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

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 76
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by CogitoDexter View Post

     

     

    What would be the point of lobbying quietly? Unless you didn't want to be heard of course, in which case, why lobby at all? 

     

    In this case, Cook makes an incredibly important point: ending discrimination is good - not only for the people who are no longer discriminated against, but also for their employers and then, by extension for everyone else as a more successful company can only be a positive thing for the economy in which it operates. People opposed to such non-discrimination laws are, effectively, seeking real actual harm for the economy which supports them. And that is distinctly illogical and counterproductive.


    The validity of this bill or the need for one like it is not the issue or the point.  The point is whether or not it's OK for someone that is the public face and voice of a publicly traded company, in his capacity as such, to take a public stance on an issue of social politics and lobby for a specific piece of legislation.

     

    He had the legal right to do so and I would not challenge that legal right.  I'm also not gonna say it's OK for him to do so just because it's legal.  We all make choices in life.  Certain jobs and roles call for us to conduct ourselves in a certain way.  You know that when you take the job.  If you want to sell products to 100% of the market you avoid unnecessarily distracting customers by associating your brand with a social issue that has nothing whatsoever to do with your brand.  This goes (or should go) for actors selling movie tickets, athletes selling shoes and CEOs selling computers.

  • Reply 62 of 76
    I wonder what Apple's Foxconn workers would be saying about this. Next thing you know Cook will be saying "We do not discriminate against Chinese workers. We pay them the same pittance regardless of who they are."
  • Reply 63 of 76
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

     

     

    Umm, huh?  I'm pretty sure that there are numerous things on which Tim Cook and I would disagree.

     

    But this is pretty damned clear as it's a question of equality.  And anyone who is against equality is someone with whom I don't simply disagree.  That person is someone for whom I have no respect.

     

    However, none of that matters here.  The point is, Tim Cook is a U.S. citizen.  He is entitled to voice his opinion on whatever matter he wishes.  Just like you.  Just like me.  Just like everyone else.  And as I said, the fact that he is the CEO of one of the most important, most valuable corporations in the world would make him a perfect person to comment on a bill that affects EMPLOYMENT and the WORKPLACE.

     

    Did you even bother to read the piece?  Did you read his reasoning?  Do you have any counter-arguments?  Or are you just telling him to shut the $#%& up?


     

    Aaron J, I read the piece. I read his reasoning. I don't know why you would assume a person doesn't understand the issues if the person doesn't agree with you. I guess that's the automatic reaction since some can't fathom another point of view, no matter how logical and tempered.

  • Reply 64 of 76
    I have worked with and for gay people in the workplace and don't have a problem with anybody as long as they are competent in their job. My concern about "non discrimination legislation" is that it can be turned into reverse discrimination. For example, suppose a gay person is not competent in a job and doesn't get the promotion or gets let go. Then they accuse their boss of discrimination. Won't this law be used to pressure employers to show favoritism toward such people, creating a situation where a person's sexual orientation and not their job skills got them the job? Where does that leave the person who was qualified for the job? Suppose the person who was qualified for the job is gay but they didn't get it because a law that's supposed to protect gay people kept an incompetent gay person in their job end eliminated an opportunity for the competent gay person. What have you just done to the competency level of your staff? Can't you see the mess thus creates for businesses? I fear that this type of legislation only replaces one set of biases with another.
  • Reply 65 of 76
    conrailconrail Posts: 489member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

     

    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.


    How many people will you be hiring to work in your mom's basement?

  • Reply 66 of 76
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rickwil61 View Post



    My concern about "non discrimination legislation" is that it can be turned into reverse discrimination. For example, suppose a gay person is not competent in a job and doesn't get the promotion or gets let go. Then they accuse their boss of discrimination. Won't this law be used to pressure employers to show favoritism toward such people, creating a situation where a person's sexual orientation and not their job skills got them the job? 

     

    We already have similar laws in Europe. What you're describing is a non-issue.

  • Reply 67 of 76
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

     

     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

     

    Exactly.

     

    I once got a gay person fired, because they were extremely annoying and not very professional. I don't care about people's sexual orientation, as long as they keep it away from the workplace. Otherwise it becomes a distraction. I'm not interested in people's emotional problems and issues, and they should keep that crap at home where it belongs.


     

    I don't see the correlation here. I can be really annoying, and I'm not gay. What you describe sounds more like an issue with the individual.

  • Reply 68 of 76
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

     

    So, we didn't need the Civil Rights Act?  Or the Voters' Rights Act?

     

    Ah, good to know that all those heads that got bashed in and all the violence and the marches were totally for naught.  Gotcha.


    Chill. Or take your meds. Or whatever....

     

    But please stop sounding so silly and shrill.

  • Reply 69 of 76
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     

    Chill. Or take your meds. Or whatever....

     

    But please stop sounding so silly and shrill.


     

    Neither silly nor shrill.  Here's a quote.  From you.  In this thread.

     

    Quote:


    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).


     

    Your argument would apply to the Civil Rights Act or the Voters' Rights Act as much as it would to ENDA, or anything resembling it.  By your logic, the Constitution (post-Civil War amendments) said that blacks and whites were equal.  So, why would we need a bill on that subject?  Why pass the Civil Rights Act when it's "already there in the Constitution?"

     

    The fact is, what was in the Constitution wasn't sufficiently protecting the rights of those people who were being oppressed.  Therefore, Congress and President Johnson saw fit, after a HUGE movement made it all but a done deal, to pass both the Civil Rights Act and the Voters' Right Act.  Not only that, but those two bills are the primary reason why the GOP is mostly a regional party, only having any real traction in the old Confederacy.  The Democrats who had been pro-segregation left the party, and the South became Republican territory, whereas most everywhere else (except the non-populated plains states) became Democratic territory.

     

    Now, you can either argue that "it's in the Constitution already" (ignoring 200+ years of Supreme Court activity, but that's a different discussion altogether), and then accept as an adjucnt to that argument that there was no reason to pass the Civil Rights Act.  Or you can argue that that what is "in the Constitution" rarely matters in actual reality.  And that a bill like ENDA is simply a coninuation of the sorts of things like the Civil Rights Act and the Voters' Rights Act.

     

    Pick one.

  • Reply 70 of 76
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rickwil61 View Post



    I have worked with and for gay people in the workplace and don't have a problem with anybody as long as they are competent in their job. My concern about "non discrimination legislation" is that it can be turned into reverse discrimination. For example, suppose a gay person is not competent in a job and doesn't get the promotion or gets let go. Then they accuse their boss of discrimination. Won't this law be used to pressure employers to show favoritism toward such people, creating a situation where a person's sexual orientation and not their job skills got them the job? Where does that leave the person who was qualified for the job? Suppose the person who was qualified for the job is gay but they didn't get it because a law that's supposed to protect gay people kept an incompetent gay person in their job end eliminated an opportunity for the competent gay person. What have you just done to the competency level of your staff? Can't you see the mess thus creates for businesses? I fear that this type of legislation only replaces one set of biases with another.

     

    You're spinning yourself into a tizzy by the end, there. :) Any law can be abused, sure. But the system is already being taken advantage of with gay people being fired for no other reason, and they have no recourse. This won't pressure favoritism any more than age, race and gender have... right or wrong. In fact, it's considerably less pressure since gays account for a much smaller percentage of people than elderly, women or racial minorities. So it would be making a mountain out of a molehill here as far as the "mess" goes.

     

    People should also remember that "straight" is a sexual orientation too, and would also be protected. It eliminates any bias of straight over gay, or vise versa. If anything it should encourage honest companies to keep an accurate employee performance trail, as they should be doing anyway.

  • Reply 71 of 76

    Mr. Cook,

     

    Please continue to make great products that we all love, leave the social issues to Al Gore, and the liberal Hollywood nut jobs.

  • Reply 72 of 76
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AtlApple View Post

     

    Mr. Cook,

     

    Please continue to make great products that we all love, leave the social issues to Al Gore, and the liberal Hollywood nut jobs.


     

    I'm sorry -- and moderators, do what you will with this, I'll understand -- but this one of the stupidest comments I've ever seen.

     

    I'll guarantee that most of these "liberal Holllywood nut jobs" do more in a week for people who need help than you will do in a lifetime.  So spare us.  Please.

     

    I love when arrogance and narcissism hide behind an anonymous user name on some random message board.  

  • Reply 73 of 76
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jobsonmyface View Post



    Article fails to mention cook is gay

     

    We *think he's gay. But he hasn't ever came out and said he was. But I think he was in the right to say this. I hate discrimination of any kind and have been the victim of it many times due to my Crohn's Disease. 
  • Reply 74 of 76
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

     

     

    I'm sorry -- and moderators, do what you will with this, I'll understand -- but this one of the stupidest comments I've ever seen.

     

    I'll guarantee that most of these "liberal Holllywood nut jobs" do more in a week for people who need help than you will do in a lifetime.  So spare us.  Please.

     

    I love when arrogance and narcissism hide behind an anonymous user name on some random message board.  


    Does our friend realize Al Gore is on Apple's Board of Directors? Lol

  • Reply 75 of 76
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by macintoshxpert View Post

     

    Does our friend realize Al Gore is on Apple's Board of Directors? Lol


     

    You're an idiot.

     

    Laugh all you want.

  • Reply 76 of 76
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

     

     

    You're an idiot.

     

    Laugh all you want.


    It's true. Look it up.

Sign In or Register to comment.