Slashdot Mirror
Steve Ballmer Responds to Discrimination Issue
sriram_2001 writes "In a long email to all Microsoft employees, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer laid out the reasons for Microsoft changing its stance to neutral on the anti-discrimination bill. He explains that Microsoft wanted to focus on fewer legislations and that the anti-discrimination bill was one of the bills that they didn't have the resources to follow. Also, far from caving in to Rev.Hutcherson, Microsoft told him to take a hike when he asked them to fire 2 employees for testifying during the legislation consideration period. He goes on to explain how though he personally supports the bill, a lot of employees and shareholders don't. Finally, he raises the question on whether corporations should get involved in social issues."
Apparently Google thinks otherwise.
http://google.org/
Philanthropic = humanitarian.
Humanatarian = "[devotion] to the promotion of human welfare and the advancement of social reforms" (Thanks dictionary.com)
This bill would make it illegal to discriminate against gays because they are gay, similar to how it is illegal to discriminate against women and minorities for that fact. This is state legislation in Washington (the state). I'm not sure on the status of other states and gay rights though.
That sounds good, but unfortunately it is not accurate in my experience. I've been a part of many teams of many talented people at work. But the few teams that were diverse with people from different backgrounds, different regions, and yes- different skin colors were- far more effective then the ones populated entirely by white males. Not that the all white male teams were incompetent or that the diverse team members were the best people ever. But the blend of ideas and backgrounds proved to be a much more effective group at solving problems and having their solutions accepted.
I agree that the best person should be hired, but at the same time I very much doubt that the best person will always have the same skin color as everyone else on the team. And if the team does all have the same skin color- then the best person for the job is someone different so they can bring new ideas and a different veiwpoint.
As long as corporations employ people who are affected by social legislation, then the difference truly is slight. Despite every impression to the contrary, first and foremost a corporation is a network of relationships among real live human beings; the money is simply an abstraction of certain types of value.
Historically, the very first laws against child labor (in the UK) were brought into existence at the behest of a coalition of factory owners, who wanted to stop the practice, but could not do so unilaterally and remain competitive: the only way that they could have the practice stop was to remove the possibility of competitive advantage from employing children. Likewise, Microsoft has gay and lesbian employees and shareholders, and their well-being is directly affected by the absence of this legislation.
If you live on the West or East Coast, religious issues may not matter to the majority of the populace, but if you've lived in Middle America or been in the military, you understand that while religious issues don't matter to everyone, they are hugely important across broad swaths of America.
I don't like it, but in my experience the upward climb of reactionary religion in America is far more widespread nationally than it is where I live (California). If anything, the mainstream media has been very slow in understanding this trend towards religious illiberalism.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
No, they do not -- and marriage is very much a workplace issue.
First, Washington is an employment-at-will state, in which an employment contract can be terminated for almost any reason. People are regularly fired for being gay. HB 1515 would have made that illegal by adding sexual orientation to the list of reasons which are not valid.
Secaond, and more importantly, you should also understand the tax benefits of being married. My wife and children get access to the extraordinarily good benefits my employer provides to all employees. My gay colleagues' domestic partners get access to their benefits, too. The difference, though, is that I don't pay taxes for those benefits, which saves me tousands of dollars a year. My gay colleagues are required to pay taxes on the benefits which accrue to their domastic partners. Antidiscrimination law has a world to do with the workplace.
You are blinded by your support of the bill. Would you be saying the same things if Microsoft were supporting a gay marriage ban in Washington? I think not.
The fact of the matter is that many Slashdotters are already upset that Microsoft is effectively dictating operating system choice; those that work in business basically have to stick with Windows in all but the most interesting jobs. Do you really want Microsoft [shareholders] to have such power in dictating social legislation as well? Do you really want Microsoft [shareholders] paying big bucks to help decide the devisive social issues of the day? I certainly don't.
The heart of the matter is that I don't trust Microsoft to choose the "correct stance" -- I trust the democratic process.
All numbers in thousands
That makes it $65 billion. With something like 40,000 Microsoft employees, I would say that makes them have more than enough resources.
"[Balmer] explains that Microsoft wanted to focus on fewer legislations and that the anti-discrimination bill was one of the bills that they didn't have the resources to follow. Also, far from caving in to Rev.Hutcherson, Microsoft told him to take a hike when he asked them to fire 2 employees for testifying during the legislation consideration period."
This is total horseshit and corporate PR covering up what actually happened. If you read the NY Times article, there's at least 3 pieces of solid evidence demonstrating that MS pulled their support at exactly the time that Hutccherson was meeting with a VP threatening a boycott.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Preturbations in atmospheric density which cause stars to twinkle inspire poetry, and thus affect society. Should aerodynamics be included in your great amorphous lump with social, fiscal, and political policy? the lines are drawn where they are drawn for convenience of discussion. Tearing apart the fabric of language will not, i assure you, convince anyone (outside of slashdot moderators, of course, who are what I like to call "fish in a barrel"). I should know, I've tried it.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~