I work for a fortune 150 company. They are all about this. D&I to the extreme. Of the last 20 VP or Executive Dirctor roles all but 2 have gone to females and this is in a company that makes heavy iron. I've got 10 more years and I'm out of here. If you're a white male, good luck climbing the corporate ladder. There's a bad undercurrent breweing but they can't and don't want to hear it. Time will tell if it hurts them or not.

(08-20-2019 04:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I think the OP is a fairly extreme interpretation of the statement.

MOST businesses understand that being a good member of the community, treating your employees and business partners fairly and other things are good for business. It costs a lot less to retain most employees than to replace them.... skilled ones anyway.

Diversity and inclusion isn't about gender and race, it's more about accepting that good ideas can come from anywhere along the chain. a diversity of opinions and perspectives, properly channeled, is a good thing.

Someone needs to explain that perception of D&I to AT&T. They were very clear in what constituted D&I to them as a corporation and that was the inclusion of minorities, females (and LGBTQ) to the point that minorities probably make up a larger percentage of employees than any subset. They sponsored a Black Telecom Professionals Association a Women's TPA as well as a Latino TPA. Almost weekly I was required to take some course or other to be sure I was compliant, especially as a manager.

While I didn't have any issue at all with black and latino representation throughout the company I did have a problem with having D&I shoved down my throat all the time.

But is it about pushing social change, or about maximizing shareholder value by realizing that there are a number of consumers who would leave them if they didn't do this?

(08-21-2019 03:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  But is it about pushing social change, or about maximizing shareholder value by realizing that there are a number of consumers who would leave them if they didn't do this?

It sounds more the former than the latter.

A bunch of arrogant holier than thou CEOs, elected by noone trying to make public policy and using shareholder $$s to do it.

Anyone who has ever been in middle management knows that American companies generally succeed in spite of their CEOs, not because of them.

(08-20-2019 04:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I think the OP is a fairly extreme interpretation of the statement.

MOST businesses understand that being a good member of the community, treating your employees and business partners fairly and other things are good for business. It costs a lot less to retain most employees than to replace them.... skilled ones anyway.

Diversity and inclusion isn't about gender and race, it's more about accepting that good ideas can come from anywhere along the chain. a diversity of opinions and perspectives, properly channeled, is a good thing.

I agree with you on this. I think OP made a bit of a leap.

(08-20-2019 02:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 02:10 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 02:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 10:51 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Remember in all the places that socialism has failed, it wasn't real socialism, only in places where socialists have claimed it's flourished is real socialism...
Also remember.. The ACA was testing the waters.. That was a socialist program.. Failed miserably.

Where exactly has socialism ever flourished??? A Kibbutz is really more of a camp than a socialist state, and the Amish may help one another but are hardly running a socialist community.

Honestly I don’t know but some here cite Finland and Sweden I think.

Finland and Sweden are not socialist. They are not about massive redistribution of income and/or wealth, nor are they about state ownership of the means of production. They are capitalist with a safety net.

I think that’s where the American political spectrum has its head on wrong. Neither the left or the right give a realistic picture of those countries. All of these countries remain largely free market economies, but the keep safety nets for the citizenry. It’s a concept that has existed much, much longer than even the concept of socialism.

(08-20-2019 06:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I perceive you as still having kids at home. I have grown grandchildren.

Don't disagree with the 'too big' comment.

Just for clarity on the above... My kids are out of the house but under 30... so I guess I'm in between you and where you think I was lol

(08-21-2019 07:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-21-2019 03:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  But is it about pushing social change, or about maximizing shareholder value by realizing that there are a number of consumers who would leave them if they didn't do this?

It sounds more the former than the latter.

A bunch of arrogant holier than thou CEOs, elected by noone trying to make public policy and using shareholder $$s to do it.

Anyone who has ever been in middle management knows that American companies generally succeed in spite of their CEOs, not because of them.

But that was precisely my point. Locally, they have to deal with real people. At the top, they can engage in rhetoric.

If they don't represent you, don't invest in them. That's precisely what the left is doing and it's not wrong. Protests and badgering patrons is, but deciding to 'Buy American' or 'Shop Local' or whatever is perfectly fine and should be celebrated as an expression of free will.

(08-19-2019 12:00 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  To me I see this as step 1 in the Communist game plan. If you can get the corporations to wield power over the common man, then the common man will turn to government to control the corporation. And that control would be done by a nationalization of corporations.

I don’t agree with the conclusions of the OP, but if the conclusion were true, this is exactly how Marx predicted capitalist systems would end up. It’s not so much of a playbook as it is a path that capitalism can take naturally if a society isn’t disciplined with it.

(08-22-2019 08:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 06:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I perceive you as still having kids at home. I have grown grandchildren.

Don't disagree with the 'too big' comment.

Just for clarity on the above... My kids are out of the house but under 30... so I guess I'm in between you and where you think I was lol

(08-21-2019 07:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-21-2019 03:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  But is it about pushing social change, or about maximizing shareholder value by realizing that there are a number of consumers who would leave them if they didn't do this?

It sounds more the former than the latter.

A bunch of arrogant holier than thou CEOs, elected by noone trying to make public policy and using shareholder $$s to do it.

Anyone who has ever been in middle management knows that American companies generally succeed in spite of their CEOs, not because of them.

But that was precisely my point. Locally, they have to deal with real people. At the top, they can engage in rhetoric.

If they don't represent you, don't invest in them. That's precisely what the left is doing and it's not wrong. Protests and badgering patrons is, but deciding to 'Buy American' or 'Shop Local' or whatever is perfectly fine and should be celebrated as an expression of free will.

If this was a bunch of local mom and pops that would be different. We're talking about the largest corporations in the country not just doing it on their own, but collaborating on it. And many of those companies are pushing the CEOs politics on their workforce. If we have a bunch of Googles, we no longer have freedom of expression or political freedom in this country.

This statement was not about Diversity and Inclusion. They all already do that. Its about the political side.

(08-22-2019 12:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 08:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 06:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I perceive you as still having kids at home. I have grown grandchildren.

Don't disagree with the 'too big' comment.

Just for clarity on the above... My kids are out of the house but under 30... so I guess I'm in between you and where you think I was lol

(08-21-2019 07:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-21-2019 03:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  But is it about pushing social change, or about maximizing shareholder value by realizing that there are a number of consumers who would leave them if they didn't do this?

It sounds more the former than the latter.

A bunch of arrogant holier than thou CEOs, elected by noone trying to make public policy and using shareholder $$s to do it.

Anyone who has ever been in middle management knows that American companies generally succeed in spite of their CEOs, not because of them.

But that was precisely my point. Locally, they have to deal with real people. At the top, they can engage in rhetoric.

If they don't represent you, don't invest in them. That's precisely what the left is doing and it's not wrong. Protests and badgering patrons is, but deciding to 'Buy American' or 'Shop Local' or whatever is perfectly fine and should be celebrated as an expression of free will.

If this was a bunch of local mom and pops that would be different. We're talking about the largest corporations in the country not just doing it on their own, but collaborating on it. And many of those companies are pushing the CEOs politics on their workforce. If we have a bunch of Googles, we no longer have freedom of expression or political freedom in this country.

This statement was not about Diversity and Inclusion. They all already do that. Its about the political side.

I don't think anyone really read my post on the first page, but I probably shouldn't have started it with the quote from Sun Tzu. The issue here Bullet is even larger than what you are trying to say. These aren't just national corporations, they are international corporations which are seeking to impose their views on the world, not just the U.S.. That's what Globalism is all about. And they aren't just trying to reshape our views in the United States, they are trying to make us subservient to their ends and see our existing law and culture as an impediment to their objectives. And until we get their money out of the PACs, out of lobbying, and make them subservient to the laws and treaties of this country we will continue to lose this fight.

And the left isn't wholly to blame. This beast was suckled by H.W. Bush, advanced by Clinton, and became radicalized under Obama all of whom they supported. It is the reason behind the relentless assault on Trump. He's not one of them, is uniquely positioned to know what they are and what they are about, and refuses to be controlled by them. So Ryan and McCain and others exposed themselves by siding the Democrats against Trump, but all of them are obliged to these entities.

Again, it's no accident that the Bush's, Clinton's and Obama's are chummy.

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/08/22/ce...keholders/


"...No. In fact, it’s a sad sign of the times when a group of people with such great financial responsibility sign a “pledge” that commits them to doing the exact opposite of what they’re supposed to do, in the only economic system that has ever delivered wealth and happiness to hundreds of millions of people.

Let’s start with that term “stakeholders.” Sorry, but it’s a vacuous term, a weasel word that essentially means “anyone we want to please.” It shows even supposedly bottom-line-oriented CEOs are vulnerable to PC gibberish. Shareholders have skin in the game; a diffuse, ever-changing group of ill-defined stakeholders don’t.

The 189-member group of major-company CEOs — among them the top dogs at Amazon, Apple, JPMorgan Chase and Walmart — says it wants to “modernize” American corporations.

“Americans are struggling,” the pledge said. “Too often hard work is not rewarded, and not enough is being done for workers to adjust to the rapid pace of change in the economy.”

That all might be true, but the fact is, individual companies have the power to deal with that right now, without signing a PC “pledge” to do so....


In fact, it’s the law. Any CEO who does not accept his or her fiduciary responsibility is technically a violator. Those CEOs who signed the pledge might not have realized it, but they don’t get to make this decision. The people do. CEOs who impose far-left ideas on their corporations deserve to be sued by their cheated shareholders.

As is often the case, Nobel-winning economist Milton Friedman said it best:

“There is one and only one social responsibility of business — to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.”

Or as Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds has pithily summarized: “Get Woke, Go Broke.” We hope the CEOs are smart enough to heed that advice."

(08-22-2019 12:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 12:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 08:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 06:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I perceive you as still having kids at home. I have grown grandchildren.

Don't disagree with the 'too big' comment.

Just for clarity on the above... My kids are out of the house but under 30... so I guess I'm in between you and where you think I was lol

(08-21-2019 07:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-21-2019 03:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  But is it about pushing social change, or about maximizing shareholder value by realizing that there are a number of consumers who would leave them if they didn't do this?

It sounds more the former than the latter.

A bunch of arrogant holier than thou CEOs, elected by noone trying to make public policy and using shareholder $$s to do it.

Anyone who has ever been in middle management knows that American companies generally succeed in spite of their CEOs, not because of them.

But that was precisely my point. Locally, they have to deal with real people. At the top, they can engage in rhetoric.

If they don't represent you, don't invest in them. That's precisely what the left is doing and it's not wrong. Protests and badgering patrons is, but deciding to 'Buy American' or 'Shop Local' or whatever is perfectly fine and should be celebrated as an expression of free will.

If this was a bunch of local mom and pops that would be different. We're talking about the largest corporations in the country not just doing it on their own, but collaborating on it. And many of those companies are pushing the CEOs politics on their workforce. If we have a bunch of Googles, we no longer have freedom of expression or political freedom in this country.

This statement was not about Diversity and Inclusion. They all already do that. Its about the political side.

I don't think anyone really read my post on the first page, but I probably shouldn't have started it with the quote from Sun Tzu. The issue here Bullet is even larger than what you are trying to say. These aren't just national corporations, they are international corporations which are seeking to impose their views on the world, not just the U.S.. That's what Globalism is all about. And they aren't just trying to reshape our views in the United States, they are trying to make us subservient to their ends and see our existing law and culture as an impediment to their objectives. And until we get their money out of the PACs, out of lobbying, and make them subservient to the laws and treaties of this country we will continue to lose this fight.

And the left isn't wholly to blame. This beast was suckled by H.W. Bush, advanced by Clinton, and became radicalized under Obama all of whom they supported. It is the reason behind the relentless assault on Trump. He's not one of them, is uniquely positioned to know what they are and what they are about, and refuses to be controlled by them. So Ryan and McCain and others exposed themselves by siding the Democrats against Trump, but all of them are obliged to these entities.

Again, it's no accident that the Bush's, Clinton's and Obama's are chummy.

This article is about Bernie being so angry he's stupid. But it echoes some of your points about education.

https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/bernie-a...ou-stupid/
"In case you missed it, or are exclusively a reader of the New York Times, late last week Bernie Sanders tweeted this nugget: "Fossil fuel executives should be criminally prosecuted for the destruction they have knowingly caused."

No, that wasn't The Onion or The Babylon Bee. It was the real deal. The always-furious Vermont senator wants to incarcerate the very people who are responsible for keeping the lights on and the air conditioners running in the operating rooms of almost every hospital, not only in America but across the globe....

Not that any of this disturbed Bernie, who, as is well known, celebrated his marriage in the Soviet Union, a land he clearly preferred to the USA. The problem with all this is that Sanders remains popular with student and millennial audiences that are, given the nature of our educational system, primed to be loyal citizens of a future Animal Farm, in fact already are."