Diversity in the boardroom

cawacko

cawacko

Well-known member
Looks like the gov't is pushing towards a possible quota system regarding race and gender for corporate boards.

Kind of two thoughts here. One is there are talented people who don't get looked at who deserve a shot. The other is it should not be the gov't role to mandate quotas in this area. Diversity among talented people is good. Diversity just for the sake of diversity is not.



http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-diversity-police-raid-the-boardroom-1471473464?mod=e2two
 
Diversity for the sake of diversity is hilarious. Hopefully, the man who wrote this legislation is getting laid by his interns...
 
cawacko said:
Looks like the gov't is pushing towards a possible quota system regarding race and gender for corporate boards.

Kind of two thoughts here. One is there are talented people who don't get looked at who deserve a shot. The other is it should not be the gov't role to mandate quotas in this area. Diversity among talented people is good. Diversity just for the sake of diversity is not.



http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-diversity-police-raid-the-boardroom-1471473464?mod=e2two
Click to expand...
Knowing the WSJ I'd say that this is probably just something they pulled completely out of their ass.
 
it's a complete joke of an idea. I would rather burn my non existent company to the ground than have a diversity hire on the fucking board.
 
cawacko said:
Looks like the gov't is pushing towards a possible quota system regarding race and gender for corporate boards.

Kind of two thoughts here. One is there are talented people who don't get looked at who deserve a shot. The other is it should not be the gov't role to mandate quotas in this area. Diversity among talented people is good. Diversity just for the sake of diversity is not.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-diversity-police-raid-the-boardroom-1471473464?mod=e2two
Click to expand...

I can't read the article because I'm not a subscriber. But this isn't something new.

"US boardrooms are older, more male and filled with longer-serving directors than their European counterparts, data that will give new ammunition to institutional investors urging “board refreshment” to improve American corporate governance. Calls for US companies to improve boardroom diversity and to curtail the tenure of directors have increased since the 2008 financial crisis, prodded by corporate governance campaigners who argue board effectiveness is stymied by cozy relationships between managers and directors."

https://www.ft.com/content/d122771c-60c1-11e6-b38c-7b39cbb1138a
 
cawacko said:
Ok. What's that based on?
Click to expand...
The fact that the WSJ article you posted has been debunked. The Financial reform bill has no racial quotas or diversity requirements for boards of directors.

Section 342 of the financial reform bill -- which conservatives have cited to claim that there are quotas in the bill -- establishes Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion in certain federal agencies and defines the duties of those offices. One of their duties is to "develop and implement standards and procedures to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion and utilization of minorities, women, and minority-owned and women-owned businesses in all business and activities of the agency at all levels." The section -- which covers more than two pages -- does not establish any quota.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/08/13/conservative-media-falsely-warn-of-racial-quota/169196

As I said...the WSJ just pulled their comments out of their ass.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
The fact that the WSJ article you posted has been debunked. The Financial reform bill has no racial quotas or diversity requirements for boards of directors.

Section 342 of the financial reform bill -- which conservatives have cited to claim that there are quotas in the bill -- establishes Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion in certain federal agencies and defines the duties of those offices. One of their duties is to "develop and implement standards and procedures to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion and utilization of minorities, women, and minority-owned and women-owned businesses in all business and activities of the agency at all levels." The section -- which covers more than two pages -- does not establish any quota.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/08/13/conservative-media-falsely-warn-of-racial-quota/169196

As I said...the WSJ just pulled their comments out of their ass.
Click to expand...

MediaMatters in 2010 debunked a WSJ article in 2016? Wow! They are amazing. Can they give me betting tips because we could be on to something.
 
cawacko said:
MediaMatters in 2010 debunked a WSJ article in 2016? Wow! They are amazing. Can they give me betting tips because we could be on to something.
Click to expand...
Take the points and bet on Bama. Point being is they are right and WSJ is pulling shit out of their ass. Fact. There are no provisions in the financial reform act requiring either quotas or diversity requirements in boardrooms of publicly traded companies.

So was WSJ just simply wrong or Misleading the public?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Take the points and bet on Bama. Point being is they are right and WSJ is pulling shit out of their ass. Fact. There are no provisions in the financial reform act requiring either quotas or diversity requirements in boardrooms of publicly traded companies.

So was WSJ just simply wrong or Misleading the public?
Click to expand...

Lol, wait. So leaving aside the fact you went to one of the most partisan sites in existence and are trying to pass it off as good data in rebuttal to an article I guess you can't read you are also going to say nothing in past six has changed since this article has been written?

Dude, that's straight out of Desh's playbook. I'll copy and post the article tonight when I get home
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top