Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook Writes Op-Ed in Support of U.S. Employment Nondiscrimination Act
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
29 states have no law on the books to protect gays from employment discrimination. It is therefore legal there to fire someone for being gay or even if you think they are.
Of course a gay CEO is going to use his power to force the gay agenda down our throats.
Blocking discrimination isn't a "gay agenda" it's a human rights agenda.
Honestly though, if you're gay and working somewhere, why would you tell anyone you're gay or straight?
It has nothing to do with the workplace
Murder is in Human Nature as well be we tend to frown upon that. Why? Because we are ever-evolving as a modern society. Please join us in the future and not he past. And yes, you should be forced to go against that as it is not fair for someone qualified for a job to loose out because you haven't caught up with the rest of us. You aren't interviewing a mate, you are interviewing an employee. If they are talented, punctual, hygienic and friendly they should get the job.
Those problems are pressing to you because you don't also have this to deal with as well just like people in gangs don't think there is an issue with gang culture. Put yourself in someone else's shoes.
Most tech companies have anti-poach agreements with partnering companies (even if informally or in secret), it is a good practice that allows employees of one company go onsite to do work for another company without worry that the other company will steal those employees while they are there visiting working onsite. Although Apple and Google are not necessarily partners anymore like they were before Google made their own mobile platform and later the first iPhone equivalent, so I don't see the point of that specific anti-poach anymore.
For companies whose sole existence is to provide services to other companies (like temp agencies) anti-poach agreements are essential to business, and are not usually pure anti-poach and include provisions for switching between companies where both companies benefit from the exchange.
It is good to have this policy of full non-discrimination in place throughout the country. Although I've found it a bit uncomfortable at times to work directly with someone who is cross-dressing in the workplace, it is mostly because of a burning desire to ask about it but I just keep my trap shut and unfortunately that maintains my curiosity, which isn't any different from other curiosities about fellow colleagues in the workplace that I though it was better to keep quiet about rather than talking about it. So I've worked with LGBT no big deal.
The bill isn't necessarily about forcing increased diversity in the workplace, merely about opening up the possibility of further diversity. The processes the government uses to check whether companies are abiding by non-discrimination laws involves determining actual diversity in the workplace, though for smaller companies it is harder to make sense of the numbers.
Cute isn't it, we pat ourselves on the back and talk about how far we've come
Tell me about it! **Shaking my head**
skottichan-thank you for sharing your story. I thought it was very moving and a powerful reminder of why we need policies and laws such as ENDA.
And well said about the trans issue. Sad, but true. Glad you highlighted it.
This is another great example because it also isn't true.
Yes, in this country all women on average earn less than all men on average (I've heard estimates of anywhere from 59-79% of what men make). However, within the same positions, at the same companies, with the same seniority, the gap is virtually nonexistent. The reason the average is the way it is is down to the different choices men and women make regarding their careers. Overall, women often want more flexibility, and men want more money. Men are more willing to work hazardous jobs, STEM jobs, long hours, late shifts, and drive longer commutes. Women would rather work part time, close to home, make their own hours, less dirty, less strenuous jobs, and those jobs simply don't pay as well. On top of that, men tend to negotiate more.
If what you say is true, that LGBTs are discriminated against by absolutely every employer to the point they are forced to settle for lower wages, that sounds more like a social issue than anything else. Legislation cannot fix social issues.
In addition, as has been highlighted earlier in this thread, these types of anti-discriminatory laws often harm the people they intend to protect. If a business has to live in fear that if they turn down (or worse, later have to fire) an unqualified LGBT worker they could be sued, they will be less likely to even consider LGBTs in the first place. We can see how this has happened with the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Employers now have a very valid fear of wrongful termination lawsuits from former disabled employees, meaning they are less likely to consider them in the hiring process than ever before.
To an extent, I agree. However, there are always unintended ramifications to any legislation-- and those ramifications are usually less apparent in "do-good" legislation such as this. People need to be aware of exactly what they're getting.
Then he can keep his 20% and lose 80% when someone screams discrimination ( and rightly so) and the others stop going there.
I don't know - why do straight people wear wedding rings and put pictures of their husbands/wives/kids on their desks? Why do they need to announce to everyone that looks at their desk that they are straight?
So you want them to hide who they are?
When a coworker asks hows the gf/wife, they should lie?
I'm not saying they go into the interview or on the first day on the job scream that they are gay, etc. But, they should be able to talk about their personal life without fear like two straight coworkers will talk about how their relationships are going during casual conversation.
So then, how would you fix the inequalities and discrimination seen in the job market?
Just ignore it and put faith in "the Free Market" to fix it on its own?
It's just one more demonstration of the lack of freedom in the workplace the LGBT community faces. I have a lady in the next desk over to the right who has photos of her family up. Nothing wrong with it at all but then again no one has to ask if you are straight, it's almost expected unless you are a male and are flamboyant or a woman who dresses down at work (then things are assumed, regardless). Everyone is expected to be straight. Now if the woman to the left had photos of her wife and daughter that would be an issue as she would be "bringing it up" at the workplace. An issue that would never have come up if one person in that photo was another gender. That's not fair. Everyone likes a piece of home at work, just to remember why you are doing all this in the first place. The fact that there would be an issue with one and not the other underlines the lack of equality. It's the little things you don't understand if you don't experience them firsthand it doesn't make them not an issue just because it isn't effecting you.
For the record, I am straight and the place I work for is very concerned about workplace equity. The only people I hear talking bad about it are people that ten years ago would have gotten better positions than they have now just for being a white male, skills secondary.
Exactly. I had to lie about my relationship almost every day not out of fear per-say, but out of discomfort.
Then when I went through a very stressful time, and told my boss the truth, I was axed.
Not only was I axed but they tried everything to could to try and make sure I didn't get a dime for my termination. They were very bitter about it, and I hadn't done anything wrong.
You spend years working productively for a company only to be tossed out on your ass because of your prior unknown sexual orientation.
It sucks, and that's why these laws need to be put in place.
Aside from corner cases it wouldn't have anything to do with the workplace, but you miss the point. It could be implicit. It could be an assumption. What you are suggesting places the burden on someone that they treat it as a secret and augment subtle behavior so as not to give clues about this. It really doesn't have to directly address the issue of sexuality. On a couple occasions (not many but it has happened) I found out someone was gay because they introduced or mentioned a spouse or someone they were dating. I could see this as a possible situation at any company that hosts social events outside of typical company time. My point here is that while it doesn't need to be a prime topic of discussion, the onus shouldn't be on the individual to hide that from public view beyond the normal guidelines of business demeanor.
"Citizens United" would disagree - corporations are people.
Against the law perhaps, but not criminal law in the classic sense. Anyone can put words on paper and call them a law.
Don't bother throwing labels at me - they don't stick.
Please define "rampant" and tell us why such an abhorrent practice should be excused because it is still practiced in some countries. Also, is the enslavement of whites by blacks equally acceptable to you? If not, why?
I feel bad that Tim Cook has to work the coal mine AND be active CEO of Apple. Rough life.
(dat picture fyi)
(dat picture fyi)
Yep, we have a gay CEO so no need to protect LGBT workers. W also have a black president so racism is over.
Is that a joke? I really can't tell.
Sure has since he's not publicly out. Everyone assumes and some well placed people may know the truth, but you or I don't emphatically know at all. And the fact that the CEO of the most powerful tech company and most profitable company on the planet still isn't open about it says all you need to know. That he can't just say "Yes, I'm Gay. So what, Bitch. I'm more powerful than you'll ever be" like many straight CEO could and do (obviously, not the "I'm Gay" part, although...
) show how there is still a double standard to work past. And he could just not want to be out (though I doubt that very much) but he also has been working in an environment the is more socially forward thinking. The question you should be asking is could he have the same opportunities at another company?First, read my quote again. I didn't say I endorsed slavery, merely acknowledged its existence and widespread acceptance - at that time.
As for "rampant", please don't limit your thinking to state endorsed only. It was, as still is, rampant at the individual level in many parts of the world, including classic slavery, sexual slavery, debt slavery, etc.
----------
Yep, we have a gay CEO so no need to protect LGBT workers. W also have a black president so racism is over.
You have a black president because of racism!
Steve Jobs hired Tim Cook and promoted him to 2nd in command, then when he knew his own death was imminent he named Tim Cook to take his place and run Apple as it's new CEO. Steve Jobs was well aware that Tim Cook was gay. Why on earth would you say this might not have happened if Steve Jobs was still running Apple? In fact I'm not so sure things weren't already much like this under Steve Jobs. If you are going to speculate about such things I suggest you include some facts to back up your speculation.
----------
That picture of Tim Cook is so ominous looking. Stop using it!
Are you afraid of the dark too?
----------
You are making way too much sense. It's hard for people to understand common sense when they are fed a steady diet of nonsense by so called "activists".
Businesses that discriminate will slowly die out over time. It is not good for their bottom line to discriminate. The old makes way for the new, but it's a slow process unless you have a benevolent dictator who can rule by fiat. We don't have that and hopefully never will. Although Obama is trying his best to be that. The problem with benevolent dictators or any dictator is they think they know what's best for everybody. They don't.