[stmfreak]

This outlaws freedom of association. If I am a woman creating a company for women’s products and want an all woman board, why should that be a problem or any business of the government? If the shareholders don’t like it, they can vote in/out whomever they want.

And if an all woman board is okay, then what hypocrisy is this new law?

[arcticbull]

Hey let's cross that bridge when we get there maybe?

[hueving]

Your response to blatant hypocrisy is really just saying it doesn't matter right now?

[arcticbull]

Ah I see what you're saying. That's fair criticism, let me try again.

This does only apply to publicly traded companies, and lots of other employment legislation does similarly limit association within companies does it not? For instance, discrimination on the basis of race or gender in the hiring process is illegal (making exception on the basis of “bona-fide occupational qualifications”). Setting aside the gender component here, it would seem that this is settled law, does it not? It appears if the argument is restriction of free association, that ship sailed, and you do not have that right at work on an absolute basis.

Is it hypocritical? Yes. Without sounding like a broken record, I don't believe that only old white men are capable of being on boards, yet they're massively overrepresented, which tells me there's some other intrinsic issue with the system or society that is creating this environment. I support this measure as an attempt to rebalance the scales. To me, the ends justify the means. If it doesn't work out, it can of course be rolled back.

Hypocrisy isn't illegal. I'm not sure whether this runs afoul of any other legislation but I'd imagine that's been thought through.

To me, the argument is: "if I am a woman creating a company for women’s products and want an all woman board..." -- you're not. Statistically, nobody is. That's the problem. If they were, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. And when that changes, we can absolutely revisit this.