Leftie Lawmakers, in their infinite wisdom, have passed a law that will force publicly traded companies to have a minimum number of women on their boards: at least one by 2019 and then a minimum of one to three by 2021 dependent on the size of the company.
On wonders how long it will take the Law of Unintended Consequences to kick in.
Having served on the Board of Directors of a few public companies myself, I entirely support this decision. Usually there is very little thought given to independence and diversity. Rather the CEO is looking for support and protection. This creates an old boys network that isn’t easily cracked, even by other white men. So force women onto boards. You will find they aren’t any better than the men and that there are many fewer “good” female board members than men. It would be interesting to see if these newly hired women are able to maintain their independence or whether they fall into the old boys club routine of merely protecting the CEO and not looking out for the best interests of the shareholders.
Excellent comment. Having served in the same capacity and being a woman, I totally concur.
Having served as a plumber I insist on a law requiring that 50% of plumbers be women, especially those of us who service old sewer lines which have leaked rotten pissy shit all over.
Wot, women aren’t lining up for that job?
So I guess they want superiority, not equality, amirite?
+10
People tend to self select on career choices if they can. Not many women choose plumbing.
Last summer I worked on refinery instrumentation construction out of the pipe-fitter’s hall. I had two female apprentices during the job. At the end of the summer I went back into retirement and they went back to school in the medical field. Both were capable apprentices but had no plan to work in construction other than to pay for their healthcare training.
Maybe most women don’t choose plumbing because they can’t do the work. A lot of it require sheer physical strength which most women simply do not possess.
I think most people would accept the above statement. But that is the start of the slippery slope, ha ha. Equality should mean equality of opportunity, not equality of result. Lack of the latter does not a priori mean lack of the former, or the existence of bias.
For example, women are not in STEM fields, by and large. That should be a predictable result based on all available data on SAT tests and grades in STEM classes. I don’t care what the reason is, the result reflects reality. Maybe it is mostly social influence. If girls accept math is kewl and not icky and apply themselves, maybe the difference in performance will go away. I predict if the difference in SAT scores go away, so will the difference in enrollment in STEM majors, then the difference in employment. It doesn’t work the other way.
By the way, what Ginsberg said is completely sexist. Nine women on the USSC would not be equality. It would be as unequal as nine men. Actually, much more so, since the available candidates are much less. Elena Kagan has never been a judge in any capacity before her appointment.
When will we learn, as expressed by RBG, that cries for “equal rights” … never mean … “equality” … it means “getting even”. Taking over. Pushing men into the sea. It’s nice to see when the mask slips a little.
So looking forward to the ‘plumber’s butt’ upgrade! 🙂
BOOM!
It’s not a question of hiring women providing they can do the job. It’s a question of what the hell gives to government the right to tell a company or corporation who they have to hire whether they like it or not in a supposed free country. Another example of the government sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong.
Hear, hear!
I’m waiting to see how many corporations will decide to quietly move their “principal executive offices” out of California — an unintended consequence the author doesn’t mention.
Yes, that definitely will be one of the unintended consequences.
It isn’t as though there is not an exodus of corporate offices out of California already, for reasons almost all related to California state laws.
Having served, and continuing to serve, as a shareholder of many public companies, I say fuck off you miserable thief.
We shareholders own the companies and we can do as we please with it until you expropriate it and pay us fair compensation for taking our rights.
Either that or if you have 2 sons in a row we get to kill the second and following boys until you do your duty and produce a female.
Don’t be so crude for the sake of shock value. Nobody’s sons are going to be put to death. No, the gender-balancers will take care of that in the womb … before any of the toxic boyhood even becomes a human. While your boys are still lumps of tissue. The State will balance things out … humanely.
Luckily I had boy-girl-boy-girl so no killing my family. But I think we need to pick our battles more carefully. There are times when the government should butt out – like buying pipelines, forcing bathroom options, making it a hate crime to use the wrong pronoun, making Islamophobia a hate crime … man the list is long. But there are other times when we need good government legislation, such as allowing women to vote, setting the drinking and driving age, abortion, and making sure there are enough women on the Board of Directors. You can’t live in a world where the government should fuck off every time there is an injustice. That is just as stupid as forcing the government to correct every conceivable injustice people feel they’ve encountered – which is where we’re headed.
What many people don’t remember is when women were allowed to vote for the first time in 1917, many men were also allowed to vote for the first time. Prior to that they had to own land. How far back do you want to go?
And just as the Environmental movement extinguished burning rivers and cleaned LA’s Air … who can be AGAINST Environmentalism?
Therefore, we must … progress … to mandate; electric cars, unattainable CAFE standards, carbon taxes, windmills, solar panels, 100% “renewable” energy, ban all nuclear power, ban shopping bags and drinking straws …
Yeah … equating a woman’s right to vote with a woman’s “right” to sit on a corporate board is quite insane. BTW … white women have been the #1 beneficiary of all affirmative-action programs (established to help minority applicants). Last I checked, females were 50% + of the population … NOT a minority.
What do you mean by “the government”? In the U.S. the federal, state, and local governments all have different jurisdiction. The Constitution defines the federal jurisdiction. It also defines the boundaries of state laws. The 18th Amendment specifically prohibits states from limiting voting by sex. It is very clearly stated, and does not include other limits on voting. The 24th repealed the poll tax, and the 26th lowered the voting age. These are the only limits on state laws regarding voting.
The Constitution did not specify other state requirements, such as ownership of farms or literacy. AFAIK, a state can still impose those rules. Their imposition are not specifically prohibited by the Constitution. Of course, the constitutionality of such laws can still be contested to the USSC.
Drinking age, driving age, and marriageable age are all set by the individual states and have nothing to do with the federal government. As is capital punishment. Roe v. Wade established that the Federal government cannot forbid abortion. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it only means individual states can forbid or allow abortion as they see fit. The proposed California law on board members only applies to California.
Americans take states rights seriously. All the aforementioned laws are the jurisdiction of each state, not the federal government. (I believe the USSC decision in Roe v. Wade is wrong in intruding on a state issue.) Ultimately, the USSC is the authority which decides whether a state or local law is in violation of the Constitution. I believe if the proposed California law were brought up to a strict constructionist USSC, it would, and should, be found unconstitutional.
I believe any law based on race or sex, or any other consideration not related to qualification for the position, is unconstitutional, whether the law prohibits or advocates. I believe that is what “equal protection” means.
Dr. Bainbridge has an interesting article on this.
“Virtually all U.S. corporations are formed (“incorporated”) under the laws of a single state by filing articles of incorporation with the appropriate state official.[1]The state in which the articles of incorporation are filed is known as the “state of incorporation.” Selecting a state of incorporation has important consequences, because of the so-called “internal affairs doctrine”—a conflicts of law rule holding that corporate governance matters are controlled by the law of the state of incorporation.
Suppose, for example, that Acme, Inc., is incorporated in Delaware, but all of Acme’s assets are located in Illinois. All of Acme’s shareholders, directors, and employees reside in Illinois. Acme’s sole place of business is located in Illinois. An Acme shareholder brings suit against the board of directors, alleging that its members violated their fiduciary duty of care. The law suit is filed in an Illinois court. Despite all these Illinois ties, the Illinois court usually nevertheless will apply Delaware law.[2]”
http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2018/09/can-california-require-delaware-corporations-to-comply-with-californias-new-board-of-director-gender.html
“I entirely support this decision”
That’s because you’re a statist.
steve, legislating this sort of thing is called socialism, and it will not end well. Government needs to stay out of business more so, and interfere less.
As a stock holder I actively vote against any women on any board. As a stock holder I don’t want any me too nonsense distracting the board of directors. I want my glass ceiling firmly ensconced, armor clad and bullet proof. Also time for every California based company to leave the state.
how about an unpaid board member.
Damned Neanderthal voters, keep voting for men.
And yet … Pat … we STILL don’t know which self-identified sex you’ve … chosen
Brings to mind when the Bourassa government passed bill 22 in Quebec in the 70s, which created a quota for French people on boards.
Suddenly the most popular men in the province were English guys with French surnames.
Quotas – the shortcut to mediocracy.
Well it looks like Bob the junior member is going to have to take one for the team and come out as a transgender otherkin and how dare you question xer authenticity in identifying as a duck billed platypus.
Gold, Jerry, Gold.
Four thumbs up.
This is a corporate responsibility not government. Shareholders get to vote on proposed Board membership not SJW. It is another effort by progressives to insert themselves into positions of power which includes a nice pay check. Leadership of corporate Canada or the USA is one of the last bulwarks against a low intelligence effort to direct where scarce resources are invested.
A more aggressive gambit was Elizabeth Warren’s (Communist) bill introduced to Congress to turn 40% ownership of corporate America to the workers. Always amazes me how easily people write off countries like Venezula as having populations that are ‘dumb’. What that country is experiencing could easily happen in NA. For all his boarishness Trump is fighting that large segment of society who are trying to achieve such a communist nirvana. That is why I support him. Canada is already lost.
At some point, the Dems will regain power in the USA. People will be very surprised that the Democrat Party is not what they thought it used to be. There’ll be a lot more government in there lives than they ever thought possible. The Dems will work quickly, and attempt to make the changes, irreversible. They will transform America.
Exactly.
A paragraph from the article linked and the author agrees with the paragraph. This paragraph also shows what it is really all about.
“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously said, “There will be enough women on the Supreme Court when there are nine,” meaning when all of the members of the court are women. I agree (the author).”
A humorous sound byte … until … you realize … they’re.dead.serious.
Hint: an all-female government isn’t turning out so good for Sweden. Unless you support the total destruction of your country and culture.
The problem is that shareholders only get to vote on “proposed” candidates so it’s a closed system. Imagine if the Conservative Party offered up Bob Rae, Jagmeet Sing or Kathleen Wynne as a candidate for the Chairman of Ontario (Premier). You would probably agree the system is broken.
There is a HUGE difference between turning 40% of Corporate America over to the workers and forcing Public Companies to elect at least one woman to its Board of Directors.
Of course the SJWs will f**k this up and eventually every Board will have to include transgender, visible minorities, the disabled etc and Boards will be wrestling with “feelings”. But that is in our future, not our present.
Leading the charge, Canada is every bit committed to a female bias on Boards of Directors as mandated by our feminist PM. For example, the Bank of Canada currently has seven female out of nine board members., excluding the Governor.
https://www.bankofcanada.ca/about/board-of-directors/
Look at almost every other public company. Not just one. Barrick, for example, has 3 of 14 as female. BMO 5 of 15. Ten years ago most of these companies had no female directors. That seems odd, when they represent 50% of the population.
steve, it ain’t a math test, it’s about government over stepping their intended authority, full stop. Now quit unDorking in here, you are generally not that stupid!!!!
A woman or someone who self-identifies as one?
What about a minimum number of blacks AND latinos?
And should there be a mandatory minimum of one white male? Or Asian?
The idiocy of a political culture that actually creates legislation like this is breathtaking.
If women ran the world there would be no men on the Board of Directors. Now flip that around and that is where we are.
The Bolshevication of our countries one regulation at a time. Slow and steady, like boiling frogs, until there is no freedom left for business or individuals.
Gord Tulk is right. What is next?
Are we at the stage that Rome was at when Caligula appointed a jackass as co-consul? Canada actually has one in government, as the head of government.
In ancient Rome women could not vote or hold office. Still, Rome fell.
..The idiocy of a political culture that actually creates legislation like this is breathtaking..
Beyond breathtaking & Mirrored by Ottawa these days… 4 years and ZERO Pro Business – Pro Investment Policy – ZERO Trade Deals concluded. In fact, just the opposite, a Full on attack against Capitalism.
Canada, your latest Socialist-Marxist shithole country as promised by the juvenile who believes: Canada has no culture – Fidel was a great man – admires the Basic Chinese dictatorship.
See a trend here..???
Steakman, I’d like to take issue with you there. But I can’t. You’re spot on.
Agree. See my first sentence in my comment above. The trend is clear.
The California Assembly relied on research from the Center for American Progress which found that “the United States ranks first in women’s educational attainment on the World Economic Forum’s 2016 Global Gender Gap Index of 144 countries. But it ranks 26th in women’s economic participation and opportunity and 73rd in women’s political empowerment.
As if “statistics” aren’t bad enough as disembodied factoids (used to draw whatever conclusion desired) … then … they go and INVENT entirely fictitious statistical ‘categories’.
Hint: REAL corporations working in the REAL world don’t survive by following a fantasy of nonsensical statistical analyses.
Ever hear of Google or Facebook or Twitter? Shit. I’m starting to sound like UnMe.
Just because something appears on a Google search … doesn’t certify its veracity. Surely you don’t believe everything you read on the internet? “Economic participation”? I’m just curious … does the INVENTED statistic of “economic participation” include the VALUE a woman provides as a Home management specialist? I seem to recall multiple stories assigning an economic valuation of a woman’s WORK in; house cleaning, child tutor, cook, chauffeur, bookkeeper, etc. Something well into the $six figures as I recall. I will guarandamntee you that the nebulous term “economic participation” assigns -0- value whatsoever to a woman who WORKS for her family.
you are sounding like you are losing your mind.
I bet that as far as the Center for American Progress is concerned, a degree in women’s studies is every bit as much an educational attainment as a STEM or professional degree.
As far as “political empowerment” is concerned, blame the electorate. The last I looked, there are more women than men.
So, how is that ” I never vote to cut government spending, cut the size of government, stop government handouts to anyone…” thing working out for you?
You have never supported anyone who was going to fire civil employees, make government smaller, you are afraid of deregulation…
Every nation gets the government it deserves. Joseph de Maistre
Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/h_l_mencken
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. H. L. Mencken
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/h_l_mencken
Anyone who wants to help women, is simply part of the problem. You are fighting an imaginary hobgoblin.
Now let’s see. Men and women are equal. Men and women are the same. Male and female are social constructs. You can be whatever you feel you are regardless of your OE (original equipment). If all this is true *smirks* why is it necessary to have equal representation on boards, in jobs, in government, etc.?
Justin Trudeau had no more opportunity than any other male even though his father was the Prime Minister. You see? Your reasoning doesn’t work. Men aren’t even created equal. This is why we have rules to prevent those in power from ruling us completely.
I don’t see the problem. You simply have as many men as necessary declare they are a woman . Problem solved. At the rate we are going there won’t be much left to fight about. As an an example look at our gender balanced cabinet . You get the smartest people ever and their gratuitous use of the credit card insures long term prosperity. Competent motivated people don’t need to be legislated into positions. There is absolutely nothing of consequence in life that is achieved without overcoming obstacles and they are often put there by the government.
I think it should be mandated AS LAW that 50% of all California lawmakers be Republicans.
Let’s see how much they really value ‘diversity’.
… and in college admissions … and in professorships … and in Google employees … everything. Diversity quotas were invented for a time when leftists weren’t in positions of power. Now it is just redundancy.
Why are any corporations even in California? Texas has no corporate income tax compared to California’s close to 9%. That’s less.
There is a bastion of chauvinism and even misogyny in many of the aforementioned comments. One gets used to hearing this. However, if we were born blind, racism, per se, wouldn’t exist, so there was even that, in one comment. This is our right to freedom of speech at play. We may not like it…you know the rest. Those crazy lefties, is this coming to a theatre near Canada from la P.M. Longstockings? (Uck toowee. SPLAT!)
I believe in merit, regardless of race or sex and the lefties who pass laws forcing publicly traded companies to have a minimum number of women on their boards is utterly ridiculous. I agree with Steve E’s point about the necessity of such laws given the fact that ” you can be whatever you feel you are regardless of your original equipment.” Ha, well said, Sir! You turned it right back on them.
…pip … pip…
I raised my own daughter (essentially) the same way as my boys. To be fiercely independent, self confident, competent, and to take risks when the potential rewards warranted it. And to be pragmatists, and to NEVER take “no” for an answer. There was NOTHING my daughter was ever taught that she COULDN’T do. If she enjoyed the “plumbing arts”, then all I would ask is that she sweat the BEST solder joints as any one of the boys.
I like to tell the story about how I was really ‘riding’ my daughter on the soccer pitch during one of my competitive teams training sessions. I wanted a bit more focus and care from her that day … and when she had finally had enough, she snapped and screamed at me to “fkcu-off” (yep, typical 14yo). Her teammates went dead silent, waiting for the family squabble to explode … when I busted out laughing … running to and hugging my daughter saying … “now THAT’S the intensity I was looking for!” We all laughed … and my daughter gained another notch of leadership respect from her teammates.
Trust me, she’s never had the slightest difficulty dealing with pushy, demanding bosses. She wasn’t raised to be a fragile snowflake. But she’s ALL woman, and uses her, uh, charms and infectious smile to get most everything she wants … because she’s SMART.
Kenji
Let us hope Californian Gov’t overreach does not affect your daughter negatively in her Canadian life.
I recall you saying that she was getting hitched in September. May she have a happy life and that you and spouse shall have many Canadian grandbabies, – ones who have pretty smiles.
Namaste,
Nancy
October. And she has pretty well announced that her biological alarm clock won’t allow her to hit the snooze button any longer. Making the grandmother in waiting quite pleased. Me? I’m still a “kid” … not ready for grand-anything. Thank you.
by gawd kenji you sir, hit the centre of the bullseye on that.
my *CONSTANT* advice to the younger set, how to achieve a successful, happy, clear conscience in life?
NEVER take crap from ANYONE. learn your rights, learn how to enforce them. learn with the small stuff first to politely turn into Mt Everest on an issue of great importance.
do. not. take. crap. from. anyone.
bravo sir, bravo to your dear daughter. mine’s kinda the same. brilliant, quick thinking, caring to a fault, and STANDS HER GROUND.
even with the old man. that was difficult but gratifying at the same time.
it all translates into INDEPENDENCE. that vital quality they need when we’re not around anymore.
Stand her ground. I like that, and if she lived in FL … it might even turn deadly for the wrong bad guy. I knew I had properly equipped my little girl, when she decided (quite suddenly) to go to NYC (following a close girl friend). She went to NYC with nothing but a sketchy plan at best (no job, no apt.) … yet landed a great job within 2 weeks of couch surfing. She proceeded to spend 5-great years in NYC (until I twisted her arm to relocate back to the left coast, closer to her family). She built the foundation of her career during her NYC phase.
My daughter didn’t need any help from Jerry Brown, or that “lean-in” lady, or anyone. Nope. Just a loving, supportive (kick her in the ass every once in a while) Family. Just rock solid core values. BTW … quite a few of her classmates from our local town tried their hands at NYC … almost all of them came crawling back home having had their asses kicked by a town that didn’t care who their mommy or daddy was. I raised my daughter to not NEED mommy and daddy after 18yo. Mission accomplished.
Easy peasy. All the dudes have to do is “identify” as a woman, and “Bob’s your uncle”, or should that be “Roberta’s your whatever”.
The only new residents for Moonbeam Brown should be Federal Prison for Treason
When Brown gives up his position for a woman, I might believe he’s genuine.
Unlike the government of California, I do not subscribe to the soft misogyny of diminished expectations.
there’s always a workaround. always a loophole. this one is remarkably conveniently provided by the lefties themselves:
*I* CEO of MY company, along with key members of the board, ‘identify’ as FEMALES WITH TESTICLES.
there. done. carry on !!! plus bonus sjw points eh ??!!?!!!
Here’s the nature of my confusion: if gender is purely a social construct and not a binary imperative imposed by birth then the notion of a male-female dichotomy is impossible. Males can’t be oppressing females if neither male nor female actually exists. If that is the case then how can any binary based quotas ever be imposed? Clearly the solution is for those predominately “male” boards to self-identify as one (or more) of the other 37 genders.