"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde		 Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Saturday, April 23, 2005

Unbelievable
Posted by Jill | 2:33 PM

If this were about civil rights for black Americans, or female Americans, or Jewish Americans, or Buddhist Americans, or disabled Americans, or older Americans, do you think Microsoft would be able to get away with phrasing its position on an antidiscrimination bill like this? (from a letter from Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to Microsoft employees, via Americablog; emphases mine)


On February 1, two Microsoft employees testified before a House Committee in support of the bill. These employees were speaking as private citizens, not as representatives of the corporate position, but there was considerable confusion about whether they were speaking on behalf of Microsoft.


He's saying that any time a private citizen is an activist, it's "confusing" as to whether he/she is representing him/herself or his/her employer. Bullshit.

Following this hearing, a local religious leader named Rev. Ken Hutcherson, who has a number of Microsoft employees in his congregation, approached the company, seeking clarification of whether the two employees were representing Microsoft's official position. He also sought a variety of other things, such as firing of the two employees and a public statement by Microsoft that the bill was not
necessary.

After careful review, Brad Smith informed Rev. Hutcherson that there was no basis for firing the two employees over the misunderstanding over their testimony, but did agree that we should clarify the ambiguity over the employee testimony. Brad also made it clear that while the company was not taking a position on HB 1515, the company remains strongly committed to its internal policies supporting anti-discrimination and industry-leading benefits for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees.


Why should this have been subject to "careful review"? Unless said employees stated that they were representing the opinion of Microsoft, why should this have had to have been reviewed? Let me emphasize that: The livelihood of two Microsoft employees was "carefully reviewed" because of ONE complaint by ONE wingnut preacher. Imagine what religious nutcases could do to your job or to my job if they decide they don't like our politics. Is this really where we want to go as a society?

I understand that many employees may disagree with the company's decision to tighten the focus of our agenda for this year's legislative session in Olympia. But I want every employee to understand that the decision to take a neutral stance on this bill was taken before the Session began based on a desire to focus our legislative efforts, not in reaction to any outside pressure.


Then why was the testimony of the two employees so "carefully reviewed"?

I have done a lot of thinking and soul-searching over the past 24 hours on this subject, and I want to share with you my thoughts on how a company like Microsoft should deal with these kinds of issues.

This is a very difficult issue for many people, with strong emotions on all sides. And that makes it a very difficult issue for me, as the CEO of this company.

In this particular matter, both Bill and I actually both personally support this legislation that would outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But that is my personal view, and I also know that many employees and shareholders would not agree with me.

We are thinking hard about what is the right balance to strike – when should a public company take a position on a broader social issue, and when should it not? What message does the company taking a position send to its employees who have strongly-held beliefs on the opposite side of the issue?


Now here's where you substitute the words "black" or "Jew" or "disabled" or "sick" or "pregnant" or "over 40" or whatever other "protected class" you like. Isn't it appalling that a company the size of Microsoft, which unabashedly crushes every other company that gets in its way, is quaking in its boots because one fucking closet case Christofascist has a problem with that group? Wouldn't there be an outcry if Ballmer had said this about any other group?

The bottom line is that I am adamant that Microsoft will always be a
place that values diversity, that has the strongest possible internal policies for non-discrimination and fairness, and provides the best policies and benefits to all of our employees.

I am also adamant that I want Microsoft to be a place where every employee feels respected, and where every employee feels like they belong. I don't want the company to be in the position of appearing to dismiss the deeply-held beliefs of any employee, by picking sides in social policy issues.


And if a few employees are KKK members who don't want to work with black people, are you going to appease them too? Are you going to institute policies that black employees can't date white employees, because some people might be offended? What about pregnant women? If some people are "offended" by the sight of a pregnancy, are you going to placate them too?

And as for picking sides, well, haven't you already done so, by giving the complaints of this wingnut any credence at all after supporting this legislation for years? I'm sorry, but Microsoft has openly supported this legislation at least since 2001, when the company was given an award by a gay and lesbian center in 2001. As soon as some Christofascist ordered you to fire two of your employees because of something they said on their own time, you should have shown him the door, Mr. Ballmer. You didn't.

I know that some employees will still feel frustrated by the position
the company has taken, but I wanted you to hear directly from me on this. We will continue to wrestle with how and when the company should engage on these kinds of political issues. And above all, I want you to know that as long as I am CEO, Microsoft will always be committed to diversity and non-discrimination in all of our internal policies.


At least until the Christofascists threaten a boycott. Then you'd better watch your ass.

If you think that because you're not gay, this isn't an issue for you, guess again. Because it's not about gay rights, it's about the pressure that the Fundies are going to bring to bear not just on politicians and the media, but on every employer in this country, to toe their particular line or face their wrath. Today it's gays. Tomorrow it could be anyone. This isn't about how you feel about gay marriage, it's about whether this country is going to be a place where people can be free, or if it's going to be run by an American Taliban of religious fanatics.

You don't like gays? Fine. Don't be gay; don't have gay friends. You don't like to think about gays having sex? Fine. Don't think about how they have sex (and what are you doing thinking about how people you don't know have sex, anyway?). You don't believe in gay marriage? Don't marry someone of the same sex.

It's all so simple. Too bad a smart guy like the CEO of Microsoft can't see it.
0 comments
Bookmark and Share