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.
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]...
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.
sounds reasonable.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom to oppress, or freedom from oppression?
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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: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?
Re:Before it gets Slashdotted... (Score:4, Insightful)
A serial killer who one day decides to donate blood
Re:Companies shouldn't make political statements (Score:3, Insightful)
-Jesse
Re:sounds reasonable.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Despite its socialist origins, I agree. What Microsoft has done is say that it will encourage US citizens to have privileges that others in the world don't.
Ballmer doesn't actually have to watch as gay people are killed, tied to posts and pistol-whipped to death, or raped by their own friends and parents. Maybe that's how he can call discrimination against gays a cultural issue.
News flash. Murder, torture and rape aren't cultural--they're barbarism anywhere they happen. Failing to fight for the rights those who aren't considered worthy of the legal protections of society isn't cultural relativism--it's indifference to human suffering. Is lack of equal legal protection the same as murder? No, but one logically follows from the other--as any elderly Black person from the South can tell you. To think we can exempt gays from some of the legal protections the rest of us enjoy and that we will all end up peacefully and equally coexisting has been proven wrong historically with every other minority group in the same situation.
So the upshot is that their position is still "neutral" as far as most of the planet is concerned. They don't give a shit about human rights if it interferes with their bottom line.
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, Insightful)
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."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Different value systems (Score:1, Insightful)
The news media and Hollywood seem to portray one thing, but when things are put up to a vote of the people it would indicate something entirely different.
Re:Uh... y'know (Score:4, 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.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Before it gets Slashdotted... (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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:2, Insightful)