Citing the importance of diversity in the workplace, Microsoft has reversed its decision to take a neutral stand on the anti-discrimination bill that failed by just one vote in Washington state and will now actively support it again. Microsoft’s CEO Steve Ballmer explained:
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.
Among the criticism Microsoft had received for its withdrawal of support of the legislation was to have Lorri L. Jean, CEO of the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center, ask them to return a civil rights award they had given the company four years ago. They have since announced they’d like Microsoft to keep it.
The fundamentalist preacher taking credit for cowering Microsoft into their withdrawal in the first place, former football player Ken Hutcherson, got a fair bit of media attention for it and seemed to be quite proud of himself:
Take the reasoning behind his threat to organize a national boycott of Microsoft products if the company didn’t withdraw its support of state legislation banning discrimination against gays and lesbians: "They tried to make their policy my policy," he said. "(I told them) that gave me the right to step out of my world into theirs and they wouldn’t like it."
I await his response to today’s news eagerly.
I give all outside credit to Americablog. The press seemed to care less.
I assume the internal pressure was strongest and was aided by the gay group(I forget their name but I’m sure it included LGB somewhere) taking back their award from a few years ago.
Good, but darn.
I was gonna use MS’ stupid policy as an excuse to leave the PC world for the Mac world.
I hope someone can answer this, because I haven’t seen it in the news reports: is the bill up for a vote again soon? I ask because it seems relatively safe for Ballmer to reverse his position now that the vote has already happened.
However, since everyone seems happy about this, I assume this reversal might actually have a positive legislative effect. Is that right?
Meanwhile, in Texas:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/crossfire_/247255.html?view=898007#t898007
Yes, this is good. But Ballmer seems to be on the run, or at least pinballing from Edward to Hutcherson to Norquist to Buffett looking for the main score.
Businesses are pragmatic. Businesses have no values, except the dollar value. Which is fine, as Milton Friedman might say. Therefore, they should not be treated legally as individuals and should have no standing in government. AbramaOFF them.
small pedantry–
I don’t think you can use “cower” as a transitive/causative verb. Microsoft cowered, and the minister made them cower, but the minister didn’t cower them. Maybe you’re thinking he “cowed” them?
Anyhow–I’m *very* glad they rejoined the civilized world.
Businesses are pragmatic. Businesses have no values, except the dollar value. Which is fine, as Milton Friedman might say. Therefore, they should not be treated legally as individuals and should have no standing in government.
Well, first of all, businesses do have values. I can assure you that the business I work for has often turned away clients for values-based reasons, and gladly let them use our competitors.
And whether your second part is correct is contingent on whether you believe that a) individuals who have no values also should have no standing in government, and b) no collective group of people — say, labor unions or the disabled or veterans — should have standing in the government. Or is the offering of goods and services in exchange for money the sole ignoble value in your universe?
That said, I’m glad that Microsoft is standing up to the religious bullies. Good for them. But I’m a little nonplussed by Ballmer’s offered reasoning: ” . . . 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 . . . ” If you can’t afford to cover it all now, you won’t be able to after nondiscrimination legislation is passed, either. What he’s saying is that he wants the government to give more people a space at the public-tax-dollar trough. Which is fine, but he should just say it.
That’s a great speech that Catsy linked to, by the way. More people should have the gonads to say things like that in public to these people.
I don’t think you can use “cower” as a transitive/causative verb.
Hmmm…what would be the word I meant?
Edward–
I’m guessing that it was “cowed” you had in mind; he cowed Microsoft into their withdrawal.
But I could be wrong about all of this.
Phil, you are right. I generalized from the particular, and therefore retract my ill-considered statement.
“Or is the offering of goods and services in exchange for money the sole ignoble value in your universe?”
No, not at all. Nothing ignoble about it; that is your word, but I get the point. Can we agree, though, that nearly all noble and ignoble value decisions and choices made by businesses are understandably made with a reptilian eye toward advancing the exchange you mentioned. Which is fine by me, as I mentioned. The word “reptilian” is not meant disparagingly. That’s the way it is; for reptiles and business people. Without the reptilian self-interested eye, most businesses would not survive. And I realize good works would not be done without the exchange happening first.
I think Milton Friedman (not you) would generalize and say the exchange is the only thing businesses should be doing, and all else is an impediment to that goal, ie. health insurance, etc. Thing is, he wouldn’t allow government to do these things, either. Which is another discussion where I will generalize and rightly be called on it.
Hello, wake up folks. The legislature in Wa state, which was the catalyst for MSFT’s public relations problem adjourned last month. They’ve given all of you a hand job.
Moe:
“They” being whom? Microsoft or the legislature? Probably both, in which case we received a Moeslap all around.
But my outrage? What to do with it now. I’ll use it on the next thread. 😉
Funny, one might say that before they were taking a stand and they have now been cowed.
But, I digress. I thought Microsoft was a bunch of cowards.
Looks like Microsoft has been subject to blackmail… just not by who was originally accussed of doing it.
Yes, you are either with me or against me. I guess that philosophy is acceptable depending on which side of the fence you are on.
That philosophy is perfectly acceptable to me, Tinker, but implying that it is acceptable to all liberals or conservatives is a generalization, which is O.K. by me, too, but not to others.
I think whatever game is being played ought to be played with equal vigor by those on either side of the fence. Unless you want to change the game just as I was getting into it.
John, Good point that both the WA legislature and MSFT were able to renege. Keep in mind that this would have been the legislative session to pass the bill. With the state representatives all chained to two year terms, the practice in WA state is to pass the budget the first year and all controversial legislation as well b/c the hope is that voters will have a year to forget it before they run for their seats again. The legislature will not pass it next year b/c that is an election year. Thus MSFT has put off swallowing the bullet for at least another 2 years or more if one of the houses of the WA legislature goes R, which is always a possiblity here.