MovieChat Forums > Donald Trump Discussion > California's new law: No more all-male b...

California's new law: No more all-male boards [Diversity is critical]

posted 6 years ago by Rorikon (16427)
11 replies | jump to latest

https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/30/news/california-requires-women-board-of-directors/index.html

That's according to a new law, enacted Sunday, which requires publicly traded firms in the state to place at least one woman on their board of directors by the end of 2019 — or face a penalty.

It also requires companies with five directors to add two women by the end of 2021, and companies with six or more directors to add at least three more women by the end of the same year.

Opponents argue that pressure from quotas will lead to unqualified female members and potential discrimination against male candidates.

Group of guy friends: *chatting*
Random female: Hey guys, what's up?
Group of guy friends: Nothing, can you like leave us alone?
Random female: Nu uh, it's 2018, new law states you include me in your activities or whatever you got going down there. Therefore I demand you include me right now or I will ruin your life.

No more bros before hos. No more group of bright guys in college wanting to form a company together without some woman to ruin the fun.

Silliness aside, what happened to hiring people based on skill/quality/performance and not race/color/gender?

[–] SnagsWolf (1172) 6 years ago

Liberals always want to use the power of the government to force their policies on everyone else. It's why they're going fucking nuts about losing the Supreme Court.

And they call us fascists.

[–] [email protected] (5507) 6 years ago

Well, i for one, believe in diversity! I mean, I am seriously upset at seeing all MALE teams in the NBA! And they are mostly very tall black men.
The NBA needs to rethink its hiring practices and hire some short white and Asian women.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

What in the world does the players on an NBA team have to do with the members on the board of directors on a publicly traded firm?

[–] Burk48917 (10998) 6 years ago

You bigot! No mention of quadriplegic players! You obviously hate handicap people.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Terrible logic.

Men have natural athletic advantages over women that stem from biology. That's why the best female players in the WNBA couldn't add value to any NBA team.

But if you're trying to illustrate via irony that some women aren't more capable of adding more value as boardroom executives than their male counterparts then you're demonstrably wrong. But I don't think that's what you're trying to say. It's just a poor analogy.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

No, she’s demonstrably wrong as always.

[–] dlancer (2036) 6 years ago

I get it that it's wrong to refuse a higher skilled worker in favor of being diverse, but that doesn't appear to be what's going on here. They are saying the data shows that companies with at least one woman on the board are more prosperous according to the S&P 500. And they are suggesting it has something to do with the fact that 70% of customers who make purchasing choices are women.

So, you have to ask yourself, is it really wrong to push companies to be more diverse when that diversity has proven results?

The problem with Affirmative Action was that a higher skilled worker could be replaced with a lesser skilled black worker. There was never any data that suggested having more black workers would increase productivity. That was all about reducing discrimination in the work force. If there was actual data that proved an increase of productivity by hiring more black workers, Affirmative Action would've been an instant success and a no-brainer.

Keep in mind that things such as skill, quality and performance can often be impossible to measure from employee to employee. But what isn't so hard to measure is overall results, and that honestly seems to be what they are looking at here.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

"I get it that it's wrong to refuse a higher skilled worker in favor of being diverse, but that doesn't appear to be what's going on here. They are saying the data shows that companies with at least one woman on the board are more prosperous according to the S&P 500. And they are suggesting it has something to do with the fact that 70% of customers who make purchasing choices are women.

So, you have to ask yourself, is it really wrong to push companies to be more diverse when that diversity has proven results? "

They're you go again blowing up their whole argument and conservative perspective with truth and facts, which they will never grasp. Why do you insist on spoiling their fun?

[–] dlancer (2036) 6 years ago

Whoops, my bad. Sometimes I forget.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Lol!!!

[–] Destinata (2619) 6 years ago

Because women aren't smart or talented enough to make it on their own!

I'm a woman, and I find this insulting. To complicate matters, are they going to define it as people with ovaries and a uterus, or does it include transgenders? What about the "gender-fluid" folk who only feel like a woman some of the time? I see lawsuits a-plenty over this.