Bill to force CA companies to appoint people to their board

[TSwizzle]

California gets nuttier by the day;

The California Legislature late Sunday sent Gov. Gavin Newsom a bill that would direct public corporations headquartered in California to appoint minority or gay representatives to their boards of directors. Companies that don’t comply with the law could face fines between $100,000 and $300,000, according to the bill.

“Corporations have money, power and influence,” said bill author Assemblyman Chris Holden, D-Pasadena, in a statement. “If we are going to address racial injustice and inequity in our society, it’s imperative that corporate boards reflect the diversity of our state.”

SacBee

Why, it's almost like these control freaks actually want to encourage businesses to leave the state.

 

[Harry Bosch]

California gets nuttier by the day;

The California Legislature late Sunday sent Gov. Gavin Newsom a bill that would direct public corporations headquartered in California to appoint minority or gay representatives to their boards of directors. Companies that don’t comply with the law could face fines between $100,000 and $300,000, according to the bill.

“Corporations have money, power and influence,” said bill author Assemblyman Chris Holden, D-Pasadena, in a statement. “If we are going to address racial injustice and inequity in our society, it’s imperative that corporate boards reflect the diversity of our state.”

SacBee

Why, it's almost like these control freaks actually want to encourage businesses to leave the state.

Well, according to the article: "A 2018 McKinsey & Company study of over 1,000 companies in 12 countries found that companies in the top quartile for racial and ethnic diversity were 33% more likely to have higher financial returns." And I agree with that. However, forcing companies into complying with this type of law may backfire. It's difficult enough without the government forcing companies into regulations like this.

 

[ruby sparks]

California gets nuttier by the day;

The California Legislature late Sunday sent Gov. Gavin Newsom a bill that would direct public corporations headquartered in California to appoint minority or gay representatives to their boards of directors. Companies that don’t comply with the law could face fines between $100,000 and $300,000, according to the bill.

“Corporations have money, power and influence,” said bill author Assemblyman Chris Holden, D-Pasadena, in a statement. “If we are going to address racial injustice and inequity in our society, it’s imperative that corporate boards reflect the diversity of our state.”

SacBee

Why, it's almost like these control freaks actually want to encourage businesses to leave the state.

Well, according to the article: "A 2018 McKinsey & Company study of over 1,000 companies in 12 countries found that companies in the top quartile for racial and ethnic diversity were 33% more likely to have higher financial returns." And I agree with that. However, forcing companies into complying with this type of law may backfire. It's difficult enough without the government forcing companies into regulations like this.

I’m slightly sceptical of that figure. I’ve done some reading around, including looking at peer-reviewed meta-studies, and the overall
Impression I’m getting is that it makes very little difference indeed, at best a very small (if statistically significant) improvement from increased diversity.

Which of course is therefore not a reason not to do it. And my feeling is that as the current generation of young people matures, they are going to want to see more change than the current mature generation, so my feeling is that this current trend towards diversity is something that is going to continue, and those who resist it risk becoming dinosaurs.

 

[thebeave]

California gets nuttier by the day;

The California Legislature late Sunday sent Gov. Gavin Newsom a bill that would direct public corporations headquartered in California to appoint minority or gay representatives to their boards of directors. Companies that don’t comply with the law could face fines between $100,000 and $300,000, according to the bill.

“Corporations have money, power and influence,” said bill author Assemblyman Chris Holden, D-Pasadena, in a statement. “If we are going to address racial injustice and inequity in our society, it’s imperative that corporate boards reflect the diversity of our state.”

SacBee

Why, it's almost like these control freaks actually want to encourage businesses to leave the state.

So, how would a corporation prove that the person they appointed was a legit gay, and not just pretending? Will there be official, notarized "gay certifications" issued by the state? And how gay is gay? Is continuous and ongoing homosexual sex required? Is bisexual OK? What if you got a massage one time from an attractive man, and during the massage, "it moved"? Is that good enough? I don't think they thought this thing through.

 

[TV and credit cards]

What if you got a massage one time from an attractive man, and during the massage, "it moved"? Is that good enough? I don't think they thought this thing through.

Society isn’t ready for your type. You have to stay under the desk.

 

[Bomb#20]

Any idea who is supposed to do the appointing? Corporations don't have brains of their own; some human will have to do the appointing. And that's kind of a bizarre concept because BoD membership is not normally an appointive position. Members are elected by shareholders. So are the elected BoD members supposed to hire a CEO, and then the CEO hiresappoints additional bosses for herself -- bosses who weren't elected by anyone and who can presumably now fire the CEO who appointed them? Who exactly has the authority to remove an appointed director?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Any idea who is supposed to do the appointing? Corporations don't have brains of their own; some human will have to do the appointing. And that's kind of a bizarre concept because BoD membership is not normally an appointive position. Members are elected by shareholders. So are the elected BoD members supposed to hire a CEO, and then the CEO hiresappoints additional bosses for herself -- bosses who weren't elected by anyone and who can presumably now fire the CEO who appointed them? Who exactly has the authority to remove an appointed director?

Looks like they already have the obligation for people who identify as women https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB826

As near as I can see, the law is not concerned with who does the appointment. Rather, it seems either the appointment happens - however it does -, or there is a fine. I guess the idea is probably to tell share holders to pick people who identify as women, or else watch the company pay the fine.

The new bill might be similar, but in this case telling share holders to pick people who identify as Black, Latino, etc.

 

[Metaphor]

California gets nuttier by the day;

The California Legislature late Sunday sent Gov. Gavin Newsom a bill that would direct public corporations headquartered in California to appoint minority or gay representatives to their boards of directors. Companies that don’t comply with the law could face fines between $100,000 and $300,000, according to the bill.

“Corporations have money, power and influence,” said bill author Assemblyman Chris Holden, D-Pasadena, in a statement. “If we are going to address racial injustice and inequity in our society, it’s imperative that corporate boards reflect the diversity of our state.”

SacBee

Why, it's almost like these control freaks actually want to encourage businesses to leave the state.

So, how would a corporation prove that the person they appointed was a legit gay, and not just pretending? Will there be official, notarized "gay certifications" issued by the state? And how gay is gay? Is continuous and ongoing homosexual sex required? Is bisexual OK? What if you got a massage one time from an attractive man, and during the massage, "it moved"? Is that good enough? I don't think they thought this thing through.

It isn't really a problem. For example, you can fill your LGBTQIAA++ quota with people who identify as queer, which is anybody who says they are queer.

Queerness doesn't need gatekeeping; the mere utterance is enough. So, that woman who, according to outward appearances is a natal female who has exclusively been in heterosexual relationships and uses she/her pronouns, can identify as a femme non-binary and presto! Queer representation.

 

[ruby sparks]

As I understand it, this proposal comes on the heels of something similar in California in 2018, which effectively required more women on boards. Reports suggest that by this year, about 90% of companies have complied. Legal challenges are still ongoing however.

Imo, it broadly feels like a progressive step in the right direction. I also think the USA is behind the curve on this. In one form or another it has already been in place in many countries around the world, for quite a while.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So, how would a corporation prove that the person they appointed was a legit gay, and not just pretending? Will there be official, notarized "gay certifications" issued by the state? And how gay is gay? Is continuous and ongoing homosexual sex required? Is bisexual OK? What if you got a massage one time from an attractive man, and during the massage, "it moved"? Is that good enough? I don't think they thought this thing through.

It isn't really a problem. For example, you can fill your LGBTQIAA++ quota with people who identify as queer, which is anybody who says they are queer.

Queerness doesn't need gatekeeping; the mere utterance is enough. So, that woman who, according to outward appearances is a natal female who has exclusively been in heterosexual relationships and uses she/her pronouns, can identify as a femme non-binary and presto! Queer representation.

This presents an interesting definitional puzzle, though I doubt they care. Does 'identify as gay' mean someone who utters that expression in English? If so, then someone who speaks only another language can't qualify (not a practical problem, but still). If they do not mean that but rather someone who asserts he is gay, then that assumes there is a concept of being gay that does not seem to depend on self-identification on pain of circularity. And the same for other concepts, like Latino or Black.

They probably will never notice, and wouldn't care if they did. Unless of course, someone picks Ms. Dolezal or something.

 

[Metaphor]

As I understand it, this proposal comes on the heels of something similar in California in 2018, which effectively required more women on boards. Reports suggest that by this year, about 90% of companies have complied. Legal challenges are still ongoing however.

Imo, it broadly feels like a progressive step in the right direction. I also think the USA is behind the curve on this. In one form or another it has already been in place in many countries around the world, for quite a while.

Tell me: why does it feel like a step in the right direction to you?

 

[ruby sparks]

As I understand it, this proposal comes on the heels of something similar in California in 2018, which effectively required more women on boards. Reports suggest that by this year, about 90% of companies have complied. Legal challenges are still ongoing however.

Imo, it broadly feels like a progressive step in the right direction. I also think the USA is behind the curve on this. In one form or another it has already been in place in many countries around the world, for quite a while.

Tell me: why does it feel like a step in the right direction to you?

The status quo is to some extent a legacy of a situation of historical unfair disadvantage for certain groups. I therefore think more diversity is the way forward in general. The evidence seems to suggest that at the very least the overall outcomes are not adverse, and in fact that there are overall benefits, even if not as large as sometimes claimed.

 

[Metaphor]

This presents an interesting definitional puzzle, though I doubt they care. Does 'identify as gay' mean someone who utters that expression in English? If so, then someone who speaks only another language can't qualify (not a practical problem, but still). If they do not mean that but rather someone who asserts he is gay, then that assumes there is a concept of being gay that does not seem to depend on self-identification on pain of circularity. And the same for other concepts, like Latino or Black.

They probably will never notice, and wouldn't care if they did. Unless of course, someone picks Ms. Dolezal or something.

I suspect only utterance shall be required. But not even public utterance: merely a report from HR of anonymized data showing at least one person ticked a self-identification box of the required category.

I'm certain this bill would find support among the same people who want to 'dismantle' capitalism, because what better way to dismantle it than to make sure your favoured groups profit from it at the highest levels? The support would be mixed, though, because a cis gay white man would count as much as a real minority--and the only thing worse than a cis gay white man is a cis het white man.

 

[Metaphor]

As I understand it, this proposal comes on the heels of something similar in California in 2018, which effectively required more women on boards. Reports suggest that by this year, about 90% of companies have complied. Legal challenges are still ongoing however.

Imo, it broadly feels like a progressive step in the right direction. I also think the USA is behind the curve on this. In one form or another it has already been in place in many countries around the world, for quite a while.

Tell me: why does it feel like a step in the right direction to you?

The status quo is to some extent a legacy of a situation of historical unfair disadvantage for certain groups. I therefore think more diversity is the way forward in general. The evidence seems to suggest that at the very least the overall outcomes are not adverse, and in fact that there are overall benefits, even if not as large as sometimes claimed.

Why does the legacy of 'historical, unfair disadvantage' mandate an ongoing discrimination against some groups?

If it were shown that boards with 70-80% female representation performed better than boards with more even gender splits, would you also think it a good idea for the government to mandate 70-80% female representation on boards, or face fines?

If the economic effects of 'diverse' boards are so clear, why does the government need to force it on companies?

 

[skepticalbip]

As I understand it, this proposal comes on the heels of something similar in California in 2018, which effectively required more women on boards. Reports suggest that by this year, about 90% of companies have complied. Legal challenges are still ongoing however.

Imo, it broadly feels like a progressive step in the right direction. I also think the USA is behind the curve on this. In one form or another it has already been in place in many countries around the world, for quite a while.

Tell me: why does it feel like a step in the right direction to you?

Some people like arbitrary, authoritarian governments. Mussolini was loved in Italy until people began to realize and regret that he had been allowed too much power.

 

[ronburgundy]

Corporations are legal entities granted particular rights and protections in exchange for the presumed benefits to society the operation of that corporation provides. This is why it makes perfect sense that there would be regulations designed to ensure that the corporations operations are actually a benefit to society, and why any such regulations are not government restrictions any individual rights, but merely part of a mutually beneficial contract between two legal entities.

Boards are elected, but who can be voted upon in the first place is determined by authorities within the company. There are already regulations on board composition, such as requirements that their be members from outside the company. Corporations achieve this quite simply be only nominating people for specific board slots who meet the criteria.

 

[TSwizzle]

Meanwhile, California (and Los Angeles in particular) is experiencing its worst homeless crisis ever but the clowns in Sacramento are fussing over forcing companies to get a LBGQTQWERTY on the their board. No wonder this state is fucked.

 

[ruby sparks]

As I understand it, this proposal comes on the heels of something similar in California in 2018, which effectively required more women on boards. Reports suggest that by this year, about 90% of companies have complied. Legal challenges are still ongoing however.

Imo, it broadly feels like a progressive step in the right direction. I also think the USA is behind the curve on this. In one form or another it has already been in place in many countries around the world, for quite a while.

Tell me: why does it feel like a step in the right direction to you?

Some people like arbitrary, authoritarian governments. Mussolini was loved in Italy until people began to realize and regret that he had been allowed too much power.

Exactly. And don't forget Hitler.

 

[ruby sparks]

Meanwhile, California (and Los Angeles in particular) is experiencing its worst homeless crisis ever but the clowns in Sacramento are fussing over forcing companies to get a LBGQTQWERTY on the their board. No wonder this state is fucked.

It’s almost like these control freaks actually want to encourage people like you to leave the state.

 

[TSwizzle]

Meanwhile, California (and Los Angeles in particular) is experiencing its worst homeless crisis ever but the clowns in Sacramento are fussing over forcing companies to get a LBGQTQWERTY on the their board. No wonder this state is fucked.

It’s almost like these control freaks actually want to encourage people like you to leave the state.

No almost about it. But I'm staying and not wearing a mask to spite the cunts.