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

[Millah]

Interesting coming from Apple. Can't recall when I've ever seen a female Executive present anything at WWDC or any other Apple Event.

Doesn't mean there aren't tons of instrumental women working inside Apple. As well as several VPs who are gay/lesbian. Not to mention Apples newest senior executive hire is a woman. And the several board members who are women.

I'd say Apple isn't too bad in terms of equality. The senior management is not the entire company.

 

[Animalk]

That's nice Apple but your anti-poaching agreement with other tech companies like Google is discrimination towards tech workers in the industry. Utterly shameful and disrespectful to those you should value most.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

This sounds almost exactly like the often vilified Affirmative Action—at least as its practiced in California.

AA doesn't require you to hire anybody based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

AA just says that you can't use those criteria against the person you're hiring ... you have to base your hiring choices on their ability to do the job.

Well then that simply isn't Affirmative Action then, regardless of what term CA puts to it.

Affirmative Action as a policy does take into account race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc. Positive discrimination in the selection of people based on these things is the cornerstone of AA.

 

[citizenzen]

Well then that simply isn't Affirmative Action then, regardless of what term CA puts to it.

Affirmative Action as a policy does take into account race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc. Positive discrimination in the selection of people based on these things is the cornerstone of AA.

I've been on a number of hiring committees and have never been told who to hire, only what we can't use as a basis for rejecting a candidate. The policy for university system I work for is below ...

Executive Order 883

THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
Office of the Chancellor
401 Golden Shore
Long Beach, California 90802-4210
(562) 951-4700

Executive Order: 883

Title: Systemwide Guidelines for Nondiscrimination and Affirmative Action Programs in Employment

Effective Date: October 31, 2003

Supersedes: Executive Order No. 774

A. Purpose

The California State University (CSU) is committed to maintaining and implementing employment policies and procedures in compliance with applicable state and federal nondiscrimination and affirmative action laws and regulations.

Accordingly, discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, pregnancy, age, disability, medical condition and covered veteran status is prohibited. ("Disability" and "medical condition" as used herein are consistent with the definitions provided in the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Employment and Housing Act.) Moreover, retaliation against individuals who have or are believed to have filed a discrimination complaint, opposed a discriminatory act or participated in a discrimination investigation or proceeding, is prohibited. With regard to qualified individuals with a disability or medical condition, CSU shall, upon request, provide reasonable accommodation so that they may perform the essential duties of their jobs, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the CSU. Reasonable accommodation is to be determined by CSU following its receipt of an individual's request for accommodation and engagement in an interactive process with the individual to identify the nature and extent of the individual's restrictions and the appropriate reasonable accommodation.

http://calstate.edu/eo/EO-883.html

 

[slapppy]

Funny coming from a company that seems to have nothing but white guys in their 40s and 50's in senior positions.

Perhaps each one earned those positions through hard work. Not because of race, color, orientation...

----------

This may have never happened if Steve were still around....

...but I'm not convinced that's all bad. Good for Tim.

Yet SJ recommended, actually picked TC to take over. I think SJ would embrace this move.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

I've been on a number of hiring committees and have never been told who to hire, only what we can't use as a basis for rejecting a candidate. The policy for university system I work for is below ...

Sorry, you're missing my point. I don't care what California (or your university) calls its legislation, what you've described is simply not affirmative action. It's just a policy of nondiscrimination.

 

[citizenzen]

Sorry, you're missing my point. I don't care what California calls its legislation, what you've described is simply not affirmative action.

Please provide reputably sourced information on what you think it is then.

 

[zephonic]

I think Apple's CEO has no business writing op-ed's, but it is hardly surprising. He himself is said to be gay, so this would only be shocking if he held opposing views.

 

[citizenzen]

I think Apple's CEO has no business writing op-ed's, but it is hardly surprising. He himself is openly gay, so this would only be shocking if he held opposing views.

I had no idea he was gay.

 

[zephonic]

I shouldn't have said "openly gay". It is widely assumed he is gay, and he has never contradicted that.

 

[Krazy Bill]

Doesn't mean there aren't tons of instrumental women working inside Apple.

It's almost 2014 and not one female holds any kind of senior product development title.

 

[lifeinhd]

I don't think this legislation is necessary.

If it's true that businesses will toss aside perfectly competent, even superior candidates on the basis of discrimination, then heck, I'll start a company and only hire all those talented LGBTs that other companies discriminate against. I'll be able to make a superior product, maybe even sell it cheaper since my LGBT employees will all be willing to work for less because of the rampant discrimination, and all my competitors will go out of business.

...or maybe it's possible my competitors will catch on that discrimination isn't working, and they'll start hiring purely on merit and value as well.

TL;DR, capitalism has a built-in punishment for businesses that discriminate. Legislation isn't necessary.

 

[apple_iBoy]

This may have never happened if Steve were still around....

...but I'm not convinced that's all bad. Good for Tim.

I'm pretty sure apple made public it's opposition to prop 8 and even donated money to anti-prop 8 causes while Steve was at the helm.

----------

I think Apple's CEO has no business writing op-ed's, but it is hardly surprising. He himself is said to be gay, so this would only be shocking if he held opposing views.

I shouldn't have said "openly gay". It is widely assumed he is gay, and he has never contradicted that.

Soooo... Then the opposite of openly gay is what you meant?

Does he have to be gay to take this stance? Your previous message implied of course this is what he thinks... He's one of THEM.

As the leader of one of America's most influential and highly capitalized businesses, I say he has has every right to pen this kind of op-ed about legislation that directly affects American business practices.

 

[RMo]

This may have never happened if Steve were still around....

Are you sure? I thought Apple (or its CEO) had voiced support for ENDA in the past, but I can't remember if that was long enough ago for Steve Jobs to still be at the helm. Did I make that up? I didn't think this was the first time this has happened.

 

[Ent]

Good for Tim! These are the types of issues which need more publicity and help educate the public.

 

[anthony11]

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

I've yet to see a photo of him where he doesn't look *ancient*.

 

[ciaran00]

Funny coming from a company that seems to have nothing but white guys in their 40s and 50's in senior positions.

And now, a woman too.

 

[anthony11]

TL;DR, capitalism has a built-in punishment for businesses that discriminate. Legislation isn't necessary.

I can personally attest to this not being the case.

That said, laws and what companies get away are two very different things. An employer can contrive all sorts of unrelated excuses for discriminating against a protected class, and they tend to have the $ to hire more lawyers.

----------

That's nice Apple but your anti-poaching agreement with other tech companies like Google is discrimination towards tech workers in the industry. Utterly shameful and disrespectful to those you should value most.

No, it isn't. It does not prohibit an employee from seeking work.

 

[holmesf]

I don't think this legislation is necessary.

If it's true that businesses will toss aside perfectly competent, even superior candidates on the basis of discrimination, then heck, I'll start a company and only hire all those talented LGBTs that other companies discriminate against. I'll be able to make a superior product, maybe even sell it cheaper since my LGBT employees will all be willing to work for less because of the rampant discrimination, and all my competitors will go out of business.

...or maybe it's possible my competitors will catch on that discrimination isn't working, and they'll start hiring purely on merit and value as well.

TL;DR, capitalism has a built-in punishment for businesses that discriminate. Legislation isn't necessary.

One only needs to look to the history of racial segregation in the US to completely disprove your point. Discrimination and capitalism are not incompatible.

 

[roland.g]

Interesting coming from Apple. Can't recall when I've ever seen a female Executive present anything at WWDC or any other Apple Event.

Apple did just recently hire Burberry CEO Angela Ahrendts as Senior Vice President of Retail and Online Stores to take over the former Ron Johnson and briefly filled John Browett position. But she will be the first female Executive VP to my knowledge.

 

[citizenzen]

TL;DR, capitalism has a built-in punishment for businesses that discriminate. Legislation isn't necessary.

If capitalism has this built-in self correcting mechanism, why hasn't it already happened?

Capitalism has been around for a pretty long time.

 

[ScottishDuck]

I've employed hundreds of people since 2001, and know countless business owners that do as well. I've never personally witnessed this "inequality" that people "witness" these days. I know this existed at one time, but I haven't seen it in the years I've been in business. On one hand you have people say that business owners/managers are "evil" and are only looking after their bottom line. On the other hand you have people saying these "evil" business owners/managers are discriminating against people. Well, which is it? If they're really only looking for their bottom line, wouldn't they employ the very best person for the job? It just doesn't make sense.

You have some that want to see an approximate split of 50/50 men/women, and if it's not approaching that there's discrimination. Many of these people don't take into account that certain jobs attract men and certain jobs attract more women. How many women aspire to shovel coal into a coal fired train? Or work in coal mines? How many men aspire to work in the textile industry? More men go into computer science than women, and therefore less women are applying for computer science related jobs. It doesn't mean employers are discriminating.

When people talk about privilege. This right here is a great example. Hopelessly ignorant.

 

[apple_iBoy]

I don't think this legislation is necessary.

If it's true that businesses will toss aside perfectly competent, even superior candidates on the basis of discrimination, then heck, I'll start a company and only hire all those talented LGBTs that other companies discriminate against. I'll be able to make a superior product, maybe even sell it cheaper since my LGBT employees will all be willing to work for less because of the rampant discrimination, and all my competitors will go out of business.

...or maybe it's possible my competitors will catch on that discrimination isn't working, and they'll start hiring purely on merit and value as well.

TL;DR, capitalism has a built-in punishment for businesses that discriminate. Legislation isn't necessary.

Please provide link to job posting of said hypothetical company you're starting to absorb all these terminated LGBT employees. And what's your incredible business plan that will ensure that your hypothetical company trounces the established and entrenched competition, thus paying them their just deserts?

I think your intentions are fine, but the fact of the matter is unless codified into law, injustice (which should be illegality) will persist.

 

[ScottishDuck]

I don't think this legislation is necessary.

If it's true that businesses will toss aside perfectly competent, even superior candidates on the basis of discrimination, then heck, I'll start a company and only hire all those talented LGBTs that other companies discriminate against. I'll be able to make a superior product, maybe even sell it cheaper since my LGBT employees will all be willing to work for less because of the rampant discrimination, and all my competitors will go out of business.

...or maybe it's possible my competitors will catch on that discrimination isn't working, and they'll start hiring purely on merit and value as well.

TL;DR, capitalism has a built-in punishment for businesses that discriminate. Legislation isn't necessary.

Ah, the free market argument...

 

[holmesf]

You have some that want to see an approximate split of 50/50 men/women, and if it's not approaching that there's discrimination. Many of these people don't take into account that certain jobs attract men and certain jobs attract more women. How many women aspire to shovel coal into a coal fired train? Or work in coal mines? How many men aspire to work in the textile industry? More men go into computer science than women, and therefore less women are applying for computer science related jobs. It doesn't mean employers are discriminating.

You sure showed that straw-man who's boss. Who is saying these things? Please.