Posted on 01/13/2005 6:24:38 AM PST by ConservativeStatement
Bank of America is trying to block a shareholder motion that would limit ``white men'' to no more than half the nominations to its board. The bank took steps to exclude the motion from the vote at the planned stockholders' meeting due to take place on April 27. BofA argues the proposal would violate federal and state law, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, by introducing a rigid ``quota requirement'' and by forcing it to hire or promote on the basis of ethnicity.
(Excerpt) Read more at business.bostonherald.com ...
So they want to implement a racist policy rather than a color-blind policy of hiring the best qualified candidate?
Note to self: Sell off all BofA stock ASAP!
I'll make sure that this is brought up to the DoD JCS, Secs, and other honchos IF BofA passes this. Since they hold the Gov't credit card accts, this is a violation of EEO and CVA of 64. Hit those bastards in their pocketbook.
Insane that they have to ask permission to keep this off the ballots to shareholders. I wonder what the twit who proposed it was thinking (Nick Rossi).
Just imagine the outrage if their proposed rule was that half the seats were barred to Muslims, instead of white men.
Read the linked story - BofA knows it's illegal, but it was proposed by a minor shareholder and they are asking to get it dropped from the ticket. Goofy rules that they can't just ignore the proposal...
I'm with you in spirit but it seems to me the Bank isn't the villian here.
"BofA argues the proposal would violate federal and state law, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, by introducing a rigid ``quota requirement'' and by forcing it to hire or promote on the basis of ethnicity."
Let's see how it plays out.
The title kinda says that as well.
I like to apply a little test when debating this kind of crap with lib idiotsto the tune of "how about if we limit category x the way you propose to limit your category y", to which they usually reply something bout that being a racist policy. So I ask them how it can be racist one way, but not the other, then all logic goes out the window and I usually have to suffer a modified-history lesson.
That would have the opposite effect you intend. It was your fellow shareholders that made the motion. By you leaving their ranks, they gain more strength.
I didn't read the title & the whole article before I wrote that. </dummy mode
I do that myself. Many do.
It's not the bank. I can't remember which state BoA is incorporated in, but most states allow minor shareholders to introduce resolutions on which shareholders get to vote. This was some lefty thing that got passed in the '70s (of course) so that corporatiions would seem more cuddly and socially conscious or something. Obviously, this is some Nimrod-with-a-cause that holds enough shares to get such a resolution. The Bank has nothing to do with it. But they are likely required by law to put the resolution up to a vote since it has to do with business operations.
Don't worry, these things never pass. But if you feel strongly, be sure to mail in your proxy card with your no vote.
*senses opportunity to make lots of silly resolutions*
How about something like 1/26th of all applicants must have names that start with a C? It would be fair... Sort of.
Does it have to do with a business decision under the control of the corporation? Then yes, you can get a resolution before the shareholders if you have enough stock. (There may be other requirements depending on the state - I don't remember since I took Corporations many years ago and this never comes up in my line of work.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.