nemoeac
About
- Username
- nemoeac
- Joined
- Visits
- 13
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 146
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 38
Reactions
-
Apple includes shareholder proposal on diversity in proxy statement, advises vote against
Dumb post. Please vote "NO" to the micro-management proposal re: diversity.IndigoBlueUSA said: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.
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.
-
Samsung Gear S2 smartwatch to be iOS compatible later this year
Ha ha ha! Because of all the pent-up demand? All of the iPhone owners that are saying "I wish I could use a Samsung watch with my iPhone"? LMAO!
This has to be one of the dumbest decisions Samsung has ever made!
-
ParkerVision files ITC complaint, patent lawsuit against Apple over RF technology
I agree with the sentiment of your post but the analogy is way off. In your analogy, you are the user of the final product. Apple is a reseller. Big difference. A better analogy would be that Oedipus Electronics (fictional company nobody has ever heard of) is suing Ford because the Pioneer radio installed in the car uses a tuner that infringes on one of their parents.sflocal said:So Apple is listed because it buys chips from Qualcomm and Samsung?That's like Chevy suing me because I bought a Ford with infringing parts? Really? I hope Apple just gives them the middle-finger. Stupid.This is just click-bait as far as I'm concerned. Just another reason to use the "Apple" name to get those page-hits.
its laughable that they are asking for a sales injunction. They'll never get it because the continued sale of the offending products (iPhones) do not take a business opportunity away from ParkerVision. This disputed can be adequately resolved via the payment of a licensing fee. All the talk of an injunction will accomplish is to scare some investors into selling their Apple shares. Stupid investors. It creates a good buying opportunity for the rest of us.
