A Group of Microsoft Employees Is Fighting the Company's Political Action Committee (medium.com) 113
A group of more than 30 Microsoft employees is lobbying coworkers to stop donating to the company's political action committee in an effort to starve the PAC of funds, multiple Microsoft workers with knowledge of the efforts told OneZero. From a report: While Microsoft pitches itself as an inclusive and progressive company -- especially during Pride Month, with tweets and donations to LGBTQ+ causes -- employees who have donated to the PAC say they have no control over which candidates are being supported, meaning that they have no say when the PAC financially supports candidates whose views the employees don't want to support. Microsoft employees who spoke to OneZero -- on the condition of anonymity to avoid reprisals -- say that the PAC doesn't ask employees for input or supply avenues to suggest or control which candidates should be supported.
"Candidates that we dislike are those that advance policies contrary to the company's stated policies of diversity, inclusion, and growth mindset," one employee, who said they had persuaded about 10 others to stop donating to the PAC, told OneZero. The PAC is a voluntary, opt-in fund that's entirely supported by donations from more than 4,000 of Microsoft's 140,000 employees, according to a 2015 blog post. The goal of Microsoft's "MSPAC" is to "support and encourage the election to federal offices of persons who support the needs of business in a free and healthy economy," according to its website. In other words, the PAC exists to extend Microsoft's political influence and serve its business interests. It also brings prominent speakers to campus for employees who donate to MSPAC, and occasionally opens those events up to nondonors.
"Candidates that we dislike are those that advance policies contrary to the company's stated policies of diversity, inclusion, and growth mindset," one employee, who said they had persuaded about 10 others to stop donating to the PAC, told OneZero. The PAC is a voluntary, opt-in fund that's entirely supported by donations from more than 4,000 of Microsoft's 140,000 employees, according to a 2015 blog post. The goal of Microsoft's "MSPAC" is to "support and encourage the election to federal offices of persons who support the needs of business in a free and healthy economy," according to its website. In other words, the PAC exists to extend Microsoft's political influence and serve its business interests. It also brings prominent speakers to campus for employees who donate to MSPAC, and occasionally opens those events up to nondonors.
good (Score:2)
corporations whose management publicly espouse particular viewpoints should not be making political donations to causes inimical to those public positions.
Re: (Score:2)
You are mostly correct. The Supreme Court ruled the owners maintain their First Amendment rights (and the officers as their hirelings) when joining a Congress-defined group, a corporation in this case, and Congress cannot force you to give up your First Amendment rights as a cost of joining.
This ruling has nothing to do with corporation-as-person, which was a quick hack to bring it under the control of laws as part of liability limitation for the owners. The SC went out of their way in the ruling to point
Re: (Score:2)
Once you can string up a corporation, I'll accept that they're people.
Re: (Score:2)
Only that which can die is alive.
The United Way (Score:1)
Many companies support The United Way and encourage their employees to do likewise.
These employees are not required to contribute, however they must go to a United Way webpage and explicitly declare their desire to NOT contribute.
When my company did this, I vowed to NEVER contribute to The United Way or any organization that participates in this kind of veiled threat. CEO's of these companies love to boost their own standing by quoting the amount "donated" by their employees. These people are real scum.
M
Sounds like I work there too (Score:5, Informative)
Every job I've had that has these PAC donations are all the same. You don't have any say and most often it goes to politicians or lobbyists for your companies interests, not yours. So I've always said no and told my coworkers they shouldn't either. Why fund a PAC that is most likely getting rid of workers rights and protecting the companies interests? Let them pay for it. I mean sure, I bet some people think their interests and the companies are in line, but that's doubtful at most levels.
Re:Sounds like I work there too (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"I don't understand why anyone would donate to a company PAC ..."
Donation limits, and PR fodder. As in, while you, Joe/Josephine Grunt may only donate a few hundred, the company can quietly pump it up. I vaguely recall the current limit being around $5 K, for each donor. And Candidate X's PR spinmeister loves to be able to say "We have over 10,000 people supporting our candidate in Y city alone!"
Worked for a very large company who basically own the state DoJ, through targeted PAC donations. During my t
Re: (Score:2)
I think he means to ask what benefit it is to the employee. I mean, aside from scoring brownie points with upper management.
Any company I have worked for that had a PAC usually acted directly against my own interests. They were so adamant that the donations legally could not affect affect performance reviews to the point where it was rather suspicious.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, but if the PAC isn't pushing for your political goals, why would you donate? I don't even understand why MS employees would need a campaign to convince other employees to not donate, since if they didn't agree they probably wouldn't be donating anyway. Is donating automatic or something? Is there heavy internal pressure to donate?
What is it that makes any of this newsworthy?
This article and your reply don't alleviate any of that confusion for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. Company always has some series of emails that somehow works in vets, first responders, and lost puppies as reasons to contribute to the PAC of this Fortune 100 company. Can't understand why on earth anyone would contribute.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a company PAC. What part are people confused about?
Re: (Score:2)
What's best for my job is me. If my employer didn't agree, then why the fuck did he hire me?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Every job I've had that has these PAC donations are all the same. You don't have any say and most often it goes to politicians or lobbyists for your companies interests, not yours.
Agreed. Google had their "netpac" which they marketed to employees every year or so, and it was always a huge argument because of this misalignment. I can understand why the company felt like it was a good deal, after all it lets them claim that there are thousands of supporters - but it's basically lying. I was very disappointed by it, and by the company's lack of transparency about it (it wasn't evil, but it was definitely very intentionally misleading).
Google's eventual solution was to let you unsubsc
Fixed that for them. (Score:2)
The goal of Microsoft's "MSPAC" is to "support and encourage the election to federal offices of persons who support the needs of their business in a free and healthy economy," ...
FTFT
(Employee funded company PACs controlled by management and/or the board of directors is a bad idea -- especially for the employees.)
Re: (Score:2)
Candidates that we dislike are those that advance policies contrary to the company's stated policies of diversity, inclusion, and growth mindset
So, they are saying the Microsoft PAC should exclude some candidates? But then that makes your position contrary to "stated policies of diversity, inclusion, and growth". So I guess they should stop giving to your candidates as well.
Re: (Score:2)
If only we had a system where individuals could support candidates instead of letting a corporation decide for them.
Re: (Score:2)
If only we had a system where we don't have to bribe politicians to do their job.
Re: (Score:2)
You're implying that if the company does better, the employees don't benefit, but that's patently false. Even in the worst companies to work for, higher profit margins mean raises are more likely and layoffs are less likely. That's just the blindingly obvious benefit to the employee, there are a lot more subtle benefits as well regarding workplace happiness, internal opportunities, etc. Not necessarily enough to make donating to a company PAC a good choice, especially if you work for a bad company. More mon
Re: (Score:2)
You're one of those guys that think that higher production cost automatically mean that the products get more expensive, aren't you?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. The United States is run entirely by, and for the benefit of corporations.
That must really hurt (Score:5, Insightful)
one employee, who said they had persuaded about 10 others to stop donating to the PAC, told OneZero. The PAC is a voluntary, opt-in fund that's entirely supported by donations from more than 4,000 of Microsoft's 140,000 employees
140,000 employees, 4000 donate, and they talked 10 into stopping. This is newsworthy?
Re: (Score:2)
The donations are probably almost all from management sycophants and climbers who think having their name on the PAC support list will get them somewhere (along with a few clueless employees who thought it was supporting the homeless or something).
At best these PAC donations get them on the sucker list or goaded privately into increasing their donations "because I like you, Karen, and I can see you're going places, and you'll want the right people to know you have the right ideas.."
The most they probably ge
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This is what I don't understand.
If the employees don't agree with the political leanings of the PAC, they won't donate. If they do, they will. You can already see that the vast majority of employees don't donate, either because they don't like the PAC or because they don't care. I mean, try to change people's minds politically, nothing wrong with that, but framing this as "the PAC doesn't align with our marketing" just seems bizarre.
I imagine conversations these guys have go like this:
"You shouldn't donate
Re: (Score:2)
We haven't even really accomplished the separation of state and church, and you're already aiming for the separation of state and commerce.
But it's true, capitalism is the opposite of communism. After all, in communism, the government is controlling the economy...
tweets and donations to LGBTQ+ causes (Score:1)
Well duh! They've been chasing the Dorothy Dollar ever since Mayor Quimby legalized gay money...
Business PACs only exist to raise money (Score:2)
Irrespective of the feel-good words surrounding PACs, the bottom line here is that the purpose of a PAC is to raise money from employees and to give it to politicians. It is naive in the extreme to expect that the employees would ever have any input into where the money ultimately goes.
So, if you trust your employer enough to let them spend your money as they want to, all well and good. Otherwise, direct your own donation.
Why do homosexuals put up with being used? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do homosexuals put up with being used as a tool by leftists to help push leftist ideology?
Just look at so-called "pride" parades. They're nothing but one rainbow colored corporate float after another. The homosexuals are a total afterthought these days. It's all about virtue signalling.
I hope that homosexuals take back their movement from the leftists that have co-opted it and are using it to push leftism.
Re:Why do homosexuals put up with being used? (Score:4, Interesting)
To be fair, even though I think the majority of people don't really care, there is a large fraction of the right that want to see LGBTQ+ removed from public view, stripped of marriage rights, etc. There's only a very small fraction that actually want them dead.
On the left it's sort of the opposite problem, where majority group members think minority group members are inherently incapable of achieving parity in society, and so thrust them into the limelight, sometimes inappropriately. It might have been true at one point, but it's mostly just a different form of bigotry now. Hell, the constant focus on minority/majority group identities at the cost of individual identity practically guarantees that there will never be the parity between their target groups.
The left is sort of the epitome of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". It seems to be in the middle of a complete internal civil war, and I'm curious to see how things shake out over the next 5-10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly is "leftist" about corporations hijacking the gay pride thing?
And you think the gays don't notice? I mean, even I have noticed the meme [meme.xyz] by now, and I'm hardly paying attention to the whole thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The way to stop corruption is to end it. Simply disallow corporations to hand money to politicians, force politicians to publish any donations they get and most of all free them from the dependency on those donations.
A lot of countries in Europe have a system in place that allows you to get the money back for your election advertising if you manage to secure a token amount of votes. So yes, my tax money pays for those ads. But I'd rather bribe my politicians myself than seeing them bribed by some corporatio
Re: (Score:2)
Reducing the power of government ultimately means that someone else will take that power instead. And guess who this will be. Hint: It ain't gonna be you.
Re: (Score:2)
You think that's bad? How about being a soldier in Vietnam and if you don't contribute you are assigned to extra patrols.
Re: (Score:2)
A few years ago I really angered the leadership of a small company I worked for because I refused to be a part of signing up for their United Way employee drive. I was the only one in the entire company (~200 ppl) that did not sign up. When asked why, I simply stated that I don't like some of the recipients to whom United Way donate. Not long after, I was fired for making a very minor mistake that no one would have fired anyone over. Since then, I refuse on grounds of principle to support anything that I don't handle personally.
I worked at a company very similar in mindset but much larger. We were required to attend annual meetings when the pledge drive happened and had to fill out our pledge cards - even if you weren't going to pledge - before you could leave the meeting. It was higher pressure than timeshare sales because it was the company president telling you to donate.
I think I caved and donated $5 just to get the checkmark next to my name each year. I hated the pressure but liked being employed.
Re: (Score:2)
At least around here, you can specify that your donations go to specific organizations that you want to support. That's what I've done, as there are recipients who I'd rather
Why the heck did you even *start* donating? (Score:2)
employees who have donated to the PAC say they have no control over which candidates are being supported
So what compelled them to donate in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
it can be an employer implies in shadowy way that employee's best interests might be impacted if they don't pony up.
Re: Why the heck did you even *start* donating? (Score:1)
I work at Microsoft. We are strongly encouraged to give money, time, or whatever to any charitable cause and the company matches all of it. Not once have I ever heard anyone encourage fixing to the PAC. That said, I dont opt in to politics action mailing lists, Teams, or anything like that so maybe it happens there. But for those who did if it does happen I guess they signed up for the encouragement.
Re: (Score:2)
Where are mod points when I need them? This is the first bit of actual inside information I've seen here, and it pretty much matches my expectations. I don't see how this story could possibly be news.
It's basically "some Microsoft employees don't like Microsoft's PAC, and try to convince other employees not to donate to it."
Ok, and? That seems normal.
Re: (Score:2)
speaking of companies with PAC in general, not necessarily Microsoft in particular, there can be illegal pressure applied to contribute or even to sign up for monthly paycheck deduction for PAC
Corporate PACs are there to make money (Score:3)
M$ BAD! (Score:2)
Foolish (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't going to donate if they don't agree with what the PAC is doing. That's why, out of 140,000 MS employees, only 4,000 donate.
I think it's fine that these guys are trying to convince those 4,000 to not donate, but they are basically asking them to switch political beliefs. That's not going to be easy.
It's also not at all newsworthy in any way.
Maybe the united front is cracking (Score:2)
I've never worked for Microsoft but regularly interact with those that do and did. From what I've seen, Microsoft has been an anomaly in tech workplaces where people are hired right out of school, and a lot of them go on to spend their entire careers there because they have so many diverse work opportunities. People who work there and who have worked there have mentioned that they basically do everything they can to keep employees happy...they pay 100% of all insurance costs, offer all sorts of ancillary be
Person Corporatehood (Score:1)
It's good to see Google and MS employees speaking up more often. We don't have a democracy if mostly just the big-wigs have influence & control.
Welfare for Democrats. (Score:2)
They never support the Republican canidate, ever.
Re: (Score:2)
The political contributions of MSPAC have typically been a fairly even 50/50 split along Democratic and Republican party lines.
Re: (Score:2)
Shhhh... you'll shatter his completely unfounded pre-conceived notions. It's a big company, obviously there isn't any such thing as a Republican big company, and it's physically impossible for a non-Republican big company to donate to a Republican.
Silly post that doesn't make sense (Score:1)
If you dislike how the PAC functions... (Score:2)
DON'T DONATE TO IT!
It really IS that simple!
Let me guess, y'all believe in leprechauns too! (Score:2)
-----
Ya know, for being an industry that allegedly attracts the smartest people, there sure are a lot of naive schmucks at these large tech companies. "Oh, the company believes in fairness and diversity because they have a mission statement and focus groups
Complete flop of a company policy (Score:2)
This is a company initiative which has been running for years, but less than 3% of the workforce has signed up for.
Whoever is running promotion of that company programme deserves the sack for incompetence. It could be a committee to change c