Of all the issues that the President of the United States has to address how do Apple's business practices even rank?
slightly more important than renaming the Gulf of Mexico and somewhat lower than using lethal force to colonize two free nations that have made it clear they don't want to be part of the USA.
I get why people are not down with annexing Canada, sovereign nation, ally and all of that Jazz. But hear me out. Canada has a population the that is slightly larger than California. So when you factor that into the electoral college, we wouldn't see a Republican POTUS again.
I met a few Canadians who were super pro Trump, if we do annex there’s no guarantee there won’t be more.
Okay, kinda thought this was obvious but my comment wasn't serious. Also, there is actually polling of how Canadians feel about Trump and it isn't good.
What Trump will likely do is ban any federal contracts with companies that still have strong DEI programs in place. I am not sure how much business Apple does with the federal government, but that would likely be a very good reason for Apple to significantly curtail if not eliminate DEI which in my opinion is a good thing.
Many federal agencies issue cell phones to employees. For various reasons work phones must be separate from person phones. Often that federally issued work phone is an iPhone. I would image that the Feds buy an awful lot of iPhones.
As to whether DEI is a good thing or a bad thing, that's not the real issue here. Studies have shown that humans like being in a group, and they want to feel like their group is better than other groups. It is also common for humans to become upset if they think the other groups are gaining on them. Trump understands how to motivate people. His war on DEI, immigrants, etc., are primarily to build support by providing his supporters with groups they can feel better than. It turns out that with these sorts of issues, people tend to think emotionally. rather than rationally.
Now, whether or not DEI, immigrants, etc., are bad or good, isn't the issue here. The rhetoric we are getting to justify these policies are emotional, and not based on facts.
You are assuming the federal government's contract to buy iPhones is with Apple and not a carrier or other seller of phones.
I love the people who scream for the gubberment to leave people and companies alone then get upset when it doesn’t stop companies from doing stuff they don’t like.
At least one company has publicly pushed back. The fact that there isn't more of this is so ridiculously sad, and frightening.
Also, DEI is an extremely broad concept. Being absolutely and utterly against it means ... what exactly? That it should be illegal to not use nepotism for hiring or to look outside of the group of people who look just like you? Does it mean that pay and promotions should be based purely on manager biases or who has the loudest testosterone driven demands for more money and a better job title? Does it literally mean being exclusionary?
It would be one thing if people were complaining about aspects of DEI that companies get wrong, like if they really were genuinely shutting out stellarly capable white guys in favor of filling organizations with genuinely incompetent trans Inuit drag queens (presuming this ever happens), but if there is a coherent description of absolutist anti-DEI "thinking" that doesn't make clear that its most influential "thinkers" are just sexist racist nepotists, I have yet to see evidence of it.
Comments
You are assuming the federal government's contract to buy iPhones is with Apple and not a carrier or other seller of phones.
Also, DEI is an extremely broad concept. Being absolutely and utterly against it means ... what exactly? That it should be illegal to not use nepotism for hiring or to look outside of the group of people who look just like you? Does it mean that pay and promotions should be based purely on manager biases or who has the loudest testosterone driven demands for more money and a better job title? Does it literally mean being exclusionary?
It would be one thing if people were complaining about aspects of DEI that companies get wrong, like if they really were genuinely shutting out stellarly capable white guys in favor of filling organizations with genuinely incompetent trans Inuit drag queens (presuming this ever happens), but if there is a coherent description of absolutist anti-DEI "thinking" that doesn't make clear that its most influential "thinkers" are just sexist racist nepotists, I have yet to see evidence of it.