Apple CEO Tim Cook shows support for pending U.S. nondiscrimination act

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 76
    alexmitalexmit Posts: 112member
    I'm still shocked by the fact that prospective employers in the US ask your race as a "voluntary identification". You can choose not to disclose the information, but I've always wondered how that would affect the screening process. Just a thought.
  • Reply 22 of 76
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    I've read his interviews. Thanks. Pretty vacuous on industry insights there. (Perhaps you can tell me if I've missed something?).

    Regarding CEOs commenting on social issues, would you be so sanguine if the issue he was commenting on was about, say, the greatness of the Tea Party or he was for the government shutdown?

    But this seems to be a business issue having to do with hiring and non-discrimination at work, not as a larger social issue. Apple has to lead, or at least not be backward, on this and other issues that have to do with the way it runs its business.

    Same with their labor policy and environmental issues, just part of the way they've chosen to carry out their mission.
  • Reply 23 of 76
    This is a total waste of time and energy. First, the religious exemption is so wide that it actually allows any company to legally discriminate as long as they invoke their faith, second assuming it makes it past the senate filibuster it doesn't stand a chance in this jerrymandered congress full of teabaggers.
  • Reply 24 of 76
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

     
    Apple has to lead, or at least not be backward, on this and other issues that have to do with the way it runs its business.


    Couldn't agree more. But they should lead quietly, and not in front of the Senate or on the op-ed pages of the WSJ.

     

    Lead by example, and let the actions speak for themselves. (As a poster points out above, if Cook is so passionate about non-discrimination, Apple has a ways to go on the gender front, don't you think?).

  • Reply 25 of 76
    (As a poster points out above, if Cook is so passionate about non-discrimination, Apple has a ways to go on the gender front, don't you think?).
    No, I don't think. What a ludicrous comment.
  • Reply 26 of 76
    Brands, including celebrities, should stay out of politics. Think Church and State.

    Mr. Cook, vote, donate and advocate (lobby) as you wish on on your own time, quietly. Your public position as head of a public company requires personal discretion.

    Regardless of ones views, the issue at hand (the Bill), is 100% politics. With the country (Apple's customer base) divided 50/50 on politics, it's not only distasteful to involve the company, it's irresponsible.
  • Reply 27 of 76
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rmb0037 View Post

    No, I don't think. What a ludicrous comment.

    Why is it 'ludicrous'? Care to explain instead of just asserting?

     

    The fact is, there is currently no non-white non-male in Apple's c-suite, and one woman on the board (who may be on the way out).

     

    Cook is the one arguing for inclusion, diversity, and non-discrimination. Since he's the one to bring it up, it's surely a fair question to ask?

  • Reply 28 of 76
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member

    I don't agree with this. Businesses should be allowed to hire whomever they please and discrimination should be allowed.

     

    If I'm hiring somebody, I should be allowed to discriminate based on whatever factors I deem to be important. It's my money after all.

     

    If somebody is a nutjob, then I don't want them working for me.

     

    If somebody is a religious wacko, then I don't want them working for me.

     

    If I'm looking for a female secretary, then only females will be allowed to apply.

     

    If somebody is a political extremist (like a liberal), then I don't want them working for me.

     

    If somebody is extremely obese, then I don't want them working for me.

     

    People looking to hire potential employees should be able to weed out people who are not fit for the job.

  • Reply 29 of 76
    Why is it 'ludicrous'? Care to explain instead of just asserting?

    The fact is, there is currently no non-white non-male in Apple's c-suite, and one woman on the board (who may be on the way out).

    Cook is the one arguing for inclusion, diversity, and non-discrimination. Since he's the one to bring it up, it's surely a fair question to ask?
    Anyone care to assert the fact that maybe...just maybe...apple hires people because they can get a JOB DONE INSTEAD OF WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE? It's absolutely stupid to assume that Tim cook and others sit behind closed doors and go "well this guy sure did a good job...but he's black." It's absolutely stupid we are even discussing this. The company hires because work gets done, therefore revenue is created. Anything else is just eye-candy. The victim is not minorities or females or whatever. The victim is our indulgence in assuming the worst of people.
  • Reply 30 of 76
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lloydte View Post



    That's because it is completely irrelevant. So what if he is. Doesn't make any difference.

     

    Gay people are fine in the workplace, as long as they are professional and don't wear their gayness on their sleeves.

  • Reply 31 of 76
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post



    Regarding CEOs commenting on social issues, would you be so sanguine if the issue he was commenting on was about, say, the greatness of the Tea Party or he was for the government shutdown? ....  (bold emphasis mine)

    Really ? anantksundaram?         Do you really equate your comment to what is found in your country's Declaration of Independence? i.e. "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"...

     

    You might want to rethink your post.

  • Reply 32 of 76
    rmb0037 wrote: »
    Anyone care to assert the fact that maybe...just maybe...apple hires people because they can get a JOB DONE INSTEAD OF WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE? It's absolutely stupid to assume that Tim cook and others sit behind closed doors and go "well this guy sure did a good job...but he's black." It's absolutely stupid we are even discussing this. The company hires because work gets done, therefore revenue is created. Anything else is just eye-candy. The victim is not minorities or females or whatever. The victim is our indulgence in assuming the worst of people.

    First, you're the one assuming the worst of people. Second, I completely agree with you that hiring should be based of quality, period, and not quotas, diversity metrics or 'eye candy.' Third, do you suppose that's consistent with what Cook's op-ed says and more importantly, what the bill proposes? Fourth, do you now see why a CEO wading into these sorts of social and public policy issues is problematic?
  • Reply 33 of 76

    Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees shouldn't be discriminated in the workplace.

    That being said, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees discriminate against others as much as anybody else.

  • Reply 34 of 76
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by blogorant View Post



    Brands, including celebrities, should stay out of politics. Think Church and State.



    Mr. Cook, vote, donate and advocate (lobby) as you wish on on your own time, quietly. Your public position as head of a public company requires personal discretion.



    Regardless of ones views, the issue at hand (the Bill), is 100% politics. With the country (Apple's customer base) divided 50/50 on politics, it's not only distasteful to involve the company, it's irresponsible.

     

    First off, only someone completely unfamiliar with the political landscape in the U.S. would suggest that the country is "divided 50/50 on politics."  That could not be farther from the truth.

     

    Secondly, I love how when people claim that CEOs/actors/whoever should "stay out of politics" that they don't even realize the irony in a statement like that.  What gives YOU the right to tell people what to do, or what certain people should do?  Here's one for you:

     

    I think YOU should stay out of commenting on politics.  How is that?

     

    Tim Cook, you, I, and everyone else has as much right (and often responsibility) to comment on whatever situation is at hand.  This concept that keyboard warriors get to decide who should shut up and who shouldn't is so absurdly narcissistic that it is practically bewildering (it would be, but I'm so used to it that it's gone from angering to bewildering to amusing for the most part these days).

     

    Finally, Tim Cook is an important voice on this issue because he is the CEO of one of the most important and most valuable companies in the world.  If the CEO of Apple, of all people, shouldn't be commenting on a bill that has to do with EMPLOYMENT, then who the frack should be?!

  • Reply 35 of 76
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

     

     

    Gay people are fine in the workplace, as long as they are professional and don't wear their gayness on their sleeves.


     

    Straight people are fine in the workplace, as long as they are professional and don't wear their straightness not their sleeves.

  • Reply 36 of 76
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

     

     

    Gay people are fine in the workplace, as long as they are professional and don't wear their gayness on their sleeves.


    So gay people are fine in the workplace as long as they aren't noticeably gay?

  • Reply 37 of 76
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by blogorant View Post



    Brands, including celebrities, should stay out of politics. Think Church and State.



    Mr. Cook, vote, donate and advocate (lobby) as you wish on on your own time, quietly. Your public position as head of a public company requires personal discretion.



    Regardless of ones views, the issue at hand (the Bill), is 100% politics. With the country (Apple's customer base) divided 50/50 on politics, it's not only distasteful to involve the company, it's irresponsible.

     

    Agreed. I'm sure Apple has done their research and the majority of the board is okay with Cook taking a very public stance on this because they figured that the younger customer base are indifferent to LGBT issues so it won't hurt the company.

  • Reply 38 of 76
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post



    Regarding CEOs commenting on social issues, would you be so sanguine if the issue he was commenting on was about, say, the greatness of the Tea Party or he was for the government shutdown?

     

    I'd think him an idiot, but that's no reason for him to censor himself.  I prefer it when idiots out themselves for the world to see.

     

    Fortunately, Tim Cook is no idiot,.

  • Reply 39 of 76
    First, you're the one assuming the worst of people. Second, I completely agree with you that hiring should be based of quality, period, and not quotas, diversity metrics or 'eye candy.' Third, do you suppose that's consistent with what Cook's op-ed says and more importantly, what the bill proposes? Fourth, do you now see why a CEO wading into these sorts of social and public policy issues is problematic?
    First, we'll go ahead and drop that statement due to the previous comments on this particular story.
    Second, sweet!
    Third, employee equality and individualism is very much in line with the subject of the OP-ED.
    Fourth, no, because people look up to a man with such corporate power. Sure, he can walk all he wants to by just doing what he has been doing for the almost 2(?) years he's been CEO. But him coming out and openly supporting what is being laid on the table is very crucial. Not so much for apple but for companies all over the place. Small and large. I am fully behind him doing this.
  • Reply 40 of 76
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by newbee View Post

     

    Really ? anantksundaram?         Do you really equate your comment to what is found in your country's Declaration of Independence? i.e. "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"...

     

    You might want to rethink your post.


    Really.

     

    There's nothing to rethink.

     

    Given that it's already there in the constitution, why do we need a new bill, let alone an op-ed from a CEO? (The points about TP and shutdown were made purely as an argumentative device).

Sign In or Register to comment.