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."
To disclaim social involvement is shameless lying when they are involved in everything from tax structure to allocation of funds.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
"Finally, he raises the question on whether corporations should get involved in social issues."
They may as well. They're the only ones with any influence other than organized religions.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
So it's not just my PC that lacks resources.
I prefer "Rube Godwin's Law": anytime someone comes up with an outlandish contraption, someone asks "But can you go back in time and kill Hitler with it?".
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
>He explains that Microsoft wanted to focus on fewer legislations Which legislations are they focusing on instead?
So I guess if this were the 1960's Microsoft should have not supported legislation that ended racial discrimination too? Just because "many people in America are opposed" to it does not make it wrong.
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
RTFA
The bill is about giving gays the same rights as anyone else in the work place. Nothing about race, nothing about quotas or affirmative action.
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)
Don't forget the AARP, the NRA, and other huge large "special interest" groups. But what do I know. I'm a Political Troll (tm)!
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Microsoft realized that while they have a lot of money, they don't have an unlimited supply of political capital.
Rather than take a PR hit trying to change social policy for other companies, they chose to use their limited political capital on issues which more directly affect their ability to separate users from their money.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
No they should not. They are not real persons, and by definitions have no interests except profits.
Yes, large corporations should maintain their present trend of social unaccountability.
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?
Wrong. This holds to the idea that "only whites can deal with whites", "only Asians with Asians", etc. A sort of apartheid when dealing with customers! You are also dealing with just the small part of the staff that works with the public....
"The best person does not always have to be hired in every case"
The best person must be hired, period.
"especially when the wider company or society would suffer because of it"
Certainly the wider company suffers because, by putting real qualifications on the back burner, you have increased incompetance. A lot of problems: the bottom line suffers, and you have a lot of resentment of incompetants who were hired for their skin color. Society suffers too.
"Nowadays people are smart enough to look at the "big picture"."
Not if the "big picture" involves discriminating against applicants just for their skin color.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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.
Microsoft using scarcity of resources as an excuse is something I find dififcult to accept.
Have you seen the bill?
It's not a bill that tries to tip the field in any direction. It's what it sounds like. Anti-discriminatory. There are already laws against discrimination based on race and religion. This bill just extends them to sexual orientation.
Then the shareholders deal with it through the usual means of controlling the direction of the corporation. It's all taken care of: provided enough of them are antigay.
"in the prospectus issued by Microsoft to potential shareholders, I see nothing about the company being on a mission to support pro-gay legislation"
You don't see every single little activity shown on the prospectus.
"Since supporting pro-gay legislation is an expense that does not lead to increased profits, shareholders could probably say they have been duped"
And then they can take action.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
You can't fire someone because they are black, female, or Christian. You can, in many places, fire them for being gay.
The worst people should be fired, regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.
The anti-discrimination bill was one of the bills that they didn't have the resources to follow. For a moment there, i thought that microsoft was a multi-billion doller company with huge and a vast number of signifigant influences that the corporation could use in helping this bill. My Bad.
Ballmer raises an interesting question. On the one hand, there is the principle of Adam Smith that states that through pursuing your own personal gain you are benefiting society, and on the other hand there are the people who believe that corporations should have as little to do with society as possible. Myself, I side with the former. Corporations are huge presences in our societies and should therefore be conscious of their social impact. A good corporation is as philanthropic as it is profitable.
Now look, i'm no Bush fan, but those are some strong words. Where do you get off chastising people you don't even know like that? Didn't it ever occur to you that people might disagree with you without being evil?
By the way, your dig at all Christians is really hateful and ignorant. Bush supporters don't have a monopoly on bigotry, you know.
Reverend Hutcherson is a crack-pot. He threatened Microsoft with a boycott if they didn't back down on their support. Now MS says they just didn't have the resources to support this bill. Their "support" in previous years amounted to just sending a letter of support for the bill.
Two employees of Microsoft testified in support of the bill, but not as representatives of Microsoft. Hutcherson wanted Microsoft to fire them as well. You think it's OK for someone to be fired just because of their personal views? Its nice that Microsoft declined to fire these employees, but what about the next company that caves in when threatened?
If you think this is not news, look at what is happening today, the so called "Justice Sunday", where every religious wacko out there wants to go nuclear because they don't get their way.
Wake up people!!
The ironic thing in all of this is that discrimination towards homosexuality is based on the belief it is a choice which has strong evidence against it (i.e. the fact gay rats can literally be manufactured and there is data from WWII-era German births providing a link to the same phenomena in humans). They also somehow believe people wake up one morning and say "I want to be a member of the most vocally hated minority in the US." and such.
The ironic twist is that, assuming being gay is a choice, the same arguments against gay rights based on choice also negate civil rights based on religion. You choose to be Catholic/Protestant/Jewish/etc. so why should they get protection based on that then?
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
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
My hat goes off to you -- your cynicism is awe inspiring.
I hate Microsoft's software and their business tactics, but I actually liked Ballmer's letter. He is personally in favor of diversity and will do everything possible to ensure that Microsoft is a diverse environment. But he will not use the vehicle of the Microsoft corporation to advance any particular social policy because (1) this is not appropriate and (2) because his personal views might be different than the personal views of others (employees, shareholders) with a financial stake. This is a moderate approach that I find hard to criticize.
Stop trying to justify racism.
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.
They are not real persons, and by definitions have no interests except profits.
This is considered insightful?
Firstly, there are all sorts of non-profit corporations that conduct their entire operations around, and are chartered specifically because of "social" issues. Secondly, there's no reason in the world that a coporation can't expressly get started, and attract investment, under the banner of seeking growth and profit while supporting a particular set of values. For example, defense contractors are pretty clear that they consider supporting national defense to be a worthy engagement. Or an advertising agency may be incorporated, and even publicly held, while doing things like choosing not to advertise tobacco products or market fast cars to teenagers.
Those are value judgements, not made in a vacuum, and the landscape against which those decisions are weighed is called "society."
Your trolling repetition of the lefty notion that all businesses will take a profit no matter what, with no thought to any other factor, is either insulting to the intelligence of your audience here (though some twits did mod it up), or reflects serious gullibility and lack of information on your part.
There are no corporations without the people that operate them. These are people with their own money and careers at stake, investors with things to lose, and employees with jobs at stake. No people, no corporation. No corporation, no employment of those people or worthwhile investment for grandma's 401k mutual funds, either. But those corporately chartered groups of investors and their employees can and do conduct their affairs with the whole spectrum of motivations, and societal viewpoints. Just like there are plenty of individuals who are abusive idiots (say campus-newspaper-stealing "free speech activists"), and who think that their own actions are appropriate, never mind what "society" says. There are idiots that wait tables, and idiots that sit on corporate boards. That doesn't mean that forming a corporation in any way dictates what the dozen people on a board of directors will do about steering the company's ethics.
A corporation is a legal and accounting tool, just like a will, a marriage license, a trust fund, or the charter of a student grant program. They are as they do, and you can't make sweeping general statements about what they are "by definitions," as you put it, any more than you can about what all marriages are, or all grants. Corporations are made of up people, as is society. That makes them a subset of society, and intimately bound to it.
+5 insightful. Yeesh, we have a long way to go, here, don't we.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Our government is not and should not be christian. The majority of americans may currently be of some christian denomination but, that does not negate the rights of the minority. Majority rule - minority rights.
Furthermore, most of the founding fathers were deists. Deist believe in god but reject christianity. See http://www.deism.org/foundingfathers.htm for a good overview of the religious views that the USA was founded on.
For an eye opening look at how civil rights are being eroded by christianity look here:http://www.theocracywatch.org/
Really, just try thinking for once.
Sodomy
You must think it very odd of me
That I enjoy the act of sodomy
You might call the wrath of God on me
But if you try it then you might agree
That you enjoy the act of Sodomy
Don't worry if you feel ashamed; it's been around for years
Thousands more than can be named are interested in rears
Don't worry about Hell, no harm will come to your soul
We're not all Pentecostal, but everybody's got an asshole
Let me tell ya 'bout Sodomy
You must think it very odd of me
That I enjoy the act of sodomy
You might call the wrath of God on me
But if you try it then you might agree
That you enjoy the act of Sodomy
It might just improve your sex; it's a hard act to follow
A fact that fundamentalists find difficult to swallow
So join me as I sing of an activty that's fun
Open up your ring, and try it front to bum
bum bum
bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum
Sodomy
You must think it very odd of me
That I enjoy the act of sodomy
You might call the wrath of God on me
But if you try it then you might agree
That you enjoy the act of Sodomy
SODOMY!!!
From the movie "Meet the Feebles"
"Homosexuality is a sin"
People do not wake up one morning and decide to be homosexual. It is who they are. If so, and you believe we are all made by your god, did he/she deliberately make them sinners?
"Every deviant lifestyle"
Do you mean just homosexuality? Or do you mean homosexuality, sex outside marriage, following another religion (or none)? Who decides what is "deviant"? Are, for example, S&M enthusiasts "deviant". Should they also be prosecuted for it, because someone find it offensive? I personally find christianity offensive. Does that mean all christians should be prosecuted? Your views are not the only ones in this world. Why should everyone be made to fall in line with them?
"All the changes in society will harm the USA"
. Black people gaining the same rights are whites? How did that social change harm the USA? The Sufferagette movement?
"The USA no longer values life."
This, sadly, is correct. In regard to Mrs Shivo, is lying on a bed being fed by a machine considered life? Would you say that she *HAD* to be kept alive, even if she would never progress from that state? Further more, may I add that the USA still has the death penalty, but I dont often hear arguements against it with the same "pro-life" stance.
"Old fashioned values"
. What do you mean? Slavery (condoned in the bible), torture (approved by the church on many occasions) and so forth? Do you really want to go back to that? There was a time when christianity set the laws - it was called the Dark Ages.
"the deeply held beliefs of any employee"
Just as long as that employee is a christian, no doubt.
Genocide is a Crime against Humanity. Murder is a crime, theft is a crime, rape is a crime... America sitting on its hands while scores of people across the world die is a Crime against Humanity. Prioritizing oil over the planet is a Crime against Humanity. Our inconvenience over two to three dollars a gallon, when some people can't afford a shack, nutritional food, or even some clean water could be considered a crime.
Homosexuality? About as much a crime as Heterosexuality. We all make the same mistakes, we just don't all find the same sexual partners attractive. Honestly I don't see how that's contributing to moral decline in America, unless of course you want to put all of Humanity on trial in which case self-examination becomes the utmost priority.
Calling the large portion of this country "psychotic" just because they idiologically and politically disagree with you does more damage than good to your obvious leftish agenda.
The only psychotic thing is modding this parent as insightful.
Why in the "F" word does Microsoft need to focus on legislation? What is Microsoft, a government agency? Is it the legislative branch of the U.S. government? What is this, the United States of Microsoft? I can almost see it now:
Yeah, I think this is exactly the direction Microsoft would pursue if they could. 1984. Bill Gates is watching you.I'm an American and proud of what this country SHOULD be. I am ashamed of what this country has become. Honestly, have you ever considered that the majority of people in power are whores to corporate interests.
Actually that's a very nasty thing to say so I'll apologize. Most prostitutes don't deserve to be lumped together with the political low lives in Washington DC.
I don't think the poster meant to tear down all Christians only the far right zealots that have perverted our political process. They have embarked on a campaign of lies and half truths. They spin their religious beliefs into the political system in an attempt to paint anyone who does not share their set of values into Godless scum that have no values themselves.
The fact is that the reason you're beginning to hear the kind of statements that you objected to is because the far right is guilty of EXACTLY what you are complaining about.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Point of order: You don't have to be a "lefty" to hate Bush and all he stands for.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
I'm paraphrasing (and not very eloquently) a passage I read by Andrew Sullivan but can't locate for the life of me. He was traveling with a woman who remarked that she didn't have a problem with gay people as long as they didn't talk about it and kept their private lives to themselves. He responded, "But you talk about your private life all the time. Why should gay people not be allowed to?" When she said that she had not talked about her private life, he said, "In the past 5 minutes, I learned that you have a husband, that you're on your way to pick up your kids to take them to sports practice, during which you will visit your husband's sister."
His point is obvious, that in casual conversation with other people, even those we don't know on a friend or acquaintance level, we drop lots of details about our personal life. This is no different in the work place. For example, while I never discussed details of home life with my coworkers in my current job, or my previous job, I knew if they were married, or had significant others, if they had children, the general ages of their children, what they did over the weekend, where they went on vacation, etc.
If you're queer, you can't take part in those conversations unless you are prepared for people to know that you are queer. Think about how many times in a given week you talk about your spouse, significant other, and some of your plans for the evening (i.e. going out to a movie, dinner, etc) in casual conversation. Now, imagine censoring that all into the most bland conversation possible. That's the situation with a queer person.
So, yes, while your sexuality isn't something immediately noticable, such as ethnicity, it is something that takes quite a bit of effort to completely conceal.
You also ignore the fact that chance meetings occur outside the workplace, and if you think rumors don't fly, then you're completely naive. So, consider that when you're on a date with someone, you can't hold hands, walk closely, or share a quick kiss for the fear of being discovered by someone you know or knows someone you know at work.
You, and others, seem to be under the false impression that these laws are going to allow queer people to makeout in the copy room with no job-related repercussions. Straight people can't engage in such behavior, why should queers? These laws are supposed to allow queer people to have some sort of normal social interaction with co-workers and with their partners without the suffocating fear of discovery.
Humorless sig goes here.
Saying that he called the people psychotic merely because of a disagreement is clearly misrepresenting his point of view. If you read what he said, he called those people psychotic for having what he saw as "megalomania, religious flagwaving egotism, and the 'membership' into the 'Big Fat Christian Gun-Toting Whiteman kicks the Worlds Ass' Society" as a source of pride. If you disagree, that's fine, argue away, but it's unethical to misrepresent his views.
And here you actually do call people psychotic over a disagreement (about how the post should be moderated), rather than a personality trait of the person in question.
And it's just as likely for a well-behaved Christian to get fired if their liberal, bigoted boss finds out what they've been doing on their own time. What's your point?
The difference is that federal law prohibits discrimination of this nature.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
And it's just as likely for a well-behaved Christian to get fired if their liberal, bigoted boss finds out what they've been doing on their own time. What's your point?
The point is the above is already illegal while firing someone for begin gay is not (my assumption based on the legislation). The point of the legislation is to extend anti-discrimination laws to also protect gays. Currently descrimination based on sex, race, religion, is already illegal. They are tring to add sexual orientation to the list of things you cannot legally discriminate for.
I guess I support this legislation as you shouldn't be able to discriminate for this, but what is up with having a list of things you cannot discriminate against? Doesn't having such a list of things basically imply it is legal to discriminate as long as the thing you want to discriminate against isn't on the list?
I guess without this list some jack-ass lawyers could bring lawsuits against a company who fires someone for stealing from the company as that would be discriminating against thieves. However, if we are supposed to be such a free and open society (and as much as we like to say such things we really aren't compared with other places) wouldn't it make more sense to create a list of things you can discriminate against and anything that isn't on that list is illegal. If there are things which can be used as a basis for discrimination legally at least the politicians should have to list them and answer for that instead of just listing a few things which the majority agree with as illegal.
"Sarcasam"
Off topic but I'd also like to congratulate all fellow catholics on the choice of the new pope. Comforting to know the in-fallible direct link to god says its a sin to use condoms even in Africa for the purpose of preventing the spread of AIDS.
"End Sarcasam"
Whenever I hear idiots like our new pope say such things (or say being gay is a sin), I just roll my eyes and smile. I've long ago given up the idea of almost any major religion having anything to do with spiritualality. Its just a group of bigots trying to spread thier views. OK, a bit harsh and probably a bit out of line, but for all the good things most mainstream religions have as core beliefs its seems almost all of them have been corrupted by thier leaders over time. If you really want to be "religious" take the time to actually study all major religious texts (bible, koran, tora, etc) and come to your own decisions. Believing any one human is infallible and speaks for any god is a recipe for disaster and has been proven so throughout history.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
It's not nearly as simple as an employer missing out on a good worker due to stupidity, it's entire groups of good workers kept from work for unfair reasons.
Ideological issues aside, the problem with work-related discrimination due to societal bias is that it reinforces the relegation of whatever group to second-class citizens through what amounts to financial embargoes.
On a fundamental level, the effect of such discrimination on a populace can lead to broad social problems, such as increased crime, homelessness, health care for those without coverage*, and general discontent. This has a more detrimental effect than regular unemployment since it creates a divide between those allowed success and those denied it due to arbitrary reasons, polarizing society and leading to such things as gangs and race riots.
Of course, it's slightly different when it comes to gender- and sexuality-based discrimination, but the the more subtle issues of increased suicide rates, poverty among single-parent families, and marginalization similarly reduce general quality-of-life in this country and create the need for costly government support programs.
I've always found this really quite simple to understand, and while I realize that government regulation is a far from perfect way to enforce equality, there is little else that can be done in the short term to solve these problems.
* Whatever opinion one may have of government-funded health care, emergency services are required to help patient regardless of their ability to pay. When large amounts of people do not have employer-supplied health coverage, this is a large tax drain
[insert witty quote here]