Protip for Womyn: If you don't have a pedigree of success and can't get elected to a corporate board, get the government to force the company to get rid of a more qualified man and give you the job anyway.

Levatine · 2018-09-14T19:55:53+00:00

At least if this does pass, the board members could identify as women to keep their positions.

Kind of highlights how ridiculous the situation is.

thrway_1000 · 2018-09-14T21:14:35+00:00

Archive -- https://archive.is/Udpo3

WiseMonkeyGoodMonkey · 2018-09-14T22:27:20+00:00

All kinds of illegal. Will stand about 10 minutes in a court.

Edit: Or the companies in question will move their headquarters out of state. Idiocy.

FlagrantWrongsDotCom · 2018-09-15T01:55:47+00:00

You have to love how these types of things get drafted completely apparently ignorant of fundamental constraints of talent in networks like its in a political circle jerk vacuum with only 1 flavor of koolaid. Like think about who you trust and that you know does a good job among your colleagues. Its like trying to mandate you make x number of friends who have this specific subset of skills. Albeit none of these guys have anywhere near the type of resource constraints many other organizations have to do that... its just people might not have thought out the fact that what you actually want is a merit issue not based on what people have in their pants. Basically literally legislating something that people per their own actions they dont even want. Its not even asking if its representative of the companies employees. Forcing something into the environment like that, especially without adequate time to talent search/vet/integrate/get up to speed/etc, is potentially extremely disastrous. Thank god the fine is only a few hundred thousand thats frankly easily a worthwhile fee to pay if theres a talent/vetting issue at any major company never mind just relocating. It could literally implode a company overnight to make a bad decision in this context because they were forced to make a non optimal decision due to legislation.

Yall need to study corporate governance but before that people would have to take a finance/economics 101 class and pass. These arent arbitrary decisions and many of the same companies this appears to go after have readily documentably spent hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars on talent development, campaigning, lobbying efforts etc to encourage talent development regardless of gender. Sometimes stuff is genuinely just not that good a fit depending on the very specific situations of those environments. Tech is a male dominated industry because the majority of engineering/technology people are men. Universities arent saying "youre a woman we dont want you if youre doing tech." EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE and its been that way for a long time with many programs explicitly favoring women, giving them money, etc. Frankly the current governance is pretty reflective of that talent gap and representative if not over representative on a gender basis.

Have people literally never interacted with humans? I mean how do you even write this instead of looking at the meritocratic aspects, actual logistics of corporate governance whatsoever or just the gender of the relevant talent markets?

Ive met plenty of women who say stuff the majority of women absolutely wouldnt support and vice versa. Gender is far from the only thing that needs to be factored when making a decision. Theres women who are members of ISIS. Its a really low IQ screening idea to just be like "drop your pants." If thats what qualifies me instead of the billions ive made people, I'm a pre-op woman. Hire me.

Just for some context Ive potentially made several of the companies named billions of dollars and have made observations regarding their stocks that have had immediate correlations with billions of dollars of value creation. Dont think for a second I'm prejudiced against law, intelligent government or women either as Ive potentially done the same for the federal US gov, the gov of California and worked directly on providing billions of capital to women who have talent in the US and globally to the extent Ive received appreciate, positive correspondence from multiple presidents and others. This rule is well meaning in some sense but extremely dumb when it comes to the real world application aspects. Anybody even read whats public about what was done to try to find a matching, good girlfriend/wife for some of these executives? This is almost willfully ignorant, insulting in some ways to the difficulty of that reality and the heartbreak people have had regardless of gender. Try being married a company.

If you want "representative," look more to who is putting in the work/creating value in the sector and especially for the company specifically. I dont care if theyre purple with one eye. Pick the people that have the talent/track record for the job required. Apparently having meritocracies that are financially productive is a controversial suggestions in America which is basically literally supposed to the embodiment of a capitalist, meritocratic society? The shareholders and those with uninvested capital (that could become invested) as well as prospective business partners *will* know the difference. There are companies I can think of right now that likely have billions of dollars less value because of ostensibly incorrect decisions theyve made previously and many of them just have to do with picking the wrong people for jobs or not picking people at all at that moment based on merit. In the majority of the contexts I'm aware of so far it doesnt have to do with gender whatsoever. Might want to try to do a transparent review of that prior to potentially unnecessarily destabilizing some of the largest american businesses on the planet.

I would reposition based upon this legislation as it could be potentially immensely destabilizing. Theres significant precedent for that. I trust most of these managers to make the best decisions they can however its tough and theres generically just likely to be issues. Pretty sure people understand that. Some of these companies have shareholders large enough that theyre effectively in borderline illiquid positions and could only adjust their position so much. I genuinely dont understand why people would do this to themselves like this. *Like I said the fines would be practically nothing as a fee to avoid immense destabilization if this is unfortunately signed into law. Regardless I think this could still cost people easily billions considering how the logistics have played out at the moment.* I dont think this legislation is likely value constructive given the data we have from other programs at this point. People are potentially looking at this "problem" incorrectly based upon all of the data available to me so far. To be honest I found some of it to be quite surprising given the initial understandings going into it and I was far from the only person with that response. Highly suggest people look into that more for a lot of reasons.

Apologies if theres typos etc just wrote this quick. I dont know everything so feel free to reach out to me if theres something I'm missing/misunderstanding. Just found it a little surprising they were going forward with this piece of law in its current form as it appears to need more work at best if its going to address what people actually seem to want and not cost people billions, potentially destabilize major companies (employers) for no really necessary reason.

Comments