Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Reverses Stand on Discrimination Bill

sriram_2001 writes "Bowing to intense pressure both from outside as well as its employees, Microsoft has reversed its stand on the anti-discrimination bill. In a company wide email, Steve Ballmer says that though the Washington legislative session is over for the year, they'll support any such legislation in the future. However, he adds that they'll be supporting it in the US only as they don't want to involve the company in debates in countries with different cultures and value systems. He also says that he doesn't think Microsoft should be involved in most public policy issues." Announcement about the email's release on the Scobleizer main site.

15 of 374 comments (clear)

  1. It's not Perversion... by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Insightful
    He also says that he doesn't think Microsoft should be involved in most public policy issues."

    Only those which involve guaranteeing a continual source of piles of money large enough to roll around naked in.

    i wonder where they stand on evolution/creation regarding monkey-man Ballmer...

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  2. Uh... y'know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm bisexual, and I hate Microsoft.

    But... frankly I just can't get myself to care about this particular issue. At all. We don't exactly *need* Microsoft's support. As long as they're not actually holding a stance *against* the discrimination bill, and they are using nondiscriminatory hiring practices themselves, I think that's just fine. Those that are not against us are for us (in this case more than many others). Honestly my response when Microsoft dropped their support of the bill was "well, it was awfully nice of them to support it up until the point where they stopped". Now, well, I'm not expecting Microsoft to take any action one way or the other on this bill, but it's nice of them that they will anyway.

    There's plenty of companies who aren't taking a stand on this discrimination bill without anyone noticing; there's plenty of reasons to dislike Microsoft and their business practices without having to drag in minutiae of the actions of their lobbyists. Let it go.

    1. Re:Uh... y'know by smagruder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's easy! It's far easier to admit one is gay today than to admit one loves the criminal monopolist. In fact, it's also easier to be out as a gay person than admit one is an atheist, a liberal, or even suggest one has a much higher than normal IQ. Being gay is all the rage, dude. I hear the orientation-warming gifts are outta this world.

      --
      Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
    2. Re:Uh... y'know by mdielmann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Moreover, it's not exactly like their support is wholehearted. "We supported the bill until some people complained, then we stopped. And we support it now because even more people complained when we stopped supporting it. And damned if we're going to get in this mess anywhere else" So, no matter where you stand on this issue, MS is just trying to please the most vocal group. Kudos to those who swayed MS, you've done well at your task. But increase my respect for MS? Not likely.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  3. sounds reasonable.. by hyfe · · Score: 3, Insightful
    that sounds like a reasonable stance..

    .. although I must admit I find the notion of allowing discrimination in the first place abhorrent, and it goes to show how different the different meanings of 'freedom' are

    Freedom to oppress, or freedom from oppression?

    --
    "" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
  4. Day Late/Dollar Short: Pandering by DaveM753 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The State's legislative session is over for the year. Now that it no longer makes a difference, Microsoft switches back the high road as a P.R. move. Terrific. And all the press will praise Microsoft for their generosity, and the sheeple will love them again.

    Blah.

  5. Comes with the territory by SuperBigGulp · · Score: 3, Insightful
    He also says that he doesn't think Microsoft should be involved in most public policy issues.

    Sorry Steve, but social responsibility is part of running a business. This is especially true for monopolies. Also interesting that they are willing to stake out the moral ground when it comes to intellectual property and freedom to innovate, but lack courage/conviction when it comes to other issues.

    --
    Someday a Slashdot ID of 177180 will mean something.
  6. Now they officially suck by Little+Pink+Bunny · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It was good when they originally supported the legislation. Although I disliked it for various reasons, I congratulated them for taking a seemingly well defended stance on a human interest issue.

    It was also OK when they changed their minds. Reassessing your position and deciding that a given battle isn't your place is commendable, and I could appreciate that.

    Now, though, they just plain suck. "Really, folks, even though it's too late to get this one bill passed, we'll sure lobby for the next one that comes along! Unless we don't! But never mind that; for now we can say that you have our full support without facing any of the consequences of doing so!"

    What a horridly cynical, insulting position to take. Were I gay, I think I'd be far more furious at this latest flip-flop than at their earlier decision not to support it. At worst, that move just looked cowardly. This one appears flat-out manipulative.

    --
    I am a
  7. Different value systems by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    [Ballmer] adds that they'll be supporting it in the US only as they don't want to involve the company in debates in countries with different cultures and value systems.

    What about countries whose culture and value systems don't give any consideration to "intellectual" "property"? Will MS refrain from involvement in that debate too?

    --
    My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
  8. Re:Better late than never [N/T] by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful
    No, it's not. Better never than insincere:

    To gays: You have our support!
    From opposition groups: Hey, you're a business, not a charity! Stick to business-related stuff!
    To the world, loudly: Oops! Changed our mind. We're a business, not a charity.
    To gays, quietly: ...until next time, but we'll be sure to support you then, honest!

    I'd be hard-pressed to imagine a more two-faced reaction to the whole episode. You can't just support something whenever it's popular; either be for it, or against it, or stay out of the discussion altogether.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  9. Re:Before it gets Slashdotted... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't believe MS is evil, any more. They were once upon a time, but I think that something's fundamentally changed over there.

    A serial killer who one day decides to donate blood ... is still a serial killer.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  10. Re:Could someone please explain? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The short version is, if you discriminate against members of group X, you cut yourself off from the contributions which potentially valuable members of group X can make. It doesn't matter, particularly, what group X is -- if you discriminate against blacks, or Jews, or homosexuals, or any other large identifiable group of people, you can be damn sure that there are at least some people in that group who would otherwise be happy to work for you and would do a very, very good job. You're limiting the talent pool.

    At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I invite you to consider how differently WW2 might have turned out if Germany hadn't forced all of its Jewish scientists into exile (those who were perceptive enough to see which way the wind was blowing and get out while they still could, I mean.) An awful lot of them ended up working for the US government on a little project in New Mexico.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  11. Re:So is microsoft not evil by jacksdl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You want bizarre? Wait 'til the fundamentalists who pressured Microsoft decide to publicly endorse OSS as retaliation.

    As Jascha Heifetz said, "No matter what side of an argument you're on, you always find some people on your side that wish you were on the other side."

  12. Re:Official Email Location by Saige · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've said it elsewhere, but I'll say it again.

    This does directly impact Microsoft.

    Microsoft values diversity in its hiring practices for various reasons. They WANT a variety of people working here. This helps to attract great talent.

    However, the people that work at Microsoft also have to live in the surrounding communities. And while employees won't have to face discrimination at work, if they have to deal with it when going about the rest of their lives, it will negatively impact their desire to work in such a place. It doesn't matter if you can work at MS if you're getting denied for housing, or your partner is unable to find a job.

    So from a perspective of finding the best employees, this is related to business.

    --
    "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
  13. Re:Yeah, but when Microsoft was evil..... by revscat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How about more coding, less bitching about how Microsoft feels about what should be someone's personal business. I'm no fan of bigotry, but a corporate workplace is not the place for email storms of this nature.

    Why the hell not? If my company can take a stand for righteousness, then I will by all means encourage them to do so by all means available to me, and applaud all who do so. Business is about making money, but not exclusively. Business can affect social policy, both for the positive and the negative. If Microsoft can do something to make the world a more judicial place, then so much the better.

    As a "Mac zealot", I unhesitatingly say "good job, Microsoft." The more people who stand up to those extreme right-wing theocrats the better.