It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California To Force Publicly Traded Companies To Appoint Women To Their Board Of Directors

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 11:19 PM
link   
California..... running Pell Mell towards destruction. Who can deny it?




posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

I would hazard a guess, not just the internets...just a guess.

Now then:

State mandated diversity...but what happens if a position needs filling and there are no women available, or perhaps, they don't want the position...?

Do the companies get into trouble anyway??

Seems rather easy to me, you hire the best available, regardless of gender, race, religion, orientation, and what ever other supposed criteria is out there...but I'm not a California politician.

This kind of a serious question, but do these politicians actually ask anyone what they think, outside of their own little echo chambers?? Or am I just that out of touch, and behind the times?

I suppose that I may not enjoy the answer to this...
.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Of all publicly traded companies headquartered in California, 75% already have women on their boards of directors. But the government of CA found it necessary to mandate that the other 25% incorporate women into their boards, or face stiff fines. Sounds about right for CA. But this legislation is little more than a political publicity stunt. From the OP's Washington Post article:

The Democratic governor referenced the objections and legal concerns that the law has raised. The California Chamber of Commerce has said the policy will be difficult for companies to implement and violates constitutional prohibitions against discrimination.

“I don’t minimize the potential flaws that indeed may prove fatal to its ultimate implementation,” Brown wrote in a signing statement. “Nevertheless, recent events in Washington, D.C. — and beyond — make it crystal clear that many are not getting the message.”
(emphasis mine)

The fines are listed in the $100,00 to $300,000 range. I'd say that a lot of the publicly traded corporations in CA spend more on computer paper per month than that. So, it's much cheaper to just stay in CA and pay the fines.

I doubt this law will withstand any legal challenges; and will likely never be enforced.

Basically this is California's way of sending a message to Washington, professing their support for the feminist movement.

-dex



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 03:39 AM
link   
#womyntookourjawbz

a reply to: olaru12

Only one?




posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 04:45 AM
link   
I will say it again, everything California does should be an example of what not to do.

No longer are real skills needed for a job position.
Skin color, gender. Nationality, and sexual preference are the prerequisites

California is luckily held together by a handful of companies that prospered because of the internet.

So much money they can let more then a quarter of their population avoid work and live on the streets.

When these few larger then life companies start to fail. We will see the true outcome of liberal left California



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Robots are the future people.

And once were there.

Rinse and Repeat.

Robot rights!

Robot diversity!

Robot unions!

You think I might be joking.

I'm not.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Our company is very diverse except for hiring people with grey hair. They are getting sued big time right now.

And deserve it.




posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

So we have the internet, California and reality.

Maybe there is wording to cover these cases. Just adding someone probably isn't hard unless they actually have real duties. Then your questions kick in.

I doubt it will stop future companies from going public. I imagine the money available will be more important than this issue.

Does create an opening for professional token female board members. (Duties are to do what is told to do)



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

From California's angle, what's the worst that can happen? They're already a bankrupt, liberally controlled, high crime state that nobody outside of California likes (with all due respect to our fellow Conservatives sticking it out). What's one more fail?



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: infolurker

Socialism is where the government owns the companies.

Progressivism is where the government regulates the companies to the point that they might as well own them.

Couldn't happen to a better state though... let's see where they are at in another decade!



I'll say they're either in the Pacific Ocean (San Andreas Fault rupture) or seceded due to not being able to handle themselves after another Trumpesque president wins in 2024.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: LSU2018




From California's angle, what's the worst that can happen?


More companies picking up and moving to Texas.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 10:41 AM
link   
I'll bet they'll only be "electing" the wives of current board members.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: lordcomac

Right on. I think this was promoted by upper level management types, to make sure they have a job, and proxy votes after they retire. Any woman hired to this position will have a clear understanding that she doesn't vote except on unanimous issues, and only shows up for the annual photographs for the glossy flier and webpage "who we are" menu.

It wouldn't surprise me if all the women have Siciliian surnames. Absentee positions are a mafia specialty....



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I can't wait for the first lawsuit where some guy (even for laughs) identifies himself as a woman to get the seat, and some actual woman suing him and trying to prove, that he can't because he is a man
That will be fun to watch, how they spin that one. On one side a poor woman that obviously is right because she is a woman (so automatic approval or you'r sexist) on the other side a poor "woman" that obviously is right because she identifies as a woman (so automatic approval or your sexists, racists and all that other stuff). Obviously win-win situation
...
edit on 1/10/18 by Thill because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot

Ha touche lol


edit on 5-10-2018 by wtfatta because: Autocorrect fail



new topics




 
19
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join