
California has a new law: No more all-male boards (2018) - colinprince
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/30/business/california-requires-women-board-of-directors/index.html
======
dang
This had several major threads:

[https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story...](https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix&page=0&query=california%20boards%20points%3E10)

It's a good idea to search before posting, especially when the story happens
to be news of the second freshness.

~~~
AmericanChopper
Never seen a thread removed as dupe for being posted 6 months ago. Old news is
reposted on HN daily. It’s hard to see this moderation as being anything other
than political.

~~~
dang
Please see the FAQ:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html).
Reposts are allowed after about a year. Otherwise, if a story has significant
attention already, we mark reposts as dupes. This is standard HN moderation.

I'm not sure what amazes me more: that we can do something routinely every
day, and users still report never having seen it; or that people rush to
assume political skulduggery as the explanation for whatever they do see.

------
DoreenMichele
About 30 years ago, I read as much as I could to try to understand why I had
ended up with some "barefoot and pregnant" type life as the full-time wife in
a 1950s style marriage. My takeaway: European women did better than American
women in terms of greater wage parity, etc, because they focused on getting
accommodation for the burden of bearing children plus help carrying the burden
of rearing the children.

Quotas seem unlikely to work as long as America continues to be the only
developed nation that lacks paid maternity leave as a kind of "canary in the
coal mine" test of this issue.

My sons are adults. I'm post menopausal. I'm largely out of touch with
childcare issues today. But our continued lack of maternity leave makes me
feel that we are likely still in the dark ages on this issue.

~~~
aeternus
California does have 6 weeks of paid maternity leave. Some companies pay 100%
but the state guarantees 60-70% depending on how much you make.

~~~
DoreenMichele
Thank you. I wasn't aware of that.

It's still a really short period of time compared to most developed countries.
Here's a list (from 2012) I was able to find with a quick search:

[https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/05/22/maternity-leaves-
arou...](https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/05/22/maternity-leaves-around-the-
world_n_1536120.html)

According to the article, Japan provides 14 weeks. Germany provides 14
_months._

So 6 weeks seems like a drop in the bucket on this issue.

~~~
SECProto
> According to the article, Japan provides 14 weeks.

They provide 14 weeks maternity, then top it up to a year for either parent
(but is overwhelmingly taken by the mother):

> Japan also has childcare leave, which applies to both parents. This period
> begins after the guaranteed maternity leave mentioned earlier and runs until
> the child reaches the age of 1. This leave may be extended until the child
> reaches 14 months old, if both parents take leave, while it can extend to 18
> months if only one parent takes leave. [1]

Agree on all your points. Canada would be another comparator, where there is
50 weeks (at 55% pay) or up to 84 weeks (at 33% pay) - and many employers will
top that up.

[1] [https://www.businessinsider.com/maternity-leave-
worldwide-20...](https://www.businessinsider.com/maternity-leave-
worldwide-2017-8#japan-childcare-leave-runs-until-the-child-reaches-the-age-
of-1-7)

------
sadris
Clear violation of federal Civil Rights Act. Gender and race cannot be factors
in employment. Why waste time with blatantly unlawful legislation?

~~~
screye
It is already being used elsewhere.

NSF grants are being rejected with massive frequency if the proposal doesn't
document women and minorities being involved in the project.

I am all for diversity. I support providing minorities with opportunities to
gain skills needed to excel in a certain field or make them feel welcome.
Equality of opportunity is great.

Trying to skew incentives in hope that it will facilitate an inflow of
talented minorities is something I've seen no proof of working. Anecdotally or
statistically. If anything, it only breeds resentment.

~~~
derrick_jensen
NSF grants favoring diverse groups and outlawing private corporations that
don't meet diversity quotas is a false equivalency

------
colejohnson66
While noble in its intentions, if flipping the roles is seen as discrimination
(no all female boards), it’s discrimination.

~~~
toomuchtodo
I hope they'll not mind someone identifying as trans to get on a board. You
get what you measure, and you can hack around all sorts of discrimination.

Edit: To be clear, I do not support, encourage, or condone discrimination of
any protected class. You should be able to discriminate by skill level, of
course.

~~~
jakelazaroff
You know, for all the worry about people "identifying as trans in order to do
X" it seems to happen very infrequently.

~~~
toomuchtodo
I'm not taking issue with it (ever, really, live your best life), especially
when used to obviate quotas. I take issue with "good" discrimination efforts,
never how someone identifies or their biological attributes.

~~~
jakelazaroff
Gotcha, I'm sorry I misinterpreted your position!

I mentioned this elsewhere in the thread, but I am (genuinely!) curious as to
how we can actively prevent "bad" discrimination without using "good"
discrimination. Board seats are a zero-sum game, far more men have them than
women, so how can we give more to women without taking some from men?

~~~
toomuchtodo
> so how can we give more to women without taking some from men?

We don't, just like we don't have quotas for roles and say, "This role is
being held open for a woman, person of color, or other non-white, non-male
person". If it's an all male board, it's an all male board. If it's an all
female board, same. You don't legislate discrimination because you feel like
it's helpful. Equal opportunity, not equal outcome. No mandated quotas. If
evidence is uncovered that discrimination is occurring (against any protected
class), you pursue legal action against the corporation and its officers.

------
guelo
> numerous independent studies that show companies with women on their board
> are more profitable and productive

That doesn't tell you which is the cause and which is the effect. It could be
that companies that hire women for boards are better run to begin with so that
forcing poorly run companies to hire women won't make them better.

~~~
taborj
Wait, you mean correlation doesn't equal causation? (I'm being sarcastic, of
course)

------
pmoriarty
Now if only they could mandate that every board has to have someone poor on
it. Sadly, I doubt that will ever happen.

~~~
zdragnar
> Now if only they could mandate that every board has to have someone poor on
> it.

Unless the board positions are unpaid and merely advisory, then whoever joined
would be de-facto not poor. Unless, of course, they were paid minimum wage
while everyone else was paid normal wages for board level positions.

Either of those options would be absurdly patronizing, in my opinion.

------
rlt
This seems like an ill-advised game to start playing. Why stop at women?
Shouldn't other underrepresented groups be legally entitled to board seats
too?

I'm definitely not saying there aren't qualified women or people from other
underrepresented groups, but eventually if the quotas are subdivided and
specific enough the available talent pool won't support the quota.

------
arduanika
Why do companies wait so long before IPO these days? Do the restrictions on
publicly traded companies grow more burdensome with each passing year?

~~~
taborj
I'm sure there are many reasons, but one of the reasons is that after you IPO,
your business decisions - indeed, the very direction of your company and what
products you develop and sell - are dictated not by management, but by
shareholders.

That's a lot of control to give up.

------
ToBeBannedSoon
It's obvious that any sensible company will just headquarter itself in a
friendlier state. California has shot itself in the foot with this law.

------
tomlock
The average board has 9 members. If we were to randomly flip a coin 9 times,
we'd expect to see 9 of tails/heads about 0.2% of the time.

~~~
tomlock
It is honestly incredibly funny that this comment, about factual
probabilities, would get downvoted.

~~~
sdinsn
Because it's not relevant. Job positions aren't coin flips. There are more men
who work as welders, there are more women that work in nursing, for example.

~~~
tomlock
There used to be more male lawyers than female lawyers.

~~~
apta
There are more men in construction, let's make it a law to have more women
work there.

~~~
tomlock
If you think the reason there are fewer women on construction sites is that
they don't want to work there, I'd encourage you to work on a construction
site, like I have, and talk to the very few women that work there about their
experiences.

Over the last few years there's been a marked increase in women working on
construction sites.

~~~
apta
Even if that's true, at the end of the day it's going to come down to
biological differences. Men are overall, stronger than women, so when you find
the best person for the job, you'll most likely end up hiring a bulky man.
Same with firefighting where they need to carry heavy equipment and be able to
perform their duties safely. So short of hiring women body builders, you're
most likely going to end up with a man.

Why don't these "equal outcome" groups make a fuss about that? What about
trying to get more men into nursing or day care?

~~~
tomlock
Not only is it true, the fact that you're parroting the claim that
construction isn't trying to address the gender imbalance of its field
demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. You haven't seen
the "fuss" because you aren't educated, and haven't made an effort to educate
yourself, on the topic.

~~~
apta
It's easy to throw insults and claims of ignorance. The other poster
understood my point and made an appropriate response. You're avoiding
answering the issue of bias against men.

~~~
tomlock
Ok here's my answer.

> Why don't these "equal outcome" groups make a fuss about that? What about
> trying to get more men into nursing or day care?

They do. They are.

------
Beardeddragon
Good way to build resentment. This is CA after all.

~~~
dang
Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

------
ratboy666
Of course, this doesn't (arguably) matter. In California, persons are allowed
to change gender. At some point, Senate Bill 179 can be used to align
government documentation, but that doesn't need to happen.

So, prior to a board meeting: "Who is female?". Ok, we are covered.... Don't
know what happens after the meeting, but that doesn't matter. For the purposes
of the law, the board is not "all-male". Anyone who disagrees can then be
taken to court, for discrimination.

That is how I would play this. Just good fun.

FredW

