Costco shareholders overwhelmingly reject anti-DEI proposal

Not just the corporation, but their shareholders. Republicans have been worshipping at the altar of Shareholder Value since the 80's.

Here you go, these shareholders just told you what they value! Will Republicans listen?

Welcome to Costco. I love you.

Yeah I was on the fence about getting a Costco membership since I am single and dont shop much.

But just for the few times I need stuff that is available at Costco I will get a membership.

Even if I end up paying a little more overall.

They think it's discrimination against straight white males now and think they are going to get sued by someone with a rejected job offer because the decision may have been made due to skin colour, gender, or sexual orientation.

A gay man can sue if he was not hired because he was gay, these people think eventually a straight man can sue if he wasn't hired because he wasn't gay.

Which may happen with Trump in power now, I wouldn't be surprised if he started working on laws that will allow people to do that

The gulags were populated for good reason. "Waaahhh communists killed millions in their gulags," yeah, millions of Nazis. Yet apparently that still wasn't enough.

Not always. I get proxy vote requests pretty often.

You also have the option to choose opinionated funds that only invest in things like green energy.

I'm not sure why you're specifically focusing on mutual funds. Holding of public shares is supposed to be a passive income whether it's individual investors (who are hopefully diversifying their investments), mutual funds, ETFs, etc. The board works for the shareholders by collecting data, assessing that data, and then making recommendations so that investors don't have to do that research. Sure, it's possible that the shareholders vote against the advice of the board, but it's pretty rare. If the board is out of step with the shareholders, they should probably be replaced. This is a virtuous cycle (or vicious cycle for other stocks) where Costco is seen as a fairly ethical company, so investors who are looking for stocks that meet their values choose companies like Costco (whether they are individual investors or investment vehicles marketed as fitting certain values). These investors choose a board who represents their values, so I don't think, "we're just lucky that Costco’s board of directors isn’t terrible," I think it's a part of this virtuous cycle.

I also work for a large corpo org here, but instead of “DEI” we have “Belonging.” Under that label we have a council that informs and recommends things to our senior leadership, groups which offer support and community (LGBTQ+, Latinx, women, etc.), and provides learning resources. Overall I’m proud of the work we do. (I’m also proud of the two of people I’ve hired internally who were chairs in Belonging groups at some point!)

A couple months ago at a large event, someone asked if we’d be getting rid of DEI. Our Chief People Officer was able to say something to the effect of, “We’ve never had a DEI program but we are committed to continuing our Belonging practices.”

So basically we’re not backtracking on anything, and we have pretty good DEI, but because we never used the term “DEI” she was able to deflect the challenge to it. I never thought about it before that happened, but it made me wonder if it was an intentional choice to avoid the buzzword and so some of the criticism that comes of it.

Anyway, cheers to you also having a safe place of work!

"fuck Trump" is pretty politically correct.

It genuinely gladdens my heart to hear you say this, because it suggests that there is at least some length of genuinely caring about inclusion by the people in charge at your workplace; I have seen too many instances of corporations paying lip-service towards DEI whilst fostering a truly toxic workplace culture. It's nice to hear a story from somewhere that's different and that it makes a difference to how safe your workplace feels

My work is just packed with conservatives licking trump's boots every news they hear

If you read hard right tweets, you'll see they use DEI in place of slurs for any minority. Just like critical race theory, they've twisted the meaning to whip up a frenzy and have something for the masses to hate.

I'm going to use TERFs as an analogy to explain what I think it is (and I do mean TERFs, not your garden variety transphones). There used to be a subreddit called /r/GenderCritical, before it got (rightfully) banned for hate speech. I had a look around there a few times, trying to understand their incomprehensible ideology.

At first, I only became more baffled. I saw so many stories that had the rough shape of "I am a women who was abused, victimised or otherwise oppressed by a cis man and/or men and that's why I now hate trans women". I just didn't understand how those two things connected. I get that radical feminists tend to take a biologically essentialist view that undermines trans identities. However, I couldn't understand why they put such effort into distilled down their bitterness and resentment into the vitriol to throw at trans women, as opposed to the men who hurt them (and the patriarchal systems that hurt them).

Over the years, I've come to understand that many TERFs have experienced trauma such that they feel powerless and small when looking at the actual cause of their systemic oppression (i.e. the patriarchy), so through a trick of transference, they direct their rage and grief onto transness instead. Fighting an already marginalised foe means that they get both the feeling of fighting something ideological that's larger than them, but also they don't have to confront how small they actually are when fighting against oppression (because each of us is small and helpless against systemic oppression; we can't do shit without solidarity with other people). To be clear, I don't consider this absolutely isn't a legitimate excuse for someone to be an awful person; however, it does help me to understand why someone who calls themself a feminist would take such a stance (as much as I'd like to consider them "no true feminist", I feel like I need to acknowledge the complex baggage of the term "feminist" if I'm to identify as one).

I think people who crusade against DEI initiatives are doing a similar sort of transference, where their real enemy is in fact Capitalism, but that feels like so impossible of a foe that they feel hopeless; it reminds me of that widely shared Mark Fisher quote about how it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. And so they tell themselves that there must be some big, bad, insidious force at work, making organisations opt into DEI initiatives, and it must be the same force that's responsible for the deep unease they feel when they look at the world, or contemplate the future their grandchildren have to look forward to.

In a sense, they're right in that there are nefarious forces at play and the game is indeed rigged. The problem is that they've picked the wrong target and would be better served going after the oil barons and billionairess. In terms of my background, I probably have far more in common with the average Trump voter than I do the average Democrat, so I relate to the hopelessness that their misplaced rage protects them from feeling. The tragedy is that their ignorance hurts everyone, including themselves; None of us are free until all of us are free.

I don’t understand the hate on DEI initiates.

It's hate, that's all.

It's all about manufacturing consent to do away with the Civil Rights Act

I worked at a company that made electronic devices and the diversity of the teams made it so we caught so many glitches white people would have missed before shipping. Sensors that didn’t work right because skin color or makeup. Things that even TurboHitler would have been annoyed at.

It’s illogical and short-sightedly dumb to forfeit knowledge and skill from any shape, size, color, or orientation of a human.

Haters won’t learn, I fear, until they’re truly marginalized as well.

You have to understand something about fascism's base: its the mediocre. It really speaks to the sort of people who feel like they're owed more (including personal achievements) but think that as a them specifically trait. It's the sort of person who see a black woman being an engineer and think that they deserve that position not her, despite her having gone to engineering school and them having been a D student in high school who didn't go to college or someone who failed out of an engineering program. They look at any success from historically marginalized groups as unearned because clearly they deserve that success more. And so DEI which seeks to encourage more diversity in successful positions out of an acknowledgement that diverse groups are more successful infuriates these people

It's because some people only want to believe in straight white people.

I think the main issue is if you have two candidates for one job, one is white and one is black, even if the best candidate for the job is the white candidate the company might be forced to hire the black candidate to meet the DEI policies.

I have no idea if that actually happens or not, but I think that's what the entitled white people think and get upset about. They feel is discrimination against white people now.

It depends on the implementation and the PR …. I’ve had several conversations with my conservative brother.

I describe how it’s a strength of my company to have a “melting pot” of different perspectives, getting the best skills from all people, we work better together when everyone is safe and comfortable being who they are …. I’m specifically happy that they plucked my coworker, as a woman in a male dominated field, out of the trenches because she’s an excellent manager

My brother sees unskilled workers forced on him by management fiat. He sees having to do more to make up for their lack of ability, motivation or work ethic. He sees a double standard where they can get away with stuff that would get him fired.

I dont know how much of this is the implementation and how much is the person reacting but we have very opposite perspectives

It's mostly elites that think they're losing elite status--which to them feels like persecution. Additionally, I do think a lot of DEI initiatives at companies are poorly designed.

For example, using gender discrimination, there is a great pressure to hire female workers to ensure diversity but, in some areas, there are simply no female candidates. Companies should absolutely make an effort to hire the best for their needs and keep an eye for diversity, but if they should not be forced to hire a less capable female if other capable candidates exist just because the management is being forced to hire a certain diversity target among their ranks

As a straight, white male, I think DEI is fantastic.

This is how I feel, actually. Free education and paid training can rule out the need for any DEI initiatives, no matter what color/ethnicity, they're qualified because they received the education and training that they need.

But then again, I can understand why a white manager would rather hire a white person.

But whose to say a black manager wouldn't do the same and just hires black people. Or any race. Wouldn't you feel more comfortable with like minded people rather filling up your store with "diverse employees" ?

It's a crutch that MOST people have. Like leftists only hiring leftists. Or conservatives only hiring conservatives.

Like you said, if the "diverse employee" is less qualified than his white counterpart, hire the more qualified individual.

If you've ever visited any VA hospital, you can see how many shitty people they hire, especially when half of the doctors are just interns. And no one gets fired.

Fwiw, my company said similar. We’re not public or that big so I’m not naming it, but they have sent several broadcasts and discussed during a company meeting, that these are core values they are sticking with

Actually, that's exactly what they think.

The anti-DEI crowd thinks exclusively in zero-sum outcomes. There is exactly one Best Candidate for a position, who happens to look like them. If a different candidate is hired, then the whole process is obviously unfair, because they didn't hire the one white right candidate.

Anything that erodes the advantage of Cis Het White owners is a threat.

US stocks are incredibly expensive right now based on their earnings. If Trump messes up just slightly on the economy, the market will take a huge hit. To prop up the market and thereby his own ego, he's going to try to force Powell to lower interest rates even if it's not supported by the numbers.

He may or may not be successful. Good luck.

I bought stock for like $650 a few years ago and then sold it at $800. Sort of regret it.

There's a fundamental truth that certain white people (i would say over 50%) who don't believe they are racist - will never hire a non-white person for a position, and they aren't even consciously aware that this is the case.

There's just a natural subconscious bias towards people that look and sound like you do. DEI helps to overcome that.

I work at a pretty progressive company (comparatively but definitely not perfect) and DEI there has nothing to do with preferential treatment, nor does it need to be.

The fact is that if you want to hire the top X people in the labor market, but your hiring and business practices exclude, say, half of that market, you absolutely will not get the actual top X. You will have to reach deeper into your half and be forced to pick people that are less qualified and/or capable.

So DEI, at least where I'm at, is about widening that pool so that you can actually get top talent. That means reevaluating your business practices to figure out why you're excluding top talent. Maybe your recruiters always go to specific colleges for recruitment and certain websites. Maybe just the way they're talking to candidates is more attractive to a certain type of person. Maybe you've got hiring requirements and an interview process that is not actually predictive of success. Maybe candidates are looking for some benefit that you're not offering. Everything needs to be looked at.

For example, "Women just want more flexible working arrangements so that's why we can't get them" is something I hear often. Well, have you actually evaluated why your company is so inflexible? Is it actually necessary? Or are your executives a bunch of people who learned how to manage in the 20th century and haven't changed since then? Maybe there are things you can do to enter the 21st century and make room for more women, not just because they're women, but because you gain access to people who are actually better at their job than the ones you've had. Not every company can be supremely flexible, of course, but the number of times that inflexibility is actually necessary of much smaller than its prevalence.

The demographic breakdown of your workforce is a quick and easy weathervane to help figure out how these efforts but of course they're not everything. Diversity comes in maybe forms, not just skin color and genitals. But in my company they're used in a backwards looking manner, to see how new policies are working, not for quota filling and preferential treatment.

...see the economy (which is also an attribute of using the wrong metrics to measure performance as it relates to the consumer but that is a different topic).

I mean, I guess, yeah, the wrong metrics issue is a little tangential, but papering over the spiraling inequality sure isn't helping the proverbial white working-class guy stop misattributing his failure to get ahead.

Is it not like anything else? It’s the implementation and execution of the program that makes the difference in whether it’s better or worse… DEI is an incredibly broad term. Many companies try to diversify their workforce because it’s always better for business to have different perspectives… no?

For example, work in a male dominant field, always trying to hire females, they are simply unicorns because they are almost non-existent in the field.

I would a source to back this up if possible please.