California May Become First State To Require Companies To Have Women On Their Boards

[DamianTV]

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/18/08/14/0013220/california-may-become-first-state-to-require-companies-to-have-women-on-their-boards


Two female state senators from California are spearheading a bill to require companies to have women on their boards. "SB 826, which won Senate approval with only Democratic votes and has until the end of August to clear the Assembly, would require publicly held companies headquartered in California to have at least one woman on their boards of directors by end of next year," reports TechCrunch. "By 2021, companies with boards of five directors must have at least two women, and companies with six-member boards must have at least three women. Firms failing to comply would face a fine." From the report:

"Gender diversity brings a variety of perspectives to the table that can help foster new and innovative ideas," said Democratic Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara, who is sponsoring the bill with Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins of San Diego. "It's not only the right thing to do, it's good for a company's bottom line."

Yet critics of the bill say it violates the federal and state constitutions. Business associations say the rule would require companies to discriminate against men wanting to serve on boards, as well as conflict with corporate law that says the internal affairs of a corporation should be governed by the state law in which it is incorporated. This bill would apply to companies headquartered in California. [A] legislative analysis of the bill cautioned that it could get challenged on equal protection grounds, and that it would be difficult to defend, requiring the state to prove a compelling government interest in such a quota system for a private corporation.

[timosman]

www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?525294-California-Bill-Would-Require-Women-On-Corporate-Boards

[RonZeplin]

Affirmative Action for FemiNazis. Can't some of the guys currently on the board of directors, just choose to identify as the female gender? :questionsmerk:

https://www.wabe.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/atlantasadrag2-083016-2-1-600x300.jpg

[CaptUSA]

:sorrow:

Oh, California....

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9Xox2bWsAEvy0C.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

Broads on Boards.

[Jan2017]

Laughs aside . . . I have a corporation - it is an entity - that's about all you CAN govern.

[DamianTV]

Easy enough to beat. The guys at the top just claim being "transgender" in court!

[Anti Globalist]

Or maybe put people on boards judging by their merit and not gender. But of course leave it to California to not understand common sense.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

World's 5th largest eekonomee gais!!1 :eek:

[Republicanguy]

I don't see what the problem is, at this rate there won't ever be any women in these places.

[Swordsmyth]

I don't see what the problem is, at this rate there won't ever be any women in these places.

Government intervention is always a problem, it doesn't matter if there are never any women in those places but putting women who don't earn their place in them by force will cause mismanagement, it is also just tyrannical.

[Republicanguy]

No, there are women capable, but a lot of places lad culture is strong, I've seen it myself like how men just don't really care about any form of equality. I.e. conservatives, religious doers. And so on. I'm not stating that liberal folk can't be bad in this area, but having at least one woman in company is the correct path to go, and I doubt that everyone that turns up at one wouldn't be qualified.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

No, there are women capable, but a lot of places lad culture is strong, I've seen it myself like how men just don't really care about any form of equality. I.e. conservatives, religious doers. And so on. I'm not stating that liberal folk can't be bad in this area, but having at least one woman in company is the correct path to go, and I doubt that everyone that turns up at one wouldn't be qualified.
A qualified woman wouldn't need to be inserted via legislation.

[Swordsmyth]

No, there are women capable, but a lot of places lad culture is strong, I've seen it myself like how men just don't really care about any form of equality. I.e. conservatives, religious doers. And so on. I'm not stating that liberal folk can't be bad in this area, but having at least one woman in company is the correct path to go, and I doubt that everyone that turns up at one wouldn't be qualified.

If they are so capable they can overcome obstacles or build their own companies.

One way or another private property is private and government has no business getting involved.

[Republicanguy]

Yes in an ideal true. But in some places, men don't want women.

Some believe a woman is more for family, and other complements for men, not interfering in their work culture. That happens in California you know. Its not a liberal utopia.

[Swordsmyth]

Yes in an ideal true. But in some places, men don't want women.

Some believe a woman is more for family, and other complements for men, not interfering in their work culture. That happens in California you know. Its not a liberal utopia.
One way or another private property is private and government has no business getting involved.

[DamianTV]

I think it is an extension of Affirmative Action, extended to women.

If women do a good job, they will be on the board with or without the law. The law can only hurt the companies. What this really also says if you read between the lines is that Men deserve NO Rights and are disposable. The war on Men, the ones who die in wars, will continue until the men are weakened to the point they can no longer be what they were meant to be, free and independent.

[timosman]

I think it is an extension of Affirmative Action, extended to women.

If women do a good job, they will be on the board with or without the law. The law can only hurt the companies. What this really also says if you read between the lines is that Men deserve NO Rights and are disposable. The war on Men, the ones who die in wars, will continue until the men are weakened to the point they can no longer be what they were meant to be, free and independent.

I think it is a reflection of the changing economy. Most companies are not profitable so it really does not matter what they do or who's on the board. Why only men would be on the boards? :confused:

[DamianTV]

I think it is a reflection of the changing economy. Most companies are not profitable so it really does not matter what they do or who's on the board. Why only men would be on the boards? :confused:

I think there may be some sexism. At the same time, if women really are equal and can do anything mentally a man can do, then is it sexism that keeps women off the boards, or is there news bias and women are already on the board, but its a full woman take over?

[fedupinmo]

How many of the women have to be Hispanic?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Yes in an ideal true. But in some places, men don't want women.

Some believe a woman is more for family, and other complements for men, not interfering in their work culture. That happens in California you know. Its not a liberal utopia.
I live in California. I do not believe there is one major corporation here that categorically won't hire women. Silicon Valley is desperate for female employees, for example.

[thoughtomator]

Easy enough to beat. The guys at the top just claim being "transgender" in court!

Just memorize this phrase: "I am a transsexual lesbian woman, masculine-presenting". If they are credulous, add "and a 7 foot tall Chinese astronaut".

[timosman]

I live in California. I do not believe there is one major corporation here that categorically won't hire women. Silicon Valley is desperate for female employees, for example.

Not on the board. :cool:

[Sonny Tufts]

One way or another private property is private and government has no business getting involved.

Government got involved the moment the corporate charter was granted.

[Swordsmyth]

Government got involved the moment the corporate charter was granted.
They still don't have a right to dictate this kind of thing after the charter was granted, you might be able to say that they could make it a condition of all new corporate charters but they are doing it retroactively.

[Sonny Tufts]

They still don't have a right to dictate this kind of thing after the charter was granted, you might be able to say that they could make it a condition of all new corporate charters but they are doing it retroactively.

Actually, they do. Both the California Constitution and the California Corporations Code reserve to the legislature the power to amend or repeal laws pertaining to corporations, and these provisions become part of every corporate charter issued by the state. See California Jurisprudence 3d §4:


§ 4 Amendment or repeal of existing law

The California Constitution provides that all laws of the state concerning corporations may be altered from time to time or repealed,n1 and the Code empowers the legislature to amend or repeal all or any portion of the General Corporation Law.n2 The statutes reserving this power are a part of the corporation's charter and a part of the contract of every shareholder of a corporation.n3 In other words, by becoming a shareholder, one gives an implied assent to the right of the legislature to alter and amend the lawn4 just as the corporation has impliedly consented to be bound by the laws of this state.n5 This right is limited to amendment of the general law, and every such amendment must be made applicable to all corporations of the same class.n6

Footnotes
• n1
Cal. Const. art. XX, § 5.
• n2
Corp. Code, § 100, subd. (b).
• n3
Rainey v. Michel, 6 Cal. 2d 259, 57 P.2d 932, 105 A.L.R. 148 (1936); Silva v. Coastal Plywood & Timber Co., 124 Cal. App. 2d 276, 268 P.2d 510 (3d Dist. 1954); Heller Inv. Co. v. Southern Title & Trust Co., 17 Cal. App. 2d 202, 61 P.2d 807 (4th Dist. 1936).
• n4
Wilson v. Cherokee Drift Mining Co., 14 Cal. 2d 56, 92 P.2d 802 (1939); Demello v. Dairyman's Co-Operative Creamery, 73 Cal. App. 2d 746, 167 P.2d 226 (4th Dist. 1946) (wherein an amendment authorized a reorganization and forced dissenting shareholders to accept the plan or liquidate their shares and retire from the business).
• n5
Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. State, 214 Cal. 369, 6 P.2d 78 (1931).
• n6
City and County of San Francisco v. Spring Valley Waterworks, 48 Cal. 493, 1874 WL 1383 (1874).


This isn't to say that the proposed quota system for corporate boards is a good idea -- it's incredibly stupid and may very well be unconstitutional. But as a matter of state corporation law it appears to be within the power of the state legislature.

[Swordsmyth]

Actually, they do. Both the California Constitution and the California Corporations Code reserve to the legislature the power to amend or repeal laws pertaining to corporations, and these provisions become part of every corporate charter issued by the state. See California Jurisprudence 3d §4:




This isn't to say that the proposed quota system for corporate boards is a good idea -- it's incredibly stupid and may very well be unconstitutional. But as a matter of state corporation law it appears to be within the power of the state legislature.

If it is unconstitutional it is not within the power of the state legislature.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

[Sonny Tufts]

If it is unconstitutional it is not within the power of the state legislature.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

But it wouldn't be unconstitutional simply because it would apply to existing charters -- that's the point. The legislature's reservation of the power to amend or repeal corporation laws means that its doing so wouldn't amount to impairing the obligations of a contract in violation of the Contracts Clause in I.10.1. Any unconstitutionality would have to be based on something else, such as discrimination based on sex. But all this is highly academic as I can't see that even the wackos in the California legislature would ever pass this piece of bilge.

[tod evans]

California May Become First State To Require Companies To Have Women On Their Boards

Not good enough!

Need minority women, no whites and possibly no "cisgenders"..

[DamianTV]

Not good enough!

Need minority women, no whites and possibly no "cisgenders"..

War on White Men while claiming White Privilege.

[angelatc]

Broads on Boards.

Funny, but if the guaranteed living wage becomes a thing, look for more of this. In Saudi Arabia, you have to have Saudi employees in management positions. But since they're all millionaires, they don't actually like to work. So they get paid simply to put their name on the payroll.

[dannno]

Funny, but if the guaranteed living wage becomes a thing, look for more of this. In Saudi Arabia, you have to have Saudi employees in management positions. But since they're all millionaires, they don't actually like to work. So they get paid simply to put their name on the payroll.

There are plenty of chicks in California willing to take a $1,000 a year salary to sit at home and do nothing.

[dannno]

Some believe a woman is more for family, and other complements for men, not interfering in their work culture.

Decades of surveys and studies of women have shown they are less happy working than being home makers.

That doesn't mean women shouldn't have the choice of working, not every woman is going to be as happy as a home maker but it means that promoting more women in the work place is leading to women overall being less happy. Is that what you want?

A lot of very successful companies rose up with "lad culture", but guess what? They were able to serve customers the best, including women. Maybe there is value in that. Maybe men are more productive when there are less women in the workplace. Maybe that is the optimal path to go.

[Suzanimal]

It's teh law.


California’s Feminist Corporate Coup

10/25/2018
Jeffrey Harding

The California Legislature’s 201–2018 session just ended with an ocean of new laws inflicted upon its citizens. It’s actually difficult to discover how many new laws were passed. There were about 2,100 bills passed and signed by the governor, but many of them were bills supporting things like National Arbor Day or the Ritchie Valens Memorial Highway or Cinco de Mayo Week or Persian New Year. If you look up the legislative agenda there are about 50 pages of passed bills with 50 items on each page, of which about 7 pages of bills were vetoed by Governor Brown. I can’t tell you how many of them are “real” laws, but in the last session there were about 900 new laws. My guess is that there were more than 900 this session.

Does anyone seriously believe that these laws will materially improve our lives? What about the 900 passed last year? Or the 800 the year before that? What they will do is make life more complicated for Californians and drive businesses out of state.

The crown jewel of California’s Progressive-feminist policy this year was Senate Bill 826 which mandates publicly-held corporations to put women on their boards. It was passed and signed by Governor Jerry Brown. California now proudly leads the nation in identity politics. The law requires a minimum of one woman board member by 2019, and by 2020, two for boards with five members and three with boards of six or more.

...

https://mises.org/wire/california%E2%80%99s-feminist-corporate-coup

[Anti Federalist]

It's teh law.

Hey Suz...hope all is well.

[Origanalist]

If it is unconstitutional it is not within the power of the state legislature.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

I knew it! You're from another universe!

[Origanalist]

Broads on Boards.

https://www.floridamemory.com/fpc/reference/c030142.jpg

[Marenco]

https://www.floridamemory.com/fpc/reference/c030142.jpg

More like these kinds of broads...

https://cdn.totalfratmove.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/f90b7e09de835f5bf977fece8f9cbd49.jpg

http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/IMG_3833-1024x768.jpg