I've been an AAPL shareholder since the 1990s and I always vote on the shareholder proposals. In my experience, guidance provided by Apple management to voters prevails pretty much all of the time. Few shareholders vote outside the advice of Apple, which is why this proposal was rejected. With that said, I followed the advice of Apple and voted against that particular proposal because we need to vote for quality people to lead Apple, not voting in diversity for the sake of looking politically correct, trendy and cool. (By the way, there were two other proposals Apple management said to vote against but which I voted for; however, those proposals were rejected too.)
ditto but attended the meeting last year for the first time where the same proposal was made and rejected with similar majority. Frankly I don't understand why so much time is wasted on this non-issue. Apple is a very diverse company and with time will be reflected in the top level of management. Skin colour is not a characteristic that keeps a company like apple the market leader, well not as far as I know. Too much time was dedicated in the last shareholder meeting to this subject and impinged on other shareholders.
It's comical they help force the progressive agenda on the country and promote letting transgenders in the bathroom with little girls, but don't want the progressive agenda forced on themselves.
If a woman transitions into a man, do you want him sharing a bathroom with 'little girls'?
Why not? Do you have a problem controlling yourself around little girls? I don't and I don't know anyone who does except for sexual deviants. Are you trying generalize a class of people all as sexual deviants? See how easy it is to generalize and strip away rights of humans based upon baseless fears?
It's really time to stop with this "people of color* bullshit." So damn tiresome. If you're good, you're good; if you're not, you're not.
*from a person of color.
Hmmm so is that why not one of the top SVP is of color ? Because none in the hole wide world are any good or at the very least as good ? Eddy must be quit gifted
I don't believe the proposal was remotely suggesting hiring for the sake of political correctness to fill some quoter. As I see it it is just a tool to mitigate human conditioning.
The argument that Apple is sufficiently optimized to negate such a thing is to me hogwash, ultimately talent plays a distant second to simpatico relationships in the work place, remember Scott Fostall ? Though this isn't exactly the same thing it does highlight the simple fact that for a company to thrive it requires it's people to get along and that in its essence is a race issue, it's naturally easier to get along with one's own kind, it's just human nature.
I too by the way reject this proposal, not because I think its not needed but because, it's the wrong way to archive the desired effect.
Just came here to see all the inevitable libertarian posts from people who think the status quo is just fine because they believe we live in a meritocracy.
LOL. That makes no sense. Libertarians believe in none of that.
When a company considers skin color to be a top item on resumes, that's the beginning of the end of that company.
And yet, that is exactly the metric people used when Pres. Obama was elected. Actual Democrats eagerly admitted they were voting for him due to that. If this fact ends this thread, so be it.
I'm a white guy and I must admit that I've spent most of my life woefully under appreciating what non-whites --- particularly blacks -- have endured and overcome in the history of the United States. For no other reason than the color of their skin, they were treated horribly. And in many ways they still are treated horribly. Yet despite this -- and for reasons that I cannot really understand -- they have for the most part endured this terrible treatment and have even fought and died for this country. Given the torrents of whiny, entitled blather from a bunch of white people over the course of the Obama administration, I sincerely doubt that most white people would have been nearly as loyal to this country if they had been treated 1/10th as poorly as blacks have. heck, we have a president who is the biggest crybaby of them all and may very well be, quite literally, a traitor.
Now, having said that.... I'm glad this proposal was defeated. It's a sledgehammer approach that does more harm than good.
I do support more nuanced forms of affirmative action, though, that have the potential to gradually move the needle over time. For example, I support using race as a tie-breaker, so that if an employer is about to toss a coin to decide who to hire, instead of tossing the coin, hire the black guy. That's not going to solve anything overnight, but it will nudge things in a more equitable direction over time. If it's combined with efforts to provide equal access to education and other opportunities, then it will eventually work.
Clearly this thread is getting far too political and needs to be locked so people here cannot further express their opinions. Counting down... 3... 2...
The huge fallacy which no one here—on either or any side of this matter—seems to recognize is that it's IMPOSSIBLE to legislate people into "being good." What is otherwise called "justice" is up to each of us in each one's capacity across the entire spectrum of worker to executive to governmental administrator to be as just and fair as possible—on his/her own determinism, and on a daily basis. No external authority can hope to determine that.
It's a matter of education. I grew up six decades ago in a small suburb which had very few people of color. I don't recall hearing much anti-color rhetoric from anyone in schools or church. It was simply a vacuum of information for me. I actually wondered how it might feel to shake a black person's hand!
But when I later did get out into the world, I met, associated, and worked with many people of color, and in almost every case, I learned more and more that skin color mattered not at all. The only thing that did matter was the person's attitude, which was indeed colored at times by bigotry and fixed ideas.
I also learned that such fixed ideas rarely if ever budged at all in the face of regulations or laws. Bigotry easily prevailed, if covertly, and often intensified in the face of enforcement.
It's comical they help force the progressive agenda on the country and promote letting transgenders in the bathroom with little girls, but don't want the progressive agenda forced on themselves.
That has NOTHING to do with a progressive agenda, my god... Like Anantksundaram said above, it's about hiring the right people, with the right talents, for the right job, FIRST! If Apple were to start putting people into positions of power within the chain of command simply to fill a quota for Hispanics, Blacks, Asian, the company would collapse so fast it'd make the melt down of Apple after the departure of Steve Jobs in the 80's look like a century's long boring soap opera!
Your view of this matter is so short sighted, narrow, and ignorant, I can't even begin to put it into a coherent sentence...
Put the right person in the right place for the job correct? I completely agree with that! Kind of like putting the person with the right plumbing in the right bathroom. See, our views are not so different after all. By the way, I completely agree with the right person for the right job. I did 20 years in the military and saw people get promoted because of their skin color. It has wreaked havoc on the military, and will wreak do the same thing on the civilian sector as well. I am honestly glad Apple is not allowing it to happen. However, it is the progressive thing to do… You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Good! Companies should be employing the right person for the job. If you gave the job to someone not as good just because they were black, that'd be racist against whites (is that even a thing?).
You are damn right that "its a thing"! Its called reverse discrimination -- although why it they need to add reverse to the phrase is a mystery (i.e., its plain ole discrimination). It get so tired of this diversity crap (I have a multi-racial family). The thought that there exists a Miss Black America contest is appalling -- you think people would raise hell if a group got together and had a Miss White America contest? Then we have the case of Fisher v. UT where a student was bumped for not having colored skin... Thats what the PCs call Affirmative Action? Time to dump that policy -- it has done nothing to help discrimination since it uses discrimination as its guiding principal.
Employing racist policies (no matter your intentions) to try and balance the mix is racist. You can't use a racist policy to fix what some call a racist policy. It takes time, as Mr. Rodney King in the midst of much chaos "Can we all just get along?".
Good! Companies should be employing the right person for the job. If you gave the job to someone not as good just because they were black, that'd be racist against whites (is that even a thing?).
Of course Apple should be hiring the right person for the job. But you can't deny that corporate boards in general are filled with "old boys clubs" in which people are asked to join not only because of their accomplishments, but because of the comfort level of working with someone just like themselves, which usually means White and male. Besides, there's also a self-fulfilling cycle: because of discrimination and glass ceilings, those who work at the senior executive level at most companies tend to be White and male and therefore, when seeking someone of accomplishment for a Board, those people also tend to be White and male.
Just because a company seeks diversity on a Board doesn't mean they're not also seeking the best person. Sometimes the best person is someone who is 'diverse' because they bring a wider perspective to the company. Apple's customers are diverse and the Board should reflect that so that the company serves those customers (and customers they don't have yet) well. Apple markets around the world -- maybe the Board needs more executives from around the world. If Apple's Board happened to contain only people over the age of 65, one could argue that regardless of their accomplishments, the Board is too old because it can't understand the culture and desires of younger customers and I don't think anyone would be on here screaming that it's racist (or ageist) to specifically seek younger Board members. Seeking to diversify the Board based on race, ethnicity or gender is no different.
Hiring a person in part because they're Hispanic or Black or Asian or whatever is no more racist against Whites than hiring a creative type demonstrates bias against MBAs.
It's quite naive to think that bias doesn't still exist in the executive suites. I just read an article about a newly hired female CEO who showed up early for an senior exec meeting and when the male execs came into the conference room, they asked her to bring them coffee. And furthermore, what makes anyone think that Apple's Board Members today are absolutely the "best" people for the job?
hmm, does basket ball national team comply with diversity? May the best chap take care of my money... Unless someone tell me I am going to earn more by diversity... (convince me the replacement is "equivalent and far better"- replace anyone is cost money, so the replacement MUST be far superior.
It's comical they help force the progressive agenda on the country and promote letting transgenders in the bathroom with little girls, but don't want the progressive agenda forced on themselves.
If a woman transitions into a man, do you want him sharing a bathroom with 'little girls'?
It is not possible to change one's sex, and bathrooms are sex segregated, not gender segregated, because of the biological possibility of rape and pregnancy. The men's room is not there to protect men from sexually aggressive women who, in any case, could not overpower and implant them with a human parasite. That is a very real, material vulnerability experienced exclusively by females and is the salient determinant in their classification, and the reason why provisions for them are ubiquitous and necessary.
I would suggest that a man who transitions to become and project a female persona is much more likely to be at risk of assault if forced to use a male bathroom than anyone who happens to be using a female bathroom at the same time as that person.
In any case, you seem to have ignored the possibility of male-on-male assault and female-on-female assault. Which can and does happen. Perhaps you would like separate bathrooms for gay people? While you're at the game of segregating people based on a class of people that they inhabit, perhaps you'd like to segregate on race as well? See how well that worked in the past...
Transgender people face more than enough abuse and intolerance from other people already. After all, in both cases (male to female as well as female to male) they're almost certainly going to be going about their business in the privacy of a stall. People should stop being so unhealthily interested in other people's plumbing and leave them to get on with it.
Racial quotas is a difficult topic. We should remember that the guy in charge of Apple represents a segment that is often the target of hostility and makes a prominent case, both personally and on the company's behalf, for diversity. If Apple does not have strong minority representation among its brass, I doubt this is due to prejudice. When it comes down to driving and managing revenues in the billions, Apple is about making money and they are going to hire whoever is going to make that happen. Apple's hiring process is a heck of a gauntlet, particularly at the top. Whoever has the best chops, the best record, and the best credentials wins.
For no other reason than the color of their skin, they were treated horribly. And in many ways they still are treated horribly.
In no way, shape, or form is that accurate.
we have a president who is the biggest crybaby of them all and may very well be, quite literally, a traitor.
Turn off CNN and learn what the scientific method is. You don’t know now.
I do support more nuanced forms of affirmative action, though
Congratulations, you’re racist.
that have the potential to gradually move the needle over time.
Fuck your overton window pushing. We’re pushing back.
For example, I support using race as a tie-breaker, so that if an employer is about to toss a coin to decide who to hire, instead of tossing the coin, hire the black guy.
Congratulations. You’re racist.
That's not going to solve anything
The sentence ends here.
it will nudge things in a more equitable direction
those who work at the senior executive level at most companies tend to be White and male and therefore, when seeking someone of accomplishment for a Board, those people also tend to be White and male.
Wow, a majority white nation has majority white executives; who the fuck would have guessed.
Just because a company seeks diversity on a Board doesn't mean they're not also seeking the best person.
Except that’s definitionally the opposite of what you’re claiming.
maybe
Maybe, but they’re doing fine now.
If Apple's Board happened to contain only people over the age of 65, one could argue that regardless of their accomplishments, the Board is too old because it can't understand the culture and desires of younger customers
In what way could you argue that? Prove your example. Prove that Apple isn’t correctly catering to the other races.
And furthermore, what makes anyone think that Apple's Board Members today are absolutely the "best" people for the job?
More worrisome to me than the diversity proposal is Proposal #9, especially considering that it got around 24% support.
That proposal related to requiring senior executives to retain 75% of the stock that they receive (net of tax) as part of their compensation until they reach normal retirement age. I think that would represent a major handicap for Apple when it comes to attracting leadership talent. A number of Apple's senior executives are many years from retirement age. Telling people that they won't be able to get most of their pay for 10 or 15 years (or longer if Apple hopes to bring in or promote younger senior executives) might create recruitment or retention problems.
I think that Apple already does a pretty good job when it comes to setting compensation policies that align top executives' personal financial interests with Apple's longer-term interests.
It's comical they help force the progressive agenda on the country and promote letting transgenders in the bathroom with little girls, but don't want the progressive agenda forced on themselves.
If a woman transitions into a man, do you want him sharing a bathroom with 'little girls'?
It is not possible to change one's sex, and bathrooms are sex segregated, not gender segregated, because of the biological possibility of rape and pregnancy. The men's room is not there to protect men from sexually aggressive women who, in any case, could not overpower and implant them with a human parasite. That is a very real, material vulnerability experienced exclusively by females and is the salient determinant in their classification, and the reason why provisions for them are ubiquitous and necessary.
You didn't answer the question though did you?
A woman takes hormones, has the operation, changes her name to Fred, gets a job on a building site.
He wants to use the bathroom, so chooses the one appropriate with what's written on his birth certificate.
So now you have a big hairy builder sharing a bathroom with the worryingly often-cited little girl.
Comments
I don't believe the proposal was remotely suggesting hiring for the sake of political correctness to fill some quoter. As I see it it is just a tool to mitigate human conditioning.
The argument that Apple is sufficiently optimized to negate such a thing is to me hogwash, ultimately talent plays a distant second to simpatico relationships in the work place, remember Scott Fostall ? Though this isn't exactly the same thing it does highlight the simple fact that for a company to thrive it requires it's people to get along and that in its essence is a race issue, it's naturally easier to get along with one's own kind, it's just human nature.
I too by the way reject this proposal, not because I think its not needed but because, it's the wrong way to archive the desired effect.
Just my two cents
Now, having said that.... I'm glad this proposal was defeated. It's a sledgehammer approach that does more harm than good.
I do support more nuanced forms of affirmative action, though, that have the potential to gradually move the needle over time. For example, I support using race as a tie-breaker, so that if an employer is about to toss a coin to decide who to hire, instead of tossing the coin, hire the black guy. That's not going to solve anything overnight, but it will nudge things in a more equitable direction over time. If it's combined with efforts to provide equal access to education and other opportunities, then it will eventually work.
It's a matter of education. I grew up six decades ago in a small suburb which had very few people of color. I don't recall hearing much anti-color rhetoric from anyone in schools or church. It was simply a vacuum of information for me. I actually wondered how it might feel to shake a black person's hand!
But when I later did get out into the world, I met, associated, and worked with many people of color, and in almost every case, I learned more and more that skin color mattered not at all. The only thing that did matter was the person's attitude, which was indeed colored at times by bigotry and fixed ideas.
I also learned that such fixed ideas rarely if ever budged at all in the face of regulations or laws. Bigotry easily prevailed, if covertly, and often intensified in the face of enforcement.
You are damn right that "its a thing"! Its called reverse discrimination -- although why it they need to add reverse to the phrase is a mystery (i.e., its plain ole discrimination). It get so tired of this diversity crap (I have a multi-racial family). The thought that there exists a Miss Black America contest is appalling -- you think people would raise hell if a group got together and had a Miss White America contest? Then we have the case of Fisher v. UT where a student was bumped for not having colored skin... Thats what the PCs call Affirmative Action? Time to dump that policy -- it has done nothing to help discrimination since it uses discrimination as its guiding principal.
Employing racist policies (no matter your intentions) to try and balance the mix is racist. You can't use a racist policy to fix what some call a racist policy. It takes time, as Mr. Rodney King in the midst of much chaos "Can we all just get along?".
Just because a company seeks diversity on a Board doesn't mean they're not also seeking the best person. Sometimes the best person is someone who is 'diverse' because they bring a wider perspective to the company. Apple's customers are diverse and the Board should reflect that so that the company serves those customers (and customers they don't have yet) well. Apple markets around the world -- maybe the Board needs more executives from around the world. If Apple's Board happened to contain only people over the age of 65, one could argue that regardless of their accomplishments, the Board is too old because it can't understand the culture and desires of younger customers and I don't think anyone would be on here screaming that it's racist (or ageist) to specifically seek younger Board members. Seeking to diversify the Board based on race, ethnicity or gender is no different.
Hiring a person in part because they're Hispanic or Black or Asian or whatever is no more racist against Whites than hiring a creative type demonstrates bias against MBAs.
It's quite naive to think that bias doesn't still exist in the executive suites. I just read an article about a newly hired female CEO who showed up early for an senior exec meeting and when the male execs came into the conference room, they asked her to bring them coffee. And furthermore, what makes anyone think that Apple's Board Members today are absolutely the "best" people for the job?
Transgender people face more than enough abuse and intolerance from other people already. After all, in both cases (male to female as well as female to male) they're almost certainly going to be going about their business in the privacy of a stall. People should stop being so unhealthily interested in other people's plumbing and leave them to get on with it.
Apple's hiring process is a heck of a gauntlet, particularly at the top. Whoever has the best chops, the best record, and the best credentials wins.
Turn off CNN and learn what the scientific method is. You don’t know now.
Congratulations, you’re racist.
Fuck your overton window pushing. We’re pushing back.
Congratulations. You’re racist.
The sentence ends here.
Learn what equity is.
They have that. You know nothing about the topic. Can. Just did. Have an argument.
Prove it.
Wow, a majority white nation has majority white executives; who the fuck would have guessed.
Except that’s definitionally the opposite of what you’re claiming.
Maybe, but they’re doing fine now.
In what way could you argue that? Prove your example. Prove that Apple isn’t correctly catering to the other races.
What makes YOU think they’re not?
That proposal related to requiring senior executives to retain 75% of the stock that they receive (net of tax) as part of their compensation until they reach normal retirement age. I think that would represent a major handicap for Apple when it comes to attracting leadership talent. A number of Apple's senior executives are many years from retirement age. Telling people that they won't be able to get most of their pay for 10 or 15 years (or longer if Apple hopes to bring in or promote younger senior executives) might create recruitment or retention problems.
I think that Apple already does a pretty good job when it comes to setting compensation policies that align top executives' personal financial interests with Apple's longer-term interests.
A woman takes hormones, has the operation, changes her name to Fred, gets a job on a building site.
He wants to use the bathroom, so chooses the one appropriate with what's written on his birth certificate.
So now you have a big hairy builder sharing a bathroom with the worryingly often-cited little girl.
Is this okay?
Changing your birth certificate (because the original obviously doesn’t have that name) does not change your chromosomes.