These 12 major companies caved to the far right and stopped DEI programs
With the news about Walmart, Ford Motor Co., and others, it's clear that this is a trend — and it's being driven by right-wing extremists.
Amazon
Meta
McDonald’s
Walmart
Molson coors
Ford motor
John Deere
Lowes
Harley Davidson
Brown Forman
Tractor supply
Toyota
I can't think of another time in history where we got a new president then all of a sudden all these companies come out and change their policies so quickly. It's weird it's over social issues too
It's almost like.... They never cared in the first place. I don't know why so many people are shocked. They only ever cared about money. The millisecond they were no longer at risk of losing capitol for not having a thing of course they were all gonna drop it.
It’s all money. They change their policies to suit their shareholders. The shareholders could not care less that they are discriminating against minority groups.
Fuck all of this. I hope every CEO gets what is coming to them-Painfully, broadcasted live.
It is weird along with the whole tail end of the election and the confidence Trump and Musk displayed knowing they were going to retake control. I wonder if they have something secret in their back pocket that they're using as leverage which we'll all see at some later date.
DEI was just blockchain but for HR.
maybe it has something to do with the plans to gut the federal government
The nationwide poll (aka, the election) was a pretty good data point for current feelings on the topic. It's not nearly as cool today to hire people based on their race.
Ok. Not sure it matters. Those programs were largely symbolic anyway.
Is there any real data suggesting they had any positive effect on anything?
As a trans person, I can tell you that it's generally pretty huge to see it in the mission statement, but followthrough and clearly outlined internal policy is priceless.
DEI didn't force anyone to hire anybody
If a corporation wants free money then they can staff a diverse workforce. It's literally always been a choice.
Only the idiots are convinced this is a real issue at all. It's a distraction from actual problems in the world that negativity effect people.
DEI laws were required to be created during integration because non whites were being denied loans, jobs, and houses based on race, those are the real DEI laws they want to repeal along side diversity subsidies.
BTW incentivizing diversity measurably improves the wealth/income gap between whites/non whites today and helps upward mobility, which is why they still exist.,
While not exactly the same thing as DEI programs, affirmative action programs have a history of efficacy studies that demonstrate positive (if only moderately so) results. However, there’s also solid research that points to backlash effects and criticisms of “positive discrimination.” In other words, while affirmative action programs do somewhat accomplish their goals of helping minority groups achieve, they come at the cost of intentionally discriminating against majority groups (mainly Whites), which understandably creates antipathy towards them from the majority groups. Also, despite some people’s claims that these programs don’t give slots to minority candidates with weaker test scores, resumes, etc, actual examinations of them have shown that this is not actually the case in practice, and that companies and schools have given preference for weaker scoring minority candidates in order to create the public image of being more diverse.
Basically, affirmative action is a mixed bag and I suspect DEI programs are similarly so. The overall net effect may still be positive though, if only slightly.
Personally, I think a better strategy would be to improve education systems for poor communities. Instead of focusing on race directly, focus on improving outcomes for the poor. Due to overlaps in racial and economic variables, you’ll wind up helping racial minorities while avoiding the criticism of engaging in “positive discrimination.” Plus, fixing the pipeline problem early on is a more efficient approach, since it focuses on preventing people from failing early on rather than trying to fix their failures later on.
DEI policy costs corporation = ~3% of its training budget. The reality of a woman being hired for a position she would have never been considered for before DEI = priceless.
You know who hasn’t abolished DEI efforts yet and asked shareholders to vote against abandoning them? Apple. And historically Apple tends to beat the market. So imma go ahead and make a the wild statement that these companies will eat a bag of dicks in 10 years and end up adopting DEI under another name while Apple stays the course.
I do think that badly implemented DEI is worse than no DEI and many orgs implemented it badly so this could be a net positive in the end.
Tim Apple donated to the guy who wants to make DEI illegal though, so if Apple does stay the course, I just hope it ends up being under someone else's leadership.
Research clearly shows most corporate entities (and their figureheads) donate to both sides of the political game. They want to have friends in power no matter who wins the election.
Tim is a very pragmatic man, and like any CEO he’s not an ideologue so he paid the bribe. It’s the cost of doing business under the corrupt Trump administration. Is he a coward for doing so? Maybe. But if he didn’t pay it and Trump acted against Apple the blame would fall on Tim and he would be replaced with someone friendlier towards Trump. Maybe Tim figured it was better he stayed in charge to minimize damage, as gay man who has no doubt faced his fair share of persecution and prejudice.
Then again Peter Thiel is also gay and he’s the puppet master behind Silicon Valley’s sudden heel turn. So is Sam Altman who is also donating.
Yes, but Apple has also built their empire on horrible practices in China and by exploiting tax loopholes to the point where they regularly pay zero taxes. I'm not trying to be a purist here—I have an iPhone and an Apple Watch—but I don't think their retainment of DEI programs should be construed as a moral choice; Apple products are largely purchased by liberals, so they have a public image to mind if they're going to avoid reducing sales by pissing off their main customer market.
I would argue that Apple has actually done more to increase the quality of working conditions in China than any other company. Is it still a horrible environment, yes, but without Apple I’m not sure that it would have been better.
I don’t find a problem with exploiting tax loopholes because 9/10 times the loopholes are there by design, this is something to take up with the IRS and the government, because corporations HAVE to take advantage of said loopholes to stay competitive.
But to address directly your comment, I didn’t say that them retaining DEI was a moral choice. I believe it was a business decision, which is why I framed it as them historically beating the market while these firms don’t. Apple has clearly seen the value of DEI in their revenue and operations, otherwise they would be cutting the program real quick.
How about we hire and promote people who are correct for the job, regardless of their gender or race?
DEI didn't force anyone to hire anybody
If a corporation wants free money then they can staff a diverse workforce. It's literally always been a choice.
Only the idiots are convinced this is a real issue at all. It's a distraction from actual problems in the world that negativity effect people.
DEI laws were required to be created during integration because non whites were being denied loans, jobs, and houses based on race, those are the real DEI laws they want to repeal along side diversity subsidies.
BTW incentivizing diversity measurably improves the wealth/income gap between whites/non whites today and helps upward mobility, which is why they still exist.
As long as you're on board with systemic racism, sure. DEI programs were created to address historic discrimination against minorities.
I would argue that if your goal is to fix systemic racism, a much more effective approach would be to target the pipeline problem early on by focusing on improving education systems in poor/racial minority communities. Their difficulties in competing later on in life stem directly (and I would argue most strenuously) from disadvantages they experience early on. If companies see improvements in the resumes of racial minorities, they will naturally be more likely to hire them; I would argue that their greed for having the best employees will override the racial biases of White CEOs and HR managers.
Ok with it? I think that's pretty much the number one goal.
Fully agree in an ideal world.
But in practice, if men, for example, are the only people hired, they tend to be the only people who get experience, making them always the most qualified for the job.
Extra Facts: For jobs behind the camera, there are something like, only 13% of women employed in the film industry. Not all industries are equal so your through fits really well in some places and less so in others.
For jobs behind the camera, there are something like, only 13% of women employed in the film industry.
That doesn't necessarily imply sexism at all, note. If it turns out women are just 6 times less likely than men to want to have these jobs, then this percentage would be 13% in a perfect non-sexist world. (Though 13% is concerningly low; the percentage of women that go into computer science is around 20-25% and that's one of the strongest effects. Plausibly the remaining 1.5-2x difference here is due to sexism; I can buy filmmaking being one of the most sexist industries).
Because the people who are 'correct' for the job always end up being white guys who are direct relatives of someone in management
yes that would be the logic behind dropping DEI programs
Pussies.
Oh look on the picture: the first one is corporate scum, the second one is also corporate scum and somehow the third one is also corporate scum
They didn't cave, the scum running them can openly be monsters now
well damn. I was considering a Ford Maverick because my car is old and is having problems. guess I'll look elsewhere. No new Toyota either.
Get a Mazda, they arent perfect (they dmca'd the Homeassistant integration), but at least they have immediately started to help Californias and as far as I was able to find out, they didn't crawl in to Trump's pocket...at least, until now... Only downside is, the CX-50 is made in the same plant as the Toyota Corolla Cross.
Or did they just finally realize it's not popular with consumers?
I don't think consumers really cared until the rightwing brainwashing machine told them it was the most pressing topic in existence right now.
I see people online screaming that they're going to cancel their costco membership because they decided to keep the program. I have yet to see a single person explain how Costco's hiring decisions affect them in any way.
I would wager the vast majority of consumers don't give a damn about things like this. And in cases that they do, it's much more likely that they'll care about the absence of such programs than the reverse.
