Apple, Costco stand behind DEI programs
Both companies' directors are encouraging shareholders to vote against resolutions asking them to reconsider DEI initiatives.
Tim Cook is really playing both sides of the fence here.
The real fence is capital vs labor, and he doesn’t play both sides of that one
Maybe his interpretation of DEI would be more H1Bs from India?
He always has.
Most also did. Techbros back them mostly used to be rright-libertarian, they just pivoted more and more to republicans once non-right leaning people showed an extreme distaste for GenAI.
Crypto has been leaning right for years and it's a damn shame IMO. The initial motivation was to create a money supply without automatic annual pay cuts, without corporate bailouts, where we aren't forced to either invest in a business or work until we die. All humans should share a FOSS money supply. A large percentage of us were leftists or (actual) anarchists.
Then it appreciated really fast and attracted a bunch of get-rich-quick crypto bros who understand nothing and want you to buy their latest shitcoin. And it's hurt adoption in the long term as a consequence.
I wouldn't be surprised if they started distancing themselves from the darknet drug markets that got us here.
Capitalism, and... what's the other side he's playing?
Fair
Tim cook, a gay man, donated a million to trump. Don't let Apple pretend they aren't playing both sides.
I reckon they have to at this point. Pay your dues and get to keep your business.
Really? Damn
Fuck yeah I love Costco
Well they don't love you.
They can tout DEI and idpol all they want. They're still stiffing union workers.
Companies are not things to love.
Yes they do. I saw it in a documentary. “Welcome to Costco, I love you.”
The least racist is still racist.
Can someone smarter than me (I know, it’s a low bar) explain how DEI is unconstitutional? Especially when it comes to private enterprises like Apple and Costco?
Edit: okay, I found a decent article that lays it out. While I agree with the basic premise, I know its effect won’t be more equality.
My understanding is it's basically pulling the uno reverse card to suggest it's anti-white behaviour.
"I got passed over for a promotion cause they needed another minority manager instead of a white one" type stuff
I'm not American so no idea what your constitution says.
DEI is basically "you know that thing we do where we only hire from the old boys club at our favorite ivy league university? Let's hold off on that."
Companies benefit from DEI policies because they expand their hiring pool, so the company ends up with better talent. They're still aiming to hire the best out of that pool, of course. Companies are motivated by profit, not by reparations.
I know its effect won’t be more equality.
Its effect will be more equality. Unfortunately that is not a good thing for the old boys club, which is what motivates the FUD and disinformation you've heard regarding DEI as a buzzword.
It's usually more than just "not only hiring old white dudes" but a conscious effort to make the place more representative of society by intentionally hiring people of diverse gender/ethnicity/handicap instead, sometimes leading to processes being closed to people who aren't part of certain groups, which might in theory go against some laws depending on where you live, but the same thing can be achieved by just wasting time filtering out white men's CV or just not calling them back after interviews, so I personally don't mind just being excluded and giving others a chance, if they don't have non white dude applicants then I'll get called and otherwise I've got plenty of doors open to me, more than most in fact and that's not ok.
the whole DEI inititive generally is to get people who historically underprivileged more positions at work. this however in a few instances, would lead to someone being hired because of their race, rather than skillset. Theres ongoing anti sentiment who fully believe that anything with DEI has made a company gone downhill (with basically 0 evidence, or very anecdotal evidence proving so)
Constitutionally, some claim it to be unconstitutional because of the 14th amendment that states:
“No state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
as the idea of affirmative action, or DEI programs bascially give minorities a higher chance of being hired, therefore the idea is that people were not equally protected under law.
basically programs typically put Whites (and Asians in some contexts, tech jobs and universities) at a disadvantage.
personally, i think most of it is hubabaloo, and most companies know(or should know) the minimum requirement they are looking for out of an employee since most of them already want the cheapest person in the building regardless of race. I just think the argument that they wont hire the best person suited for the job a fallacy, as if they were THAT good, then they would never get passed up to fill some racial quota. No one is going around for example passing up on Jim Keller (cpu architecture guru) over a minority designer who has little experience. for the jobs that require the best, a company will look for it regardless.
Thank you. That was easy to understand.
I want to add that while I agree that in most companies "most of it is hubabaloo" and the companies just hire qualified people, there are some loud and visible examples of blatantly unqualified people getting a position with only apparent qualification being pronouns in their bio. For example a game developers spokesperson not realizing calling all gamers "insufferable bigoted incels" on social media is not a reasonable way to market a videogame.
So while most companies just call countering biases in hiring DEI, the term DEI for many people is now associated with hiring unqualified people, largely because those rare examples I mentioned being amplified and presented as the norm by right-wingers.
If you ask me, companies should drop the term DEI from their hiring policies and just write them neutrally. Sure, most of the perception of unfairness is probably unfounded, but not all of it. And whether true or not, the perception that the hiring process was not fair by people rejected by the hiring process just builds resentment and builds support for morons like Trump that speak against such policies.
And why are we comparing Apple to Costco?
Because both companies are doing the same thing at the moment regarding a certain subject...
Because they're both standing behind their DEI programs when much of Corporate America is rushing to dismantle theirs.
apple is so good for having a diverse group of slaves to build their phones
A lot of them are temps/contracted too, which is even worse. (at least for their warranty/refurbishment locations)
There is a good chance they will also ditch DEI when it start to cut into their monies more.
lol I am sure as soon as DEI practices are removed everyone will only get hired based on their skillset.and not their "club memberships". what a bunch of dickwads, as if people don't know what you are trying to achieve.
I don't really know what they're trying to achieve lol. I feel like it's probably vaguely racist, like: anti-anti-racist 😕... Or something.
Maybe just an excuse for the plebes to blame someone for life getting generally more difficult?
Apple may be a terrible company, but their pride logo looks so good
They've had a rainbow logo for a long time.
And personally, I hope they’ll bring it back. Along with the colorful plastic era. These days it’s all boring aluminium, but Apple used to enjoy actual colourful designs. I love the G3 iMac so much, I’ve got a framed poster of it. Can you imagine how cool an iPhone or tablet would be in these colorful plastic designs?
A terrible company, but some of the best marketing
They are a terrible company, and yet I'll always bat for them online because I feel they get more flak than other, even worse tech companies.
Apple was the first company to give you several years of software support instead of one major OS version. Apple, for a while, made devices so easy to repair, it would've put them out of business at some point, honestly. Even with the first 8 or so iPhones, they were fairly easy to open up, but I'm talking of course about the PowerPC era, where they'd send you repair manuals with your spare parts. As a private individual.
Apple still makes the highest quality laptops, as far as actual build quality is concerned. That aluminium feels so nice. Also only running 2 or 3 models at once means they're actually easier to repair, as spare parts aren't nearly as diverse. I see a HP that doesn't say "Elitebook" on it and I throw it in the trash, because I ain't looking for parts for no Pavilion or Envy or whatever.
That said, do I think they actually have any social principles? Hell nah. But they aren't worse than all the other companies. Apple makes money selling you an overpriced phone. Google only does if you buy a Pixel, which isn't all that big a marketshare, there's still Samsung and others in the same space. Google needs to be making money off those too, and they are, via data collection and advertising.
The amount of kool-aid in the post is amazing.
Apple computers have always been on the lower end of support (see their support of hardware as they've gone thru different CPU architecture). Windows/Linux has never been this quick to drop support.
Apple hardware has always been hard to repair. Non-standard parts, non-standard screws (pentalobe screws, etc...)
Their laptops have never been the "highest quality", they are better than average but haven't ever been the highest quality. Companies like Asus and Sony (when they made laptops) were more reliable (unless you want to compare a $2000 MacBook to a $500 laptop but that's making sure it isn't fair.).
And Apple does data collection and ads. Always have. iAd was Apple's first and started in 2010. And Apple collects a ton of private data about you.
They have always claimed to be doing one thing while in reality been doing the opposite. They get flak because they are the worst for this two-faced behavior.
I figured Apple was because they’ve been silent. Shoutout to Apple
Tim Cook has made it a point to kiss the ring privately on his own while keeping apple neutral so that money keeps flowing in.
Yay DEI!
Wonder how this is going to affect unemployment. One of the effects people don’t talk about with these programs is that appearance guidelines get rolled back also. All these people with face tattoos and piercings will also suffer from these rollbacks.
Lol