So obviously anybody working HR is likewise incompetent.
Hasty generalization, anyone?
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 Honors Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. With Homepage Tribute
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So obviously anybody working HR is likewise incompetent.
Hasty generalization, anyone?
These threads are great to grow the community of ignored people in my profile. Spring cleaning.
His proper title is:
Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Any person who earns the title 'Reverend' understands it must come before of anything else.
By dropping 'Reverend' from his title, Apple is either calling him a hypocrite or besmirching the Reverend's name.
Neither is honoring him, but sadly exploiting his memory for marketing purposes.
Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Any person who earns the title 'Reverend' understands it must come before of anything else.
By dropping 'Reverend' from his title, Apple is either calling him a hypocrite or besmirching the Reverend's name.
Neither is honoring him, but sadly exploiting his memory for marketing purposes.
Last edited:
What exactly do you mean by diverse? What if there are no Mongols available? Is this a flower arrangement or an executive board?
Let's be real here. Human resources and social initiatives aren't real jobs.
The only thing they produce is ridicule and resentment from workers
who actually produce things and have to deal with them.
It's affirmative tokenization and a sinister form of segregation.
Not a good example at all, imo.
Asolutely right. "Affirmative tokenization and a sinister form of segregation" mean discriminating against White males - pure and simple.
Last edited by a moderator:
Companies only worry about the makeup of their board when they want to look like they care. It's far better if the expected career trajectory is similar for two random candidates of similar skillsets and different races throughout the ranks. The board is the last place you should look for this. If it's done well, people who would be considered ethnic minorities will show up there simply because more of them move up through the ranks or enter at a higher positions.
I am just here to show support for Apple for whatever "legal" business behaviour's they have. They pay all the taxes required by the law and I just don't see how that is wrong.
EDIT: Also Apple gave a lot of good inventions to the world like the iphone, iPad, and the very stable OS X which was revolutionary in 2001, not to mention the original GUI computer
EDIT: Also Apple gave a lot of good inventions to the world like the iphone, iPad, and the very stable OS X which was revolutionary in 2001, not to mention the original GUI computer
CEOs of public corporations have a legal obligation to make as much money for the shareholders as possible. If Tim Cook tried to get Apple to pay more tax than it legally has to then he could potentially get sued up his ass by the shareholders and lose his job. Tell me, if you were the CEO of Apple would you risk your job and your money and your livelihood so that you can give a bit more money to the IRS? Really? Would you?
[doublepost=1453199778][/doublepost]
But it's still the law. Apple can still get in trouble if they don't avoid paying as much tax as possible. How can Apple be sleazy for following the rules that they have to follow?
[doublepost=1453199885][/doublepost]
Isn't it kinda boring when everyone agrees with you?
Do you not see the irony in an almost all white, all male board, using a black guy who stood up for equal rights with the sole aim of selling their products?
Its crass.
First, it is not about whether or not shareholders should be happy, but what priority that should be assigned. There are other priorities, including customers, staff, and long-term investments. Pursuing those above shareholders does not preclude providing a reasonable value to shareholders. Second, after the initial sale of stock, the company does not benefit from increased share value (other than perhaps to entice other investors to buy a new round of shares). Third, the real danger from falling stock prices is not to the company itself, but to the management of the company. And we can't have that - screw the workers and customers. Fourth, is not that companies that have poor stock are forced to go out of business. It is that poorly performing companies have poor stock performance.
Like I said, the idea that the company is there to maximise benefit to the stockholders occurred well after the start of capitalism, and some are blaming the dogmatic pursuit of this idea to the short-termism and other problems seen in corporations. Indeed, I do not remember the source, but there are states considering corporations to be formed on the basis that they make explicit that they will not maximise dividends (presumably focusing instead on their customers, the development of their staff, and long-term investment in the business).
I´m not ignoring anyone that disagrees with me. Only those that are demonstrable racists, trolls or anything of the sort. I usually have quite strong opinions, so ignoring all that disagree with me would indeed be boring.
That is just bull. So if your statement is true, then every company has oversea operation must do same thing then. That clearly not the case. And sooner or later you would have pay that back anyway, so why would you want set yourself to an potential PR disaster?
My understanding is that there is no such law. If I am incorrect, then perhaps somebody could quote the relevant law.
It's not, and I have no idea where people get this idea. It's a prime expectation, but no one is in any way legally obligated to maximize profits at all costs. If they were, all businesses would be extremely risk adverse, and you'd have tons of CEOs in jail over failed ventures.
Think about it. Would Steve Jobs deserve to go to prison if the iPhone didn't make it in the market? Hell, were perpetual profits a legal obligation, would anyone have made an iPhone in the first place?
Maybe s/he means that there are more Columbus Day sales than MLK sales.
Just received an e-mail solicitation to buy something and use code MLKFREE
for FREE SHIPPING.
LOL.
Who cares!!! I have no sympathy for a white man that complains about affirmative action... I'm not gonna go into the ole 400 odd years part cause way back then the slave trade was pretty diverse.. The irony at the lol
But here in a America, white men has oppressed Blacks and lessor minority's in this country for CENTURIES!!! Who really gives a **** about what white people have to say on affirmative action for the last few decades.. You guys bought it on yourselves plain in simple
It's a sensitive topic... Let not beat around the bush
