The California House and Senate passed a bill that requires all publicly held corporations that are headquartered in California to have at least one woman on their board by the end of 2019 and two by July of 2021. It’s waiting for the governor’s signature.
One of the bill’s co-authors, Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) said:
“We are not going to ask anymore. We are tired of being nice. We’re tired of being polite. We are going to require this because it’s going to benefit the economy. It’s going to benefit each of these companies. It’s time that we burst that man-cave and put women in the boardrooms.”
First of all, requiring something on a governmental level doesn’t generally help the economy. Second, Senator Jackson clearly doesn’t understand how business works.
To keep reading, click here: California Bill Declares Women Not as Capable as Men
Affirmative Action did a lot to give women and minorities a chance. Is this any different?
Doesn’t feel like it. Not sure why the author is against this, unless they’re completely ignorant of the issues women face in career advancement & corporate power structures.
Calififornian idiots. How about picking people because they are the best, vs because of their gender or race? What’s really going to be hysterical is if we have men who identify as a female gender.
If they identify as the “female gender”, they’re not men, they’re women.
So, in theory, one man on each board could “identify” as a lady (Queen for a Day) and….abracadabra….you’re in compliance.
Great idea, Tyler.
After reading this article, I am so glad that I moved out of California and came back east. The only thing I enjoyed about the state, was the weather and the view of the Pacific Ocean.
I hated the constant earthquake effects also along with the fog/ smog.
Those making all these laws don’t live in real world of everyday situations, they live in their secluded communities away from the world.
Hmm. So much for government by the “consent of the governed.” You know, that little gem found in the Declaration of Independence. I guess Californians prefer to be ruled. Hannah-Beth Jackson is “tired of being nice.” The queen has spoken.
Wow – usually I love your advice, but I feel like you really missed the mark on this one. There are so many non-free market reasons why you see fewer women on boards. People pulling in buddies, people who look like them, etc. I could get on board with the it shouldn’t be legislated thing, but not the it would’ve already happened if it would be effective thing.
A lot of great insight/reasoning here: https://www.ssga.com/our-insights/viewpoints/ssga-guidance-on-enhancing-gender-diversity-on-boards.html
Yes, all I could think while reading this was that my highly ambitious college roommate, who has an MBA, consistently gets results and absolutely loves to work was just told that she was passed up for a promotion, which was given to a man with less education and less work experience, because of her “difficult family situation.” She had a baby, that was the situation. She had a baby and then went back to work because her husband is a stay at home parent. She missed a total of 12 weeks of work. Sure there could have been other reasons, accept that they flat out admitted that this was it when she asked for guidance on how she could be better situated for a promotion. This is the kind of crap that is still happening to women.
BS! You cannot acknowledge that discrimination exists, yet turn right around and say that if enough women were qualified, they’d already be on the boards. And, yes, the most profitable organizations are those that value diversity and have already made conscious efforts to increase the number of women in their positions of power.
I predict a number of HQ moves from California in the future.
Suzanne, I really must say that sometimes I feel like your advice is very strange. Do you really believe there are less women on boards because they are incapable of getting there themselves? Of course not! Sometimes, unfortunately, we need a legislative push to give people the opportunities they deserve. You say nothing is “given”, but frankly, that’s not reality. I was given a public education, I was given the opportunity to pass a driver’s test, I was given the opportunity to register to vote — these are rights! And all things, I might add, that were systemically kept from minorities in history in order to keep power.
You are simply on the wrong side of history with some of your viewpoints. I’ll end with this:
“Women don’t need this pandering. Companies don’t want to do things that won’t help them to be profitable. If Atkins and Jackson just sit back and wait a few years, they’ll likely see an increase in women on boards anyway. Why? Because the longer women are climbing the corporate ladder, the more you’ll see at the top.”
If you truly think that’s true, then why wasn’t this also true 10 years ago. This quote could have been from 10 years ago and we’d all still be “waiting a few years” for it to happen.
Thank you; you said it better.
You lost a reader with this article. I wasn’t following you for political opinions.