California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill into law today that requires major companies with headquarters in California — including many household-name tech firms — to have at least one woman on their boards by next year, and depending on the size of the board, up to three women by 2021.
The law is the first of its kind in the U.S., and proponents say it's needed to equalize the representation of women in corporate boardroom. Currently, a quarter of California's publicly traded companies do not have a woman on their boards. Companies that fail to comply with the new rule face fines of $100,000 for a first violation and $300,000 for a second or subsequent violation.
The law already faces opposition from business groups, which could challenge the basis of preferential hiring toward women. In signing the bill, Gov. Brown acknowledged the bill's "potential flaws" that could prove "fatal" to implementation, but nevertheless supported its passing, citing "recent events in Washington, D.C. — and beyond — make it crystal clear that many are not getting the message" around gender equality.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @09:28PM (7 children)
My comment above has been modded troll, which is fair but ignores the point I was raising. Rhetorically: Are we legislatively discriminating on the basis of gender identity or biological sex in the name of equality today? One of these options renders the law ridiculous. All else aside, there's a difference between equality of opportunity and outcome. The latter can only ever be discriminatory and authoritarian which is enough for me to oppose this law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @09:35PM (3 children)
This is actually a really good question.
Yes. Legislating on the basis of something as vague as biological sex is ridiculous.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @10:31PM (2 children)
So how does California know what percentage of men or women are on corporate boards? Is the state government assuming their gender?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @12:28AM
Yes, but it's good to assume gender if you're promoting feminism, if you're a liberal, or if you're disparaging the right wing.
It's only a bad thing to assume gender if you're a straight white conservative male.
(Equality, my ass.....)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @04:00AM
More to the point, how many of these 'men' self-identify as women? and does this law, by it's insistence on a quota of Somatically natural females (with no mention of how they self-identify) discriminate against them?, will we see somatically male 'women' being replaced with somatically female 'men'?
Popcorn time..
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Wednesday October 03 2018, @10:48PM (2 children)
You randomly insulted a group of people and then were surprised you scored a downmod?
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @11:13PM (1 child)
I randomly insulted a bunch of moonbeam stasi of which you, randomfactor are a member?
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Thursday October 04 2018, @10:52PM
Haven't had that particular appellation applied to me before. I'll add it to the collection.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды