California Says Public Companies Have To Have Women On Board of Directors

It is still a private business though.

They should have choose who they want to hire. That is basically taking a right away from them.

If they don't choose the best, then they will be punished via performance.

I get what you are saying and it may end up being for the better, but the policy is borderline un-american.

 

The policy in it current form is definitely flawed, which is why I gave the example of the NFL in which the rule only required they be interviewed, and it has indirectly resulted in more hires. An alternative approach might be to incentivize with tax breaks based on some sort of scoring, but i am sure there are people with better ideas than mine.

But I would like to first see how this rule plays out and hopefully the government makes changes as needed. I have no problem bruising a few egos but it would be counter productive if the performance and/or productivity of companies declined as a result

 

Bingo.

 

I doubt this would effect productivity much as at this echelon of management is often chosen based on nepotism, "networking", and being in the right frat.

 

You are probably right on this one.

I guess I have a bigger issue with the government having any enforcement on private ventures than anything.

 

The best candidate deserves the job. Plain and simple.

Its in the private businesses best interest.

 

I know there are a lot of hard core left wingers in here but I’m still shocked that so many are ok with the California Government telling companies who they have to place on their board of directors. That is way way over stepping their authority and pushing California further and further towards a full blown socialist state.

I guess if the people of that state ever get sick enough of that government they will vote them out. If companies get sick enough of California laws then they will move out of that state.

 

Its a job that can decide life or death.

What are you talking about?

Sure its a service to people, but its also a career that isn't handed out and carries huge implications.

 

White officers certainly have been canned for such.

I’m feeding a personal story I’ve heard that fits the narrative to an extent.

 

in the corporate world, one of the key metrics in measuring a co's financial performance, relative to other firms, has been the return on equity

according to a 2016 study from Credit Suisse, which encompasses 27,000 senior managers at over 3,000 companies covered by the investment banking firm---re-affirming its 2014 study---

companies with all-male boards had an average return on equity of 10.1 %
while companies with at least one woman director had an average return on equity of 12.2 %​

just the facts:

https://www.credit-suisse.com/corpo...omen-in-decision-making-positions-201610.html



in his bill, Gov MoonBeam, , makes specific reference to these studies by Credit Suisse

 

There's a huge difference between a) not having a particular gender or race on a board and b) not wanting/resisting/stating opposition to having a particular gender or race on a board.

Under scenario "a," it could very well be that the company does not know or is not aware of anyone of that particular demographic who is qualified to be on their board.

All that said, I find this quota-ism appalling -- and frankly disrespectful to women. The underlying assumption is that they cannot reach that level without government mandates. And that, as someone once said, "is the soft bigotry of low expectations."

 

Not sure about this. Check the protests on the mall in DC.

 

Do you really think that a business is going to explicitly say "no blacks, no women, no mexicans"? Of course not, it is implicit.

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other........ all I will say is that as a culture and as a county we are vastly underutilizing 50% of the population. Women have many strengths that would help companies and businesses and as it is, it isn't happening often enough.

 

dumb

 

I'm as conservative as the next guy, but this one just doesn't bother me.

1. They aren't forcing companies to have X number of women on executive staff...so theoretically the people that actually run the business are chosen on merit, not personal identity politics.
2. I KNOW people on boards, and more often that not, board membership is who you know, not what you know...so most people aren't on boards for merit anyways.
3. People on boards tend to be uber rich or at least of extremely high net worth, so if they don't get to be on a board because there super rich female friend is on it instead, I don't care.
4. It can be self corrected, if a public company based in CA doesn't like the rule, they can move their headquarters to Houston.


If they said, every CEO needs a female CFO, COO, or VP of HR...that would be cause for concern. Those roles are WAY more likely to be filled based on merit.

The one interesting caveat to this: many smaller companies boards are made up of folks with high ownership stakes..even when they become public. Some boards will be disrupted because if the founders happened to be men...they'll have to change their board make up to include a woman that might not have much ownership. I would assume this is a corner case.

 

I would say we are getting close to not vastly under utilizing half the population. Single women under 30 already earn more than single men under 30. Women are already becoming the majority in medical fields, etc. Yes...there is probably still a bias towards men in highly competitive corporate jobs, whether conscience or not...but a lot of that is self correcting.

By the way, women entering the workforce is probably the number one factor of flat wage growth since the 70s...basically doubled the eligible population of workers.