cali -- every business will have a woman on board or face fines

Help Support CattleToday:

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have no problem with a board being completely made up of women. But I do have a problem with the govt mandating that every publicly traded company headquartered in California must have at least one woman.

How it is:
1) Must have/hire minority.
2) Must have/hire woman.
3) Must have/hire transgender.

How it should be:
Accept applications with no race, gender, or names. Just a number assigned to each application. Hire based on qualifications. Thats fair.
 
JMJ Farms":2m7k3v34 said:
I have no problem with a board being completely made up of women. But I do have a problem with the govt mandating that every publicly traded company headquartered in California must have at least one woman.

How it is:
1) Must have/hire minority.
2) Must have/hire woman.
3) Must have/hire transgender.

How it should be:
Accept applications with no race, gender, or names. Just a number assigned to each application. Hire based on qualifications. Thats fair.

In a democratic republic, the majority uses its influence to get what it wants. Apparently, this is what the people of California elected their legislature to do. If the law does not conflict with the tenets of the state or federal constitution, more power to them. The corporations can move or litigate the law. The closer government gets to the "local" level, the more democratic it becomes. Which explains why California is the most social state in the Union. It is their state, if that is the way the majority wants it and there is no conflict with federal law, then, that is their business. Afterall, conservatives advocate State Rights. I do think your opinion is rational.
 
callmefence":1qrlqqzn said:
I personally believe my business is my property. I can hire and fire for whatever reasons I please.

Me too fence. But in my and your case, our businesses aren't publicly traded. So that opens a whole new can of worms. Still don't agree with it though.
 
FFS has three directors on the board. Two ladies, and myself. We still have no plans for moving to CA.
 
callmefence":lpso3v7g said:
I personally believe my business is my property. I can hire and fire for whatever reasons I please.
I don't disagree with you, but this only applies to"publicly-traded companies". If you take a company public, you subject yourself to the rules set out by the Govt.
 
sstterry":10caboxl said:
callmefence":10caboxl said:
I personally believe my business is my property. I can hire and fire for whatever reasons I please.
I don't disagree with you, but this only applies to"publicly-traded companies". If you take a company public, you subject yourself to the rules set out by the Govt.


Doesn't matter what you think once the government gets the law on the books.
You don't even own your land! If you don't believe that quit paying the property taxes.
 
Publicly-held companies are owned BY THE PUBLIC and should generally reflect (I said generally, not down to the fraction) the diversity of said public. A publicly-traded company having a board with different backgrounds and viewpoints is a stronger board. Women own a heck of a lot of shares in public companies. and should get a seat at the table. Long long long overdue. Any fair-minded gent gets that. (How would y'all feel if most/all companies you own stock in had zero guys on their boards? It would feel odd to you, believe me).
And trust me, no one "puts in a resume" to be on the board of a large public co. Those folks are handpicked by existing (Caucasian male) board members, from their biz associates and golf buds. It's a natural reflex to be more comfortable with people who are "like you", but at some point the cycle needs to break, and re-form along healthier, fairer lines.
 
boondocks":3a3gu7fl said:
Publicly-held companies are owned BY THE PUBLIC and should generally reflect (I said generally, not down to the fraction) the diversity of said public. A publicly-traded company having a board with different backgrounds and viewpoints is a stronger board. Women own a heck of a lot of shares in public companies. and should get a seat at the table. Long long long overdue. Any fair-minded gent gets that. (How would y'all feel if most/all companies you own stock in had zero guys on their boards? It would feel odd to you, believe me).
And trust me, no one "puts in a resume" to be on the board of a large public co. Those folks are handpicked by existing (Caucasian male) board members, from their biz associates and golf buds. It's a natural reflex to be more comfortable with people who are "like you", but at some point the cycle needs to break, and re-form along healthier, fairer lines.


Horse feathers!
You should get the job on qualifications only, not the position you use the toilet.
 
Caustic Burno":1u7me6h2 said:
sstterry":1u7me6h2 said:
callmefence":1u7me6h2 said:
I personally believe my business is my property. I can hire and fire for whatever reasons I please.
I don't disagree with you, but this only applies to"publicly-traded companies". If you take a company public, you subject yourself to the rules set out by the Govt.


Doesn't matter what you think once the government gets the law on the books.
You don't even own your land! If you don't believe that quit paying the property taxes.

I guess it all depends on how you vote for your Representative!
 
Qualification doesn't matter, especially when it comes to government, and when it comes to California them and Illinois, lead the nation for stupidity, they lead the country for embarrassment.
 
Caustic Burno":1mlvjbzt said:
boondocks":1mlvjbzt said:
Publicly-held companies are owned BY THE PUBLIC and should generally reflect (I said generally, not down to the fraction) the diversity of said public. A publicly-traded company having a board with different backgrounds and viewpoints is a stronger board. Women own a heck of a lot of shares in public companies. and should get a seat at the table. Long long long overdue. Any fair-minded gent gets that. (How would y'all feel if most/all companies you own stock in had zero guys on their boards? It would feel odd to you, believe me).
And trust me, no one "puts in a resume" to be on the board of a large public co. Those folks are handpicked by existing (Caucasian male) board members, from their biz associates and golf buds. It's a natural reflex to be more comfortable with people who are "like you", but at some point the cycle needs to break, and re-form along healthier, fairer lines.


Horse feathers!
You should get the job on qualifications only, not the position you use the toilet.

That's exactly right. Nothing else should matter besides who is most qualified to do the job best.

Boondocks, if someone is appointed a seat on the board bc they are a "buddy" of another board memeber.... that is just as wrong imo. A seat should be based on qualifications and experience relative to the task at hand. If that be a purple woman or a turquoise man should be irrelevant. Don't misinterpret my opinion, I think women can bring as much or more to the table than a man can. But it shouldn't be a forced decision, publicly traded company or not. But I can also assure you that no one gives two shyts about my opinion :lol2:
 
What I saw of Corporate America, it is a long, long, long way from being Mr. Roger's Neighborhood. Lol

I have no faith that board members are selected on qualifications. I would be more inclined to believe Boondocks. It is a fraternity system of patronage and favors more so than merits. Unfortunately, the mandate of the California law to seat women on the board will likely be abused in the same way the Movie Industry abused female actors. It is a function of what she does off-screen more so than what she does on-screen.

That is certainly cynical and if I am unfair to corporate America - shame on me.
 
Caustic Burno":wib27n3g said:
boondocks":wib27n3g said:
Publicly-held companies are owned BY THE PUBLIC and should generally reflect (I said generally, not down to the fraction) the diversity of said public. A publicly-traded company having a board with different backgrounds and viewpoints is a stronger board. Women own a heck of a lot of shares in public companies. and should get a seat at the table. Long long long overdue. Any fair-minded gent gets that. (How would y'all feel if most/all companies you own stock in had zero guys on their boards? It would feel odd to you, believe me).
And trust me, no one "puts in a resume" to be on the board of a large public co. Those folks are handpicked by existing (Caucasian male) board members, from their biz associates and golf buds. It's a natural reflex to be more comfortable with people who are "like you", but at some point the cycle needs to break, and re-form along healthier, fairer lines.


Horse feathers!
You should get the job on qualifications only, not the position you use the toilet.
Oh, I agree with you 1000%! But that is not currently happening--ie, the position you use the toilet seat is currently greatly linked to your likelihood of getting a board seat. (Funny how when Caucasian males get something (board seat, job, etc) it's assumed to've been based solely on "qualifications." Why is that? :???: I could tell you a great story about how John Ashcroft made millions of bucks a while back, but I'd have to then eat a cyanide tablet, and I don't have one handy).
 
Well there was a day when a segment of the country that leaves the seat down were home raising kids. The ones with it up were making a living.
We sure seemed to have a heck of lot less societal issues than today.
 
'caucasian males'


thats a really racist, arrogant, and disgusting comment against the blacks, asians, hispanics, etc that are all on companies boards.


wow. news media.. what am i supposed to believe ?
 
https://chiefexecutive.net/business-exo ... -policies/

California is facing a bigger issue than its tussle with the Federal government over sanctuary cities. According to a November report from the U.S Census Bureau, the Golden State has had 142,932 more residents exit to live in other states than people arriving from other states. This domestic outmigration was the second largest outflow in the U.S. behind New York and New Jersey. It was up 11 percent (13,699 net departures) compared to 2015.

The state's net outmigration has been continuing for over two decades, yet the state's population continues to grow owing to foreign immigration. According to census numbers some 108,301, or 0.3 percent immigrants came to California as new residents from other countries. That and more births than deaths contributed to limited population growth. To everyone else the state has become a hard sell to people who presently live elsewhere in the country.

What is more serious is the number of California-based companies that have left or signaled their intention to leave the state. Last year marks the first anniversary of the announcement that Carl's Jr., a California burger icon for more than six decades, was relocating its headquarters to Nashville. It's a symbol for what's become a stream of businesses that have quit California. What was once an almost quiet exodus of companies now looks more like a stampede.

Among the roll call of businesses abandoning California for more hospitable business environments includes Toyota which has left Torrance and will complete the move of its U.S. headquarters to Dallas in the coming month. Also having left for Dallas is Jacobs Engineering Group, $6.3 billion firm formerly based in Pasadena that has more than 230 offices across the world, employs 60,000 and generates $12 billion in annual revenue.

Nissan North America (left for Nashville a decade before Carl's Jr. did), Jamba Juice (traded San Francisco for Frisco, Texas), Occidental Petroleum (prefers Houston over Westwood for its headquarters), Numira Biosciences (departed Irvine for Salt Lake City) and Omnitracs, a software firm (waved goodbye to San Diego and said hello to Dallas). Chevron moved 800 jobs from its Bay Area headquarters to Texas, and Waste Connections shifted more than 100 jobs to Texas from Folsom.

In addition, two dozen California companies have said they are tired of the business-bashing in Sacramento, along with the high taxes — and are now threatening to leave the state. The passing of proposition 30 in 2012 triggered $6 billion in new annual taxes pushed even more companies to abandoning the Golden State for greater opportunities in Arizona and Nevada. For example, Kubota Tractor Corp. and Kubota Credit Corp., the company's financing arm, plan to move their headquarters from Torrance to Grapevine, Texas.

Business relocation expert Joe Vranich who, as president of Irvine-based Spectrum Location Services, has been tracking the exodus of companies of all sizes. Vranich told Investor's Business daily (IBD) that from 2008 through 2015, at least 1,687 California companies pulled up stakes and moved elsewhere. And those are only the reported ones. Vranich cites a rule of thumb among business site-selection experts that five companies leave for each one that actually gets reported in the press. So it's probable that as many as 10,000 companies have left in recent years.

A good example is that of Nestle USA which is moving its headquarters from Glendale, Calif., a suburb just miles from downtown Los Angeles, to Rosslyn, Va., near Washington, D.C., and taking 1,200 California jobs with it. Why? IBD reports that the $26-billion-a-year food conglomerate tries hard to be discreet about its reasons, but the fact is, Nestle and others in California quietly admit that they are overtaxed and over-regulated, and elected officials treat them not as honored members of the community but as rapacious pirates. Apart from having higher taxes, absurd housing costs and more regulations than nearly any other state, says IBD, California's wacky laws have turned the Golden State into a venue of choice for activist groups to file costly class action lawsuits — or to launch anti-corporate PR campaigns against big, wealthy targets like Nestle.

It's not all bad. According to Spectrum, California offers a variety of incentive programs to help businesses, many of which are administered through the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development. Those include tax incentives for aerospace companies, California Film Commission incentives, employment training panel incentives and California Energy Commission incentives.

Some of those incentives are hefty. Tesla, the Palo Alto-based maker of electric cars, received $15 million in tax credits last year. And Environmental Systems Research Institute, a Redlands-based international supplier of geographic information system software, received $2 million in tax credits.

But these incentives are still somewhat overshadowed by the businesses that have left California. Manufacturing firms account for the largest group of businesses that sought greener pastures, followed by pharmaceutical companies, medical device makers, biotech firms, health and dental businesses and veterinary businesses.

The irony in all this is the company that identifies favorable out-of-state locations for firms seeking to free themselves of California's harsh business climate has itself departed the state for greener pastures. Spectrum Location Solutions, which for ten years has been based in Irvine, in Orange County, has moved to Cranberry Township, a Pittsburgh suburban community in Western Pennsylvania. "I moved for three reasons – taxes, regulations and quality-of-life," said Joseph Vranich, president of the boutique consulting firm. "First, I'll have greater freedom in my business now that I'm free of California's notorious regulatory environment and threats of frivolous lawsuits that hurt small businesses like mine," he said.

"Finally, we are enjoying a superior qualify-of-life here. We bought a house larger than what we had in California for about half the cost. We can afford to engage in more activities because the cost-of-living in Cranberry Township is 44 percent lower than in Irvine," he said.

Concern about California's costs is widespread. Statewide, 58 percent of Millennials and 65 percent of parents echoed the sentiment that "I am considering moving away from California because of the high cost of living," according to a recent poll by the PR firm Edelman.

Gov. Jerry Brown's spokesperson once said few companies would leave California for "desolate locations" elsewhere. "Well, this area is the opposite of 'desolate,'" said Vranich. "Pittsburghers are justifiably proud of their neighborhoods, cultural attractions, sports teams, scenic vistas, and transformation to a place where more than 10,000 innovative tech firms call home."
 
Caustic Burno":196zwitj said:
Well there was a day when a segment of the country that leaves the seat down were home raising kids. The ones with it up were making a living.
We sure seemed to have a heck of lot less societal issues than today.

Keep women in the home doing what they were made to do - raise kids.

Leave the rest of the world to men.

That solves everything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top