Jerry Brown Tells California Businesses To Get Some Vaginas In Those Boardroom Seats
From the AP's Sophia Bollag:
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- California has become the first state to require publicly traded companies to include women on their boards of directors, one of several laws boosting or protecting women that Gov. Jerry Brown signed Sunday.The measure requires at least one female director on the board of each California-based public corporation by the end of next year. Companies would need up to three female directors by the end of 2021, depending on the number of board seats.
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.
How utterly insulting to women who've worked their way up on their merits.
Also, how bizarre that so many think the solution to sexism is sexism -- legally enforced sexism, in this case.
And get this:
The law applies to companies that report having their principal executive offices in California. Companies can be fined $100,000 for a first violation and $300,000 for subsequent violations.
Hellooo, unintended consequences. Who wants to place bets on companies relocating their executive offices. Maybe they were already considering it because of the high taxes and general FUCKING STUPIDITY in how California is run. Nail, meet coffin!
As for how things will play out in California, let's look at how it's working for corporations around the world that have ladied up their boards. Christina Hoff Sommers lays it out in The Atlantic:
Some studies ... find a negative relationship between women directors and firm performance. In a 2008 paper in the Journal of Financial Economics, economists Renee Adams and Daniel Ferreira found that female directors had better meeting attendance and were more active in "monitoring" their firms--but that "the average effect of gender diversity on firm performance is negative... Our results suggest that mandating gender quotas for directors can reduce firm value for well-governed firms."Deborah Rhode and Amanda Packel, both directors at Stanford University's Center on the Legal Profession, are committed to getting women on boards but object to hyperbole and overstatement in the research. In their exhaustive 2010 review of the literature, they conclude: "The relationship between diversity and financial performance has not been convincingly established."
And here is an intriguing 2012 finding from business professors Charles O'Reilly (Stanford) and Brian Main (University of Edinburgh): "We find no evidence that adding women outsiders to the board enhances corporate performance. We do find some evidence that male CEOs with higher levels of compensation are more likely to appoint women outsiders and that boards with more women outside members are more generous in paying the CEO."
The richest source of empirical experience is from Norway, which in 2003 required that all publicly listed companies promptly move to 40 percent women directors or be liquidated. That worked. Female board membership soared from nine percent in 2003 to 40 percent today. But, as a 2011 University of Michigan study concluded, Norwegian firms suffered a decline in value: "The quota led to younger and less experienced boards...and a deterioration in operating performance."
So far, the program has done little to increase the number of Norwegian women in upper management. What it has done is greatly enrich about 70 much-sought-after women who now hold more than 300 board seats. Critics refer to them derisively as the Golden Skirts or the Old Girls Club.
The campaign to include more women on corporate boards is well intentioned. Gender diversity in corporate oversight is an important desideratum. But business and financial leaders are supposed to be--we depend on them to be--coolly objective and focused on economic reality. When they stray into cherry-picked research and quota-based metrics, they sow confusion and invite trouble.
Feminism was never about equality - it has always been about grabbing power.
Snoopy at October 1, 2018 4:37 AM
Deer Sillycone Valley Tech Firms,
I self-identify as a woman. Please put me on your board and pay me 6 figures to rubber stamp the CxO level recommendations.
I R A Darth Aggie at October 1, 2018 5:57 AM
I volunteer as the token vagina. I wont even atend meetings to much things up, just mail my check and use my name as you see fit!
momof4 at October 1, 2018 6:07 AM
Because government telling companies how to run their business is the essence of capitalism. No wait, that's socialism.
No matter, right? After all, the government knows how to run a customer-centric business.
I'm dealing with the California DMV right now on a car title for an estate. I sent the first package of forms in June and, so far, no resolution. As of today, October 1st, the DMV is working on mail from August 9th. In another week, they should get to the latest package of forms I sent them, so they can tell me the last agent gave me the wrong instructions and to follow a new set of instructions, fill out more forms, and send another check.
The DMV was notified in early June that the car was paid off. It now sits like a brick in the designated heir's driveway, unable to be registered in his state because he doesn't have the title. He'll turn 16 in two weeks. I'd like him to be able to actually drive the car then.
When I call Sacramento and ask to speak with someone who can help me, there is no one - because their system doesn't let the CSR know the details of the case, "only codes." I have to wait for the package to arrive in the mail - and it "takes a week to leave the office."
Conan the Grammarian at October 1, 2018 6:38 AM
Meanwhile, there is a big problem with a lot of boards, both corporate and "nonprofit"...too many Directors are on so many boards that they can't possibly do a truly good job on any of them.
Another problem is, too many Directors appointed for "sizzle" rather than knowledge and true contribution...the Theranos board was a classic example of this...WTF could Henry Kissinger add to a biotech company?
David Foster at October 1, 2018 6:40 AM
What the Board wants to see is responsible stewardship of the company's resources (capital expenditures), a semblance of competence in senior management (knowledge of the industry, low employee turnover, etc.), stability in the stock price (indicative of market confidence in the management team), and progress in the achievement of stated goals. Familiarity with the company's industry is not always desirable as it can lead to a board member viewing things through his/her own lens and/or assuming greater knowledge than the company's senior management.
Boards of Directors really have little to do with the day-to-day running of a company. I've prepared many a financial and operations report for Board meetings. The amount of information being conveyed was overwhelming (to the point of being meaningless) for someone not familiar with how a company in that industry works.
Specifying gender, or other (it's coming), diversity on a board does little-to-nothing to improve the corporate governance. As David Foster points out, Boards have gotten too large to be effective. A cause, in part, of this absurd growth is celebrity appointments being made to bolster the company's (or the CEO's) network or polish a company's image.
Conan the Grammarian at October 1, 2018 7:38 AM
Just more evidence that women cannot succeed on their own merits, and must be given LOTS of help to be "strong and independent."
What do you get when you demand respect? Less respect.
Every woman on a corporate board will be justifiably considered a worthless token.
Jay R at October 1, 2018 1:38 PM
Ms. Alkon, I am shocked--shocked!--to read that you describe legislation mandating that more women be made members of corporate boards as legislation mandating more vaginas. Surely by now you have been carefully taught that possessing a "vagina" has absolutely nothing to do with being a woman. And that the real name for the trans-insensitive term "vagina" is "front hole."
RigelDog at October 1, 2018 2:42 PM
I guarantee you that the women named to those boards are just as greedy and power-hungry as any man. This will not improve or change anything.
It's like being the President: if you want the job, you're not the right person to have it.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at October 1, 2018 3:13 PM
"Who wants to place bets on companies relocating their executive offices. "
The state does not care about those companies. They care about companies who contribute money and material support to the Left -- movie studios and social-media companies. Everyone else can go jump, straight to Nevada and Arizona. California does not care.
Cousin Dave at October 1, 2018 3:17 PM
Well I for one am all for it, just as long as they pass the same on female monolithic industries like education. By next year 30% of all teachers must be male.
Joe j at October 1, 2018 3:50 PM
If a corporation is incorporated in another state but has headquarters in Cali, they want this law to apply--which is unconstitutional. In all cases it violates the law regarding corp governance. Board members are supposed to be elected by shareholders.
cc at October 2, 2018 4:53 PM
Leave a comment