
Workplace Equality Is Good for Business - coloneltcb
http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702304527504579172302377638002-lMyQjAxMTAzMDAwMjEwNDIyWj
======
alexeisadeski3
I for one like the idea of people being able to hire whomever they like for
whatever reasons they like.

Let the bigots expose themselves and be punished or not.

~~~
arrrg
Are you arguing that all currently protected classes (e.g. race, religion,
sex) should be abolished? That would to me be a logically coherent and non-
bigoted (well, sort of, at least if the belief that the market can solve this
problem and the belief that it is a problem is behind it) view of current
policy. One I disagree with, but also one I can respect.

However, that’s not typically what the argument is about. Those who are
opposed to this are often not opposed to other (either some or all) protected
classes. That, to me, seems like an untenable view. You cannot have religion
and sex as a protected class but not sexual orientation.

If I look at the protected classes I see one very obvious and big gap and
that’s sexual orientation. It’s unquestionably incredibly bad policy to
selectively exclude that (that is, if you are not a bigot).

~~~
alexeisadeski3
>Are you arguing that all currently protected classes (e.g. race, religion,
sex) should be abolished?

Yes.

Realize that it's a reactionary position to take, but it just seems right. If
someone wants to run their business with bigotry, so be it. I won't respect
them, but I'd respect their "right" to do so.

I realize that there counter argument is that I've never lived in a time in
which such regulation was needed, I never experienced Jim Crow, etc - and of
course today Jim Crow still exists, in a way, for homosexuals.

But it just seems like another case of "two wrongs make a right." Forcing
others to adhere to our own moral preferences seems fundamentally and deeply
flawed. There must be another way.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
> _Forcing others to adhere to our own moral preferences seems fundamentally
> and deeply flawed._

I bet you're fine forcing others to adhere to your own moral preferences re:
burglary, assault, rape, and murder.

~~~
vinceguidry
That a slippery slope can be drawn, doesn't mean it actually exists.

------
tsotha
If it's so good for business why does he think we need a legal structure to
punish companies that just hire whoever they want?

~~~
icambron
Do you think that discrimination against blacks and women was good for
business? I submit that it was not, but companies did it anyway, because they
were not rational. I'm not sure we should expect them to be now.

I also submit that if you think discriminating against blacks and women _was_
good for business (a defensible claim), then you probably ought to be
disagreeing with Tim Cook about whether sexual-orientation-based
discrimination is good for businesses [1]. In my view, that would make the
case for anti-discrimination legislation stronger, not weaker, because if both
prevailing biases and good business sense favors discrimination, then we
_really_ need to act.[2]

[1] Perhaps you could believe the former but not the latter. They seem pretty
parallel to me though, so I'd be curious what you thought the differences
were.

[2] You could disagree with this too and simply be a lassez-faire
fundamentalist, but that would render your original question kind of
pointless.

~~~
tsotha
All I'm saying is his logic isn't, well, logical. On the one hand he says
Apple's policy has been great for business, which would imply other companies
should be adopting these kinds of policies without any kind of prodding from
the government.

And yet he supports a law to force everyone to adopt those policies. It's like
he doesn't actually believe "workplace equality" is good for business and
would like to use the government to level the playing field he tilted against
himself. If he _really_ believed the policy was good for the bottom line, from
a financial perspective he'd be overjoyed to compete against companies that
don't have a similar policy.

~~~
icambron
Let's assume that a) he thinks companies will continue to be systematically
discriminatory _despite_ their best interests and b) he cares less about the
competitive advantages of Apple and more about the overall health of the
economy. He could care about that personally or on behalf of Apple, which also
benefits from a larger, faster-growing economy in which to sell its goods.
Does that help?

~~~
tsotha
People on the left can't seem to make up their minds about corporations. On
the one hand corporations are amoral profit machines, completely without qualm
or consideration for the human element. On the other, they don't care about
profit. It just does't work for me as a logical framework.

The most likely explanation here, IMO, is Apple's policy actually hurts the
bottom line a tiny bit, but the PR value outweighs the problems. But note if
this is the case the law he's pushing will be a net (small) negative for other
companies.

~~~
dinkumthinkum
It doesn't work because its a straw man.

------
joelgrus
"We've found that when people feel valued for who they are, they have the
comfort and confidence to create a monstrosity like iTunes."

------
daughart
Tim's argument is really more from the perspective of human rights than
economic justification. The link to economic activity is only that, "we
undermine people's potential and deny ourselves and our society the full
benefits of those individuals' talents." The cost of this is distributed and
small (to the company), and therefore he is not making the argument that
companies that do not discriminate will out-compete companies that do. He is
making the more subtle argument that increased human flourishing and
creativity that result from antidiscrimination laws are good for business. The
title is misleading and the argument is muddled - advocates of Tim's position
would do well to avoid this line of argumentation and make the stronger point:

Antidiscrimination laws advance human flourishing and cause our society to be
more just. Therefore they are worth having.

------
kylelibra
Tim Cook's point carries over to customers as well. For me, knowing a company
is taking a progressive stance on human and civil rights goes a long way
towards how I view them.

~~~
DalekBaldwin
I think you've summed up the goal of this PR piece.

~~~
001sky
Yes, easiliy confirmed. This is the NYT headline.

 _Senate Vote on Workplace Bias Against Gays a Test for G.O.P._

~~~
IBM
While it would be a safe stance for Starbucks to publicly take, it is less so
for Apple which has a much more diverse customer base. It would be better for
Apple's business to not take a position in these issues.

~~~
nknighthb
Really? To which company are the bigots going to turn?

~~~
alexeisadeski3
I hear KKK is coming out with their own Linux distro and Android fork.

------
jpeg_hero
Good for Cook. With this piece he is taking a step towards synchronizing his
public/personal. Not easy to do. But good he's making steps in that direction.

Yeah, he's "out" but he's not really "out."

Good for him for taking a step.

------
reion
I through this one is a no-brainer.

------
crassus
As a conservative who hides his political beliefs in the tech sector, while my
coworkers freely swap progressive political articles over the company's email
lists, I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Cook.

If the government prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of religion,
then why not also political beliefs? There is little difference between the
two.

~~~
djur
Have you experienced discrimination, or just the fear of social ostracism?

