;

Author Topic: The Corporate Virtue Signaling Megathread: Cuz Feelz Over Realz  (Read 25220 times)

Talcum X

  • Unperson
  • *****
  • Posts: 914
    • Awards
Re: The Corporate Virtue Signaling Megathread: Cuz Feelz Over Realz
« Reply #175 on: April 11, 2018, 01:47:54 AM »
+5
https://westernoutlands.com

These guys had some shirts I wanted but they keep getting nuked.  Used to be “right wing death squad” which likely gave them trouble, but western outlands seems like a harmless enough name.  None of their products were what I would categorize as over the top - definitely right wing though.

Anyone know who they are or where they went now?  Or maybe they are some 3 letter agency honeypot :v

In any case it’s odd seeing the slow elimination of anything not in conformity with the mainstream

Already shoa'd

Ossipago

  • Enemy Of The State
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • Awards
Re: The Corporate Virtue Signaling Megathread: Cuz Feelz Over Realz
« Reply #176 on: May 17, 2018, 07:42:21 PM »
+5
the australian stock exchange is looking to pass a listing rule requiring listed companies to have at least 30% female representation on the board: http://www.afr.com/business/asx-writes-30pc-gender-target-into-governance-guidelines-20180502-h0zite?&et_cid=29125957&et_rid=1928319147&Channel=Email&EmailTypeCode=&LinkName=http%3a%2f%2fwww.afr.com%2fbusiness%2fasx-writes-30pc-gender-target-into-governance-guidelines-20180502-h0zite%3f&Email_name=MW5-05-02&Day_Sent=02052018

i am not sure, but I think this might have followed from the report their Governance Council put out in 2014 (https://www.asx.com.au/documents/asx-compliance/cgc-principles-and-recommendations-3rd-edn.pdf), which said 'Research has shown that increased gender diversity on boards is associated with better financial performance.'

Of course, what they're saying is literally true in that there's an association.  But studies looking at causation show nothing of the sort.  Check out the summary here: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/will-gender-diversity-boards-really-boost-company-performance/

Essentially, meta-analyses of studies suggest that adding women to the board has either zero effect on performance, or an extremely small positive effect.  Never mind endogeneity problems which these kinds of data throw up - the Governance Council appears to not even understand basic problems and fallacies in measuring causation.

Obese-n-Triggered

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 4062
  • Mewwy Cwistmas
  • Awards Sasstronaut Fucked a lesbian United Statesian Goon or Ex-Goon Better dead than red cold, dead hands old Boy Scout
    • Awards
Re: The Corporate Virtue Signaling Megathread: Cuz Feelz Over Realz
« Reply #177 on: May 17, 2018, 08:04:37 PM »
+6
Essentially, meta-analyses of studies suggest that adding women to the board has either zero effect on performance, or an extremely small positive effect.  Never mind endogeneity problems which these kinds of data throw up - the Governance Council appears to not even understand basic problems and fallacies in measuring causation.

How about a simple test of the basic assumption - please list all of the Fortune 500 companies that only have women on the board. Surely, if adding *some* magic number of women is beneficial, then going whole hog and making them entirely staffed by women should yield the greatest effect. Or, does the effect vanish after you reach a certain estrogen level? What's the number of women added to the board before profits drop?


Or, and here's a novel suggestion, stop trying to socially engineer companies and let the market sort out the successful ones.

MY FURSONOUNS

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 1444
    • Awards
Re: The Corporate Virtue Signaling Megathread: Cuz Feelz Over Realz
« Reply #178 on: May 17, 2018, 08:21:34 PM »
+5
Essentially, meta-analyses of studies suggest that adding women to the board has either zero effect on performance, or an extremely small positive effect.  Never mind endogeneity problems which these kinds of data throw up - the Governance Council appears to not even understand basic problems and fallacies in measuring causation.

How about a simple test of the basic assumption - please list all of the Fortune 500 companies that only have women on the board. Surely, if adding *some* magic number of women is beneficial, then going whole hog and making them entirely staffed by women should yield the greatest effect. Or, does the effect vanish after you reach a certain estrogen level? What's the number of women added to the board before profits drop?


Or, and here's a novel suggestion, stop trying to socially engineer companies and let the market sort out the successful ones.

but meritocracy is a tool of the racist white cis-het patriarchy!  :librage:
Quote from: Aleph Null
Four months on hormones and I swear that my crotch sweat smells different.

Ass Diamond

  • Unperson
  • *****
  • Posts: 712
  • Million dollar dumps, taken daily
  • Awards TNE Veteran Rethuglikkkan Soldier Wounded in the line of posting. Motorcyclist For Dixie's land we'll take our stand! Texan The Gentry cold, dead hands
    • Awards
Re: The Corporate Virtue Signaling Megathread: Cuz Feelz Over Realz
« Reply #179 on: May 17, 2018, 08:23:15 PM »
+6
the australian stock exchange is looking to pass a listing rule requiring listed companies to have at least 30% female representation on the board: http://www.afr.com/business/asx-writes-30pc-gender-target-into-governance-guidelines-20180502-h0zite?&et_cid=29125957&et_rid=1928319147&Channel=Email&EmailTypeCode=&LinkName=http%3a%2f%2fwww.afr.com%2fbusiness%2fasx-writes-30pc-gender-target-into-governance-guidelines-20180502-h0zite%3f&Email_name=MW5-05-02&Day_Sent=02052018

i am not sure, but I think this might have followed from the report their Governance Council put out in 2014 (https://www.asx.com.au/documents/asx-compliance/cgc-principles-and-recommendations-3rd-edn.pdf), which said 'Research has shown that increased gender diversity on boards is associated with better financial performance.'

Of course, what they're saying is literally true in that there's an association.  But studies looking at causation show nothing of the sort.  Check out the summary here: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/will-gender-diversity-boards-really-boost-company-performance/



Essentially, meta-analyses of studies suggest that adding women to the board has either zero effect on performance, or an extremely small positive effect.  Never mind endogeneity problems which these kinds of data throw up - the Governance Council appears to not even understand basic problems and fallacies in measuring causation.


How in the hell does that relate to anything? Board members are primary investors and owners. what if I only have 2 chairmen? Ok here's a fix - have 30% self-identify as women. They can't argue with that, right?

a torrent of piss

  • 5000 Posters Club
  • Grand Inquisitors
  • *
  • Posts: 7997
  • Pineapple and Ham
  • Awards You're Great...No, YOU'RE Great!
    • Awards
Re: The Corporate Virtue Signaling Megathread: Cuz Feelz Over Realz
« Reply #180 on: May 17, 2018, 08:25:41 PM »
+7
the australian stock exchange is looking to pass a listing rule requiring listed companies to have at least 30% female representation on the board: http://www.afr.com/business/asx-writes-30pc-gender-target-into-governance-guidelines-20180502-h0zite?&et_cid=29125957&et_rid=1928319147&Channel=Email&EmailTypeCode=&LinkName=http%3a%2f%2fwww.afr.com%2fbusiness%2fasx-writes-30pc-gender-target-into-governance-guidelines-20180502-h0zite%3f&Email_name=MW5-05-02&Day_Sent=02052018

i am not sure, but I think this might have followed from the report their Governance Council put out in 2014 (https://www.asx.com.au/documents/asx-compliance/cgc-principles-and-recommendations-3rd-edn.pdf), which said 'Research has shown that increased gender diversity on boards is associated with better financial performance.'

Of course, what they're saying is literally true in that there's an association.  But studies looking at causation show nothing of the sort.  Check out the summary here: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/will-gender-diversity-boards-really-boost-company-performance/



Essentially, meta-analyses of studies suggest that adding women to the board has either zero effect on performance, or an extremely small positive effect.  Never mind endogeneity problems which these kinds of data throw up - the Governance Council appears to not even understand basic problems and fallacies in measuring causation.


How in the hell does that relate to anything? Board members are primary investors and owners. what if I only have 2 chairmen? Ok here's a fix - have 30% self-identify as women. They can't argue with that, right?
Activision Blizzard is now also opening senior development positions that are only for women and 80% of their 240 job listings will fall under the only for women catagory. The job listings that are up now are not officially sanctioned for women yet, but no guys will get hired if they even bother to apply.

Essentially if you worked at the company for years and were expecting a promotion and have a Y Chromosome you're shit out of luck. And it's not discrimination because other men got promoted before you did and while they're in the higher positions you need to make up for them not being women and take your licks.

Remember you belong to the male collective and you need to pay for other people's actions until we have "equality".

« Last Edit: May 17, 2018, 08:28:41 PM by a torrent of piss »

Small Weinered Goon

  • 5000 Posters Club
  • *
  • Posts: 5264
  • Awards Rethuglikkkan Autistic Faggot Futurist You can't know! United Statesian Goon or Ex-Goon
    • Awards
Re: The Corporate Virtue Signaling Megathread: Cuz Feelz Over Realz
« Reply #181 on: May 17, 2018, 09:13:23 PM »
+17
I’ve never known a business run by women that aren’t in some form of decline.  It’s pretty much what happens when all the money gets made and is now just comfortably drifting off of existing contracts and there’s little risk to be taken.  Men take the risks and get rewarded for it.  Women want safe spaces and won’t take risks that could grow the business other than wailing about having a vagina and getting preferential treatment because of it.

Ossipago

  • Enemy Of The State
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • Awards
Re: The Corporate Virtue Signaling Megathread: Cuz Feelz Over Realz
« Reply #182 on: May 17, 2018, 09:34:59 PM »
+3
Essentially, meta-analyses of studies suggest that adding women to the board has either zero effect on performance, or an extremely small positive effect.  Never mind endogeneity problems which these kinds of data throw up - the Governance Council appears to not even understand basic problems and fallacies in measuring causation.

How about a simple test of the basic assumption - please list all of the Fortune 500 companies that only have women on the board. Surely, if adding *some* magic number of women is beneficial, then going whole hog and making them entirely staffed by women should yield the greatest effect. Or, does the effect vanish after you reach a certain estrogen level? What's the number of women added to the board before profits drop?


Or, and here's a novel suggestion, stop trying to socially engineer companies and let the market sort out the successful ones.

the argument would be there are advantages from having a diverse membership, not a unitary one, so having all women would be counterproductive.  this isn't patently ridiculous, but i am highly sceptical this kind of productive cognitive and personality diversity tracks with gender to the degree advocates of gender diversity on boards suggest it does. i'd expect that the women who get to senior corporate levels are, personality wise, extremely similar to their male colleagues.

Ossipago

  • Enemy Of The State
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • Awards
Re: The Corporate Virtue Signaling Megathread: Cuz Feelz Over Realz
« Reply #183 on: May 17, 2018, 09:38:41 PM »
+2
e=http%3a%2f%2fwww.afr.com%2fbusiness%2fasx-writes-30pc-gender-target-into-governance-guidelines-20180502-h0zite%3f&Email_name=MW5-05-02&Day_Sent=02052018

i am not sure, but I think this might have followed from the report their Governance Council put out in 2014 (https://www.asx.com.au/documents/asx-compliance/cgc-principles-and-recommendations-3rd-edn.pdf), which said 'Research has shown that increased gender diversity on boards is associated with better financial performance.'

Of course, what they're saying is literally true in that there's an association.  But studies looking at causation show nothing of the sort.  Check out the summary here: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/will-gender-diversity-boards-really-boost-company-performance/



Essentially, meta-analyses of studies suggest that adding women to the board has either zero effect on performance, or an extremely small positive effect.  Never mind endogeneity problems which these kinds of data throw up - the Governance Council appears to not even understand basic problems and fallacies in measuring causation.
[/quote]


How in the hell does that relate to anything? Board members are primary investors and owners. what if I only have 2 chairmen? Ok here's a fix - have 30% self-identify as women. They can't argue with that, right?
[/quote]
Activision Blizzard is now also opening senior development positions that are only for women and 80% of their 240 job listings will fall under the only for women catagory. The job listings that are up now are not officially sanctioned for women yet, but no guys will get hired if they even bother to apply.

Essentially if you worked at the company for years and were expecting a promotion and have a Y Chromosome you're shit out of luck. And it's not discrimination because other men got promoted before you did and while they're in the higher positions you need to make up for them not being women and take your licks.

Remember you belong to the male collective and you need to pay for other people's actions until we have "equality".
[/quote]

i fucking hate the thinking you've described.  the two genders are not collectives where benefits to one or some members of the group benefit the others.  i have not benefited because guys 40 years ago had an easier time getting promoted.

a torrent of piss

  • 5000 Posters Club
  • Grand Inquisitors
  • *
  • Posts: 7997
  • Pineapple and Ham
  • Awards You're Great...No, YOU'RE Great!
    • Awards
Re: The Corporate Virtue Signaling Megathread: Cuz Feelz Over Realz
« Reply #184 on: May 17, 2018, 11:58:16 PM »
+11
Quote

i fucking hate the thinking you've described.  the two genders are not collectives where benefits to one or some members of the group benefit the others.  i have not benefited because guys 40 years ago had an easier time getting promoted.
Oh yeah I hate it too, but the whole point of identity politics is to have everyone in their own teams who populate their own little fiefdoms and all the fiefdoms are at constant war with each other over tit for tat.

Not only that if you're a guy and can't make it financially women judge you to be inferior and even though you've been disadvantaged by other men it doesn't matter. Where as every woman is automatically disadvantaged by men and therefore need gibs and stuff to "level the playing field" and if you don't give them cushy positions and shit, you're deemed a sexist.

Feminism has gotten so far off point it's endgame is dysfunction. It has no intention of building a stable or productive system, and many want men out of the equation entirely. The Lavender Menace is real.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2018, 12:01:49 AM by a torrent of piss »

Hitlorr The Obniggerator

  • Enemy Of The State
  • ****
  • Posts: 449
    • Awards
Re: The Corporate Virtue Signaling Megathread: Cuz Feelz Over Realz
« Reply #185 on: May 18, 2018, 12:09:52 AM »
+12
If it were actually true that gender diversity on its own solidly increased economic performance then there would be absolutely no need to legislate it in to action, the companies would be implementing it themselves.

Ossipago

  • Enemy Of The State
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • Awards
Re: The Corporate Virtue Signaling Megathread: Cuz Feelz Over Realz
« Reply #186 on: May 18, 2018, 12:19:35 AM »
+7
If it were actually true that gender diversity on its own solidly increased economic performance then there would be absolutely no need to legislate it in to action, the companies would be implementing it themselves.

yep.  that's the logic of capitalism.  ironically much of the left sees capitalism as (1) a totalising ideology (it's not, it's an economic system that will never be purely implemented because it exists for human purposes, and humans have non-economic goals); and (2) a cause of racism.  but if the first were true, then the only thing that would matter is productivity, and if race and gender never had any effect on productivity then you would see a proportionate distribution.  so the second proposition is totally inconsistent with the first. 

because capitalism is not a totalitarian ideology, of course, it is possible that women or blacks or whatever would not have employment proportionate to their contributions...  but there are limits to how far you can go with that argument.  if it were truly an overwhelming advantage in a competitive market then competition would make it necessary as the pozz dog businesses outcompeted the others, even if a majority of the businesses would prefer to not hire blacks and women.  the fact that a lot of the pozzed corporations exist in non-competitive markets is why they can afford to discriminate on race and gender against merit, of course.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2018, 12:22:39 AM by Ossipago »

GameDev Grade Dildo

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 4492
  • I'm going to assume you are black and didndonuffin
    • Awards
Re: The Corporate Virtue Signaling Megathread: Cuz Feelz Over Realz
« Reply #187 on: May 18, 2018, 01:51:07 AM »
+14
If it were actually true that gender diversity on its own solidly increased economic performance then there would be absolutely no need to legislate it in to action, the companies would be implementing it themselves.

It's a super clumsy misdirection. Their purpose, which is still occasionally stated it loudly, is to take power away from white men and redistribute it to their electoral base, so they dress it up as "actually, diversity is good for you, shitlord" when talking to neutral audiences.

If you're ever arguing with one of these cunts in public (IRL, where they can't just block you), a good way to force them to come out is to idly ask "is business efficiency the goal, and putting minorities on the board is just the means to achieve it? Or is putting minorities on the board the goal, and efficiency just a side benefit?".

If they say it's the former, ask since when they've become such groveling capitalist asskissers that they've started a social movement to help make corporations even richer.

If they admit it's the latter, ask them why is it important to put minorities on CEO boards, and watch them try to spin a non-hateful answer when they can't use the "it's good for them, actually!" line anymore.

Dem Wypipo

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 3950
    • Awards
Re: The Corporate Virtue Signaling Megathread: Cuz Feelz Over Realz
« Reply #188 on: May 18, 2018, 07:40:34 AM »
+14
I'd be inherently skeptical whenever the left trots out some "one weird trick" where by implementing a leftist agenda, businesses get to experience significant growth.

A similar talking point I see getting trotted out from the same people is if we raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, businesses will suddenly get richer because of all this new spending power from the public.  In that case, why not raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour?  In this case, if introducing strong womyn and persyns of color to corporate boards will experience notable economic growth, then why not have every employee in these businesses be filled by these magical people?  How many trillions of dollars would Apple have in their market cap if it was run by a Somali lesbian?  It is kind of suspicious that these people are magical and will give us explosive business growth yet Somalia is a total shithole country.  Must be several millenia of white oppression.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2018, 07:43:12 AM by Dem Wypipo »

Got Soylent?

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 1224
  • Awards Wounded in the line of posting. Canuck Anglican 420 Goon or Ex-Goon Boy Scout
    • Awards
Re: The Corporate Virtue Signaling Megathread: Cuz Feelz Over Realz
« Reply #189 on: May 21, 2018, 11:48:16 AM »
+10
The weirdest thing about treating men and women as these seperate groups that benifit from the success of others in their group is the fact that everyone, inbreeding excepted, has a equal number of male and female ancestors. If women 50 years ago were opressed by men, everyone alive today is a direct descendent of both opressors and the opressed and logically everyone alive today has been equally affected by such a system. There's a certian logic to, "My ancestors were slaves and that affects me today." The idea of , "I am a woman and the fact that women were traditionly opressed affects me more than a man" is non sensical.

Ossipago

  • Enemy Of The State
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • Awards
Re: The Corporate Virtue Signaling Megathread: Cuz Feelz Over Realz
« Reply #190 on: May 22, 2018, 03:33:28 AM »
+4
The weirdest thing about treating men and women as these seperate groups that benifit from the success of others in their group is the fact that everyone, inbreeding excepted, has a equal number of male and female ancestors. If women 50 years ago were opressed by men, everyone alive today is a direct descendent of both opressors and the opressed and logically everyone alive today has been equally affected by such a system. There's a certian logic to, "My ancestors were slaves and that affects me today." The idea of , "I am a woman and the fact that women were traditionly opressed affects me more than a man" is non sensical.

yep.  i had the same thought when i was thinking through the general argument - that people might say 'well, you benefit from the patriarchy of your ancestors!' and the obvious response is, as you say, so do women (unless there's an unequal division of resources between kids anyway - iirc there are some studies on this showing at least in the west there isn't, but i haven't seen the literature).

Ossipago

  • Enemy Of The State
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • Awards
Re: The Corporate Virtue Signaling Megathread: Cuz Feelz Over Realz
« Reply #191 on: May 22, 2018, 03:36:12 AM »
+4
I'd be inherently skeptical whenever the left trots out some "one weird trick" where by implementing a leftist agenda, businesses get to experience significant growth.

A similar talking point I see getting trotted out from the same people is if we raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, businesses will suddenly get richer because of all this new spending power from the public.  In that case, why not raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour?  In this case, if introducing strong womyn and persyns of color to corporate boards will experience notable economic growth, then why not have every employee in these businesses be filled by these magical people?  How many trillions of dollars would Apple have in their market cap if it was run by a Somali lesbian?  It is kind of suspicious that these people are magical and will give us explosive business growth yet Somalia is a total shithole country.  Must be several millenia of white oppression.

on information to date, having more women on boards has either no positive effect or only a very small positive one.  the figures a lot of them quote about 30% improved profits suffer from a very clear endogeneity problem - is it that women cause those companies to be more successful, or is it that large companies can afford to appoint women?  but the correlations are there so people quote them without looking into anything more. 

i'd add the consensus on diversity in general at a non-board level is that demographics diversity hurts corporate performance, while job diversity (ie having people from a lot of different fields and different stages in their careers) helps corporate performance.  i don't think either effect is massive but i only casually read a couple of papers on it.

unprivsplain

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 3588
    • Awards
Re: The Corporate Virtue Signaling Megathread: Cuz Feelz Over Realz
« Reply #192 on: May 24, 2018, 04:55:54 PM »
+15
That was quick.

OZMA CURES HAM

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 4178
  • Awards Better dead than red Wounded in the line of posting. Goon or Ex-Goon old cold, dead hands Seaman (lol) Ave Maria Lithuanian
    • Awards
Re: The Corporate Virtue Signaling Megathread: Cuz Feelz Over Realz
« Reply #193 on: May 24, 2018, 06:37:45 PM »
+6
That was quick.
:happening:
 :burnslol:

Ass Diamond

  • Unperson
  • *****
  • Posts: 712
  • Million dollar dumps, taken daily
  • Awards TNE Veteran Rethuglikkkan Soldier Wounded in the line of posting. Motorcyclist For Dixie's land we'll take our stand! Texan The Gentry cold, dead hands
    • Awards
Re: The Corporate Virtue Signaling Megathread: Cuz Feelz Over Realz
« Reply #194 on: May 24, 2018, 07:25:40 PM »
+6
That was quick.

Oh lol I predicted this earlier in the thread. That CEO is going to kill that company.

Dem Wypipo

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 3950
    • Awards
Re: The Corporate Virtue Signaling Megathread: Cuz Feelz Over Realz
« Reply #195 on: May 24, 2018, 07:54:00 PM »
+14
Once suburban soccer moms hear that Starbucks is a great way to get AIDS or hepatitis, Starbucks is done.  They will just go to some other poz coffee shop to get their daily $6 sugar coffee drink.

888 Didnt Read Shit

  • Cishet White Male
  • Grand Inquisitors
  • *
  • Posts: 3929
  • Check your white privilege
  • Awards Jew Killed in the Line of Posting Drinkin' and Postin' Italian Sasstronaut TNE Veteran Goon or Ex-Goon
    • Awards
Re: The Corporate Virtue Signaling Megathread: Cuz Feelz Over Realz
« Reply #196 on: May 24, 2018, 09:33:36 PM »
+9
If I had fuck off money, I'd hire a bunch of teenagers to sit at Starbucks all day and order nothing. I'd order out to whatever non-Starbucks shit they wanted, and give them $15/hour too just to stick it to the prog faggots.

They have to be clean, dress appropriately, no chants, no political anything, just sit there with your computer and do normal internet things.


MY FURSONOUNS

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 1444
    • Awards
Re: The Corporate Virtue Signaling Megathread: Cuz Feelz Over Realz
« Reply #197 on: May 30, 2018, 09:13:45 AM »
+1
i assume that like me, all of you saw 10,000 news stories about starbucks yesterday

my favorite was when the ceo couldn't stop patting himself on the back about how great he was for fighting with shareholders over the "loss" of $16 million in sales for the time they were closed (conveniently ignoring that they made back 20 times that in free publicity).  yeah, you really solved racism in 4 hours of shitty seminar, you god-among-men  :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Quote from: Aleph Null
Four months on hormones and I swear that my crotch sweat smells different.

Dem Wypipo

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 3950
    • Awards
Re: The Corporate Virtue Signaling Megathread: Cuz Feelz Over Realz
« Reply #198 on: June 01, 2018, 10:10:08 PM »
+11
Buffalo Wild Wings had its twitter hacked today:



http://fortune.com/2018/06/01/buffalo-wild-wings-twitter-hacked-racist-tweets/

Quote
Buffalo Wild Wings’ Twitter account was hacked. We’re sorry that our fans had to see those awful posts, which obviously did not come from us. We are in touch with our Twitter representatives and will pursue the appropriate action against the individuals involved.

No cries about requiring Buffalo Wild Wings to atone for its sins but this story is pretty recent so we'll see how hard they might signal about this.

Dem Wypipo

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 3950
    • Awards
Re: The Corporate Virtue Signaling Megathread: Cuz Feelz Over Realz
« Reply #199 on: June 05, 2018, 06:33:10 PM »
+6
http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/04/news/companies/howard-schultz-starbucks/index.html

Howard Schultz steps down at Starbucks, may consider run for president

Quote
Howard Schultz is leaving Starbucks — and says he may consider running for president.
Starbucks (SBUX) announced Monday that Schultz will step down later this month as executive chairman, the end of a 36-year run at the company.

In an interview with The New York Times, he acknowledged that he may consider a bid for the White House.

"I want to be truthful with you without creating more speculative headlines," he said. "For some time now, I have been deeply concerned about our country — the growing division at home and our standing in the world."

Schultz later told CNN's Poppy Harlow in a statement: "I intend to think about a range of options, and that could include public service, but I'm a long way from making any decisions about the future."

Schultz, 64, one of the most politically outspoken corporate leaders in America, has been rumored before as a potential Democratic candidate.

He endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in 2016. "On the other side," he told Harlow that September, "I think we've seen such vitriolic display of bigotry and hate and divisiveness, and that is not the leadership we need for the future of the country."

Last summer, he criticized President Trump after Trump said that both sides were to blame for violence at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

"My fear is not only that this behavior is being given permission and license, but its conduct is being normalized to the point where people are no longer hiding their face," Schultz said.

Schultz has spoken frequently about race, and Starbucks has taken progressive stances on social issues — including gay marriage, immigration and Trump's travel ban. Last year, the company said it plans to hire 10,000 refugees over five years.

Starbucks has also been a leader in workers' benefits under Schultz. Since 1988, Starbucks has offered health care to all full-time and part-time employees. In March, the company said it reached gender and race pay equity for all US employees.

"Schultz has been a pioneer in setting and maintaining a culture of social responsibility — both environmentally and socially — while being able to maintain financial performance," Tim Hubbard, a management professor at the University of Notre Dame's Mendoza College of Business, said in an email.

Schultz has overseen enormous growth in three and a half decades at Starbucks. It has expanded from 11 stores in the early 1980s to more than 28,000 stores in 77 countries today, and a market value of $78 billion.

Schultz started in 1982 and served as chief executive from 1987 to 2000 and again from 2008 to 2017. He is leaving at a tumultuous moment in Starbucks' history.

The company drew protests in April after two black men were arrested while they were waiting inside a Philadelphia store. Starbucks closed 8,000 stores for an afternoon last week to teach employees about racial bias.

"We realize that four hours of training is not going to solve racial inequity in America," Schultz told Harlow last week. But he said, "We need to have the conversation. We need to start."

Schultz has addressed race before. After the police shooting death of an unarmed black man in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014, Starbucks asked baristas to write "Race Together" on coffee cups in hopes of starting conversations.

"It's not going to solve racism, but I do believe it is the right thing to do at this time," Schultz said at the time.

And in a speech to Starbucks shareholders in 2016, Schultz said he feared that the opportunities that allowed him to achieve his American Dream — he grew up in subsidized housing in Brooklyn — have escaped the grasp of too many people.

"The American Dream can't be only accessible to people of privilege who are white and live in the right zip code," he said.

In an email to Starbucks employees, Schultz did not address a future in politics. He expressed gratitude and encouraged the employees to foster a "sense of community and human connection."

"I still feel like a kid from Brooklyn who grew up in public housing," he said. "I am living the American Dream."

Schultz moved from CEO to executive chairman last year. Kevin Johnson has been CEO since then.

Starbucks said Monday that Myron Ullman, former CEO of JCPenney, will become the next chair of Starbucks' board. Mellody Hobson, the president of Ariel Investments, will become vice chair.