Posted on 10/08/2018 10:11:04 AM PDT by John Semmens
The California Legislature passed, and Gov. Jerry Brown signed, a new law requiring that every corporation located in the state have at least one female board member by the end of 2019 and three by the end of 2021.
Democrat State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, author of the legislation, asserted that the new requirement "will make businesses more successful. Everyone knows that women are smarter than men. Requiring that they be given more leadership roles will inject a greater degree of raw intelligence into corporate decision-making."
The legislation is modeled on similar laws in Norway and France. "If a pair of the leading economies in the world have the good sense to compel this restructuring we don't want to risk falling behind the curve," Jackson argued.
Gov. Brown admitted there could be some risks to the state's economy, but ventured that "sometimes you have to do the right thing regardless of the consequences. Could some corporations leave the state? Yes, but it wouldn't be the first time this has happened. Our high tax rates have spurred many to relocate to other states. If we can survive that, surely the lesser irritation of requiring a few females be appointed to boards of directors ought not to have much impact."
Brown also cited a broader rationale and suggested that "there may be forces at work to mitigate the actual process. We already recognize the right of men to declare themselves to be female or gender-fluid and enter women's locker rooms and toilets. They could do the same in order to meet the new requirement for female board members. I mean, if we can get used to an anatomically male female showering in the ladies' locker room we should be able to get used to them in the corporate board room."
As an example of his reasoning, Brown observed that "Angelos Sofocleous, assistant editor of the Durham University philosophy journal Critique, was recently fired for asking 'is it a crime to say women don't have penises?' In our modern way of thinking, the answer is yes. This realization lights the way to men currently on corporate boards saving their jobs by coming out of the closet and admitting they are transgender. So, I think California is, once again, taking on the role of trailblazer when it comes to social innovations."
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news/semi-satire posts you can find them at...
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,335261.0.html
California should make certain that 50% of their football teams field female players. They already play like it.
This sounds like a whole new level of rediculous.
My daughter in Denver told me about this today. she doesnt want any part of this. Denver and California seem to copy each other into the sinkhole.
I am a life-long bookkeeper/accounting person.
I have been self employed since 1980. My longest 2 clients are still sending their work to me. (48 years & 45 years) Both of them have been corporations. Both corporations are totally owned by the 2 men I work for....they each own their own company.
They do NOT have a board of directors-—NOR do they need one. They certainly do NOT need multiple members of their board.
This is another Big Brother move my Jerry Brown.
I sincerely hope that corporations like my 2 clients MOVE OUT of California.
Not as bad as the informal mandate to put them on the Supreme Court without regard to lack of opinions on constitutionally important matters.
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.