Has anyone truly read the proposal??? Where does the author of that proposal advocate solely awarding positions in senior management or the board of directors based on colour or race? NOWHERE!!!
The author states: "Shareholders’ view of diversity – that everyone matters (irrespective of colour, race, sex, creed or
religion) – recognizes the Company’s commitment to diversity and the uniqueness of experience,
strength, culture, thought and commitment contributed by each employee; however, it does not
ignore the Company’s senior management and board of directors diminutive level of diversity and its
painstakingly slow implementation."
The author further states: "Shareholders opined that companies with holistic comprehensive diversity policies and programs,
and strong leadership commitment to implementation, enhance their long-term value; reducing the
Company’s potential legal and reputational risks associated with workplace discrimination and build
reputations as a fair employer. Equally, shareholders opined that the varied perspectives of a diverse
senior management and board of directors would provide a competitive advantage in terms of
creativity, innovation, productivity and morale, while eliminating the limitations of “groupthink”, as it
would recognize the uniqueness of experience, strength, culture and thought contributed by each;
strengthening its reputation and accountability to shareholders."
So instead of just reading Apple's refusal to accept the proposal, read the proposal in full - not just the tidbits you get from an article or report.
I am voting FOR the proposal. It's time to stop with the political correctness BS, and admit that Silicon Valley has a serious problem w/ glass ceilings at senior management and board of director level!
Apple is all talk, but no true action.
How can Apple justify Al Gore as being one of "the best talent" for its Board of Directors? Al Gore is a has-been VPOTUS, who has only believed in supporting censorship of the music industry and of the arts in general, and wanting to push his global warming agenda on everyone. What true talent has Al Gore brought to the table??? What makes him more qualified to be on Apple's Board than for example: Amex's Chairman/CEO Kenneth Chenault, United Airlines' CEO Oscar Munoz, Microsoft's John W. Thompson, or Coca-Cola's Muhtar Kent?
Let's clear the record: Tim Cook did NOT come out as Gay! Tim Cook was outed and was forced to acknowledge publicly that he is gay. Silicon Valley is full of engineers and managers that are White Gay Males, they just can easily mask it, as Tim Cook did for so many years. If Tim Cook was not outed, he would have never divulged to the world that he is gay. So let's be truthful about the matter.
The number of Hispanics and Blacks at Apple's management level has dropped from 2014 to present.
Why is it that Apple spanned 18 years (1997 to 2015) before appointing another Black/African-American to the Board of Directors? (Delano Lewis 1994 to 1997; James Bell 2015 to present)? Apple's partner, American Express has had a Black Chairman/CEO (Kenneth Chenault) for over 2 decades; why has he never been invited to join Apple's Board? Is he not bright or talented enough for Apple?
Why is it that Apple has not appointed a Hispanic to its Board of Directors? Are there no Hispanic CEOs or Chairman of the Board of Fortune 100 companies of great caliber for Apple's Board?
Why is it that only 1 Hispanic Male (Eddy Cue) 1 Middle-Eastern Male (Johny Srouji), and one Caucasian Female are the only ones to have gotten past Apple's glass ceiling? Hmmm... so no other Hispanic, Black, Asian, South Asian are of great quality, caliber and talent to be in senior management?
Why is it that the only Asian Female to be on Apple's Board happens to be a former Chairwoman/CEO of less than stellar corporate record at Avon? Is that part of the ""the best talent" pool Apple talks so much about? Big reminder to everyone: Apple is highly dependent on sales outside the US, and a great majority of their sales are in countries that are not caucasian majority countries. If you believe that people in these countries would continue to accept the silent discrimination occurring in Silicon Valley, think again. If that was the case, phone manufacturers in China would not be so successful; as the Chinese are extremely loyal to Chinese brands.
So let's stop w/ the BS statements of reverse discrimination and all other defenses to justify Apple's and all other Silicon Valley continued resistance to expand their talent pool to include more women and people of colour to senior management and board of director level! If we don't wake up from this foolish politically correct behaviour of denial of the truth, we will have no one but ourselves to blame for Apple's and all other Silicon Valley demise.
Has anyone truly read the proposal??? Where does the author of that proposal advocate solely awarding positions in senior management or the board of directors based on colour or race? NOWHERE!!!
The author states: "Shareholders’ view of diversity – that everyone matters (irrespective of colour, race, sex, creed or
religion) – recognizes the Company’s commitment to diversity and the uniqueness of experience,
strength, culture, thought and commitment contributed by each employee; however, it does not
ignore the Company’s senior management and board of directors diminutive level of diversity and its
painstakingly slow implementation."
The author further states: "Shareholders opined that companies with holistic comprehensive diversity policies and programs,
and strong leadership commitment to implementation, enhance their long-term value; reducing the
Company’s potential legal and reputational risks associated with workplace discrimination and build
reputations as a fair employer. Equally, shareholders opined that the varied perspectives of a diverse
senior management and board of directors would provide a competitive advantage in terms of
creativity, innovation, productivity and morale, while eliminating the limitations of “groupthink”, as it
would recognize the uniqueness of experience, strength, culture and thought contributed by each;
strengthening its reputation and accountability to shareholders."
So instead of just reading Apple's refusal to accept the proposal, read the proposal in full - not just the tidbits you get from an article or report.
I am voting FOR the proposal. It's time to stop with the political correctness BS, and admit that Silicon Valley has a serious problem w/ glass ceilings at senior management and board of director level!
Apple is all talk, but no true action.
How can Apple justify Al Gore as being one of "the best talent" for its Board of Directors? Al Gore is a has-been VPOTUS, who has only believed in supporting censorship of the music industry and of the arts in general, and wanting to push his global warming agenda on everyone. What true talent has Al Gore brought to the table??? What makes him more qualified to be on Apple's Board than for example: Amex's Chairman/CEO Kenneth Chenault, United Airlines' CEO Oscar Munoz, Microsoft's John W. Thompson, or Coca-Cola's Muhtar Kent?
Let's clear the record: Tim Cook did NOT come out as Gay! Tim Cook was outed and was forced to acknowledge publicly that he is gay. Silicon Valley is full of engineers and managers that are White Gay Males, they just can easily mask it, as Tim Cook did for so many years. If Tim Cook was not outed, he would have never divulged to the world that he is gay. So let's be truthful about the matter.
The number of Hispanics and Blacks at Apple's management level has dropped from 2014 to present.
Why is it that Apple spanned 18 years (1997 to 2015) before appointing another Black/African-American to the Board of Directors? (Delano Lewis 1994 to 1997; James Bell 2015 to present)? Apple's partner, American Express has had a Black Chairman/CEO (Kenneth Chenault) for over 2 decades; why has he never been invited to join Apple's Board? Is he not bright or talented enough for Apple?
Why is it that Apple has not appointed a Hispanic to its Board of Directors? Are there no Hispanic CEOs or Chairman of the Board of Fortune 100 companies of great caliber for Apple's Board?
Why is it that only 1 Hispanic Male (Eddy Cue) 1 Middle-Eastern Male (Johny Srouji), and one Caucasian Female are the only ones to have gotten past Apple's glass ceiling? Hmmm... so no other Hispanic, Black, Asian, South Asian are of great quality, caliber and talent to be in senior management?
Why is it that the only Asian Female to be on Apple's Board happens to be a former Chairwoman/CEO of less than stellar corporate record at Avon? Is that part of the ""the best talent" pool Apple talks so much about?
Big reminder to everyone: Apple is highly dependent on sales outside the US, and a great majority of their sales are in countries that are not caucasian majority countries. If you believe that people in these countries would continue to accept the silent discrimination occurring in Silicon Valley, think again. If that was the case, phone manufacturers in China would not be so successful; as the Chinese are extremely loyal to Chinese brands.
So let's stop w/ the BS statements of reverse discrimination and all other defenses to justify Apple's and all other Silicon Valley continued resistance to expand their talent pool to include more women and people of colour to senior management and board of director level! If we don't wake up from this foolish politically correct behaviour of denial of the truth, we will have no one but ourselves to blame for Apple's and all other Silicon Valley demise.
Dumb post. Please vote "NO" to the micro-management proposal re: diversity.
Nobody should receive an advantage based on the colour of their skin. Full stop. End of story. As a shareholder, I want every position in the company filled by the most qualified applicant. If there are actual cases of racial discrimination - where the most qualified applicant is rejected because of their skin colour - then that is indeed a travesty that must be fixed. But this needs to include cases where the most qualified applicant is white and the position is given to someone "non-white" who is "almost" as qualified because it helps satisfy diversity targets.
Diversity targets give non-white applicants an advantage based solely on the colour of their skin. That is wrong and it's the problem that we are trying to fix. Two wrong do not make a right - but that is exactly what is happening here. It does not solve a problem. It creates a new one and will destroy companies in the process.
Racial discrimination should be ELIMINATED - not reversed. NOBODY should receive an advantage or a disadvantage because of their skin colour. Full stop. Employers should be punished for every instance of discrimination.
Its funny and sad that the same shareholders who would force Tim Cook to fill the board with people of diverse skin colours to the exclusion of more talented white candidates will also be the first ones to call for his termination when he follows their advice and the company loses money. The "best" applicants that were snubbed by Apple could get together and build a company to compete with Apple and take business away from them - or more likely, will find employment with Apples competitors. The innovations and optimizations these "best" candidates create will end up taking business AWAY from Apple!
You don't take a successful company like Apple (or any other company for that matter) - that is full of the best and brightest employees - and intentionally water down the talent pool without realizing that this is likely to have a negative material impact on the companies success and future.
Tim Cooks primary job is to manage the company in such a way that it provides increasing value to shareholders. To do that, and stay on the leading edge of technology, pioneering innovation that changes the world and generates success - he needs to ensure that he hires the best and brightest candidates that are available. Failure to do so has 2 major negative implications. The first is that Apple themselves are deprived of the talent. The second is that the talent ends up finding a home with a competitor. This gives the competition a huge advantage in an industry driven by innovation and eventually translates into lower revenue for Apple, decreased market share and a future product pipeline that is lacking the best possible innovation.
if you are an Apple shareholder and you care about the companies long-term success and viability - please vote NO to this ridiculous proposal and trust the existing board to continue to do what's best for the company and for our investment.
Has anyone truly read the proposal??? Where does the author of that proposal advocate solely awarding positions in senior management or the board of directors based on colour or race? NOWHERE!!!
[ .. ]
So let's stop w/ the BS statements of reverse discrimination and all other defenses to justify Apple...
No one reads anymore. They just spout nonsense. Apple fanboys just about lose their shit when talk of diversity rears its head. Apple hasn't done enough for diversity, especially given the rhetoric Cook espouses. Talk is cheap. Even if this proposal is rejected, it may spur more concrete efforts on Apple's part.
Has anyone truly read the proposal??? Where does the author of that proposal advocate solely awarding positions in senior management or the board of directors based on colour or race? NOWHERE!!!
[ .. ]
So let's stop w/ the BS statements of reverse discrimination and all other defenses to justify Apple...
No one reads anymore. They just spout nonsense. Apple fanboys just about lose their shit when talk of diversity rears its head. Apple hasn't done enough for diversity, especially given the rhetoric Cook espouses. Talk is cheap. Even if this proposal is rejected, it may spur more concrete efforts on Apple's part.
Forced diversity is bad and it's wrong to enforce. No decisions anytime anywhere should be based on the colour of somebody's skin. Proponents of forced diversity are in fact racists. It doesn't matter if the decision is favourable or unfavourable.
Can anyone on this forum that is pro-diversity explain to me why somebody less-qualified or less-suited for a position be awarded the position because of their skin colour?
No. You can't. Because there is no reason that makes sense.
Affirmative action is bad enough in college admission; now it's trying to assert itself in the private sector. Whatever happened to selecting the best and the brightest?
Since you brought it up, please do tell us how affirmative action in college admission has personally affected you. Oh, it's just the *thought* of it that bugs you? Well then, by all means, it should be dispensed with because white people have decided that we're all equal now and get treated that way.
Just perusing these comments, it's very interesting to note a general negative tenor, couched in terms of "hire qualified people, period" that *just barely* hides the exasperation that minorities should just stop complaining because we're all enlightened now. Not unexpected, but still disappointing.
Affirmative action brings only issues. Start competition - not socialist approach on forcing diversity anywhere. That word is from someone who came to thdi country to see stupidity of solution on racial issues.
(European in the USA)
Just perusing these comments, it's very interesting to note a general negative tenor, couched in terms of "hire qualified people, period" that *just barely* hides the exasperation that minorities should just stop complaining because we're all enlightened now. Not unexpected, but still disappointing.
Exactly who are the "minorities" that are complaining?
No one reads anymore. They just spout nonsense. Apple fanboys just about lose their shit when talk of diversity rears its head. Apple hasn't done enough for diversity, especially given the rhetoric Cook espouses. Talk is cheap. Even if this proposal is rejected, it may spur more concrete efforts on Apple's part.
Forced diversity is bad and it's wrong to enforce. No decisions anytime anywhere should be based on the colour of somebody's skin. Proponents of forced diversity are in fact racists. It doesn't matter if the decision is favourable or unfavourable.
Can anyone on this forum that is pro-diversity explain to me why somebody less-qualified or less-suited for a position be awarded the position because of their skin colour?
No. You can't. Because there is no reason that makes sense.
“The Committee is committed to actively seeking out highly qualified women and individuals from minority groups to include in the pool from which Board nominees are chosen.” That's from Apple. They talk the talk, but it amounts to empty rhetoric with nothing to show more than two years later.
It's typical conservative nonsense to equate diversity as hiring/promoting less qualified women and people of color.
The number of Hispanics and Blacks at Apple's management level has dropped from 2014 to present.
Why is it that Apple spanned 18 years (1997 to 2015) before appointing another Black/African-American to the Board of Directors? (Delano Lewis 1994 to 1997; James Bell 2015 to present)? Apple's partner, American Express has had a Black Chairman/CEO (Kenneth Chenault) for over 2 decades; why has he never been invited to join Apple's Board? Is he not bright or talented enough for Apple?
Why is it that Apple has not appointed a Hispanic to its Board of Directors? Are there no Hispanic CEOs or Chairman of the Board of Fortune 100 companies of great caliber for Apple's Board?
Why is it that only 1 Hispanic Male (Eddy Cue) 1 Middle-Eastern Male (Johny Srouji), and one Caucasian Female are the only ones to have gotten past Apple's glass ceiling? Hmmm... so no other Hispanic, Black, Asian, South Asian are of great quality, caliber and talent to be in senior management?
Why is it that the only Asian Female to be on Apple's Board happens to be a former Chairwoman/CEO of less than stellar corporate record at Avon? Is that part of the ""the best talent" pool Apple talks so much about?
...
I can't believe how insensitive you are, 800 words and no mention of people in wheelchairs, one-armed, blind, deaf, etc. Do they not also deserve to be hired to prominent positions within Apple?
On a more serious note do you see how easy it is to get sidetracked by issues like this? I could care less if the person they hire to fix the App Store, OS X Server, iTunes, is white, black, green, or three legged. Get the right person for the job. Apple doesn't have a glass ceiling because they have had Hispanics, Middle Easterners, Females, etc. in high position roles.
You do realize Apple is relatively a young company, it'll be 40 years old this April 1st. Ask yourself, how many opportunities have there been to replace a top level manager, let alone find a qualified Asian female to replace a qualified Hispanic or person of some other color, race, ethnic background?
Sometimes I wonder why "all of these talented people who get overlooked" just don't get tougher and build their own Apple... There must be millions of them out there from the way some people talk. What a perfect corporation it would be.
Forced diversity is bad and it's wrong to enforce. No decisions anytime anywhere should be based on the colour of somebody's skin. Proponents of forced diversity are in fact racists. It doesn't matter if the decision is favourable or unfavourable.
Can anyone on this forum that is pro-diversity explain to me why somebody less-qualified or less-suited for a position be awarded the position because of their skin colour?
No. You can't. Because there is no reason that makes sense.
“The Committee is committed to actively seeking out highly qualified women and individuals from minority groups to include in the pool from which Board nominees are chosen.” That's from Apple. They talk the talk, but it amounts to empty rhetoric with nothing to show more than two years later.
It's typical conservative nonsense to equate diversity as hiring/promoting less qualified women and people of color.
So.... What exactly *should* Apple be doing that they are not? It's easy to say "they should do more" - but I don't see many successful companies doing even "as much" as Apple does, never mind "more".
But be exact. What can they do, what should they do - that they are not already doing???
Has there been an instance of a candidate from an ethnic minority group that has applied for a senior level position with Apple that hasn't gotten the job because it was given to someone who was white and less qualified??? If so - you have a point. That shouldn't have happened. But I have a perfect solution for this problem...
These people - the women and minorities who think they have been passed over UNFAIRLY for executive level positions at Apple - should get together and BUILD their own extremely successful company rather than expecting the worlds most successful company to just give them part of it! I'd be willing to bet that none of them were in fact the most qualified...because I've seen that Apple is not afraid to hire women and minorities when they are the best candidates for the position! The only way that they could have been given one of the existing positions would be if someone more qualified were passed over. Someone smarter, or someone who worked harder. Someone who has earned their spot.
Anyhow...2 questions.... 1. What should Apple do that they are not already doing? (Be specific) 2. Which successful large companies are doing a better job than Apple?
I am voting FOR the proposal. It’s time to stop with the political correctness BS…
Then you don’t understand the proposal whatsoever.
Apple is all talk, but no true action.
You’re good for a laugh, at least.
The number of Hispanics and Blacks at Apple's management level has dropped from 2014 to present.
Whoop de fuck. And? Quotas are bullshit.
Big reminder to everyone: Apple is highly dependent on sales outside the US, and a great majority of their sales are in countries that are not caucasian majority countries.
So it probably makes sense not to hire caucasians in those positions.
So quantify it. What is “enough”. Explain to everyone what “enough” is. How about you do for “diversity” what you want and the rest of the world continues to be sane.
The number of Hispanics and Blacks at Apple's management level has dropped from 2014 to present.
Why is it that Apple spanned 18 years (1997 to 2015) before appointing another Black/African-American to the Board of Directors? (Delano Lewis 1994 to 1997; James Bell 2015 to present)? Apple's partner, American Express has had a Black Chairman/CEO (Kenneth Chenault) for over 2 decades; why has he never been invited to join Apple's Board? Is he not bright or talented enough for Apple?
Why is it that Apple has not appointed a Hispanic to its Board of Directors? Are there no Hispanic CEOs or Chairman of the Board of Fortune 100 companies of great caliber for Apple's Board?
That is not a very good metric to judge anything. It takes time for people to rise through the ranks, and it doesn't tell you anything about the expected career trajectory of a recent graduate today compared to a decade or more ago. A year over year change like that is irrelevant on its own, because it's prone to noise. The entire thing is just the wrong approach. It effectively advocates bringing in a token minority, which doesn't fix general problems.
Since you brought it up, please do tell us how affirmative action in college admission has personally affected you. Oh, it's just the *thought* of it that bugs you? Well then, by all means, it should be dispensed with because white people have decided that we're all equal now and get treated that way.
Have an actual argument or don’t both replying.
I’d just edit my last post to reinclude this, but it’s a four hour edit limit. And now I understand why people don’t want that.
Since you brought it up, please do tell us how affirmative action in college admission has personally affected you. Oh, it's just the *thought* of it that bugs you? Well then, by all means, it should be dispensed with because white people have decided that we're all equal now and get treated that way.
Have an actual argument or don’t both replying.
I’d just edit my last post to reinclude this, but it’s a four hour edit limit. And now I understand why people don’t want that.
LOL. Actually I kind of enjoy working within the 4 hour limit, like I enjoy trying to achieve the most impactful posts within the (soon to be changed) limitations of Twitter.
SpamSandwich said: …trying to achieve the most impactful posts within the (soon to be changed) limitations of Twitter.
I like the spin of using limitation to improve information density; that’s a great way to look at it. But honestly, the people who would actually do that aren’t enough to evoke change.
I shudder to think at the explosion of vapidity when Twitter changes from 140 to 10000 characters. Don’t make me more depressed than I already am.
A prescient entity said:
We are formless. We are the very discipline and morality that Americans invoke so often. How can anyone hope to eliminate us? As long as this nation exists, so will we. Don’t you know that our plans have your interests–not ours–in mind? The mapping of the human genome was completed early this century. As a result, the evolutionary log of the human race lay open to us. We started with genetic engineering, and in the end we succeeded in digitizing life itself. But there are things not covered by genetic information. Human memories, ideas. Culture. History. Genes don’t contain any record of human history. Is it something that should not be passed on? Should that information be left at the mercy of nature? We’ve always kept records of our lives. Through words, pictures, symbols… from tablets to books to tablets again… But not all the information was inherited by later generations. A small percentage of the whole was selected and processed, then passed on. Not unlike genes, really.
But in the current, digitized world, trivial information is accumulating every second, preserved in all its triteness. Never fading, always accessible. Rumors about petty issues, misinterpretations, slander… All this junk data preserved in an unfiltered state, growing at an alarming rate. It will only slow down social progress, reduce the rate of evolution. You seem to think that our plan is one of censorship. What we propose to do is not to control content, but to create context. The digital society furthers human flaws and selectively rewards development of convenient half-truths. Just look at the strange juxtapositions of morality around you. Billions spent on new weapons in order to humanely murder other humans. Rights of criminals are given more respect than the privacy of their victims. Although there are people suffering in poverty, huge donations are made to protect endangered species. Everyone grows up being told the same thing. Be nice to other people… but beat out the competition! You’re special. Believe in yourself and you will succeed. But it’s obvious from the start that only a few can succeed…
You exercise your right to “freedom” and this is the result. All rhetoric to avoid conflict and protect each other from hurt. The untested truths spun by different interests to chum and accumulate in the sandbox of political correctness and value systems. Everyone withdraws into their own small gated community, afraid of a larger forum. They stay inside their little ponds leaking whatever “truth” suits them into the growing cesspool of society. The different cardinal truths neither clash nor mesh. Nobody is invalidated, but nobody is right. Not even natural selection can take place here. The world is being engulfed in “truth”.
And this is the way the world ends. Not with a bang, but a whimper.
We’re trying to stop that from happening. It’s our responsibility as rulers. Just as in genetics, unnecessary information and memory must be filtered out to stimulate the evolution of the species. Who else could wade through the sea of garbage you people produce, retrieve valuable truths and even interpret their meaning for later generations?
Comments
The author states: "Shareholders’ view of diversity – that everyone matters (irrespective of colour, race, sex, creed or religion) – recognizes the Company’s commitment to diversity and the uniqueness of experience, strength, culture, thought and commitment contributed by each employee; however, it does not ignore the Company’s senior management and board of directors diminutive level of diversity and its painstakingly slow implementation."
The author further states: "Shareholders opined that companies with holistic comprehensive diversity policies and programs, and strong leadership commitment to implementation, enhance their long-term value; reducing the Company’s potential legal and reputational risks associated with workplace discrimination and build reputations as a fair employer. Equally, shareholders opined that the varied perspectives of a diverse senior management and board of directors would provide a competitive advantage in terms of creativity, innovation, productivity and morale, while eliminating the limitations of “groupthink”, as it would recognize the uniqueness of experience, strength, culture and thought contributed by each; strengthening its reputation and accountability to shareholders."
So instead of just reading Apple's refusal to accept the proposal, read the proposal in full - not just the tidbits you get from an article or report.
I am voting FOR the proposal. It's time to stop with the political correctness BS, and admit that Silicon Valley has a serious problem w/ glass ceilings at senior management and board of director level!
Apple is all talk, but no true action.
How can Apple justify Al Gore as being one of "the best talent" for its Board of Directors? Al Gore is a has-been VPOTUS, who has only believed in supporting censorship of the music industry and of the arts in general, and wanting to push his global warming agenda on everyone. What true talent has Al Gore brought to the table??? What makes him more qualified to be on Apple's Board than for example: Amex's Chairman/CEO Kenneth Chenault, United Airlines' CEO Oscar Munoz, Microsoft's John W. Thompson, or Coca-Cola's Muhtar Kent?
Let's clear the record: Tim Cook did NOT come out as Gay! Tim Cook was outed and was forced to acknowledge publicly that he is gay. Silicon Valley is full of engineers and managers that are White Gay Males, they just can easily mask it, as Tim Cook did for so many years. If Tim Cook was not outed, he would have never divulged to the world that he is gay. So let's be truthful about the matter.
The number of Hispanics and Blacks at Apple's management level has dropped from 2014 to present.
Why is it that Apple spanned 18 years (1997 to 2015) before appointing another Black/African-American to the Board of Directors? (Delano Lewis 1994 to 1997; James Bell 2015 to present)? Apple's partner, American Express has had a Black Chairman/CEO (Kenneth Chenault) for over 2 decades; why has he never been invited to join Apple's Board? Is he not bright or talented enough for Apple?
Why is it that Apple has not appointed a Hispanic to its Board of Directors? Are there no Hispanic CEOs or Chairman of the Board of Fortune 100 companies of great caliber for Apple's Board?
Why is it that only 1 Hispanic Male (Eddy Cue) 1 Middle-Eastern Male (Johny Srouji), and one Caucasian Female are the only ones to have gotten past Apple's glass ceiling? Hmmm... so no other Hispanic, Black, Asian, South Asian are of great quality, caliber and talent to be in senior management?
Why is it that the only Asian Female to be on Apple's Board happens to be a former Chairwoman/CEO of less than stellar corporate record at Avon? Is that part of the ""the best talent" pool Apple talks so much about?
Big reminder to everyone: Apple is highly dependent on sales outside the US, and a great majority of their sales are in countries that are not caucasian majority countries. If you believe that people in these countries would continue to accept the silent discrimination occurring in Silicon Valley, think again. If that was the case, phone manufacturers in China would not be so successful; as the Chinese are extremely loyal to Chinese brands.
So let's stop w/ the BS statements of reverse discrimination and all other defenses to justify Apple's and all other Silicon Valley continued resistance to expand their talent pool to include more women and people of colour to senior management and board of director level! If we don't wake up from this foolish politically correct behaviour of denial of the truth, we will have no one but ourselves to blame for Apple's and all other Silicon Valley demise.
Nobody should receive an advantage based on the colour of their skin. Full stop. End of story. As a shareholder, I want every position in the company filled by the most qualified applicant.
If there are actual cases of racial discrimination - where the most qualified applicant is rejected because of their skin colour - then that is indeed a travesty that must be fixed. But this needs to include cases where the most qualified applicant is white and the position is given to someone "non-white" who is "almost" as qualified because it helps satisfy diversity targets.
Diversity targets give non-white applicants an advantage based solely on the colour of their skin. That is wrong and it's the problem that we are trying to fix. Two wrong do not make a right - but that is exactly what is happening here. It does not solve a problem. It creates a new one and will destroy companies in the process.
Racial discrimination should be ELIMINATED - not reversed. NOBODY should receive an advantage or a disadvantage because of their skin colour. Full stop. Employers should be punished for every instance of discrimination.
Its funny and sad that the same shareholders who would force Tim Cook to fill the board with people of diverse skin colours to the exclusion of more talented white candidates will also be the first ones to call for his termination when he follows their advice and the company loses money. The "best" applicants that were snubbed by Apple could get together and build a company to compete with Apple and take business away from them - or more likely, will find employment with Apples competitors. The innovations and optimizations these "best" candidates create will end up taking business AWAY from Apple!
You don't take a successful company like Apple (or any other company for that matter) - that is full of the best and brightest employees - and intentionally water down the talent pool without realizing that this is likely to have a negative material impact on the companies success and future.
Tim Cooks primary job is to manage the company in such a way that it provides increasing value to shareholders. To do that, and stay on the leading edge of technology, pioneering innovation that changes the world and generates success - he needs to ensure that he hires the best and brightest candidates that are available. Failure to do so has 2 major negative implications. The first is that Apple themselves are deprived of the talent. The second is that the talent ends up finding a home with a competitor. This gives the competition a huge advantage in an industry driven by innovation and eventually translates into lower revenue for Apple, decreased market share and a future product pipeline that is lacking the best possible innovation.
if you are an Apple shareholder and you care about the companies long-term success and viability - please vote NO to this ridiculous proposal and trust the existing board to continue to do what's best for the company and for our investment.
Can anyone on this forum that is pro-diversity explain to me why somebody less-qualified or less-suited for a position be awarded the position because of their skin colour?
No. You can't. Because there is no reason that makes sense.
Since you brought it up, please do tell us how affirmative action in college admission has personally affected you. Oh, it's just the *thought* of it that bugs you? Well then, by all means, it should be dispensed with because white people have decided that we're all equal now and get treated that way.
It's typical conservative nonsense to equate diversity as hiring/promoting less qualified women and people of color.
On a more serious note do you see how easy it is to get sidetracked by issues like this? I could care less if the person they hire to fix the App Store, OS X Server, iTunes, is white, black, green, or three legged. Get the right person for the job. Apple doesn't have a glass ceiling because they have had Hispanics, Middle Easterners, Females, etc. in high position roles.
You do realize Apple is relatively a young company, it'll be 40 years old this April 1st. Ask yourself, how many opportunities have there been to replace a top level manager, let alone find a qualified Asian female to replace a qualified Hispanic or person of some other color, race, ethnic background?
Sometimes I wonder why "all of these talented people who get overlooked" just don't get tougher and build their own Apple... There must be millions of them out there from the way some people talk. What a perfect corporation it would be.
But be exact. What can they do, what should they do - that they are not already doing???
Has there been an instance of a candidate from an ethnic minority group that has applied for a senior level position with Apple that hasn't gotten the job because it was given to someone who was white and less qualified??? If so - you have a point. That shouldn't have happened. But I have a perfect solution for this problem...
These people - the women and minorities who think they have been passed over UNFAIRLY for executive level positions at Apple - should get together and BUILD their own extremely successful company rather than expecting the worlds most successful company to just give them part of it! I'd be willing to bet that none of them were in fact the most qualified...because I've seen that Apple is not afraid to hire women and minorities when they are the best candidates for the position! The only way that they could have been given one of the existing positions would be if someone more qualified were passed over. Someone smarter, or someone who worked harder. Someone who has earned their spot.
Anyhow...2 questions....
1. What should Apple do that they are not already doing? (Be specific)
2. Which successful large companies are doing a better job than Apple?
You’re good for a laugh, at least.
Whoop de fuck. And? Quotas are bullshit.So it probably makes sense not to hire caucasians in those positions.
ronn said:
So quantify it. What is “enough”. Explain to everyone what “enough” is. How about you do for “diversity” what you want and the rest of the world continues to be sane.
I’d just edit my last post to reinclude this, but it’s a four hour edit limit. And now I understand why people don’t want that.
I shudder to think at the explosion of vapidity when Twitter changes from 140 to 10000 characters. Don’t make me more depressed than I already am.