Mandate For Female Board Directors Clears Calif. Assembly

[dead0man]

link

is this constitutional?

[SteveRogers]

link

is this constitutional?

Probably not

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Section 3 isn't as it imposes California law on non-Californian companies regardless of the law in their corporate domicile. That's a clear violation of the Privileges and Immunities clause.

For companies incorporated by the State of California, I see no constitutional problems beyond the possibility of it not having gender neutral language, which might cause problems under the California Constitution for companies without any men on their boards.

[Torie]

This article discusses the legality of the idea in terms of affirmative action law. If what you say is true, many companies will just change their state of incorporation to elsewhere. I am not sure that is the test. It may turn on where the company is headquartered.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We obviously need more privileged white women to crush the working class.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This article discusses the legality of the idea in terms of affirmative action law. If what you say is true, many companies will just change their state of incorporation to elsewhere. I am not sure that is the test. It may turn on where the company is headquartered.

For large companies. they'd either add a token woman or consider the fine a cost of doing business.  Most publicly traded companies already have a token woman, I don't see the 2019 standard of 1 as being tough to meet. The 2021 standard of 3 unless you have a very small board would be tougher for recalcitrants to meet, but I think they'd be likelier to just go private so as to keep their boys' club boardrooms if that was a stumbling block than switch to another state.

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

It is pure bs.

If you want to advance to the top it should be based on merit. This is just wrong at its very core.

[Fuzzy Bear]

This is a bad idea whose time has come.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It is pure bs.

If you want to advance to the top it should be based on merit. This is just wrong at its very core.

[NewYorkExpress]

This article discusses the legality of the idea in terms of affirmative action law. If what you say is true, many companies will just change their state of incorporation to elsewhere. I am not sure that is the test. It may turn on where the company is headquartered.

For large companies. they'd either add a token woman or consider the fine a cost of doing business.  Most publicly traded companies already have a token woman, I don't see the 2019 standard of 1 as being tough to meet. The 2021 standard of 3 unless you have a very small board would be tougher for recalcitrants to meet, but I think they'd be likelier to just go private so as to keep their boys' club boardrooms if that was a stumbling block than switch to another state.

It's possible that California will rewrite the law if company switching and private company going becomes the case to extend to private companies, and to any company that does business in California.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This article discusses the legality of the idea in terms of affirmative action law. If what you say is true, many companies will just change their state of incorporation to elsewhere. I am not sure that is the test. It may turn on where the company is headquartered.

For large companies. they'd either add a token woman or consider the fine a cost of doing business.  Most publicly traded companies already have a token woman, I don't see the 2019 standard of 1 as being tough to meet. The 2021 standard of 3 unless you have a very small board would be tougher for recalcitrants to meet, but I think they'd be likelier to just go private so as to keep their boys' club boardrooms if that was a stumbling block than switch to another state.

It's possible that California will rewrite the law if company switching and private company going becomes the case to extend to private companies, and to any company that does business in California.

It would be more difficult to get the needed info to enforce for private companies and how do you write the law in a manner that doesn't have it start affecting family-run small businesses?

[Beet]

Example #239 of why California is terrible.

[Intell]

We obviously need more privileged white women to crush the working class women disproportionately of colour.

[Tintrlvr]

link

is this constitutional?

If they’re smart, it would require minimum numbers of both women and men, in which case it would definitely pass constitutional muster.

That said, it should be by percentage rather than number to be meaningful and avoid challenges handling small boards.

[mvd10]

Stupid law. It's great that more women want to have professional careers and we absolutely should stimulate ambition in all of our children regardless of their gender. For too long female ambition has been seen as a dirty thing and I hope we will manage to resolve that soon, female ambition is a good thing and a woman who prioritizes her career is just as female as someone who lives a more traditional life. But I just principally oppose quotas or forms of affirmative action in nearly all cases (and if there really needs to be affirmative action in colleges for example I'd prefer it to be class-based tbh, but class-based AA obviously doesn't work in boardrooms lol).

I'm not even sure whether quotas are that necessary. I mean, the people currently inhabiting boardrooms are people born in the 1950s or 1960s who were brought up by people born in the 1920s and 1930s. Most of them probably were born in privileged families which were literal copies of ''Leave It to Beaver''. Of course that's not going to be an equal group when it comes to these things, the pool of candidates for boardroom positions is disproportionally male. But as time passes you'll have more and more young CEOs or board directors which grew up in slightly more egalitarian times. And research has shown that more diverse boards tend to do better than all-male (or all-female for that matter) boards, in the end rationality will outweigh sexism.

Men probably are always going to slightly outnumber women in boardrooms since women can get pregnant which means most of them are going to miss atleast a few months (or more) in their prime working years. But a 50/50 division shouldn't necessarily be the goal, the goal should be that it should be very acceptable for women to prioritize their career and that career women shouldn't be seen as ''bitches'' or ''bossy'' (bravo Atlas left-wingers!), instead they should be seen in the exact same way as people would see a man who prioritizes his career (which is seen as very normal). And if you do that the division will end up being close 50/50 anyway. We're not there yet, but we're on our way to equality and I don't really think we need quotas that much to justify the potential backlash and the legal issues.

Besides, the thing that scares me most is that we get radical left-wingers who will think the solution lies in penalizing men (forced paternity leave, further feminizing the educational system, quotas). Enough progressive male cucks would be willing to vote for that lol.

[DC Al Fine]

This article discusses the legality of the idea in terms of affirmative action law. If what you say is true, many companies will just change their state of incorporation to elsewhere. I am not sure that is the test. It may turn on where the company is headquartered.

For large companies. they'd either add a token woman or consider the fine a cost of doing business.  Most publicly traded companies already have a token woman, I don't see the 2019 standard of 1 as being tough to meet. The 2021 standard of 3 unless you have a very small board would be tougher for recalcitrants to meet, but I think they'd be likelier to just go private so as to keep their boys' club boardrooms if that was a stumbling block than switch to another state.

It's possible that California will rewrite the law if company switching and private company going becomes the case to extend to private companies, and to any company that does business in California.

It would be more difficult to get the needed info to enforce for private companies and how do you write the law in a manner that doesn't have it start affecting family-run small businesses?

Maybe an Obamacare style "> X employees" clause?

[J. J.]

A bad idea, but constitutional under the US Constitution.   Corporations are the creation of the state and no one has to be incorporated in California.

It may violate the California Constitution.

[J. J.]

This article discusses the legality of the idea in terms of affirmative action law. If what you say is true, many companies will just change their state of incorporation to elsewhere. I am not sure that is the test. It may turn on where the company is headquartered.

For large companies. they'd either add a token woman or consider the fine a cost of doing business.  Most publicly traded companies already have a token woman, I don't see the 2019 standard of 1 as being tough to meet. The 2021 standard of 3 unless you have a very small board would be tougher for recalcitrants to meet, but I think they'd be likelier to just go private so as to keep their boys' club boardrooms if that was a stumbling block than switch to another state.

You might have to worry about smaller companies that have an all female board.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Stupid law. It's great that more women want to have professional careers and we absolutely should stimulate ambition in all of our children regardless of their gender. For too long female ambition has been seen as a dirty thing and I hope we will manage to resolve that soon, female ambition is a good thing and a woman who prioritizes her career is just as female as someone who lives a more traditional life. But I just principally oppose quotas or forms of affirmative action in nearly all cases (and if there really needs to be affirmative action in colleges for example I'd prefer it to be class-based tbh, but class-based AA obviously doesn't work in boardrooms lol).

I'm not even sure whether quotas are that necessary. I mean, the people currently inhabiting boardrooms are people born in the 1950s or 1960s who were brought up by people born in the 1920s and 1930s. Most of them probably were born in privileged families which were literal copies of ''Leave It to Beaver''. Of course that's not going to be an equal group when it comes to these things, the pool of candidates for boardroom positions is disproportionally male. But as time passes you'll have more and more young CEOs or board directors which grew up in slightly more egalitarian times. And research has shown that more diverse boards tend to do better than all-male (or all-female for that matter) boards, in the end rationality will outweigh sexism.

Men probably are always going to slightly outnumber women in boardrooms since women can get pregnant which means most of them are going to miss atleast a few months (or more) in their prime working years. But a 50/50 division shouldn't necessarily be the goal, the goal should be that it should be very acceptable for women to prioritize their career and that career women shouldn't be seen as ''bitches'' or ''bossy'' (bravo Atlas left-wingers!), instead they should be seen in the exact same way as people would see a man who prioritizes his career (which is seen as very normal). And if you do that the division will end up being close 50/50 anyway. We're not there yet, but we're on our way to equality and I don't really think we need quotas that much to justify the potential backlash and the legal issues.

Besides, the thing that scares me most is that we get radical left-wingers who will think the solution lies in penalizing men (forced paternity leave, further feminizing the educational system, quotas). Enough progressive male cucks would be willing to vote for that lol.

I agree with basically all of this. Quotas by law aren't the answer and will just cause a backlash- if you want to fight for more women in boardrooms, fight for career women to be accepted by society, don't pass weird and arbitrary laws.

[Karpatsky]

We obviously need more privileged white women to crush the working class.

I know you're being facetious, but the attitude you are describing, more than anything, is what turns me off the modern American left. I suppose I can't generalize, but my local Democratic party is terrible about it. They seem completely uninterested in the increasing divide between social classes and more interested in making sure there are 'representative oppressed groups' in the higher classes. That is - their problem is not opposing the oligarchy which is coming into existence, but in making sure that half (clap) of (clap) those (clap) oligarchs (clap) are (clap) women (clap) , and that 15% are black, and that 3% are transgender, and so on.

I'm with mvd10 & Parrotguy - this is a hamfisted and counterproductive ordinance which will further discredit social development on the whole.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Section 3 isn't as it imposes California law on non-Californian companies regardless of the law in their corporate domicile. That's a clear violation of the Privileges and Immunities clause.

For companies incorporated by the State of California, I see no constitutional problems beyond the possibility of it not having gender neutral language, which might cause problems under the California Constitution for companies without any men on their boards.

Completely unconstitutional.

[Senator Incitatus]

They should re-name this the "Make Meg Whitman a Trillionaire Bill."