Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

[arthwollipot]

Right, DEI had nothing to do with it. Costco was already a rich succesful company, they can easily pay the tithe and act self-righteous. I've yet to see an example of a failing company that opts to implement DEI and this policy change leads to success and profits. Do you know of any?

Why is that, in particular, your standard - that it "rescues" a failing business?

 

[theprestige]

Why is that, in particular, your standard - that it "rescues" a failing business?

We're probing the contours of the claim that DEI is good for business. In what sense are we supposed to understand this claim?

 

[bruto]

Right, DEI had nothing to do with it. Costco was already a rich succesful company, they can easily pay the tithe and act self-righteous. I've yet to see an example of a failing company that opts to implement DEI and this policy change leads to success and profits. Do you know of any?

Why should I? A business can fail for many reasons, and an action that is otherwise good and even actually virtuous won't necessarily save it. Nor, in fact, would a measure that might benefit a business that is in good condition to start with. If I manufacture products that are inferior, my business is likely to fail, but treating my employees well is still an actual, not a fake, virtue, and blaming DEI for not saving it or even for tanking it is upside down and backwards. Costco is, as we all agree, a successful enterprise for many reasons, and their management never made the stupid and shallow assertion that DEI rescued them from failure. They have said what they said, not what you wish they would have said.

 

[theprestige]

Why should I? A business can fail for many reasons, and an action that is otherwise good and even actually virtuous won't necessarily save it. Nor, in fact, would a measure that might benefit a business that is in good condition to start with. If I manufacture products that are inferior, my business is likely to fail, but treating my employees well is still an actual, not a fake, virtue, and blaming DEI for not saving it or even for tanking it is upside down and backwards. Costco is, as we all agree, a successful enterprise for many reasons, and their management never made the stupid and shallow assertion that DEI rescued them from failure. They have said what they said, not what you wish they would have said.

Costco certainly said something that someone wished they would say.

 

[theprestige]

Why should I? A business can fail for many reasons, and an action that is otherwise good and even actually virtuous won't necessarily save it. Nor, in fact, would a measure that might benefit a business that is in good condition to start with. If I manufacture products that are inferior, my business is likely to fail, but treating my employees well is still an actual, not a fake, virtue, and blaming DEI for not saving it or even for tanking it is upside down and backwards. Costco is, as we all agree, a successful enterprise for many reasons, and their management never made the stupid and shallow assertion that DEI rescued them from failure. They have said what they said, not what you wish they would have said.

So what exactly is the economic argument for DEI programs? Does it improve the recruitment and retention of top talent? Does it increase productivity? Lower costs? Improve customer satisfaction? Contribute to better regulatory compliance?

It's a broad, hand-wavy claim. Every time we try to nail it down, we get told "that's not the claim". So what is the claim @bruto? And why should we accept it?

 

[bruto]

So what exactly is the economic argument for DEI programs? Does it improve the recruitment and retention of top talent? Does it increase productivity? Lower costs? Improve customer satisfaction? Contribute to better regulatory compliance?

It's a broad, hand-wavy claim. Every time we try to nail it down, we get told "that's not the claim". So what is the claim @bruto? And why should we accept it?

I am not making the claim. I report that the directors of Costco made a claim, or actually a counter-claim, and it's their business to do so. The link, should you care to read all the way into it, includes the complete text of the directors' response to the stockholder motion, which appears to provide pretty specific answers to the "so what exactly" questions you put. Of course we're all free to disagree with their argument. There are many ways in which you can run a business, as there are many ways to do many things. Some of those ways spill over into the kind of society you want to live in, and there are plenty of arguments for that as well, and I like Costco's take on it better than I do some others. But if you want their argument, you can get it from them.

 

[arthwollipot]

So what exactly is the economic argument for DEI programs? Does it improve the recruitment and retention of top talent? Does it increase productivity? Lower costs? Improve customer satisfaction? Contribute to better regulatory compliance?

It's a broad, hand-wavy claim. Every time we try to nail it down, we get told "that's not the claim". So what is the claim @bruto? And why should we accept it?

The claim is that society in general is better for everybody when people and businesses respect the principles of diversity, equity and inclusion.

 

[jt512]

So what exactly is the economic argument for DEI programs? Does it improve the recruitment and retention of top talent? Does it increase productivity? Lower costs? Improve customer satisfaction? Contribute to better regulatory compliance?

It's a broad, hand-wavy claim. Every time we try to nail it down, we get told "that's not the claim". So what is the claim @bruto? And why should we accept it?

The claim is that society in general is better for everybody when people and businesses respect the principles of diversity, equity and inclusion.

Ah, the claim the evidence contradicts.

 

[bruto]

Ah, the claim the evidence contradicts.

I am not convinced that the work you cited there, interesting as it is, contradicts the policy under discussion in this little corner of the thread, namely the question addressed by Costco management regarding their policy on the successful conduct of their business. They're not conducting an experiment on perceived bias in college admission, interesting though that is. They are running a business in which they argue that their policy is beneficial to the employee base, their suppliers, and their clientele, as well as to their own sentiments. Since the business is doing well, one might consider it likely that they are not badly mistaken.

It may well be that this policy is not viable everywhere, and it may also be that Costco's long history of certain practices has helped them to integrate them into its business model in a way that would be impossible if they were imposed. And it may well be that doing business another way would also work, or would work better. Not everyone wants everything the same. But there it is. They do what they do, and they appear to be succeeding, and they, at least, credit their way of doing business with at least some of that.

My beef with theprestige has more to do with his rhetoric than anything, since he asks a question that was pretty explicitly answered, in language that is a pretty good match to the terms used in his question. I'll let others decide whether that is lazy, insincere, or probing and incisive.

 

[jt512]

I am not convinced that the work you cited there, interesting as it is, contradicts the policy under discussion in this little corner of the thread, namely the question addressed by Costco management regarding their policy on the successful conduct of their business. They're not conducting an experiment on perceived bias in college admission, interesting though that is. They are running a business in which they argue that their policy is beneficial to the employee base, their suppliers, and their clientele, as well as to their own sentiments. Since the business is doing well, one might consider it likely that they are not badly mistaken.

It may well be that this policy is not viable everywhere, and it may also be that Costco's long history of certain practices has helped them to integrate them into its business model in a way that would be impossible if they were imposed. And it may well be that doing business another way would also work, or would work better. Not everyone wants everything the same. But there it is. They do what they do, and they appear to be succeeding, and they, at least, credit their way of doing business with at least some of that.

My beef with theprestige has more to do with his rhetoric than anything, since he asks a question that was pretty explicitly answered, in language that is a pretty good match to the terms used in his question. I'll let others decide whether that is lazy, insincere, or probing and incisive.

Here is how Costco managements describes its DEI program:

Our success at Costco Wholesale has been built on service to our critical stakeholders: employees, members, and suppliers. Our efforts around diversity, equity and inclusion follow our code of ethics:

For our employees, these efforts are built around inclusion – having all of our employees feel valued and respected. Our efforts at diversity, equity and inclusion remind and reinforce with everyone at our Company the importance of creating opportunities for all. We believe that these efforts enhance our capacity to attract and retain employees who will help our business succeed. This capacity is critical because we owe our success to our now over 300,000 employees around the globe.
​

Typical corporate ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊: DEI just means having respect for everybody. Yeah, right.

Here's what the shareholders' proposal claims Costco is really doing:

The renamed program still openly expresses a "commitment to equity"¹³ (which means equality of outcome, not opportunity), still employs a "Chief Diversity Officer,"¹⁴ still has a supplier diversity program that picks suppliers based on their race and sex,¹⁵ still appears to factor in race and sex in hiring and promotion, and still contributes shareholder money to organizations that advance the discriminatory agenda of DEI.¹⁶ All of these practices are staples of corporate DEI programs and are consistent with Costco's DEI program prior to its rebranding.​

That's real DEI (contra Arthwollipot): Illegal racial and gender discrimination in hiring and selection of supplier contracts. Note that each allegation in the statement is backed up by references to Costco's own online documents.

Let's have a contest to see who can come closest to the fines and damages Costco will have to pay during the next four years to settle the coming civil rights cases that will brought against them.

Source: https://materials.proxyvote.com/Approved/22160K/20241115/NPS_591967/INDEX.HTML?page=36

 

[arthwollipot]

Typical corporate ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊: DEI just means having respect for everybody. Yeah, right.

This is what diversity, equity and inclusion actually means. This is not your boogeyperson "DEI" crap. This is real.

Here's what the shareholders' proposal claims Costco is really doing:

The renamed program still openly expresses a "commitment to equity"¹³ (which means equality of outcome, not opportunity), still employs a "Chief Diversity Officer,"¹⁴ still has a supplier diversity program that picks suppliers based on their race and sex,¹⁵ still appears to factor in race and sex in hiring and promotion, and still contributes shareholder money to organizations that advance the discriminatory agenda of DEI.¹⁶ All of these practices are staples of corporate DEI programs and are consistent with Costco's DEI program prior to its rebranding.​

Oh, totally neutral and unbiased language there.

 

[jt512]

This is what diversity, equity and inclusion actually means. This is not your boogeyperson "DEI" crap. This is real.

Oh, totally neutral and unbiased language there.

I guess you missed the part about every claim in the stakeholder's allegations being backed up by Costco's own documents.

 

[arthwollipot]

I guess you missed the part about every claim in the stakeholder's allegations being backed up by Costco's own documents.

Yeah, describing affirmative action as "race-based selection" is totally not going to poison any wells.

 

[jt512]

Yeah, describing affirmative action as "race-based selection" is totally not going to poison any wells.

The truth cannot be a fallacy, by definition.

 

[bruto]

Here is how Costco managements describes its DEI program:

Our success at Costco Wholesale has been built on service to our critical stakeholders: employees, members, and suppliers. Our efforts around diversity, equity and inclusion follow our code of ethics:​

​

For our employees, these efforts are built around inclusion – having all of our employees feel valued and respected. Our efforts at diversity, equity and inclusion remind and reinforce with everyone at our Company the importance of creating opportunities for all. We believe that these efforts enhance our capacity to attract and retain employees who will help our business succeed. This capacity is critical because we owe our success to our now over 300,000 employees around the globe.​

​

Typical corporate ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊: DEI just means having respect for everybody. Yeah, right.

Here's what the shareholders' proposal claims Costco is really doing:

The renamed program still openly expresses a "commitment to equity"¹³ (which means equality of outcome, not opportunity), still employs a "Chief Diversity Officer,"¹⁴ still has a supplier diversity program that picks suppliers based on their race and sex,¹⁵ still appears to factor in race and sex in hiring and promotion, and still contributes shareholder money to organizations that advance the discriminatory agenda of DEI.¹⁶ All of these practices are staples of corporate DEI programs and are consistent with Costco's DEI program prior to its rebranding.​

That's real DEI (contra Arthwollipot): Illegal racial and gender discrimination in hiring and selection of supplier contracts. Note that each allegation in the statement is backed up by references to Costco's own online documents.

Let's have a contest to see who can come closest to the fines and damages Costco will have to pay during the next four years to settle the coming civil rights cases that will brought against them.

Source: https://materials.proxyvote.com/Approved/22160K/20241115/NPS_591967/INDEX.HTML?page=36

It is not clear whether what "appears to" happen is a statement of fact. And though it's true that some states have used the Supreme Court decision to suggest that corporate DEI is next on the chopping block, the standing Federal legal decision concerns college admissions, not corporate policies, and certainly not the choice of what charities a corporation chooses to support!

Whether the citations given in the shareholder proposal reference Costco's own online documents is not clear, though I confess I have not bothered to read them all. If Fox News, techcrunch, Tractor Supply, X, and other sources referenced give a fair and balanced view with documentation attached, I apologize in advance.

As for what will come of it all, legally, I do not know. I am not sanguine about much of anything in the coming years. But I am hopeful that the Costco management has done its homework. The degree to which the prevailing political movement should control the purchasing, hiring, and giving practice of a corporation is fraught, I think. Beware of what you wish for.

 

[jt512]

And though it's true that some states have used the Supreme Court decision to suggest that corporate DEI is next on the chopping block, the standing Federal legal decision concerns college admissions, not corporate policies, and certainly not the choice of what charities a corporation chooses to support!

Employment discrimination on the basis of an applicant's "protected characteristics" is illegal under federal civil rights law. It has nothing to do with the Students for Fair Admissions decision.

Whether the citations given in the shareholder proposal reference Costco's own online documents is not clear....

They clearly are.

As for what will come of it all, legally, I do not know. I am not sanguine about much of anything in the coming years. But I am hopeful that the Costco management has done its homework. The degree to which the prevailing political movement should control the purchasing, hiring, and giving practice of a corporation is fraught, I think. Beware of what you wish for.

Beware of requiring that corporations comply with civil rights laws? I think you need to think that through.

 

[arthwollipot]

The truth cannot be a fallacy, by definition.

That's a lie.

 

[bruto]

Employment discrimination on the basis of an applicant's "protected characteristics" is illegal under federal civil rights law. It has nothing to do with the Students for Fair Admissions decision.


They clearly are.


Beware of requiring that corporations comply with civil rights laws? I think you need to think that through.

I must be reading a different document from the one cited, because I do not see the same clarity you claim to find. If there's something specific in the footnotes, perhaps you can make the job easier by pointing it out. Otherwise, it remains to see what evidence is actually present that federal or other laws are being broken, but my wild guess is that if the issue has come up in the form and wording that it has, the issue is not as clear-cut as you'd like it to be, nor are the motives of those making the proposition as benign as they would like it to appear. I'll leave it there.

 

[jt512]

Whether the citations given in the shareholder proposal reference Costco's own online documents is not clear....

They clearly are.

I must be reading a different document from the one cited, because I do not see the same clarity you claim to find.

For starters, the links are to costco.com URLs

 

[bruto]

For starters, the links are to costco.com URLs

What links? The initial link is, of course, to Costco.com, which is the source of the Shareholder voting document. Within that document, there is a shareholder proposal with 11 footnoted links, none of which refer to Costco as a source. I will leave those who care to go further to decide on the quality and bias of those. Costco's response does, not surprisingly, contain 7 footnoted links to their own sources, as a defense against the proposal. They of course, lead to explanations of their programs, with the positive spin one would expect of a company blowing its own horn. I leave those who care to go further with judgment of how those sources should be read.

I suppose if you approach this issue with the presumption that the shareholder proposal is righteous and Costco in the wrong, such that anything they say is evidence against them, you could count those links as doing the opposite of what they intend, but that is not, I suspect, what Costco intended by providing them, and those links certainly are not within the shareholder proposal.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's not my job to do your reading for you. The information is there, if you want it.

Its's your job to do YOUR reading, and be able to paraphrase and explain whatever the ◊◊◊◊ you want to submit as supporting evidence for YOUR position.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sorry, but this is not acceptable. We are humans, not rocks. We don't have to wait 40+ years for things to just 'happen'.

I feel as though you're willfully ignoring my point. Especially since you decided to parse the quote right before the part that actually ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ explains WHY some of these take time:

If you make policies that impact hiring at the entry level... it's going to be 40+ years before that very first wave of non-discriminated-against people make their way into executive positions. And since it can take many years to alter that initial hiring behavior.... it's more likely 60+ years to reach an equilibrium position.

 

[Emily's Cat]

IOW the darkies only have themselves to blame. You see, according to whitey

Why the holy hell is it always self-styled progressives who feel entitled to toss out racial epithets and insulting labels with abandon?

 

[Emily's Cat]

But who introduced them to alcohol and tobacco?

Are white New Zealanders pinning Maori to the ground and forcing them to drink alcohol? Or is it just that somehow white New Zealanders have failed to educate Maori about alcohol and tobacco being addictive and detrimental?

 

[Emily's Cat]

The claim is that society in general is better for everybody when people and businesses respect the principles of diversity, equity and inclusion.

That's the claim. What's the supporting evidence?

Here, I'll go a step further. I'll posit that when societies and businesses pay no attention to surface level differences when hiring and promoting (race, ethnicity, sex, religion, etc.) and base their decisions solely on competence and character, those entities flourish.

The premise of DEI is that entities should focus on those surface level differences to ensure that they're all well-represented. This means that decisions should take into consideration things like race, ethnicity, sex, religion, etc. <<< This is what I want evidence of.

To make a rather crass analogy... Historical non-discrimination would say that a strip club should be willing to hire any attractive female that is willing to disrobe for cash. DEI would say that strip clubs should be expected to hire ugly females and males, fat females and males, etc... because that demonstrates their commitment to diversity and inclusion of their workforce, and provides equity to their staff. I see no reason to think that's a good idea... but many reasons to think it's a horribly bad idea.

 

[arthwollipot]

So here it is. It's a bit of a long read, so take your time with it.

Why The Right Fears Diversity, Equity And Inclusion

There are unqualified people getting a leg up—just not the people conservatives are whining about.

open.substack.com

 

[arthwollipot]

That's the claim. What's the supporting evidence?

Common sense. When families inbreed too much you end up with giant square chins and haemophilia. Every animal breeder on the planet knows that a lack of diversity can literally kill off a line.

To make a rather crass analogy... Historical non-discrimination would say that a strip club should be willing to hire any attractive female that is willing to disrobe for cash. DEI would say that strip clubs should be expected to hire ugly females and males, fat females and males, etc... because that demonstrates their commitment to diversity and inclusion of their workforce, and provides equity to their staff. I see no reason to think that's a good idea... but many reasons to think it's a horribly bad idea.

Yes, that's a crass analogy. It's also absolute ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Nobody is saying that you should hire people who are unqualified for the job. Read the article I posted above.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So here it is. It's a bit of a long read, so take your time with it.

Why The Right Fears Diversity, Equity And Inclusion

There are unqualified people getting a leg up—just not the people conservatives are whining about.

open.substack.com

I'm not reading that. It's packed full of sensationalist twitter images and opinion from the bit I managed to make through. It's not making any cogent argument that I can see.

How about you synopsize it since it seems so convincing to you?

 

[Trausti]

So here it is. It's a bit of a long read, so take your time with it.

Why The Right Fears Diversity, Equity And Inclusion

There are unqualified people getting a leg up—just not the people conservatives are whining about.

open.substack.com

Wouldn't it just be easier to say you hate White males?

 

[arthwollipot]

Wouldn't it just be easier to say you hate White males?

Wouldn't it just be easier to say you didn't read the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thing?

 

[Trausti]

Wouldn't it just be easier to say you didn't read the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thing?

I did. It's all about how White males are horrible. Ctrl F "white." 17 hits.

 

[arthwollipot]

I did. It's all about how White males are horrible. Ctrl F "white." 17 hits.

Oh yes, that's reading for comprehension.

 

[jt512]

What links? The initial link is, of course, to Costco.com, which is the source of the Shareholder voting document. Within that document, there is a shareholder proposal with 11 footnoted links, none of which refer to Costco as a source.

I guess we are looking at different documents. These are the footnotes I'm referring to:

¹³ https://mobilecontent.costco.com/live/resource/img/23w10059/2a-InclusionNEW_121223.pdf
¹⁴ Id.
¹⁵ https://mobilecontent.costco.com/live/resource/img/23w10059/2d-SupplierDiversity_NEW.pdf
¹⁶ https://mobilecontent.costco.com/live/resource/img/23w10059/2c-CommunitiesNEW1_121323.pdf
¹⁷ https://www.costco.com/sustainability-people-communities.html

 

[bruto]

I guess we are looking at different documents. These are the footnotes I'm referring to:

¹³ https://mobilecontent.costco.com/live/resource/img/23w10059/2a-InclusionNEW_121223.pdf
¹⁴ Id.
¹⁵ https://mobilecontent.costco.com/live/resource/img/23w10059/2d-SupplierDiversity_NEW.pdf
¹⁶ https://mobilecontent.costco.com/live/resource/img/23w10059/2c-CommunitiesNEW1_121323.pdf
¹⁷ https://www.costco.com/sustainability-people-communities.html

Owing to the way the document is paginated, I thought at first that those links were provided by Costco as part of their rebuttal. Looking at them I could see that as a possibility. I see now that they are among those used by the stockholders, though one should also note that the first 12 are quite different, and point to sources quite different. So my post #940 is definitely in error.

Whether they mean what the challengers mean is still in question, as Costco asserts that their actions are legal, and continues to support them, and to provide the sources to which those links point. But yes, as it turns out, the challengers are saying that Costco is doing what Costco happily claims it is doing.

 

[Trausti]

Oh yes, that's reading for comprehension.

Then why bring up that a person is White at all? Why should that matter? Oh, my mistake, that's the good racism.

 

[Trausti]

Oh yes, that's reading for comprehension.

It's kinda funny that your link purportedly in support of DEI sets out Tweets like this:

The reason the USA does well in the Olympics is because DEI is not practiced. Do you really think that US Mens and Womens 100 meter teams are representiative of the US? Of course, not. And they haven't been for decades. But who would want that? Instead, merit matters. Which is antithetical to DEI.

 

[arthwollipot]

Instead, merit matters. Which is antithetical to DEI.

Which is antithetical to the rightist boogeyperson straw figure construct that they call "DEI".

And you still haven't read the article.

 

[Trausti]

Which is antithetical to the rightist boogeyperson straw figure construct that they call "DEI".

And you still haven't read the article.

No, I read it. It's a screed against White people and how terrible they are. All White are "privilege and entitlement" and therefore deserve their comeuppance. This is the belief that Sasha and Malia Obama are oppressed while an Appalachian White boy living in a trailer home is an oppressor. Either you believe that all people should be treated equally irrespective of their race or sex, or you don't.

 

[arthwollipot]

Well it's interesting to me that that's the message you took from it, though I shouldn't be surprised by it.

No, that's a completely ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up interpretation of what you claim to have read, and I do not believe that it's possible to get from the words in the article to what you just typed in a rational fashion, so I conclude that you are blinded by hateful ideology.

If you're treating two people equally, and giving them both $100, but one of them's a billionaire and one of them is below the poverty line, that's not admirable, because the effect of your equal treatment of them is disproportionate. Equal treatment regardless of any other concern is just as hostile and dystopian as outright racism, sexism or classism. Remember the cartoon of the people behind the fence? To be equitable means that you shouldn't treat people as though they were all identical in every way, because people are diverse. Yes, you should go out of your way to be inclusive of some people who if all else were equal wouldn't otherwise be included.

So not are you arguing against a fake "DEI", you're arguing for ongoing injustice. Nice one.

ETA: This is, among others, one of the things that Critical Race Theory teaches us - real Critical Race Theory and not the other straw boogeyperson that the right complains about - that because of historic and systemic injustices, some people need a bigger slice of the pie than others.

 

[Trausti]

If you're treating two people equally, and giving them both $100, but one of them's a billionaire and one of them is below the poverty line, that's not admirable, because the effect of your equal treatment of them is disproportionate. Equal treatment regardless of any other concern is just as hostile and dystopian as outright racism, sexism or classism. Remember the cartoon of the people behind the fence? To be equitable means that you shouldn't treat people as though they were all identical in every way, because people are diverse. Yes, you should go out of your way to be inclusive of some people who if all else were equal wouldn't otherwise be included.

What does that have to do with a person's race or sex? Are you just prejudging people based on their skin hue as to whether to treat them equally? Can you not see the problem with that?