Apple CEO Tim Cook Writes Op-Ed in Support of U.S. Employment Nondiscrimination Act

[rdowns]

The City conducts in own business as equal opportunity, they don't force it on the private sector. So it has little to do with my point of the thread as a whole.

http://www.seattle.gov/civilrights/discrimination.htm

As a business owner, my money equals my decision. Nobody should be forced to go against their conscience or their religious beliefs. Tim Cook is an idiot and the sooner he leaves Apple the better.

BS. He's just trying to advance his own pro-gay agenda and irresponsibly using his platform at Apple CEO to get the media attention. If he wants to get involved in politics then fine, leave Apple and run for political office. In the meantime stick to the day job.

Shaun, if you want to get involved in politics then fine, leave your company and run for political office.

How about you post the name of your business or are you just another anonymous coward afraid to stand by your words? Surely you wouldn't want to accept money from or have customers who are gay or gay friendly. If not, you are advancing the 'gay agenda'.

 

[Breaking Good]

When did Apple start to exclusively manufacture iStuff?

I believe it started with the first iPod, but I don't see the point of your question.

 

[Solomani]

That picture of Tim Cook is so ominous looking. Stop using it!

I think it's an acceptable picture. It shows the more austere and serious side of CEO Cook.

When he is portrayed onstage at Apple Events, the Media often portrays him as the "softie" Mister-Rogers-like successor to SJ.

 

[MyMac1976]

I believe it started with the first iPod, but I don't see the point of your question.

So there have been no Mac's made since 2001?

 

[Eraserhead]

http://www.seattle.gov/civilrights/discrimination.htm







Shaun, if you want to get involved in politics then fine, leave your company and run for political office.

How about you post the name of your business or are you just another anonymous coward afraid to stand by your words? Surely you wouldn't want to accept money from or have customers who are gay or gay friendly. If not, you are advancing the 'gay agenda'.

No one in the uk will do business with him if he's anti gay.

 

[Websnapx2]

Someone left the irony on!

Sorry, I don't get the irony. On one hand someone could be potentially preventing someone else a proper job/wage because of an aspect of their life they don't like and you think that should be respected? I love it when entitled people make themselves the victim.

----------

You have a black president because of racism!

No, you have a black president because he was the less damaging option. That's still the case.

----------

Who said he can't say that? He probably doesn't for the same reason I've never heard a CEO stand up in their annual shareholders' meeting to declare to the world he or she is straight.

You can be assured that everyone in Apple who furthered Tim Cook's career knows his sexual orientation. That's why I stated that no one can claim his orientation has held him back one iota.

Are you kidding? What CEO HAS to say they are straight. That is very disingenuous to say, and reeks of entitlement. He wrote a letter and people freak (12pages here, and many more in other places), talking about "he should be focused on the company not this" or "this is the last push I need to seek my stock" as I've seen in other articles... he has a board he is accountable to. A straight CEO doesn't need to say or do anything. To say or do anything makes you stand out and like I said, he isn't even "out" professionally. Why would you ask him to do something no other CEO would ever have to do?

I can't be assured of anything as we don't know what is actually going on. You don't know how many lengths he's had to go to keep his private life separate unless you know him. He's not "out" professionally.

 

[citizenzen]

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/affirmative.html

There's just one scholarly source, there are many more. Quota programs have been a key component of affirmative action since the beginning, they're starting to die, but not nearly quickly enough.

Does it matter that your article was printed in 1992 ... over 20 years ago?

"White House Counsel C. Borden Gray", who was mentioned as having "created created a furor last November" was counsel to George Herbert Walker Bush, the first Bush president.

This reminds me so much of the Welfare debate, where people forget that program was reformed in 1996, yet still argue as if bygone policies are still in place. Affirmative Action has changed as well. We need to argue based on the policies that are in effect today, not 20 years ago.

Truly though, thank you for the source. I appreciate your effort to ground the debate in something firmer than mere emotion.

 

[Websnapx2]

As a business owner, my money equals my decision. Nobody should be forced to go against their conscience or their religious beliefs. Tim Cook is an idiot and the sooner he leaves Apple the better.

If your "conscience" doesn't know how to hire someone qualified and provide them with a living wage for hard work and loyalty, then it isn't worth a damn. If your "religious beliefs" prevent you from following god's word to love and respect your fellow human beings, then they are just as valuable. Also, if you use your religious beliefs to run your business, I hope you are giving large sums of your money to the sick and the needy, as god intended.

"Religious beliefs" are the coward's shield. Jesus would be the first person to disown you.

 

[Websnapx2]

You're making the point for the other side. You are a "business owner". What role does and employees sexual orientation have in their ability to diligiently perform their job. In a modern society your personal view as to what is moral or immoral does not get to come into play. Discrimination in any form is wrong, end of story. Your status as a business owner does not afford you the right to decide write and wrong based on your own religious beliefs.

[written by a straight white guy]

Laws need to be made because guys like the one you just responded too still exist.

----------

Never said hide who you are but if you don't tell anyone you're gay they'll never know.

And NO, people don't just assume you're straight until shown otherwise, I'm the perfect example of it. I go to work, do my job, don't talk about home (I have a wife and son) and one ignorant person assumed I was gay.

When asked why, she said because she's never seen me try to get at any of the ladies there and never heard me talk about a relationship. I told her I was happily married and she backed off.

Point is, people will assume whatever but just live your life.

I do agree that it should be illegal to fire someone for being gay or for their religion.

Dude, she was hitting on you. It sounds like an ice-breaker, like she was testing the waters. Besides, no ring?

 

[dustinsc]

You're quoting wikipedia references to British and Canadian law.

In post #159 I excerpted (and linked back to) U.S. regulations according to the Department of Labor.

It's not surprising to hear that Canada and the U.K. implement their policy somewhat differently than the U.S.

The department of labor does not enforce affirmative action. It is not a requirement of any US law. Affirmative action is a program put in place by individual employers or educational institutions. Go back and read the Wikipedia article. Affirmative action is the name in the US. The references to the UK and Canada were for different names.

For a good look at two forms of implementation of affirmative action, read the Supreme Court opinions for Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger. These involved affirmative action, or preferring racial minorities in the entrance to an undergraduate program and a law school, respectively, at the University of Michigan.

 

[citizenzen]

The department of labor does not enforce affirmative action.

I've cited DOL regulations that show they are responsible for either overseeing or actually regulating AA.

I've already citied specific regulations that show that much of AA is "self-assessed, good-faith efforts" on the part of the non construction contractees with the assistance of the DOL if the contractee requests the assistance.

So ... what new information are you bringing to the table?

And please cite your sources.

 

[OLDCODGER]

I don't even like the term "atheist" as it just appears to be another term for religious people to be able to classify others in some way within their whole concept of "belief / non-belief". It does have this undertone of "actively not believing in something".

A common mistake. What you are referring to is actually an anti-Theist - not an Atheist.

 

[OLDCODGER]

Sorry, I don't get the irony. On one hand someone could be potentially preventing someone else a proper job/wage because of an aspect of their life they don't like and you think that should be respected? I love it when entitled people make themselves the victim.

----------



No, you have a black president because he was the less damaging option. That's still the case.

----------

First, no-one is entitled to a job - any job. Second, a business owner should be able to set terms and conditions based on his own needs/judgements. It's his money, blood, sweat, and tears that go into building a business - no-one should have the right to just barge in on that, thinking that they are "special".

Respect, if desired, has to be earned, and the one who's respect is sought get's to set the rules. I have my rules (morals, ethics, standards, etc) and no amount of badgering will cause me to change them.

As for your views on Obama, they give a clearer understanding of where your rules come from. The damage that Obama has managed to do, in such a short time, is despicable!

 

[Websnapx2]

First, no-one is entitled to a job - any job. Second, a business owner should be able to set terms and conditions based on his own needs/judgements. It's his money, blood, sweat, and tears that go into building a business - no-one should have the right to just barge in on that, thinking that they are "special".

Respect, if desired, has to be earned, and the one who's respect is sought get's to set the rules. I have my rules (morals, ethics, standards, etc) and no amount of badgering will cause me to change them.

As for your views on Obama, they give a clearer understanding of where your rules come from. The damage that Obama has managed to do, in such a short time, is despicable!

You misunderstand. I never said someone was entitled to a job, my comment was about entitled people not knowing/caring there is a real problem that doesn't effect them and since it doesn't effect them, it's not a problem they need to think about. I DO, however think that these rules are needed to protect people from losing their jobs for non work related reasons (who they go home to) as time and time again we see the private sector (as a whole) poorly regulate itself when it comes to their workers. If it makes the hiring process more fair to quality potential hires, everyone wins. Not all companies have open minded people overseeing hiring –*even if the owners/CEO's are. That's all I'm saying.

Obviously, feel free to ignore my Obama comment... I'm Canadian so a lot of the things going on the states (from a legal perspective) baffles me – but that is a conversation for another thread. Not meant to insult or insight, just that we would be at an impasse as to what our role in society is. Also it doesn't matter as we don't have the same government.

 

[Animalk]

It is basic anti-compete laws in action. If you work at company x that makes solutions for y then you will be in trouble if you leave company x to work at company z when company x and company z make the same set of solutions for y.

Those aren't laws as far as I know. Those are agreements made between the employee and the employer upon hiring from my understanding.

The Competition laws apply to other things relating to market and intellectual property: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

 

[snberk103]

First, no-one is entitled to a job - any job. ..

I agree....mostly... kind of....

If a women has competed for and fairly won a job and then a few years later gets pregnant is she entitled to keep her job even though for a couple of months she may be partially less efficient than before? (I'm thinking of doctor's appointments during the week, more frequent bathroom breaks as the tyke plays soccer with the bladder, etc...)

How about after she has the child. Most child-raising duties fall to the mother in practice. Is she entitled to keep her job even though she will be pulled from work more often dealing with child-care issues. Perhaps she is applying for a new job... should she be un-entitled to the job because the business owner wants someone who can work unpaid overtime over the weekend?

Or... how about someone, anyone, who gets chronically sick. How healthy do they have remain to be entitled to keep their job?

It's all about how you define 'entitled'.... it can sound so negative when used in a particular context when in fact we are all 'entitled' to be treated fairly and equitably as human beings... imho, at least....

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

First, no-one is entitled to a job - any job.

What social evil would occur if we collectively said that everyone who wanted one is entitled some kind of job? Digging ditches and building rock walls for the Works Progress Administration, for example? You show up, you move rocks for 8 hours, you get paid enough for food. Why would that be so bad?

More importantly, modern urban unemployment has an extra level of danger to society that rural unemployment didn't have back in the yeoman farmer era. We are all safer if most people are at work somehow, so, it is a legitimate thing for the government to care about.

Second, a business owner should be able to set terms and conditions based on his own needs/judgements. It's his money, blood, sweat, and tears that go into building a business - no-one should have the right to just barge in on that, thinking that they are "special".

You are absolutely wrong. Period. We live in a modern urban society with constant interactions with the marketplace. If you want to go live on a desert island all by yourself, fine. Then tell yourself how hard you want to work. If you want to live in a society with other people in a complex, market-oriented economy, you have to respect the commonly-established laws regarding employment. Your "private industry" is part of, and enabled by, the entire market economy. You don't have the right to set whatever terms and conditions you want.

Respect, if desired, has to be earned, and the one who's respect is sought get's to set the rules. I have my rules (morals, ethics, standards, etc) and no amount of badgering will cause me to change them.

You are entitled to your views, but, you are not, for example, entitled to pay people $2/hour to work 16 hour days.

As for your views on Obama, they give a clearer understanding of where your rules come from. The damage that Obama has managed to do, in such a short time, is despicable!

Why don't you document the damage that Obama did? As compared to, for example, the damage that the banks, the housing bubble, mortgage fraud, etc. did?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Recession

 

[dustinsc]

I've cited DOL regulations that show they are responsible for either overseeing or actually regulating AA.

I've already citied specific regulations that show that much of AA is "self-assessed, good-faith efforts" on the part of the non construction contractees with the assistance of the DOL if the contractee requests the assistance.

So ... what new information are you bringing to the table?

And please cite your sources.

Affirmative action isn't a single program. When we use that term in the United States, we refer to a series of policies or practices that go beyond simply refraining from discrimination and move into active efforts to recruit persons from underrepresented minorities, whether they be racial minorities or an underrepresented gender. A good example of the use of this term is in part II Justice Ginsburg's dissent in Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003). "One can reasonably anticipate, therefore, that colleges and universities will seek to maintain their minority enrollment—and the networks and opportunities thereby opened to minority graduates—whether or not they can do so in full candor through adoption of affirmative action plans of the kind here at issue." The "here at issue" referred to the University of Michigan's admissions policy, which required that applicants reach a certain number of points. Points were earned through grades, extra-curricular achievement, being from Michigan, and, critically at issue in the case, whether one came from a certain underrepresented racial group. Incidentally, the Court overruled this particular class of affirmative action for the same reasons it had previously overruled a system of quotas used in California in the 70s as part of the University of California system's affirmative action program. See Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265 (1977).

The same day as Gratz, the Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School's affirmative action program in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). That affirmative action program instructed admissions officers to consider race as one factor of many, none of which had a certain number of "points" attached to them.

The point is, when we talk about affirmative action in this country, these are the types of things we are talking about. Affirmative action comes in many different flavors, some of which have been ruled unconstitutional because they violate the Fourteenth Amendment (e.g. Bakke and Gratz, supra), others have been questioned constitutionally (e.g. Adarand Constructors v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995)), and others have been upheld (e.g. Grutter, supra). All of these examples go beyond simply refraining from discriminating against a certain class and move into programs that actively favor an otherwise disadvantaged class.

I misspoke on the DoL enforcement of affirmative action programs. I didn't mean to say that there are no affirmative action programs enforced by DoL, but that by the term "affirmative action" we mean something much broader than any single government program. In any event, federal government contracts require "affirmative action" programs in 48 C.F.R. 801, et. seq., that go beyond refraining from discrimination. These call for "affirmative action requirements that specify goals for minorities and women in covered construction trades." 18 C.F.R. 804-2(b). This goes beyond nondiscrimination and into creating goals to get these people into these jobs.

Tim Cook is not proposing affirmative action, but merely nondiscrimination. Currently, in many states an employer can refuse to hire you because you are gay. An employer can also refuse to hire you because she doesn't like your hair, thinks your shoes are goofy, or because you went to the wrong college (assuming that none of these things are really just indications of some other suspect class, such as race, gender, ethnicity, or religion). For a good source on what nondiscrimination laws exist, see http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/employment_discrimination.

 

[CodeJingle]

Those aren't laws as far as I know. Those are agreements made between the employee and the employer upon hiring from my understanding.

The Competition laws apply to other things relating to market and intellectual property: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

You are right in that other than the legal document signed as part of employment it is not a set of pre-existing laws per-se, though there are other laws that may be violated if there is no non-poach agreement in place between partnering companies. See here for more info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause

In my experience the non-poach and non-compete rules are broken all the time. Lawsuits for breaking non-poach or non-compete are rare (compared to how often they are broken without repercussion).

 

[lifeinhd]

Well since the free market has done **** and all to help women, or any minority. I'll put my faith in legislation.

Because as soon as it's illegal to hate somebody, all the hate just disappears, right?

 

[69650]

First, no-one is entitled to a job - any job. Second, a business owner should be able to set terms and conditions based on his own needs/judgements. It's his money, blood, sweat, and tears that go into building a business - no-one should have the right to just barge in on that, thinking that they are "special".

Respect, if desired, has to be earned, and the one who's respect is sought get's to set the rules. I have my rules (morals, ethics, standards, etc) and no amount of badgering will cause me to change them.

As for your views on Obama, they give a clearer understanding of where your rules come from. The damage that Obama has managed to do, in such a short time, is despicable!

Well said.

 

[Eraserhead]

Because as soon as it's illegal to hate somebody, all the hate just disappears, right?

The obvious counter to that would be the ban of smoking in pubs and bars. Before the ban no-where had a smoking ban, after the ban no-one smokes in pubs and bars.

 

[skottichan]

Because as soon as it's illegal to hate somebody, all the hate just disappears, right?

This is not about making it "illegal to hate", it's making it illegal to use that hate against someone in a professional setting.

As a woman who was fired from a bar because the manager used his homophobia in his professional capacity. I need this law to protect me.

 

[69650]

If your "conscience" doesn't know how to hire someone qualified and provide them with a living wage for hard work and loyalty, then it isn't worth a damn. If your "religious beliefs" prevent you from following god's word to love and respect your fellow human beings, then they are just as valuable. Also, if you use your religious beliefs to run your business, I hope you are giving large sums of your money to the sick and the needy, as god intended.

"Religious beliefs" are the coward's shield. Jesus would be the first person to disown you.

Why are your rights more important than mine? I don't try to impose my Christian beliefs on anyone else. All I ask is that I be allowed to live MY life and run MY business to whatever standard I wish within the law. Government has no right to tell me how to live my life or how to run my business and that I should just accept something that I fundamentally disagree with.

 

[yg17]

Why are your rights more important than mine? I don't try to impose my Christian beliefs on anyone else. All I ask is that I be allowed to live MY life and run MY business to whatever standard I wish within the law. Government has no right to tell me how to live my life or how to run my business and that I should just accept something that I fundamentally disagree with.

Why should someone be denied a job due to their sexuality when they have no control over it? Are you OK with denying someone a job simply because they're black even though they are otherwise qualified for the position?