I agree with Professor Silver’s view that Microsoft should not be involved in social issues unless the benefit is for the company. There were two interesting points that Professor Sliver made in this case:
1. It is the duty of citizens to organize themselves to protect values.
2. The interests of those shareholders and other stakeholders who disagree with Microsoft’s position must be considered.
To elaborate on the first point, I agree that the citizens of Washington State should rally behind legislation they believe in to ensure that it is passed. We cannot always rely on the corporation to do everything for us. There are many times when the corporations’ interests are held above our own. Why would we want to give them more power? I commend Microsoft for making a stand on an important topic like gay rights but I do not believe it is their place to get involved in the legislative process.
The second point regarding the shareholders is something to be considered. Maybe the stockholders do not agree with this policy and would prefer money not spent towards this legislation. This case is against Friedman’s view of stockholder theory. He would not approve of this measure because it does not provide a financial benefit for the company.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Microsoft's Wavering Stance
Regarding the article mentioning Microsoft’s corporate and social responsibilities, I believe their first mistake was not remaining neutral on the idea of publicly announcing their support of gay civil rights. Whatever Microsoft’s stance on this issue may be, it did not need to be made public and in the manner that transgressed. It is one thing to support a policy but it is very different to openly publicize a company’s stance. Additionally, the company should not only remain neutral on this subject, they need to maintain a consistent stance. Its apparent that Microsoft first supported the bill, then stepped back, and then was all for it again – all this flip flopping does is frustrate employees, civilians, shareholders, etc. and provide an unstable picture of what Microsoft is all about.
Microsoft addressed the concern about not receiving the best recruits if the company did not support this legislation. That may be true, however; there is also the possibility of Microsoft not receiving the best recruits if they do support this law. While I agree with non-discrimination acts, I believe Microsoft’s reasoning is faulty and insubstantial.
I also think the author makes a very important point about how individual citizens should have the responsibility to decide the social policies, not corporations. While I realize businesses have a lot of influence in this country, there needs to be boundaries drawn as to how much power corporations have. Democracy involves social issues and individuals should have the right to vote on this type of legislation, not corporations on their behalf.
Unfortunately, this social issue is a topic that is extremely controversial and regardless of the action that companies take, people will be against the overall decision – it cannot please everyone.
Microsoft addressed the concern about not receiving the best recruits if the company did not support this legislation. That may be true, however; there is also the possibility of Microsoft not receiving the best recruits if they do support this law. While I agree with non-discrimination acts, I believe Microsoft’s reasoning is faulty and insubstantial.
I also think the author makes a very important point about how individual citizens should have the responsibility to decide the social policies, not corporations. While I realize businesses have a lot of influence in this country, there needs to be boundaries drawn as to how much power corporations have. Democracy involves social issues and individuals should have the right to vote on this type of legislation, not corporations on their behalf.
Unfortunately, this social issue is a topic that is extremely controversial and regardless of the action that companies take, people will be against the overall decision – it cannot please everyone.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
House Bill 1515
Microsoft's stand in this case seems unclear to me. Well it is clear that they are pro-gay it is not clear what the business angle to it is. Assuming that there was no business oriented motive to it it is even more vague as to why they backed out of the legislation.
The threat of a Pastor of a church could not have been the only reason for their withdrawal. Cause it is hard to imagine that a company whose software literally rides every PC save the niche market PC's like MAC and the occasional Linux would back down because it felt threatened!
Although i see value in the point that the write up raises about companies not getting involved in common legislation that we as a community should unite to make real, it contradicts with some other systems that we practice as a society. In the days of CSR, corporate governance is a major proponent of several social policies like the movement against apartheid. It was the involvement of corporations that help end the practice. That being the case, why can't corporations take the natural step ahead and voice their stand in the issue legally? How different is that from discrimination on the basis of sexuality?
The threat of a Pastor of a church could not have been the only reason for their withdrawal. Cause it is hard to imagine that a company whose software literally rides every PC save the niche market PC's like MAC and the occasional Linux would back down because it felt threatened!
Although i see value in the point that the write up raises about companies not getting involved in common legislation that we as a community should unite to make real, it contradicts with some other systems that we practice as a society. In the days of CSR, corporate governance is a major proponent of several social policies like the movement against apartheid. It was the involvement of corporations that help end the practice. That being the case, why can't corporations take the natural step ahead and voice their stand in the issue legally? How different is that from discrimination on the basis of sexuality?
Microsoft Errs
The error was done before the minister's threat. This is a public legislative bill that has nothing to do with employment, work practices, or MS profits. They were right to pull out their support but unfortunately it came as a consequence of having crossed over their responsibility. This will set up most companies to back out too if the legislative bill is unrelated to the workforce, performance and profitability. If this were something that is a threat to its workforce, then there is reason for involvement.
Research does not support that gays and lesbians have a choice. This is who they are. To live otherwise is to live a life masqueraded. I have known plenty of folks within the gay community, some of them close friends, and know through them that, if it weren’t for their hormones or other chemical attractors, they would gladly be heterosexual. It just is. I think the data on gays is more like 6-9% of the population.
MS's benefit policy for partners is a loud enough statement as is other corporations who provide partnership benefits. So is their company policy that discourages discrimination or prejudice. This is the area where they are most responsible.
Another tactic that MS can take and other companies who seek to impact public perception is to use their CSR grants to provide funding to groups that protect civil rights or to help provide education and information that wards against unfair stereotyping or other forms of discrimination.
Research does not support that gays and lesbians have a choice. This is who they are. To live otherwise is to live a life masqueraded. I have known plenty of folks within the gay community, some of them close friends, and know through them that, if it weren’t for their hormones or other chemical attractors, they would gladly be heterosexual. It just is. I think the data on gays is more like 6-9% of the population.
MS's benefit policy for partners is a loud enough statement as is other corporations who provide partnership benefits. So is their company policy that discourages discrimination or prejudice. This is the area where they are most responsible.
Another tactic that MS can take and other companies who seek to impact public perception is to use their CSR grants to provide funding to groups that protect civil rights or to help provide education and information that wards against unfair stereotyping or other forms of discrimination.
Should Corporations be involved in social issues & policies?
I really think Microsoft and all corporations should stay away from all social issues unless there are no other options. I think Microsoft will be better off not taking a stand on this issue from the start and maintain a neutral position on the bill. Furthermore, I do not think that recruiting will be affected by not taking a side against or in favor of Gay rights.
I do believe everyone should have equal rights, especially when it comes to issues related to essential rights such as housing and education. But, corporation should not make decisions people make decisions. Corporations are generally more powerful than individuals when it comes to politics and policy-making and by interfering; they are only taking power from the people and the democratic process. The people with equal votes should make these moral and social decisions.
Microsoft’s shifting stand on this issue has only created controversy and distrust. Now, Microsoft’s employees will never know if their employer is supporting or is against the issue. More importantly, by shifting sides, customers that support or do not support gay right will be aggravated by the fact that Microsoft once was against their beliefs.
I do believe everyone should have equal rights, especially when it comes to issues related to essential rights such as housing and education. But, corporation should not make decisions people make decisions. Corporations are generally more powerful than individuals when it comes to politics and policy-making and by interfering; they are only taking power from the people and the democratic process. The people with equal votes should make these moral and social decisions.
Microsoft’s shifting stand on this issue has only created controversy and distrust. Now, Microsoft’s employees will never know if their employer is supporting or is against the issue. More importantly, by shifting sides, customers that support or do not support gay right will be aggravated by the fact that Microsoft once was against their beliefs.
Microsoft
My view of the Microsoft article is that the company handled the situation in the best way possible given the circumstances. Had the Microsoft representatives who attended the church not been threatened by the pastor, I believe they would have stood their ground, as did the many other prestigious companies listed in this article and who supported this legislation on a national level.
I think there is something wrong (I'm not certain if I would say ethically, but certainly morally) when a pastor threatens a major corporation into changing its views on a political subject, simply because his or her views of gay people are different than for heterosexuals. Many of us believe in freedom of religion, but does it give us the right to condemn other people because they do not believe in or practice their faith in the same way as I do?
From a moral perspective, I have never fully understood gay or lesbianism, therefore I do not have the power nor desire to condone or condemn it. Whether or not individuals believe it to be a form of discrimination, I would have to challenge that.
People who are regularly discriminated against, on the basis of age, race, gender, physical or mental condition, etc, normally don't have a choice in who they are and how they became who they are. However, I would argue that gay and lesbian individuals have a choice. So I have never considered the behavior of individuals who fit into this category as people who should be considered under the laws of discrimination.
I believe that if I were the head of a company like Microsoft, I would also be somewhat apprehensive and not fully embracing this legislation as quickly as I would on the national level , after all, it is much easier to embrace something when you are not a member of every community (nationally), it's a different story when the place is your headquarters. I think Microsoft demonstrated excellent judgement when it sided more for the care and concern of its employees. Milton Friedman would be so proud.
After all, Microsoft has demonstrated that it is fully aware of the role of one of its major stakeholders. For without the employees, Microsoft would not be Microsoft and other stakeholders and shareholders wouldn't exist.
However, the members of Microsoft are always free to choose a new church.
I think there is something wrong (I'm not certain if I would say ethically, but certainly morally) when a pastor threatens a major corporation into changing its views on a political subject, simply because his or her views of gay people are different than for heterosexuals. Many of us believe in freedom of religion, but does it give us the right to condemn other people because they do not believe in or practice their faith in the same way as I do?
From a moral perspective, I have never fully understood gay or lesbianism, therefore I do not have the power nor desire to condone or condemn it. Whether or not individuals believe it to be a form of discrimination, I would have to challenge that.
People who are regularly discriminated against, on the basis of age, race, gender, physical or mental condition, etc, normally don't have a choice in who they are and how they became who they are. However, I would argue that gay and lesbian individuals have a choice. So I have never considered the behavior of individuals who fit into this category as people who should be considered under the laws of discrimination.
I believe that if I were the head of a company like Microsoft, I would also be somewhat apprehensive and not fully embracing this legislation as quickly as I would on the national level , after all, it is much easier to embrace something when you are not a member of every community (nationally), it's a different story when the place is your headquarters. I think Microsoft demonstrated excellent judgement when it sided more for the care and concern of its employees. Milton Friedman would be so proud.
After all, Microsoft has demonstrated that it is fully aware of the role of one of its major stakeholders. For without the employees, Microsoft would not be Microsoft and other stakeholders and shareholders wouldn't exist.
However, the members of Microsoft are always free to choose a new church.
Stupid Microsoft
My stance is that Microsoft should never have been involved in this type of politics to begin with– if they stayed out of it, no one on either side of the issue would have complained.
But they got involved, and some claim that they took the wrong side by staying neutral??? If staying neutral isn’t safe…look out Switzerland!
Why did Microsoft let one lone pastor at a church threaten them and bully them into changing from their Pro stance? Maybe they saw it like this:
1.51% of the population is gay, lesbian, bi, or transgender. 76.5% of the population is Christian. The math seems pretty clear to me. If there were a group to appeal to, it would be the Christians. This vote took place right after President Bush was re-elected in 2004 where it was understood that the Right Religious Groups voted heavily and unified together. If they were to stage a national boycott against Microsoft it would definitely hurt the company and as we know, their obligation is to make money for their stakeholders.
Let’s look at another case: Boy Scouts of America (BSOA). In 2004, the Boy Scouts made a policy (upheld by the Supreme Court) that Gays were not allowed to be troop leaders. There was an intense outcry charging that the decision was an example of bigotry and protests all over the country ensued. Again, this is during the same time period as the Microsoft case. The total membership for BSOA in 2003 (before the new policy) was 997,398. In 2006 (after the new policy) the membership had quadrupled to 3,998,914. Clearly being labeled as “anti-gay” may not be that bad for business.
But they got involved, and some claim that they took the wrong side by staying neutral??? If staying neutral isn’t safe…look out Switzerland!
Why did Microsoft let one lone pastor at a church threaten them and bully them into changing from their Pro stance? Maybe they saw it like this:
1.51% of the population is gay, lesbian, bi, or transgender. 76.5% of the population is Christian. The math seems pretty clear to me. If there were a group to appeal to, it would be the Christians. This vote took place right after President Bush was re-elected in 2004 where it was understood that the Right Religious Groups voted heavily and unified together. If they were to stage a national boycott against Microsoft it would definitely hurt the company and as we know, their obligation is to make money for their stakeholders.
Let’s look at another case: Boy Scouts of America (BSOA). In 2004, the Boy Scouts made a policy (upheld by the Supreme Court) that Gays were not allowed to be troop leaders. There was an intense outcry charging that the decision was an example of bigotry and protests all over the country ensued. Again, this is during the same time period as the Microsoft case. The total membership for BSOA in 2003 (before the new policy) was 997,398. In 2006 (after the new policy) the membership had quadrupled to 3,998,914. Clearly being labeled as “anti-gay” may not be that bad for business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)