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."
This is not a business issue, it's a social one. The mission of Microsoft (and every other publicly held corporation) is to increase profits and to increase their share price. Sponsoring pro-gay legislation doesn't seem to do this. If anything, it hurts their business -- the fact is that many people in America are opposed to pro-gay legislation. These people could very well decide to cancel their relationship with Microsoft because of the company's support for a bill like this.
>He explains that Microsoft wanted to focus on fewer legislations Which legislations are they focusing on instead?
A corporation held by a single person can obviously do whatever it feels like. Microsoft is publicly held though, meaning thousands of people own stakes in the company (probably more like millions of people in this case). Every Microsoft shareholder is not going to agree with supporting a pro-gay bill like this. Now you can say "too bad, majority rule" but that brings up another issue -- in the prospectus issued by Microsoft to potential shareholders, I see nothing about the company being on a mission to support pro-gay legislation. Since supporting pro-gay legislation is an expense that does not lead to increased profits, shareholders could probably say they have been duped.
No they should not. They are not real persons, and by definitions have no interests except profits.
And individuals petitioning congress never have self-centered motivations and propose things beneficial to themselves but harmful to society overall? And none of these individuals have loads of money?
I think that this statement from the letter sums of the problem rather well:
"What message does the company taking a position send to its employees who have strongly-held beliefs on the opposite side of the issue?"We have dealt with this same question in my company where the leaders in the company have strong feelings about social issues and are tempted to use the power of the corporation to foist those opinions on the employees. I think Ballmer gets it right when he indicates that Microsoft has an interest in taking a stance on legislative issues that affect the business in terms of competitiveness and other less-social concerns. A company as large as Microsoft has employees that will have opinions on social issues that cover the entire spectrum. It's threatening to employees for the corporation to take a public position on these kinds of personal issues. I think that it's healthy for corporations to set a tone for it's workers that focus on cultivating a work environment focused on productivity and cooperation. I applaud Ballmer.
First of all gay rights are equivelent to racial rights rooted in the civil rights movement in the 1960's. That argument has already been settled.
So what you are saying is that corporations should just treat people like sources of income and care only about them when they are coughing up money? Pardon the Star Trek reference, but one does not think corporations will survive based on the Rules of Acquisition.
Also, you might look into the concept of Socially Responsible Investing where entities are given investors' money based on their social actions well. Plenty of mutual funds have come into existence based on this concept.
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
the anti-discrimination bill was one of the bills that they didn't have the resources to follow.
Really. Microsoft, with $50B USD in the bank, didn't have the resources to follow this and support it. Riiiiiiight....
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Curiously, before anti-discrimination laws, many companies insisted that they did hire "only the best" and strangely they were nearly entirely all white male employees.
And "only the best" assumes that all the person's skills can be assessed in an interview or that a team comprised of the most profiecient people would make the best team.
As for looking for people with diversity of background and viewpoints- how would you do that? Political views? Illegal. Religious views? Illegal. Economic level? Sexual orientation? I'm not sure if it is illegal, but if the topic came up in an interview I would very likely end the interview.
Diversity is not some quota system. It is a policy that makes sure everyone has a chance, and encourages the hiring process to make sure that there isn't homogenity in the workplace. And that is a good thing. There is much more to getting a job done then being the most techinically proficient or knowing the most.
Then why do they have many of the same rights in the eyes of the law, with none of the responsibilities?
I do agree with you, but corporate personhood is the biggest pile of bullshit.
Microsoft collapsing like a house of cards when some halfwit cult leader threatened them with a "boycott".
Great article in the Stranger about Microsoft caving in.
No. But very few of them are entirely lacking any empathy at all for their fellow man, few of them would kill if it server their overall interests. Wheras corporations are, and would. Which is what makes them scary.
I am trolling
Corporations try to change laws all the time. That is getting into social issues. Corporations donate millions of dollars to politicians. That is getting into social issues. Cop out. The day Corporations lose their first amendment rights will be a great day for us humans.
You could have one persone that had a typical middle class suburban upbringing and the other is from an urban environment.
Isn't "urban" a whitey code word for "black"?
I surmise that this "PC" term was coined by big city real estate agents who have a financial interest in inflating prices and egos.
Thanks for the explanation. I'm from Denmark where gay marriage is legal and it's illegal to fire people because of sexuality (among other things), so I didn't know these things.
"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."
I am truly afraid to ask which ones are getting more focus. UberDMCA? USA PATRIOT 2?
"He goes on to explain how though he personally supports the bill, a lot of employees and shareholders don't."
You mean the share-holders weren't aware of MSFT's hiring practices before they purchased the stock? Their problem, not his. Heck, a lot of stock holders are probably in favor of MSFT skirting around anti-trust laws, but that doesn't make it right.
And as for the opinion of his employees, they're hypocrites if they feel that way. The bill is about preventing employers from doing whatever they want for any reason, feelings of the employees be damned. If they were against the bill and, therefore, truly in favor of employers being able to walk all over their employees for any reason, then they don't have a moral leg to stand on trying to dictate the practices of their employer.
"Finally, he raises the question on whether corporations should get involved in social issues."
Intellectual property laws aren't a social issue? I'd say there are more people downloading MP3s in the world than there are homosexuals, closeted or otherwise.
What a crock of shit! You are making a horrible generalization. How about "arguing with a libertarian is always a waste of time" or "arguing with a senior citizen is always a waste of time."
I know ten-year-olds who hold more intelligent opinions than many twenty-five year olds.
Your statement was blatently ageist and you should be rethinking it.
J'aime mieux les méchants que les imbéciles, parce qu'ils se reposent. -- Alexandre Dumas
To be brief, I think your rebuttal doesn't take into account corporations' fiduciary obligation to their shareholders.
Yes, to be precise, corporations have a legal obligation to carry out their shareholders' wishes. Most people tend to invest to gain money and prioritize that above most anything else-- this has created somewhat of an unfortunate legal and cultural precedent that they shall prioritize shareholder returns above all else. Or, in other words, that corporations, discounting statistically irrelevant minorities, shall "have no [significant] interests except profits."
So that's the argument by precedent why the grandparent is right. There's also the argument by experience-- look around you. Are you living in a world where corporations on the whole tend to value social responsibility above profit-taking?
No? I didn't think so.
Firstly, I feel the need to challenge your linear view of the political spectrum. Accusing the poster of leftist ideals for what is an obvious fact is curious.
The corporation was, at first, a gift from the people, chartered to do something specific, (build a bridge, provide water, etc), and then disassembled. The 14th amendment and consecutive judicial decisions granted the rights of human beings to the corporation while stripping them away from African Americans. Through a series of legal decisions corporations have since been required to place profits above all competing interests. (And yes, if the fine is smaller than the potential profit, history has taught us that the corporation will break the rules and take the hit for short term gain.)
The fact that the corporation is comprised of many people is another obvious truth but by dismissing the top down control system in place, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the elite within the boardroom steer the behemoth, not the employees. Those in charge have a very narrow mandate (profit), all of this talk of corporate values seems to be pulling us away from the reality that the board is concerned with profits first and everything else as a distant second. (No money, no people, no corporation.)
I wish I had your optimism as to the corporate form, but I choose to remain extremely wary about man made machine that would maximize profits while ignoring as many externalizations as possible. I don't know that large scale socialist institutions are required to control them, but I do see the corporation for what it is. Not designed for the betterment of the average citizen, but rather to maximize profit for a very narrow spectrum of interests.
Nope, I won't undergo some fucked-up religious therapy so that I can live a bland, sexless existence with a wife that I don't really care for.
Yes, the rest of you - those of you who are in the wrong and use cowardly means to disguise that - you need to change. Not me.
Intelligent Design: because MATH is HARD.