Costco shuts down shareholders demand to ditch DEI hiring practices
Costco shuts down shareholders demand to ditch DEI hiring practices
‘Our Board has considered this proposal and believes that our commitment to an enterprise rooted in respect and inclusion is appropriate and necessary,’ Costco stated
Summary
Costco’s board rejected a shareholder proposal to end its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, arguing they foster respect, innovation, and cultural alignment with customers and employees.
Shareholders claimed DEI could lead to lawsuits citing "illegal discrimination" against white, Asian, male, or straight employees, referencing legal cases like Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
Costco countered that its DEI efforts comply with the law and enhance its culture, rejecting claims of legal risk.
The proposal will be voted on at Costco's January 23 shareholder meeting.
You're viewing a single thread.
DEI is inherently racist no matter what political affiliation, to hire someone based on ethnicity over qualifications.
It's a flawed policy. Perhaps focus more on free education so all ethnicities can be as qualified as the next "white, Asian, male, or straight employees".
We're all Americans. Can't just say "fuck conservatives" and not compromise to come up with a rational solution. But I digress.
I understand your sentiment. Can I ask you to consider a scenario?
Imagine a company needs to hire a new employee. They have 9 white men, and need a 10th person. Whoever is hiring may not think they are prejudiced, but they need to consider how the new hire will fit in with the existing team.
They may be worried about how hiring a qualified woman will upset the dynamic. A qualified Hispanic with an accent may be overlooked if the hiring manager is concerned about their English skills. Any number of reasons that may not even be conscious, but influence the decision to hire another white man.Do you think it is possible for DEI practices to ensure diverse and qualified candidates? Why does hiring a non-white have to mean they are less qualified? If we instead start with the assumption that qualified candidates exist from many backgrounds, hiring them in proportion to their representation in the population doesn't seem like a crazy idea.
Wait until you see how many white rich people Trump is gonna hire.
Yeah that's the same concept as DEI. It's racist.
Where is the diversity? Where is the equity? Where is the inclusion?
It’s not the same thing.
How is considering skin colour when hiring not a racist practice?
Are we really going to rehash the debate people have had for decades whenever the subject comes up where we pretend people aren’t considering white people’s skin color when they’re interviewed? You think they just all happen to get hired purely on merit? You think women aren’t treated differently than men too and men are just naturally attuned to executive roles?
We can’t get people to stop doing these things, so we educate folks about these issues in the hopes that they can make up for internal biases. DEI is not affirmative action, despite your attempts to equate them. It’s education. It’s about creating a more equitable workforce through making them more aware of these biases and blockers to marginalized groups’ advancement. It isn’t a hiring quota.
You think they just all happen to get hired purely on merit? You think women aren’t treated differently than men too and men are just naturally attuned to executive roles?
Yes
So is this bait or are you just actually that bigoted? Let’s stop the bullshit and be clear lol
Anyway to reiterate: DEI =/= Affirmative Action or hiring quotas. I’m glad you can see that now.
So this has nothing to do with the race/gender/minority checkboxes on job applications that automatically get you an interview? That's the sort of shit I disagree with.
Yes I really think men are more naturally inclined to do executive type roles. Men and women aren't the same.
And yes I think that people are hired on their ability to do the job first and foremost. The thing is that white people are more advantaged in society when it comes to acquiring said skills to do said jobs but that's an entirely different problem.
No that’s not DEI. You have no clue what it is yet you so vehemently oppose it. Again, it is not about applications and interviews. It is not a hiring quota. It is not affirmative action. It’s educating people on discrimination. It is not any sort of hiring mandate. It’s just learning, something conservatives find too vile to participate in these days because they might accidentally learn they have a wrong opinion or maybe the world doesn’t work how they think it does.
Your views on sex and gender are incredibly problematic. Having a dick doesn’t inherently make you a better leader. Having white skin does not either. This is an opinion rooted in bigotry. You are being racist/sexist. And that’s ok so long as you learn and grow and choose to become better than that. Many of us were bigots at one point - hell we all still are to some degree, it’s hard to truly be 100% not bigoted. Honestly it’s impossible! But it’s about growth. It’s about doing what we can to limit our contribution to the problem.
I think that white people have better opportunities to get educated etc. Not that they are inherently better. Being born into a poor family is obviously going to present you with less opportunities. That's a whole different problem unrelated to hiring practices though.
Yeah men do make better leaders as we have seen all throughout human history. Queens were far more likely to wage war than kings, one example. Men and women are more different than they are the same. Not superior/inferior; just different.
Your argument ignores the value of diversity within a business. A diverse workforce offers much more variety in how to progress the company. Peoples of similar traits and backgrounds tend to have similar ideas and methods. More diversity can increase problem solving, customer relations, and ingenuity by forcing all parties to see things from different perspectives.
The US has a long history of employers refusing to hire minorities/paying the "othered" less. We are not so far removed from these practices to reliably function without laws and regulations ensuring businesses not fall back to old habits. Slavery in the US ended around 150 years ago. The Jim Crow laws, officially, almost 60 years ago. Sundown towns were still around, though not as common, 45 years ago.
What makes you think certain line items listed on a resume will guarantee that a person is going to be a better pick than someone else who doesn't have those things listed? Would you argue that someone who's been a cashier for 8 years is more qualified than someone who's been a cashier for 4 years, or do you think it wouldn't really make a difference?
You can argue that this is a racist initiative, but you could also argue that basing hiring decisions purely off of advantages and opportunities that some people receive inherently based off their ethnicity, in a country full of systemic racism, is also racist. There's also a big component of classism involved here as a result of hundreds of years of systemic racism that kept certain groups locked out of certain classes while other families have had opportunities to build on generational wealth and all the advantages that come along with it.
People don’t want to wait for the systemic problems to be solved, so “positive discrimination” measures are promoted. I dislike it too.