California is moving toward becoming the first state to require companies to have women on their boards –assuming the idea could survive a likely court challenge.
Sparked by debates around fair pay, sexual harassment and workplace culture, two female state senators are spearheading a bill to promote greater gender representation in corporate decision-making. Of the 445 publicly traded companies in California, a quarter of them lack a single woman in their boardrooms.
SB 826, which won Senate approval with only Democratic votes and has until the end of August to clear the Assembly, would require publicly held companies headquartered in California to have at least one woman on their boards of directors by end of next year. By 2021, companies with boards of five directors must have at least two women, and companies with six-member boards must have at least three women. Firms failing to comply would face a fine.
“Gender diversity brings a variety of perspectives to the table that can help foster new and innovative ideas,” said Democratic Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara, who is sponsoring the bill with Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins of San Diego. “It’s not only the right thing to do, it’s good for a company’s bottom line.”
ht/illustr8r
Virtue signaling, pure and simple.
Qualifications be damned eh?
Will men revolt and demand at least on man, even a white one, on the boards of women owned companies? How about jobs? Jobs traditionally held by women have to include men?
Stupid short term thinkers only interested in getting fame and power.
I thought genders were a social construct, or fluid, or sumptin’…
@Czar…LOL!!
Well, ya don’t expect California government to kill the goose that lays the iEggs, do ya?!?
Common Carrier.
Bell Telephone was a private, then publicly-owned “utility,” and, as such, was a “common carrier” and had to provide “equal access.”
They could not (so I’ve been lead to believe) listen to your “conversations” and suppress your access if they disagreed with them.
I’m not a communications lawyer (or anything else, for that matter) but this seems relevant.
Are they “publicly” held corporations (do they sell stock)?
Another thing for Jeff to look into – if he can break himself away from the TV – or the video games – or whatever the fuck he’s wasting his time with.
izlamo delenda est …
wanted deaf mute females that smell ok and do not make strange noises. extended medical leave is also ok.
So, add this to the list of reasons for ‘trangendering’ (or at the very least cross-dressing 24/7).
“Gender diversity brings a variety of perspectives to the table that can help foster NEW and INNOVATIVE ideas…”
If that were actually true, then they would already be there wouldn’t they?
Or do these lying hypocrites believe the evil, money-grubbing corporations are all willing to forego profit just to spite the fairer sex?
Which is it you bunch of jackwangs? Can’t have it both ways!