12 ms·

Workplace Equality Is Good for Business

73 points by coloneltcb 13y ago

kylelibra 13y ago
Tim Cook's point carries over to customers as well. For me, knowing a company is taking a progressive stance on human and civil rights goes a long way towards how I view them.
- DalekBaldwin 13y ago
  I think you've summed up the goal of this PR piece.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    Yes, easiliy confirmed. This is the NYT headline. Senate Vote on Workplace Bias Against Gays a Test for G.O.P.
    - IBM 13y ago
      While it would be a safe stance for Starbucks to publicly take, it is less so for Apple which has a much more diverse customer base. It would be better for Apple's business to not take a position in these issues.
      - mistermann 13y ago
        Starbucks customer base tends to be less-bigoted than Apple's?
        krakensden 13y ago
        I've always noticed a great deal of overlap.
      - nknighthb 13y ago
        Really? To which company are the bigots going to turn?
        alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        I hear KKK is coming out with their own Linux distro and Android fork.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      @IBM, Perhaps it is risky for Apple to take such a stance, but it is most certainly good for Tim Cook!
  - pdonis 13y ago
    But if that's the goal, why does the piece end by asking the government to pass anti-discrimination laws? What does that have to do with positive PR for Cook and Apple? As someone else pointed out upthread, if Cook really believes what he's saying, the last thing he should want is for the government to force his competitors to do what's good for their business; he should be happy to let them go out of business, leaving more customers for him.
    - djur 13y ago
      Just because something is good for business doesn't mean that not doing it will cause a company to go out of business. It surprises me how often this argument is trotted out as a matter of fact as opposed to a theoretical outcome of perfect competition.
      - pdonis 13y ago
        Just because something is good for business doesn't mean that not doing it will cause a company to go out of business. Maybe not (at least not immediately), but if something is "good for business", it must confer some competitive benefit. Otherwise what does "good for business" mean, exactly? And the competitive benefit is really enough to ground the question I was asking.
        djur 13y ago
        "Good for business" is a broad term and (in this case) a political one. It's going to be more true for bigger companies than smaller ones (because bigger companies will be hiring more often for a broader set of positions) and for long-lived companies than fresh startups (because over time, your chance of either making or missing at least one really good hire increases). But if it's generally beneficial to some companies and not detrimental to others, it's "good for business".
        pdonis 13y ago
        Ok, so once again, how does any of this connect with asking the government to force businesses to do certain things?
alexeisadeski3 13y ago
I for one like the idea of people being able to hire whomever they like for whatever reasons they like. Let the bigots expose themselves and be punished or not.
- arrrg 13y ago
  Are you arguing that all currently protected classes (e.g. race, religion, sex) should be abolished? That would to me be a logically coherent and non-bigoted (well, sort of, at least if the belief that the market can solve this problem and the belief that it is a problem is behind it) view of current policy. One I disagree with, but also one I can respect. However, that’s not typically what the argument is about. Those who are opposed to this are often not opposed to other (either some or all) protected classes. That, to me, seems like an untenable view. You cannot have religion and sex as a protected class but not sexual orientation. If I look at the protected classes I see one very obvious and big gap and that’s sexual orientation. It’s unquestionably incredibly bad policy to selectively exclude that (that is, if you are not a bigot).
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    >Are you arguing that all currently protected classes (e.g. race, religion, sex) should be abolished? Yes. Realize that it's a reactionary position to take, but it just seems right. If someone wants to run their business with bigotry, so be it. I won't respect them, but I'd respect their "right" to do so. I realize that there counter argument is that I've never lived in a time in which such regulation was needed, I never experienced Jim Crow, etc - and of course today Jim Crow still exists, in a way, for homosexuals. But it just seems like another case of "two wrongs make a right." Forcing others to adhere to our own moral preferences seems fundamentally and deeply flawed. There must be another way.
    - PhasmaFelis 13y ago
      > Forcing others to adhere to our own moral preferences seems fundamentally and deeply flawed. I bet you're fine forcing others to adhere to your own moral preferences re: burglary, assault, rape, and murder.
tsotha 13y ago
If it's so good for business why does he think we need a legal structure to punish companies that just hire whoever they want?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- 21echoes 13y ago
  because oftentimes you need external pressure to force the issue. to some employers, they don't even care if it's potentially better for business, they're "not gonna hire a bunch of fags". additionally, the ability of consumers to have in depth knowledge of every political stance of every business in the production chain of every product they buy means that the free market is ill-equipped to encourage good employment behavior.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    That a policy recommendation does not result in utopia is not a counter argument.
- erichocean 13y ago
  Many people believe that the greatest good for everyone simply cannot be achieved without some degree of violence actively directed towards a few.
- icambron 13y ago
  Do you think that discrimination against blacks and women was good for business? I submit that it was not, but companies did it anyway, because they were not rational. I'm not sure we should expect them to be now. I also submit that if you think discriminating against blacks and women was good for business (a defensible claim), then you probably ought to be disagreeing with Tim Cook about whether sexual-orientation-based discrimination is good for businesses [1]. In my view, that would make the case for anti-discrimination legislation stronger, not weaker, because if both prevailing biases and good business sense favors discrimination, then we really need to act.[2] [1] Perhaps you could believe the former but not the latter. They seem pretty parallel to me though, so I'd be curious what you thought the differences were. [2] You could disagree with this too and simply be a lassez-faire fundamentalist, but that would render your original question kind of pointless.
joelgrus 13y ago
"We've found that when people feel valued for who they are, they have the comfort and confidence to create a monstrosity like iTunes."
reion 13y ago
I through this one is a no-brainer.
jpeg_hero 13y ago
Good for Cook. With this piece he is taking a step towards synchronizing his public/personal. Not easy to do. But good he's making steps in that direction. Yeah, he's "out" but he's not really "out." Good for him for taking a step.
crassus 13y ago
As a conservative who hides his political beliefs in the tech sector, while my coworkers freely swap progressive political articles over the company's email lists, I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Cook. If the government prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of religion, then why not also political beliefs? There is little difference between the two.
- djur 13y ago
  Have you experienced discrimination, or just the fear of social ostracism?
- daughart 13y ago
  I agree. Sexual orientation, however, rises above political belief and religion as a matter of personal identity. In other words, it should be clear that discrimination for reasons of gender, race, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, and genetic information should be illegal. If you're going to move above that and ban other forms of discrimination, religion and politics are a natural extension.
daughart 13y ago
Tim's argument is really more from the perspective of human rights than economic justification. The link to economic activity is only that, "we undermine people's potential and deny ourselves and our society the full benefits of those individuals' talents." The cost of this is distributed and small (to the company), and therefore he is not making the argument that companies that do not discriminate will out-compete companies that do. He is making the more subtle argument that increased human flourishing and creativity that result from antidiscrimination laws are good for business. The title is misleading and the argument is muddled - advocates of Tim's position would do well to avoid this line of argumentation and make the stronger point: Antidiscrimination laws advance human flourishing and cause our society to be more just. Therefore they are worth having.

73 points by coloneltcb 13y ago

Tim Cook's point carries over to customers as well. For me, knowing a company is taking a progressive stance on human and civil rights goes a long way towards how I view them.

DalekBaldwin 13y ago
I think you've summed up the goal of this PR piece.
- 001sky 13y ago
  Yes, easiliy confirmed. This is the NYT headline. Senate Vote on Workplace Bias Against Gays a Test for G.O.P.
  - IBM 13y ago
    While it would be a safe stance for Starbucks to publicly take, it is less so for Apple which has a much more diverse customer base. It would be better for Apple's business to not take a position in these issues.
    - mistermann 13y ago
      Starbucks customer base tends to be less-bigoted than Apple's?
      - krakensden 13y ago
        I've always noticed a great deal of overlap.
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      Really? To which company are the bigots going to turn?
      - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        I hear KKK is coming out with their own Linux distro and Android fork.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    @IBM, Perhaps it is risky for Apple to take such a stance, but it is most certainly good for Tim Cook!
- pdonis 13y ago
  But if that's the goal, why does the piece end by asking the government to pass anti-discrimination laws? What does that have to do with positive PR for Cook and Apple? As someone else pointed out upthread, if Cook really believes what he's saying, the last thing he should want is for the government to force his competitors to do what's good for their business; he should be happy to let them go out of business, leaving more customers for him.
  - djur 13y ago
    Just because something is good for business doesn't mean that not doing it will cause a company to go out of business. It surprises me how often this argument is trotted out as a matter of fact as opposed to a theoretical outcome of perfect competition.
    - pdonis 13y ago
      Just because something is good for business doesn't mean that not doing it will cause a company to go out of business. Maybe not (at least not immediately), but if something is "good for business", it must confer some competitive benefit. Otherwise what does "good for business" mean, exactly? And the competitive benefit is really enough to ground the question I was asking.
      - djur 13y ago
        "Good for business" is a broad term and (in this case) a political one. It's going to be more true for bigger companies than smaller ones (because bigger companies will be hiring more often for a broader set of positions) and for long-lived companies than fresh startups (because over time, your chance of either making or missing at least one really good hire increases). But if it's generally beneficial to some companies and not detrimental to others, it's "good for business".
        pdonis 13y ago
        Ok, so once again, how does any of this connect with asking the government to force businesses to do certain things?

alexeisadeski3 13y ago

I for one like the idea of people being able to hire whomever they like for whatever reasons they like. Let the bigots expose themselves and be punished or not.

arrrg 13y ago
Are you arguing that all currently protected classes (e.g. race, religion, sex) should be abolished? That would to me be a logically coherent and non-bigoted (well, sort of, at least if the belief that the market can solve this problem and the belief that it is a problem is behind it) view of current policy. One I disagree with, but also one I can respect. However, that’s not typically what the argument is about. Those who are opposed to this are often not opposed to other (either some or all) protected classes. That, to me, seems like an untenable view. You cannot have religion and sex as a protected class but not sexual orientation. If I look at the protected classes I see one very obvious and big gap and that’s sexual orientation. It’s unquestionably incredibly bad policy to selectively exclude that (that is, if you are not a bigot).
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  >Are you arguing that all currently protected classes (e.g. race, religion, sex) should be abolished? Yes. Realize that it's a reactionary position to take, but it just seems right. If someone wants to run their business with bigotry, so be it. I won't respect them, but I'd respect their "right" to do so. I realize that there counter argument is that I've never lived in a time in which such regulation was needed, I never experienced Jim Crow, etc - and of course today Jim Crow still exists, in a way, for homosexuals. But it just seems like another case of "two wrongs make a right." Forcing others to adhere to our own moral preferences seems fundamentally and deeply flawed. There must be another way.
  - PhasmaFelis 13y ago
    > Forcing others to adhere to our own moral preferences seems fundamentally and deeply flawed. I bet you're fine forcing others to adhere to your own moral preferences re: burglary, assault, rape, and murder.

tsotha 13y ago

If it's so good for business why does he think we need a legal structure to punish companies that just hire whoever they want?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
21echoes 13y ago
because oftentimes you need external pressure to force the issue. to some employers, they don't even care if it's potentially better for business, they're "not gonna hire a bunch of fags". additionally, the ability of consumers to have in depth knowledge of every political stance of every business in the production chain of every product they buy means that the free market is ill-equipped to encourage good employment behavior.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  That a policy recommendation does not result in utopia is not a counter argument.
erichocean 13y ago
Many people believe that the greatest good for everyone simply cannot be achieved without some degree of violence actively directed towards a few.
icambron 13y ago
Do you think that discrimination against blacks and women was good for business? I submit that it was not, but companies did it anyway, because they were not rational. I'm not sure we should expect them to be now. I also submit that if you think discriminating against blacks and women was good for business (a defensible claim), then you probably ought to be disagreeing with Tim Cook about whether sexual-orientation-based discrimination is good for businesses [1]. In my view, that would make the case for anti-discrimination legislation stronger, not weaker, because if both prevailing biases and good business sense favors discrimination, then we really need to act.[2] [1] Perhaps you could believe the former but not the latter. They seem pretty parallel to me though, so I'd be curious what you thought the differences were. [2] You could disagree with this too and simply be a lassez-faire fundamentalist, but that would render your original question kind of pointless.

joelgrus 13y ago

"We've found that when people feel valued for who they are, they have the comfort and confidence to create a monstrosity like iTunes."

reion 13y ago

I through this one is a no-brainer.

jpeg_hero 13y ago

Good for Cook. With this piece he is taking a step towards synchronizing his public/personal. Not easy to do. But good he's making steps in that direction. Yeah, he's "out" but he's not really "out." Good for him for taking a step.

crassus 13y ago

As a conservative who hides his political beliefs in the tech sector, while my coworkers freely swap progressive political articles over the company's email lists, I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Cook. If the government prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of religion, then why not also political beliefs? There is little difference between the two.

djur 13y ago
Have you experienced discrimination, or just the fear of social ostracism?
daughart 13y ago
I agree. Sexual orientation, however, rises above political belief and religion as a matter of personal identity. In other words, it should be clear that discrimination for reasons of gender, race, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, and genetic information should be illegal. If you're going to move above that and ban other forms of discrimination, religion and politics are a natural extension.

daughart 13y ago

Tim's argument is really more from the perspective of human rights than economic justification. The link to economic activity is only that, "we undermine people's potential and deny ourselves and our society the full benefits of those individuals' talents." The cost of this is distributed and small (to the company), and therefore he is not making the argument that companies that do not discriminate will out-compete companies that do. He is making the more subtle argument that increased human flourishing and creativity that result from antidiscrimination laws are good for business. The title is misleading and the argument is muddled - advocates of Tim's position would do well to avoid this line of argumentation and make the stronger point: Antidiscrimination laws advance human flourishing and cause our society to be more just. Therefore they are worth having.