? This is nothing but stupendous, overreaching, smug political posturing.
- buboard 8y agoIt's not that bad. at least they didn't mandate to include black people. (See how vicious the identity war can become?)
- dang 8y agoPlease don't do this here.
- neokantian 8y agoThey can also add "paper women". There is probably even an opportunity for a service company to provide a catalog with profiles, from which to add paper women to your board: "Add a paper woman to your board! Cheap and easy! $9.99/year excl. sales tax"
- gojomo 8y agobindersfullofwomen.com
- mch82 8y agoThe assumption implied in many comments on this post is that this policy change will hurt companies. Is that really how people feel? If so, how come?
- cphoover 8y agoBecause people think that you should hire someone based on their qualifications, not based on what is between their legs.
- kevinh 8y agoThe implicit argument you're posing is that board membership is a meritocracy where there are no implicit or explicit barriers to entry based on certain groups. I don't think I need to go into the result of holding that belief with the current makeup of boards of directors.
- haberman 8y ago> “There have been numerous objections to this bill, and serious legal concerns have been raised,” Brown said. “I don’t minimize the potential flaws that indeed may prove fatal to its ultimate implementation. Nevertheless, recent events in Washington, D.C. — and beyond — make it crystal clear that many are not getting the message.” Why do people so often assume -- as Brown has here -- that more women in power will lead to progressive outcomes? 41% of women voted for Donald Trump. 37% of women currently approve of his performance. These numbers are lower than men, it's true, but not that much lower (52% and 45%, respectively). Even though more women believe Ford than men, there is little difference in opposition to Kavenaugh by gender: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/01/poll-kavanaugh-ford-opinion-854860 https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/01/poll-kavanaugh-for... Many progressives seem to view women as a voting bloc that will ensure left-leaning results. The numbers do not support this view.
- skookumchuck 8y agoThe reason is pretty simple. Women have husbands, fathers, brothers, and sons. It's not women vs men. For example, a female colleague of mine a few years back had her son forced out of university and ruined due to an allegation of rape that was entirely he said / she said. She did a lot of crying about how unjust that was.
- sigzero 8y agoGovernment overreach.
- Zarath 8y agoAt least now we can feel good about being exploited... because they are inclusive!
- alexandernst 8y agoWhy limit that bill just to executive positions? Why not force companies to have women in every type of position that the company has?
- bassman9000 8y agoI guess you know the answer, but: for the same reason it doesn't apply to all those other jobs with high mortality, or crippling dangers, or plain nasty ones.
- cphoover 8y agoWhat about algorithmic laws. People complain about affirmative action, because it favors one group of people over another. What if you algorithmically defined quotas instead of saying group X you say of the n groups that are underrepresented in the subset population relative to their existence in the larger population of the country they are weighed favorably by a multiplier of X. This way you can get around writing policies that expressly prefer one group over another. Instead of saying we prefer black people over Asian people into our institution, we prefer "women" over men. The policy should be written as we prefer the lower X% represented ethnic categories to ensure preventing homogeneity and ensure a level of diversity. Of course the issue with this becomes how do you define group identity. People can be divided into infinitesimal categorizations, and how do you define what qualifies as being part of a group. Is Barack Obama black or white? What percentage of genetic markers, indicate that someone deserves a specific label or categorization. Why is that percentage accurate? Why do we prefer one class of discriminated people over another class of discriminated people? The questions go on and on.
- bassman9000 8y agoPeople can be divided into infinitesimal categorizations Down to the person. Which is why merit has been and will be the best measure. And also why identity politics are so damaging.
- joeblow999 8y agoI look forward to a bunch of white males in their 50's who have 100M+ stock portfolios identifying as "female" real soon....