Microsoft Reverses Stand on Discrimination Bill 374
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.
Before it gets Slashdotted... (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the full text of the email (with the spacing errors corrected).
Re:Before it gets Slashdotted... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Before it gets Slashdotted... (Score:5, Funny)
I dont think that comment is very respectful to the personal values or religious beliefs of the insane.
Re:Before it gets Slashdotted... (Score:4, Insightful)
A serial killer who one day decides to donate blood
Re:Yeah, but when Microsoft was evil..... (Score:4, 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.
Re:Before it gets Slashdotted... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Before it gets Slashdotted... (Score:2)
ie. It look perfect on IE
e-i-e-i-o
Re:Before it gets Slashdotted... (Score:2)
Re:Before it gets Slashdotted... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Before it gets Slashdotted... (Score:2)
Y'know, I've always had my suspicions about those Bond Villains. All that cat stroking... And the tight yellow jumpsuits... the prosthetics... Damn, it's all so clear to me now!!
Re:Before it gets Slashdotted... (Score:2)
As you know, we don't like mistakes.
So, die.
*shoots*
Re:Before it gets Slashdotted... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not Perversion... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [jokaroo.com]...
Re:It's not Perversion... (Score:2)
that sounds a little.. uh.. gay
So is microsoft not evil (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So is microsoft not evil (Score:4, Informative)
No one is all evil, not even John Travolta.
Re:So is microsoft not evil (Score:2)
Re:So is microsoft not evil (Score:4, Funny)
How about Tom Cruise? Isn't he all evil?
Examples:
-dances in underwear
-even at 40 still looks as cute as he was at 20
-dumped Kidman
-shagged Cruse
-about to shag Holmes
I'm sorry it's offtopic, but I think the question does have some merrits for discussion. (Even Tripmaster Monkey would agree to that!)
Re:So is microsoft not evil (Score:3, Informative)
So is the chick from King of Queens, and the nekkid chick from JAG. And let's not forget our favorite fatty, no not Rosie O'Donnel, but Kristie Alley.
Here's a heads up to aspiring OTVIIs:
The pilot mocked it all up!!!!
Re:So is microsoft not evil (Score:3, Insightful)
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."
Re:So is microsoft not evil (Score:2)
For every combination of opinions you can think of, there's probably someone who holds it. Even the bizarre ones --- I've heard of atheistic Episcopal priests before. How that one works I've no idea.
Re:So is microsoft not evil (Score:2)
Official Email Location (Score:5, Informative)
It's a good day for some of us Microsofties that were really upset at what happened.
Re:Official Email Location (Score:2)
As to it being a good day, I suppose so.....about as good as when Coca-Cola announced Coke Classic after the universally-reviled New Formula (yes, I'm dating myself here).
Actually, the similarities are a bit eerie, don't you think?
Re:Official Email Location (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Official Email Location (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Official Email Location (Score:2)
Re:Official Email Location (Score:2)
Yeah, like he's the only auto-sexual around here. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Re:Official Email Location (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Official Email Location (Score:2)
Re:Official Email Location (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Official Email Location (Score:3, Informative)
Apolitical Stance (but only when convenient) (Score:5, Funny)
"...Unless the public policy in question is copyright or anti-trust law. Then we're all over it."
Schwab
Re:Apolitical Stance (but only when convenient) (Score:2)
Uh... y'know (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Makes me wonder- which would be easier to admit on this forum: loving someone of the same sex, or loving Microsoft?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh... y'know (Score:2)
Companies, businesses etc. should not be involved in any political arena unless it's directly or indirectly involving of their business products, laws regarding their products (IP, etc.) and such.
Businesses that get involved in moral/controvercial issues with the general public, whether local or nationwide, in my opinion, is just wrong and innappropriate.
=) Businesses are in the market to make money, build products and support th
Re:Uh... y'know (Score:2)
This issue can be argued to affect Microsoft's bottom line in a number of ways. The most important one is that when people are discriminated against for reasons which have nothing to do with how well they can do their job, it prevents them from getting experience in their chosen technical field. This applies to
Re:Uh... y'know (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Uh... y'know (Score:2)
Re:Uh... y'know (Score:3, Funny)
If you're a chick, I really want to meet you.
LK
Re:Uh... y'know (Score:2, Interesting)
Funny how such activity is considered evil -- until it's for a popular cause.
Re:Uh... y'know (Score:2)
There is a difference between not getting involved in the first place and supporting something and then pulling out when the big black preacher declares war on your ass.
Re:Uh... y'know (Score:2)
sounds reasonable.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom to oppress, or freedom from oppression?
Re:sounds reasonable.. (Score:2)
Re:sounds reasonable.. (Score:2)
That view might have been somewhat accurate in the fourteenth century, but in case you haven't noticed, things have changed a lot. Men and women get married for all kinds of reasons besides kids. Companionship, love, sex, money, legal benefits, because th
Re:sounds reasonable.. (Score:4, Informative)
You apparently think this is a clever jest -- but actually, historically this is correct; fertility was a necessary condition for a sacramental marriage union.
Allowing nonfertile heterosexual couples to wed was, indeed, the first true break with the original Christian theological concept of marriage. Homosexual weddings are just a difference of degree rather than kind.
The non-theological historical purpose of marriage, of course, was to unify economic interests. In that it can be regarded as the precursor to the limited liability partnership for commercial scale ventures, and to a properly enforced will for personal property.
Re:sounds reasonable.. (Score:2)
Having read a history of Christian marriage law (among others) in Europe, I'm wondering where you got your information. I've never seen a reference to fertility being necessary requirement for marriage. Hell, you couldn't tell who was infertile really until this century.
Re:sounds reasonable.. (Score:2)
So says GOD_ALMIGHTY himself. Down here on earth, we created seven of 'em, just to bring you up to date. They are:
Slashcode, in its infinite wisdom, has decided there is one more unnamed one, and can't be educated otherwise.
Re:sounds reasonable.. (Score:2)
Re:sounds reasonable.. (Score:2)
Secondly, impotence, the inability to have sex, rather than infertility was a barrier to having a marriage approved by the Church. That comes directly from 1000 year old
Would you mind if.... (Score:2)
I think most gay rights activists would be perfectly happy if the government only granted civil unions, for straight or gay couples, and left marraige to the church.
Re:Would you mind if.... (Score:2)
I predict that, as a heterosexual male currently engaged, you are gonna have your nookie priveleges revoked for a while if your fiancee reads that statement...
Re:sounds reasonable.. (Score:2)
do 2 apes get married before they have kids? no. do all heterosexual couples get married to have kids? no. i find this funny in the context of the story about the debate in kansas between scientists and creationists.
family has nothing to do with a man, a woman, and a child. family has to do with people who love each other. apparently you haven't
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft PR Algorithm (Score:5, Funny)
retract_statement = true;
}
Corporations and public policy (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft (or any other corporation) shouldn't be involved in ANY public policy issues, that's what elected representatives are for.
Re:Corporations and public policy (Score:2)
Re:Corporations and public policy (Score:2)
Saying that no coproration should have any influence or opinion on any matters of public policy is just ludicrous.
Companies shouldn't make political statements (Score:2)
Re:Companies shouldn't make political statements (Score:3, Insightful)
-Jesse
Re:Companies shouldn't make political statements (Score:2)
In the US, a company that takes a political position risks a boycott that will continue on for years and years.
Such a decision would use a company to further the political ends of the corporate leadership at the expense of squandering the investment of the shareholders.
Therefore it is considered unethical for a publicly traded company to make political statements unless there is a clear benefit to the company.
In this case, Microsoft has a
Day Late/Dollar Short: Pandering (Score:4, Insightful)
Blah.
Comes with the territory (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
No it doesn't. (Score:2)
The same goes for about ever
"In countries with different value systems" (Score:2, Interesting)
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".
Now they officially suck (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (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?
Shouldn't this be a double negative? (Score:2)
Microsoft is reverseing the reversal of their pro-gay rights policy.
No wonder (Score:2)
I am wondering who typed this up, I mean how many words can you type together without noticing any typos?
Reverse? Or corrected? (Score:2)
Then we got an article about how they reversed their stand and were ... they weren't OPPOSING it, but they were no longer supporting it.
Now they've reversed again.
Who cares? I thought the goal was to divorce corporate sponsorship from legislation? Or do we only want that when we find the legislation in question to be deplorable.
Could someone please explain? (Score:4, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Could someone please explain? (Score:2)
Well, right; that much is fairly self-evident. I think what he's asking, though, is what the advantage is to creating an artificially diverse workplace.
For example, I live in an overwhelmingly (greater than 98%) white city. Would there be any reason my boss should go out of his way to find and hire an unrepresentatively diverse workfo
Re:Could someone please explain? (Score:2, Funny)
For example, I live in an overwhelmingly (greater than 98%) white city. Would there be any reason my boss should go out of his way to find and hire an unrepresentatively diverse workforce?
No, that's not what anyone is trying to say. It would be nice, though, if the right person for the job does turn out to be a little off-kilter, if we as a society hadn'
Re:Could someone please explain? (Score:2)
Or consider the benefits to computer science if the UK hadn't prosecuted Alan Turing for his homosexuality, with the result that h
Re:Could someone please explain? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Could someone please explain? (Score:3, Insightful)
Gee, I don't know. Do you think maybe we'd have seen some more interesting work from Alan Turing [wikipedia.org] if he hadn't been driven to suicide by a homophobic government?
A healthy society cannot afford to waste its intellectual resources in this manner. Turing's case is a good example of how discrimination harms everybody, even those of us who aren't members of the targeted community or subculture.
Wait, is this still Bush's America? (Score:5, Funny)
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...)
The term "micro soft"... (Score:4, Funny)
Not involved, you say? (Score:4, Informative)
http://buyblue.org/detail.php?corpId=143 [buyblue.org]
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.
Re:kinda reminds me of a discussion (Score:2)
Another prominent republican lea
From the message... (Score:2, Troll)
So... uh... I gotta ask Steve, why such a big interest in *this* issue? Just cause it's a feel-good policy to support?
If anything, people should be judged on merit alone, not skin color, not race, not religion. I'd expect a Christian like myself to work on Sunday (10 commandments are Jewish law, in case you forgot) if I needed them to
Re:From the message... (Score:2)
Support for Bills (Score:2)
More than likely Microsoft supported the initial bill because it fit within their social agenda and contained provisions that Microsoft either found beneficial for business or found to be "the right thing." In the process of going through the legislature, the bill changed. Perhaps addditional clauses were appended to it, removed from it, or the docu
Next corporate memo: (Score:2)
Other Issues
Now that we have that gay issue out of the way I know there are some other public statements we have made recently that need our attention is this crazy new blog world we live in. With more than half the company now spending their days taking pot-shots at their employer (me) either openly or anonymously there is almost no "right" way for us to come down on any issue. Take for example Bill's recently statements on immigration, public education and so on. We are setting Bill up with his ow
Talk about trying to have it both ways... (Score:2)
If it's the right thing, then its the right thing everywhere at every time. If it's not the right thing everywhere, then it's never the right thing. This is a single planet we all are standing on, and we're all one people.
(Note to Senate Republicans: Read the above and realize that, if Judicial Filibusters are wrong, then they're always wrong and you sho
It's about time (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
My apologies to Slashdot (Score:2)
Congrats to Microsoft! Fighting for equal rights is always cool by me.
I'm also liking the discussion of whether this is the proper role of companies. I argue that it is, but that such a bill being passed is actually *counter* to Microsoft's (or any other company that does *not* discriminate) best interests.
If I run Software company X, and I don't want to hire gay people, I'm artificially limiting my supply
Re:What They Need To Do (Score:2, Insightful)
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 are
Re:Better late than never [N/T] (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Better late than never [N/T] (Score:2)
You mean, like them being pro-legislation until someone protested, then deciding to be neutral until the bill had already been voted upon, then changing their mind and becoming pro-legislation again once it was a moot point?
What about it?
Re:Hidden glass ceiling for minorities at Microsof (Score:2)
WTF? If their management is 64 levels deep, then Longhorn's release schedule makes much more sense. What are they trying to attain? The Org Chart of Yendor?
Re:Hidden glass ceiling for minorities at Microsof (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re:Hidden glass ceiling for minorities at Microsof (Score:2)
Just how many managers does a single product line require?
For a group of 14,000 people that has been around for decades
Had to promote anyone if everyone stays. No openings.
Or maybe women feel Windows is not their future.
Darn Bigots (Score:2)
And how is your comment any different than me making an offensive joke about the homosexual lifestyle using stereotypes such as a lisp or a limp wrist? This is exactly the kind of thing that Microsoft says they're NOT going to tolerate.
-theGreater.Re:eh (Score:2)
Re:Too bad congress isn't like slashdot... (Score:2)