California becomes first state to require a woman on corporate boards (barf alert)

Mercury News ^ | 9/30/2018 | John Woolfolk

[simpson96]

Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday signed a bill making California the first state to require public companies to have at least one woman on their board of directors to advance gender equality and help break the corporate glass ceiling.

The bill, SB 826, by Sens. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, was designed to combat bias against experienced, qualified female employees in the workplace.

“Yet another glass ceiling is shattered, and women will finally have a seat at the table in corporate board rooms,” Jackson said Sunday on Twitter as she thanked the governor for signing the bill. “Corporations will be more profitable. This is a giant step forward for women, our businesses and our economy.”

In a rare move, Brown included a message with the bill’s signing.

“There have been numerous objections to this bill and serious legal concerns have been raised,” the governor said in a letter to the state Senate, a copy of which he sent to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. “I don’t minimize the potential flaws that indeed may prove fatal to its ultimate implementation. Nevertheless, recent events in Washington, D.C. — and beyond — make it crystal clear that many are not getting the message.”

Brown went on to say that corporations have been “considered persons” for a long time — even before women were allowed to vote.

[Magnum44]

Sounds like it might be a 10th amendment issue. If the State wants to do stupid things, unless it violates a right, I guess the State is free to do so.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I think it would be funny if every board took this law, and fired every woman on their boards, and then put one transgender woman on in their place, to “meet the legal requirements”.

[rlmorel]

I understand your position clearly.

You state it well, which is the poison pill of ALL quotas and affirmative action policies: One can never tell if the job was obtained on merit or a quota.

Of course, one can judge someone on their performance after they have the job, and if they do well...they could be a performance based hire.

If not there are only three choices: The person is lousy at what they do, the person is an affirmative action hire, or both.

Regardless of my color, gender, or culture, I would only want to be judged on my merits, and race/gender/culture based affirmative action factors make it impossible to do that.