Apple, Costco stand behind DEI programs

Tim cook, a gay man, donated a million to trump. Don't let Apple pretend they aren't playing both sides.

Apple may be a terrible company, but their pride logo looks so good

They've had a rainbow logo for a long time.
A terrible company, but some of the best marketing

There is a good chance they will also ditch DEI when it start to cut into their monies more.

apple is so good for having a diverse group of slaves to build their phones

A lot of them are temps/contracted too, which is even worse. (at least for their warranty/refurbishment locations)

Fuck yeah I love Costco

Well they don't love you.

They can tout DEI and idpol all they want. They're still stiffing union workers.

Companies are not things to love.
- Yes they do. I saw it in a documentary. “Welcome to Costco, I love you.”
- I don't doubt that all companies push back against unions. They force the company to pay more. The only thing I have to say regarding Costco is that it usually pays its employees a much better wage than most stores.
- The least racist is still racist.

Lol

Tim Cook is really playing both sides of the fence here.

The real fence is capital vs labor, and he doesn’t play both sides of that one
I mean, he did give a generous "personal donation" to the Trump inauguration.
- He was going to give it to whoever won. Of course he wants to be on the good side of those in power. It's not about the president, it's about Tim Cook.
Maybe his interpretation of DEI would be more H1Bs from India?
He always has.
If I recall he said they were going to remove it and the board said no
- IIRC it was a bunch of shareholders who demanded removal.
- Citation needed.

lol I am sure as soon as DEI practices are removed everyone will only get hired based on their skillset.and not their "club memberships". what a bunch of dickwads, as if people don't know what you are trying to achieve.

I don't really know what they're trying to achieve lol. I feel like it's probably vaguely racist, like: anti-anti-racist 😕... Or something.

Maybe just an excuse for the plebes to blame someone for life getting generally more difficult?

Can someone smarter than me (I know, it’s a low bar) explain how DEI is unconstitutional? Especially when it comes to private enterprises like Apple and Costco?

Edit: okay, I found a decent article that lays it out. While I agree with the basic premise, I know its effect won’t be more equality.

DEI is basically "you know that thing we do where we only hire from the old boys club at our favorite ivy league university? Let's hold off on that."

Companies benefit from DEI policies because they expand their hiring pool, so the company ends up with better talent. They're still aiming to hire the best out of that pool, of course. Companies are motivated by profit, not by reparations.

I know its effect won’t be more equality.

Its effect will be more equality. Unfortunately that is not a good thing for the old boys club, which is what motivates the FUD and disinformation you've heard regarding DEI as a buzzword.
- It's usually more than just "not only hiring old white dudes" but a conscious effort to make the place more representative of society by intentionally hiring people of diverse gender/ethnicity/handicap instead, sometimes leading to processes being closed to people who aren't part of certain groups, which might in theory go against some laws depending on where you live, but the same thing can be achieved by just wasting time filtering out white men's CV or just not calling them back after interviews, so I personally don't mind just being excluded and giving others a chance, if they don't have non white dude applicants then I'll get called and otherwise I've got plenty of doors open to me, more than most in fact and that's not ok.
My understanding is it's basically pulling the uno reverse card to suggest it's anti-white behaviour.

"I got passed over for a promotion cause they needed another minority manager instead of a white one" type stuff

I'm not American so no idea what your constitution says.
- The constitution say very little, yet people love to interpret it.
the whole DEI inititive generally is to get people who historically underprivileged more positions at work. this however in a few instances, would lead to someone being hired because of their race, rather than skillset. Theres ongoing anti sentiment who fully believe that anything with DEI has made a company gone downhill (with basically 0 evidence, or very anecdotal evidence proving so)

Constitutionally, some claim it to be unconstitutional because of the 14th amendment that states:

“No state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

as the idea of affirmative action, or DEI programs bascially give minorities a higher chance of being hired, therefore the idea is that people were not equally protected under law.

basically programs typically put Whites (and Asians in some contexts, tech jobs and universities) at a disadvantage.

personally, i think most of it is hubabaloo, and most companies know(or should know) the minimum requirement they are looking for out of an employee since most of them already want the cheapest person in the building regardless of race. I just think the argument that they wont hire the best person suited for the job a fallacy, as if they were THAT good, then they would never get passed up to fill some racial quota. No one is going around for example passing up on Jim Keller (cpu architecture guru) over a minority designer who has little experience. for the jobs that require the best, a company will look for it regardless.
- “No state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
  
  Republicans have gotten away with breaking this so many times...
- Correct, unless it's for work that doesn't require special qualifications then it's usually a question of "out of those employees with very similar qualifications, is one of them part of an ethnic minority/a woman/someone with a handicap?"
- Thank you. That was easy to understand.
- I want to add that while I agree that in most companies "most of it is hubabaloo" and the companies just hire qualified people, there are some loud and visible examples of blatantly unqualified people getting a position with only apparent qualification being pronouns in their bio. For example a game developers spokesperson not realizing calling all gamers "insufferable bigoted incels" on social media is not a reasonable way to market a videogame.
  
  So while most companies just call countering biases in hiring DEI, the term DEI for many people is now associated with hiring unqualified people, largely because those rare examples I mentioned being amplified and presented as the norm by right-wingers.
  
  If you ask me, companies should drop the term DEI from their hiring policies and just write them neutrally. Sure, most of the perception of unfairness is probably unfounded, but not all of it. And whether true or not, the perception that the hiring process was not fair by people rejected by the hiring process just builds resentment and builds support for morons like Trump that speak against such policies.
And why are we comparing Apple to Costco?
- Because they're both standing behind their DEI programs when much of Corporate America is rushing to dismantle theirs.
- Because both companies are doing the same thing at the moment regarding a certain subject...