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.

Comments

Before it gets Slashdotted...

[TripMaster Monkey]

Here's the full text of the email (with the spacing errors corrected).

Microsoft's principles for public policy engagement


During the past two weeks I've heard from many of you with a wide range of views on the recent anti-discrimination bill in Washington State, and the larger issue of what is the appropriate role of a public corporation in public policy discussions. This input has reminded me again of what makes our company unique and why I care about it so much.

One point really stood out in all the emails 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.

I don't want to rehash the events that resulted in Microsoft taking a neutral position on the anti-discrimination bill in Washington State. There was a lot of confusion and miscommunication, and we are taking steps to improve our processes going forward.

To me, this situation underscores the importance of having clearly-defined principles on which we base our actions. It all boils down to trust. Even when people disagree with something that we do, they need to have confidence that we based our action on thoughtful principles, because that is how we run our business.

I said in my April 22 email that we were wrestling with the question of how and when the company should engage on issues that go beyond the software industry. After thinking about this for the past two weeks, I want to share my decision with you and lay out the principles that will guide us going forward.

First and foremost, we will continue to focus our public policy activities on issues that most directly affect our business, such as Internet safety, intellectual property rights, free trade, digital inclusion and a healthy business climate.

After looking at the question from all sides, I've concluded that diversity in the workplace is such an important issue for our business that it should be included in our legislative agenda. Since our beginning nearly 30 years ago, Microsoft has had a strong business interest in recruiting and retaining the best and brightest and most diverse workforce possible. I'm proud of Microsoft's commitment to non-discrimination in our internal policies and benefits, but our policies can't cover the range of housing, education, financial and similar services that our people and their partners and families need. Therefore, it's appropriate for the company to support legislation that will promote and protect diversity in the workplace.

Accordingly, Microsoft will continue to join other leading companies in supporting federal legislation that would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation -adding sexual orientation to the existing law that already covers race, sex, national origin, religion, age and disability. Given the importance of diversity to our business, it is appropriate for the company to endorse legislation that prohibits employment discrimination on all of these grounds. Obviously, the Washington State legislative session has concluded for this year, but if legislation similar to HB 1515 is introduced in future sessions, we will support it.

I also want to be clear about some limits to this approach. Many other countries have different political traditions for public advocacy by corporations, and I'm not prepared to involve the company in debates outside the US in such circumstances. And, based on the principles I've just outlined, the company should not and will not take a position on most other public policy issues, either in the US or internationally.

I respect that there will be different viewpoints. But as CEO, I am doing what I believe is right for our company as a whole.

This situation has also made me stop and think about h

Re:Before it gets Slashdotted...

[PopeAlien]

Even that psycho Ballmer is, I think, starting to see the light of sanity.

I dont think that comment is very respectful to the personal values or religious beliefs of the insane.

Re:Before it gets Slashdotted...

[flyingsquid]

Who will be the first slashdotter to suspect evil?

Total global domination means dominating allpeople, not just those of similar race, religion and sexual preference. They're equal opportunity evil.

Plus, if you want to rule the world you've got to be pragmatic about it. I mean, if I'm an evil genius and I've got a scientist who is integral to my plans, I'm not gonna be like "Whoa, Doctor Cyclops, as much as I respect the work you've done in perfecting the Orbital Neutron Death Ray, we here at SPECTOR just feel that your homosexuality sends the wrong message about our values as an evil conspiracy out to destroy the world. Take your mad scientist skills elsewhere." Good help is hard to find.

So is microsoft not evil

[JahToasted]

And google is evil now? It's like bizaro slashdot.

Official Email Location

[Saige]

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.

Re:Official Email Location

[Saige]

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.

Apolitical Stance (but only when convenient)

[ewhac]

He also says that he doesn't think Microsoft should be involved in most public policy issues.

"...Unless the public policy in question is copyright or anti-trust law. Then we're all over it."

Schwab

Uh... y'know

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Uh... y'know

[smagruder]

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.

Microsoft PR Algorithm

[forsythe450]

if (num_windows_users(gay_activists) > num_windows_users(christian_right)) {

retract_statement = true;

}

Day Late/Dollar Short: Pandering

[DaveM753]

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.

Now they officially suck

[Little Pink Bunny]

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.

Different value systems

[Vainglorious Coward]

[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?

Could someone please explain?

[DavyByrne]

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.

Re:Could someone please explain?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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.

Wait, is this still Bush's America?

[ianscot]

He also says that he doesn't think Microsoft should be involved in most public policy issues.

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...)