New California state law mandates female board directors by 2019

“California will require publicly listed companies with headquarters in the state to have at least one woman on their boards of directors by end of 2019, under a bill signed into law on Sunday,” Reuters reports. “The law would mandate at least two female directors by the end of 2021 if the company has five directors and three women if the company has six or more directors. Violators face fines of at least $100,000 and up to $300,000 for multiple violations of the statute.”

“Silicon Valley tech companies started disclosing workforce diversity figures in 2014, but progress at the top has been slow, underscoring the challenge of transforming cultures that critics say are too homogenous, white and male dominated,” Reuters reports. “Companies including Apple Inc, Google parent Alphabet Inc and Facebook Inc are headquartered in California and will each need to add at least one more woman to their boards by 2021 to meet the law’s requirement.”

Full article here.

MacDailyNews Note: Apple’s BoD is currently comprised of eight people, 6 males and 2 females:

Arthur D. Levinson, Chairman of the Board
James A. Bell
Tim Cook
Albert A. Gore Jr.
Robert A. Iger
Andrea Jung
Ronald D. Sugar
Susan L. Wagner

55 Comments

  1. Because they couldn’t achieve it on their own.

    Like it or not, that’s the bottom line inference. Not only does it cheapen those who did manage to accomplish it on their own, but it tarnishes every other woman in the future with the underlying inference:

    You’re only here because we need to fill Kalifornia’s quota on women.

    It’s the same problem with any mandated affirmative action.

    Great job, Kalifornia, you’ve just undercut woman and cheapened the accomplishments of all of current women BoD members.

    How soon until Kalifornia mandates trannies?

    1. Exactly. But, the Dem/Lib/Progs will ignore these facts and say to themselves it was worth cheapening current women’s accomplishments and tarnishing all future women because we got the fake “equality” we stupidly forced.

      To Dem/Lib/Progs, the end result is all that matters. They’re not bright people. They can’t think far enough ahead. Immediate gratification is all they can grasp. They run only on emotion, not logic.

      It’s not real equality when you force it by law, dummies.

      1. I almost want to agree with you, but such is the punishment for deplorable behavior.

        Having “Protected Groups” is unjust, surpassed only by not protecting them.

          1. … needs your ignorant bigotry, T.
            I don’t particularly love the need to come up with this sort of legislation. The problem isn’t that women CAN’T do the jobs in question, but that men won’t allow them to. I’ve seen similar complaints about gays. You want to be a bigot? Or do you want profit? Your choice.

          2. What a pathetic response, typical of brawn over brains where to step out of the groupthink line is a threat to your fragile masculinity. You ‘guys’ stack the odds, make the rules, whinge like entitled wheenies and ignore what doesn’t fit your preconceived notions of ability, fairness or patriarchal rights.
            ‘You’ are the problem, defending the indefensible with your parochial male entitlement.
            Welcome to the dinosaur swamp of irrelevancy!

    2. That damn Abraham Lincoln cheapened the accomplishments of free people of color by pushing through the 13th Amendment and freeing a bunch of slaves who couldn’t achieve it on their own, too.

      The Voting Rights Act undercut African-Americans in Mississippi by tarnishing the accomplishment of those who vmanaged to vote on their own.

      /s

      1. There are times when you don’t know what you are talking about. And there are times when you really don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.

    3. Incidentally (and without sarcasm), the California Legislature and its electorate were solidly Republican when they adopted an Equal Rights Amendment into their state constitution in 1879. If 140 years isn’t long enough for women to wait for the Constitution to be enforced, what do you suggest?

      1. Facebook, Google and Apple were started from zero. Nothing to stop women from doing the same.

        BTW how many women are into tech? there are is little discrimination in tech school enrolment (most just want students to make money) yet how many women enter vs men? Stats for Grad schools typically show men in the 70% range.

        there are a few more women today taking tech today thus the 30% but board of directors are mostly the ‘grey haired’ league (i.e they graduated years ago) , how many women studied tech (or even business) decades ago to be qualified to be a giant tech companies BOD today? Apple having two is already unusual.

        Maybe people like yourself (remembering your typical posts) should fight for more diversity in sports leagues like the NBA.

        1. Politicians are not interested that 70% of tech grad school students are men, they are in this because 50% of women are voters.

          (I’m a centrist, not left or right, I just believe laws like this , how many ‘diversity’ rules are implemented is discriminatory and has nothing to do with justice but merely politicians applying force for their self interest . There is political benefit for forcing companies to hire certain unqualified minorities but no political benefit to apply the SAME rules to businesses like the NBA where the players are 80% of one minority race (basketball is a multi billion dollar business)

          1. … the Kavanaugh hearings where a guy with not judicial temperament and a propensity for lying under oath is being put forth for the SJC? There are dozens of less flawed conservative justices who would vote (mostly) your way. Why not pick one of them?

        2. if people get the full input of my Google, Facebook, Apple references note these companies were all started by MEN. So were microsoft , HP, Dell. It reinforces my argument that in those days there were few women in tech or even who studied business. But magically politicians want qualified women (who should have graduated years ago during those times) to fill BOD posts in tech companies today.

          The people who support such (like the down voters I guess) don’t even understand it’s THEY who are unfair and discriminatory. Tech companies don’t have a magical time machines to go back three decades to get more women to study tech in college.

        3. Facebook wasn’t started from zero. Fuckerberg stole it while living in the great state of Massachusetts. He belongs behind bars, not held up as a genius white boy entrepreneur.

    4. Except we know concretely that women do not get a fair chance when competing against men and there’s no reason why men should be smarter – in fact in general girls are outperforming boys academically. So how do we rectify that? Proud to say that our Canadian Govt is a gender balanced cabinet by design and some of the strongest ministers are women. The world doesn’t get better by accident you have to take action and do something.

        1. Hardly ever happens. Everyone I know who kicked ass in university is kicking ass in the real world. Smart, capable people are smart and capable in any setting. Go sell crazy someplace else.

    1. Is this because, as I suspect, you’re an idiot or do you support it because you’re a misogynist who’s happy to cheapen the achievement of current women BoD members and tarnish future women BoD members forevermore?

  2. it is just a way to collect $100,000 or $300,000 in a tax from some companies. That means somewhere 1 to 8 employees will lose there jobs.

    Smaller companies will not have their Headquarters in California.

    1. I am against this, but perhaps you could tell me your basis for the claim it is designed to facilitate collecting a tax. When you finish that bit a pathetic creative writing you can turn your attention to your fantasy number regarding the number of lost jobs attributable to this.

      Stupid is stupid no matter the issue or position. Try deal in facts and having some back up.

    2. I disagree with the way you spell “their”…….but from where does your infomation come? Eight employees sounds unreasonable, knowing the costs of employment in Calfornia.

  3. While I am a proponent of equal rights in the extreme, I believe this law is truly asinine. Requiring that half (three out of six) of a company’s board be women by the end of 2021 unduly restricts whom the company has on its board. It would be no different than a law requiring that a company have a minimum of half of its board be men.

      1. Not really. It’s simply discrimination… that it’s proponents refuse to recognize as discrimination… or will justify as “necessary” to achieve “equality”.

        FWIW, Apple may or may not protest this law, but I have no doubts they will simply accede to this idiocy.

        They aren’t likely to walk away from the mothership.

        Although, can you imagine the uproar if they did… or just threaten to?

  4. SMH
    So next we can’t discriminate against others so I want to see the following required:

    1 white female
    1 black female
    1 mexican female
    1 lesbian black female
    1 black trans
    1 mexican trans
    1 bisexual male
    1 asian gay male
    1 chinese female
    1 pakistani female
    1 indian male
    1 nigerian female
    1 brazilian female
    and so on

    1. We are Kalifornia. The worst state in the nation for business. The worst state in the nation for taxes. The highest in poverty. The highest in illegal immigrant crime.

      We are what Democrats build.

    2. Apple has already fired one black diversity manager for being to lax.

      I wonder what the new hiring boss would do if if she has to hire for one position but face with :

      1 male hispanic transgender
      1 black women
      1 white gay woman

      in the old days easy : hire the most qualified
      but diversity rules prevent this.

      Being a Human Resource manager at Apple must be a pain.

      Ultra liberals don’t realize they are like the NAZIS who had points charts for full, one quarter, one eight Jew etc.

  5. Glad I vote Democrat. Imagine political hacks, with no experience in business or private life, dictating to people who/when/what/ and where about their lives and businesses. Why? Because I continue to elect them for life.

  6. This law is an ass.

    So who gets fired to make way for the token woman? This means a company is no longer able to pick the best person for the job. If Apple/Google/Amazon requires a new COO and the best male COO in the world is available they won’t be able to hire him if that would mean they don’t meet the mandated female quota for board members. What a joke.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.