3 ms·

This is what happens what idiots write laws. Good law: Boards cannot be uni-gender. Bad law: Each board must have at least one woman. They both accomplish th

This is what happens what idiots write laws. Good law: Boards cannot be uni-gender. Bad law: Each board must have at least one woman. They both accomplish the same thing, but one discriminates on sex, and the other doesn't. Another example are laws targeting blacks. There are historical wrongs to be righted. Laws should, for example, convey benefits to individuals whose ancestors were slaves, were denied rights under the GI bill, or otherwise were specifically unfairly harmed. That's different from a law looking at skin color directly. It might seem subtle -- it's the same communities -- but one of those does something for bad reasons (and is likely to be found illegal), and one of those does something for good reasons (and is likely to be fully legal). It matters. I support the court ruling. I also support the intent of the law. The legislature ought to go back to the drawing board, and write a law which does the same thing the right way.

miwa 5y ago
Are you sure those two laws accomplish the same thing? Under the "good law" you posted above, many organizations in California would become illegal overnight that are legal under your "bad law". The LA Times, most nursing associations, and many other all-female organizations would be criminalized. Even LA County itself would be illegal: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-11-04/l-a-county-makes-history-with-all-female-board-of-supervisors https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-11-04/l-a-coun... I believe the goal of the authors of the law is to allow for all-female leadership teams to exist while explicitly prohibiting all-male leadership teams.
- blip54321 5y ago
  No, they don't accomplish the same thing. One accomplishes something better than the other. To your points, all-female organizations would not be criminalized: 1) First of all, these should be civil laws, not criminal laws. Having this be a criminal law would be insane. 2) Second of all, these are about corporate boards for publicly-traded corporations. All-female associations are permitted. Even all-female publicly-traded corporations would be permitted, although I'm unaware of any. Board members are independent individuals who provide oversight. Most aren't insiders. It's fine to have a female board member for an all-male organization, or vice-versa. To your nursing example, if there were a publicly-traded nursing corporation, it's even helpful since half of patients are males. 3) Third of all, LA Times is not all-female; I'm not sure where that comes from. LA County is a government, not a publicly-traded corporation, and the law doesn't apply. The right idea which should be behind the law -- which is sensible -- is that corporate oversight should understand the impact on everyone, and should represent the workforce, customers, etc. It's sensible. I suspect it's good for shareholder value too.
  - miwa 5y ago
    Can't tell if you're making a serious argument but yes, even if it is only civil penalties and only boards of directors, your "good law" will destroy companies with all-female leadership teams and your "bad law" will not. Civil penalties can still force bankruptcy. This is a boolean logic problem, not a law class. https://www.jamaicaobserver.com/sunday-finance/all-female-board-for-stanley-motta_137323 https://www.jamaicaobserver.com/sunday-finance/all-female-bo... https://qz.com/2076884/spanx-commits-to-all-female-board-after-blackstone-investment/ https://qz.com/2076884/spanx-commits-to-all-female-board-aft... https://www.atratoroof.com/team https://www.atratoroof.com/team etc etc
    - blip54321 5y ago
      .... and for most of those, the exact same arguments apply. Stanley Motta is an electronics store. Both men and women work there and buy electronics. AIFM is an energy company. Ditto. Spanx is the only one on your short list where a supermajority of stakeholders are women. Even with Spanx, one could argue that slimming undergarments are for couples, where having one male voice in the room could help make sensible decisions. Seems like for those oddball cases, it's mostly an upside to diversify representation, even if it's in the opposite direction. I see a few problems: - Boards mostly come from an old boys network. I have not seen board members who were exceptional individuals so much as well-connected individuals. Even "diversity hires" -- and they're called that -- seem to pick from a tiny number of individuals who managed to break into that network, rather than individuals from minority communities. It's not a meritocracy. - Boards don't represent the customers or employees, and often do things which harm some groups. Having all voices in that room helps. - And so on... Those sorts of arguments align doing good, doing well, and reducing (legal) corruption. If I wanted to improve the law, I'd try to come up with ways to have representation from African American inner city communities, poor Southern rural communities, immigrant communities, and a whole slew of other groups who are traditionally underrepresented. I'll emphasizes communities -- people who are aware of culture and day-to-day life. "Good" laws also do less tokenizing, and are less likely to become obsolete: - The argument that a woman is on a board because... she's a woman is pretty stigmatizing. The argument that diverse perspectives maximize shareholder value is not. - If, in 2050, we have 50/50 representation, or a minority group moves into the majority, balanced laws self-correct.
draw_down 5y ago

miwa 5y ago

Are you sure those two laws accomplish the same thing? Under the "good law" you posted above, many organizations in California would become illegal overnight that are legal under your "bad law". The LA Times, most nursing associations, and many other all-female organizations would be criminalized. Even LA County itself would be illegal: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-11-04/l-a-county-makes-history-with-all-female-board-of-supervisors https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-11-04/l-a-coun... I believe the goal of the authors of the law is to allow for all-female leadership teams to exist while explicitly prohibiting all-male leadership teams.

blip54321 5y ago
No, they don't accomplish the same thing. One accomplishes something better than the other. To your points, all-female organizations would not be criminalized: 1) First of all, these should be civil laws, not criminal laws. Having this be a criminal law would be insane. 2) Second of all, these are about corporate boards for publicly-traded corporations. All-female associations are permitted. Even all-female publicly-traded corporations would be permitted, although I'm unaware of any. Board members are independent individuals who provide oversight. Most aren't insiders. It's fine to have a female board member for an all-male organization, or vice-versa. To your nursing example, if there were a publicly-traded nursing corporation, it's even helpful since half of patients are males. 3) Third of all, LA Times is not all-female; I'm not sure where that comes from. LA County is a government, not a publicly-traded corporation, and the law doesn't apply. The right idea which should be behind the law -- which is sensible -- is that corporate oversight should understand the impact on everyone, and should represent the workforce, customers, etc. It's sensible. I suspect it's good for shareholder value too.
- miwa 5y ago
  Can't tell if you're making a serious argument but yes, even if it is only civil penalties and only boards of directors, your "good law" will destroy companies with all-female leadership teams and your "bad law" will not. Civil penalties can still force bankruptcy. This is a boolean logic problem, not a law class. https://www.jamaicaobserver.com/sunday-finance/all-female-board-for-stanley-motta_137323 https://www.jamaicaobserver.com/sunday-finance/all-female-bo... https://qz.com/2076884/spanx-commits-to-all-female-board-after-blackstone-investment/ https://qz.com/2076884/spanx-commits-to-all-female-board-aft... https://www.atratoroof.com/team https://www.atratoroof.com/team etc etc
  - blip54321 5y ago
    .... and for most of those, the exact same arguments apply. Stanley Motta is an electronics store. Both men and women work there and buy electronics. AIFM is an energy company. Ditto. Spanx is the only one on your short list where a supermajority of stakeholders are women. Even with Spanx, one could argue that slimming undergarments are for couples, where having one male voice in the room could help make sensible decisions. Seems like for those oddball cases, it's mostly an upside to diversify representation, even if it's in the opposite direction. I see a few problems: - Boards mostly come from an old boys network. I have not seen board members who were exceptional individuals so much as well-connected individuals. Even "diversity hires" -- and they're called that -- seem to pick from a tiny number of individuals who managed to break into that network, rather than individuals from minority communities. It's not a meritocracy. - Boards don't represent the customers or employees, and often do things which harm some groups. Having all voices in that room helps. - And so on... Those sorts of arguments align doing good, doing well, and reducing (legal) corruption. If I wanted to improve the law, I'd try to come up with ways to have representation from African American inner city communities, poor Southern rural communities, immigrant communities, and a whole slew of other groups who are traditionally underrepresented. I'll emphasizes communities -- people who are aware of culture and day-to-day life. "Good" laws also do less tokenizing, and are less likely to become obsolete: - The argument that a woman is on a board because... she's a woman is pretty stigmatizing. The argument that diverse perspectives maximize shareholder value is not. - If, in 2050, we have 50/50 representation, or a minority group moves into the majority, balanced laws self-correct.

draw_down 5y ago