An article written today by Laurel
Wamsley reported that California has become the first state to require publicly
traded companies to have at least one woman on their board of directors. The law, proposed on Sunday by governor Jerry Brown, requires
that the companies comply by the end of 2019 or they will be fined a deserving $100,000. KQED
reported that a quarter of the 445 publicly traded companies in California
don't have a single woman on their boards. State senator Hannah-Beth Jackson
stated, “We are going to require this because it's going to benefit the
economy. It's going to benefit each of these companies."
Despite the benefits of this progression,
many companies have opposed the law. California's Chamber of Commerce and 29
other business groups sent a letter to the state senate arguing that the law takes
into account only gender and not other diversity. They also claimed that it
seeks to manage the directors of companies that are incorporated in another
state. As California’s governor signed the new law, he said "I don't
minimize the potential flaws that indeed may prove fatal to [the law's]
ultimate implementation. Nevertheless, recent events in Washington, D.C.—and
beyond—make it crystal clear that many are not getting the message." Brown’s
statement is clearly alluding to the recent accounts of women who have been blatantly
disrespected.
This is a huge step forward for women. In
the past, men have had unmeasurable amounts of authority and advantages over
women, but with California’s innovative nature, women are slowly but surely
gaining a strong foothold into equality.
This is another big step in the favor of women to be consider for being on t a board of directors. Though some oppose the law it still is a victory and a small step to becoming equals.
ReplyDeletei totally agree with the message that they are sending and believe that more woman should be on corporate boards, but i think mandating something like this isn't the smartest way to go about this. I think companies should hire more higher ranking woman but not force anyone to take a job that might take lots of training, or make public the companies that dont comply these laws so people know instead of fining them?
ReplyDeleteI don't think this is a good idea at all. Requiring (presumably private) companies to hire certain people takes away from economic freedom, in that the owners or people who hire board position holders are unable to freely choose who they want to hire. This is not the correct way to try to ensure equality. If a company doesn't want to hire women, then people who are against it should boycott ther products so that companies who do will outcompete them. This is how simple economics work.
ReplyDelete