4 ms·
>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
by 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"
- thoughtexplorer 8y agoSadly you're probably right. It woudln't surprise me if it's even further reduced to "So-and-so is anti-women".
- joeblow999 8y agoAlso you can tell that the proponents of the law didn't even really mean it. A $300K fine? are you joking? It's a rounding error for lunch buffets for a lot of companies. What a joke. ALso, I'm against the law and I'm glad to see they didn't really mean anything by it.