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.
Here's the full text of the email (with the spacing errors corrected).
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
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
And google is evil now? It's like bizaro slashdot.
In case anyone wants full confirmation, the email is also located on Microsoft's web site.
It's a good day for some of us Microsofties that were really upset at what happened.
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
"...Unless the public policy in question is copyright or anti-trust law. Then we're all over it."
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
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.
Freedom to oppress, or freedom from oppression?
"" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
retract_statement = true;
}
Did you ride the short bus? http://sh.ortb.us
"He also says that he doesn't think Microsoft should be involved in most public policy issues"
Microsoft (or any other corporation) shouldn't be involved in ANY public policy issues, that's what elected representatives are for.
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.
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.
So, if you have a country where "the different value system" endorses stuff like cutting off a girl's clitoris and sewing her vagina shut to ensure her virginity at marriage, Microsoft won't have a problem with that, because, well, it's a "different value system" and Microsoft doesn't want to get involved, and it might cost them some money.
China has a "different value system" that endorses the use of slave labor and politcal gulags. For that matter, Buchenwald was the result of a "different value system". Where does it end?
I think they picked the worst of two possible choices -- endorsing a squishy moral relativism in the name of cultural diversity that only serves to justify barbaric behavior, and it's all been done in the name of profits.
Maybe Bill should have stayed at Harvard and gotten a little better education.
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
[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
It's not just a "feel good campaign". It does affect the company - MS has lost employees over this, and had possible employees turn down offers and even change their minds on previously accepted offers. And that doesn't even take into account business lost because of the decision.
Attracting and retaining talent is very important - which is one of the reasons for the pro-diversity attitide inside the company. They've realized that supporting things inside isn't enough when people also have to live in areas where they may not find the same attitude toward diversity. No matter how accepting MS may be of gay employees, if that employee can't find housing because of being discriminated against, they're not going to work at MS. This helps support that goal.
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
To gays: You have our support! ...until next time, but we'll be sure to support you then, honest!
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:
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?
One point really stood out in all the e-mails you sent me. Regardless of where people came down on the issues, everyone expressed strong support for the company's commitment to diversity. To me, that's so critical. Our success depends on having a workforce that is as diverse as our customers - and on working together in a way that taps all of that diversity.
How does sexual-orientational diversity help a software company to produce better software? How exactly does Microsoft's success depend on such diversity? If any sort of diversity is relevant, wouldn't it be techincal diversity, or diversity of technical experience among its developers?
I mean this as a serious inquiry. For many years people have fought long and hard to show that someone should not be discriminated against because of his sexual orientation (or race, or other criteria irrelevant to a particular job). The country has made great strides against such discrimination. It seems that many of the same people who fought against discrimination are now saying that such criteria are not only relevant but are actually important to a company's success.
I don't get it. Someone please explain.
When did our enormous corporations decide they shouldn't be the only voice at the table in our government? I must've missed the memo. (Maybe that one got sent during the formulation of our energy policy, so Cheney thought it was a protected secret of the Executive Branch? Oops, that memo can't have come from those meetings...)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
...should turn off any gay man (or straight woman for that matter).
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
It's not usually the policy of a company, but now they've gone and gotten involved, so it's too late, they can't withdraw support without looking like they support the other side, because people are dumb as rocks.
-Jesse
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
Take a look at their political donatations:
http://buyblue.org/detail.php?corpId=143
They give a lot, to both parties, but mostly to the Republicans.
And anyway, aren't the bigots exactly the people you WANT to discriminate against? From what I've heard, it's a hell of a lot easier to stop being an asshole than to stop being gay.
On the other hand, I'm not gay but I am an asshole. Haven't been able to stop yet.
Yeah, I really hate the endless grinding for experience points in trying to get to the next level in Microsoft. But I hear that once you hit level 60, you can gain the power "Mastery of Monopoly" which makes the spells you cast against startup companies do double damage, and reduces the damage from attacks by the Department of Justice. Combined with the Orb of Marketshare, you're virtually invincible.
Reading about this radical conservative preacher putting pressure on M$ was making me sick. In fact, I'm sick of ALL these religious nut jobs in our country trying to steamroll their fucking agenda everywhere we look. Last time I checked, we weren't living in a theocracy.
Gates and Co. should have told this idiot to take his Bible and shove it up is arse. If religious zealots don't like gay people, then don't engage in homosexual activities and leave everyone else alone.
See the horrible fate that befalls someone foolish enough to break the chain letter?!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
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.