I wonder if that has something to do with a bunch of smaller high-tech companies. They will tend to have higher profits and they will tend to have younger, and thus more diverse, management.
-
Features
Bill to force CA companies to appoint people to their board
- Thread starter TSwizzle
- Start date
I wonder if that has something to do with a bunch of smaller high-tech companies. They will tend to have higher profits and they will tend to have younger, and thus more diverse, management.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
The rights granted to corporations are no more than the rights granted to individuals. And yet we don't require individual business people (sole props, professionals, and etc.) to have a board.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
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.
But that is the problem. If utterance in English suffices, what about someone who does not speak English? Do they fail to identify as a woman? It would not work to say that maybe they identify as a woman in another language, because that implies that 'woman' has translations into other languages, and so the concept is not about whether someone utters the English expression in question (the same for 'gay', or 'Black', or whatever).
ruby sparks
Contributor
Telecom/media/tech companies as a whole, regardless of size, were apparently only 12% of the overall (global) sample, so I would doubt that it has all that much to do with it.
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mc...delivering-through-diversity_full-report.ashx
My problem with private consultancy companies like McKinsey is about reliability. A quasi-academic report from a 'management guru' consultancy is not the same as a set of peer-reviewed studies. I suspect that the financial benefits from diversity are overstated in that report.
Here for example is an article from 2017 (on the off-topic but related issue of gender diversity in business) which cites a number of large studies, some of which can be accessed in full via links in the article):
Does Gender Diversity on Boards Really Boost Company Performance?
https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu...sity-boards-really-boost-company-performance/
"The results of these two meta-analyses, summarizing numerous rigorous, original peer-reviewed studies, suggest that the relationship between board gender diversity and company performance is either non-existent (effectively zero) or very weakly positive."
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
I think a crucial difference between quotas for women, vs. quotas for sexual orientation, is that the latter is indeed a small minority. Women are naturally about 50% of the population so if equality is hypothetically achieved, the quotas become meaningless. But LGBT people are about 5% of the population, and are unlikely to ever become much bigger than that. So it's unfair to force companies to appoint 25% of their board seats to a 5% minority just because they are a minority. The quota should be at roughly the level of the minority's actual occurrence in population, or slightly below that.
Racial quotas, which I understand the law was originally supposed to be about before the activists squeezed in sexual minorities, in that sense make a bit more sense.
Racial quotas, which I understand the law was originally supposed to be about before the activists squeezed in sexual minorities, in that sense make a bit more sense.
ruby sparks
Contributor
I think I agree with the gist of what you are saying, at least to some extent. Imo, temporary quotas, when used or being considered, shouldn't either aim for or stay in place until there is representation that is proportional to the demographics. I think they should be used or considered where there is a pronounced under-representation and where there are indications that this situation was arrived at partly because of unfair discrimination. Correcting under-representation is not the same as creating proportionality (equality of outcome, effectively).
On a separate note, I'm not sure the OP legislation would be seeking 25% representation for a 5% segment of the demographic, but perhaps you were just being hypothetical. That said, 1 board member from an under-represented community (Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender) when the board is made up of 4 or fewer does seem quite onerous. As does the equivalent (Californian) gender quota from 2018, which, although it currently requires only a minimum of 1 woman board member, will, in 2021 (so I read) require a corporation with five directors to have a minimum of two women and a corporation with six or more members to have a minimum of three women.
laughing dog
Contributor
The whole point of the corporate structure is that the owners of a corporation have different rights that those granted to individuals. The entire concept of limited liability for owners of corporations is a perfect example.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
I don't want to derail this thread. I'd be happy to engage in this topic in another thread. But being an owner in a company will not give an owner limited liability as the word is commonly known. Its an unfortunate attorney term that is greatly misunderstood. In attorney speak, limited liability means that owners are not personally responsible for a company's debt unless they personally guaranty that liability.
Even racial doesn't make sense in most places. Boards simply aren't that big in most cases.
laughing dog
Contributor
That is the entire point - individuals are personally responsible for their entire debt, but owners of corporations are not personally responsible for the entire corporate debt unless they personally guarantee it. Do you need a list of the rights/benefits that corporations have that other structures do not?
Playball40
Veteran Member
They can always stay private if they don't like it.
Alcoholic Actuary
Veteran Member
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.
But that is the problem. If utterance in English suffices, what about someone who does not speak English? Do they fail to identify as a woman? It would not work to say that maybe they identify as a woman in another language, because that implies that 'woman' has translations into other languages, and so the concept is not about whether someone utters the English expression in question (the same for 'gay', or 'Black', or whatever).
It would be rather peculiar to find a company or corporation - domiciled in California - that nominated and elected an individual to the board who couldn't effectively communicate his or her vision for the company (much less their gender) in English.
aa
thebeave
Contributor
I wonder if, in the context of this bill, Asians count as minorities. If so, I don't think it will be that hard to fill the position with a minority...at least for tech companies, as Asians are a dime a dozen out here (Silicon Valley). But I suspect the authors of the bill will be hemming and hawing, "We don't mean those types of minorities!"
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
Yes, that is obviously correct. That is why I said "not a practical problem", even if they are not making any sense. They simply won't realize it. But still, interesting.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
So, this law only applies to publically traded companies? If so, I'm sorry but I misunderstood. I agree that it shouldn't apply to private companies.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Asian is on the list of relevant underrepresented communities.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Yes, it's only public companies.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
Well, I apologize that I didn't catch this. But yes, there are many advantages to a company when it goes public. And I agree, that it's appropriate that they should be more accountable to the public. Companies going public benefits the local economy also though. Their financials become transparent; the public is able to benefit by buying their stock, and etc.