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.

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

Official Email Location

[Saige]

In case anyone wants full confirmation, the email is also located on Microsoft's web site [microsoft.com].

It's a good day for some of us Microsofties that were really upset at what happened.

Re:So is microsoft not evil

[SetupWeasel]

Nope, they are just less evil.

No one is all evil, not even John Travolta.

Not involved, you say?

[fsck!]

Take a look at their political donatations:

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:sounds reasonable..

[Snocone]

So infertile couples and old folks shouldn't be allowed to marry, eh?

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:So is microsoft not evil

[Tibor the Hun]

That's right. I've heard that Beck is too. (As well as Travolta, but again, he can dance like a mofo.)
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:Official Email Location

[NaruVonWilkins]

All social policies affect business. I've been getting tired of hearing this argument at work - the fact is, Microsoft is only expected to take stances on these issues because it has a realized monetary gain for the company. There are a lot of very, very smart gay people out there who are attracted to work for the company by policies like this, and there are a lot people in the world who make purchase decisions based on social standing.