this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2025
1264 points (99.1% liked)

News

24249 readers
4180 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Costco shareholders voted overwhelmingly (98%) against a proposal by a conservative think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research, to assess risks linked to the company's diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.

Costco’s board supported DEI initiatives, dismissing the proposal as partisan and unnecessary.

This rejection contrasts with trends in other companies scaling back DEI efforts.

The vote comes amid new federal rules from Trump targeting DEI initiatives in federal agencies, potentially impacting private vendors working with the government.

(page 4) 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 135 points 6 days ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 6 days ago (22 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Shit. I might just re-up to the executive membership this year. I don't shop there as much as I used to but I could still probably manage to get enough rewards to cover the membership price.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
[–] [email protected] 94 points 6 days ago

Welcome to Costco. I love you.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (4 children)

The backlash against DEI is at the individual level imo. How people feel is the reality, 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).

Let’s see if I can explain it: So let’s say you’re an average white guy, and you know your company has a DEI program. You feel like you work very hard, or at least as hard as everyone else in your workplace, but you see that your minority coworkers get promotions or that the new hire for a better paid position than yours is a minority you start to feel as though you’re getting passed over because of your identity. This could be because it is a diverse workplace and so the best people for the promotion may just happen to be of other races or women. It could also be actual racism which I’m sure happens but it’s probably very very rare. But that doesn’t matter, what matters is that you see people who are different from you getting promoted, and you don’t particularly feel they are better than you.

Then you maybe look a little bit into what the theory behind DEI is and you learn that it’s proponents argue that there is systemic favoritism towards white straight males which is why if you have two equally capable candidates but one is white and the other is a minority, you should choose the minority. As a straight white male you won’t feel (and frankly should not, I’m sorry) that you are responsible for your advantage in society, so what you’ll feel is that now you’re the disadvantage one and that DEI is just racism against white straight males. It isn’t but that doesn’t change how the individual feels.

My personal opinion is that DEI is more of a bandaid than a solution and some of the backlash is warranted. The real solution is for people to have equal opportunity at the lowest level, meaning education. There’s no reason for some schools to be better than others, and less for that difference to arise from the value of the houses in the schools district. Of course Trump and co will not fix it either because they campaigned on destroying the education system because they seemingly want a slave caste or something. But if everyone had equal access to good schools and colleges, I don’t think DEI as it is implemented in most orgs would be needed.

Edit: this was supposed to be a reply to @[email protected]

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Yes, but I think this a bias reinforced by the same point I made above about education. All schools should be as equally good as possible, or at the very least they should be equally funded and have the same program etc. And then we should aim that schools are as diverse as possible.

It will not completely solve the issues, rural areas by their very nature will probably remain very white and very entrenched. But it would alleviate it a lot.

That brings me to another point, that I think no one has made to rural Americans. If they are being left behind and there’s a housing crisis, why the fuck are their politicians not running campaigns on using government money to fund industry and development in the huge amount of literally empty space there is in this country? We could build the European walkable cities dems dream so much about in the heart of America, and make it affordable too, at least at the beginning. I’ve thought about a lot and I think a plan to develop the economy of the heartland of America would be a good platform for a democratic candidate to run on and it could fit within all the trappings of a The “Golden Age” of America that people want. And it would be a national project, something we sorely need to unite us again.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago

I think "will never hire a non-white person for a position" is a little far but I do think "are unlikely to ever hire a non-white person for a position" (maybe even "highly unlikely") is fair.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (10 children)

I commented this earlier but quite a few corps that tend to beat the market in returns have not abandoned DEI initiatives. These are corporations that will not bat an eye to plunge thousands into poverty or worse to save .007 cents on manufacturing costs. This tells you that they believe that DEI has some tangible value on their performance whether it’s through marketing opportunity or because their workforce is actually better.

But I think abandoning DEI for many companies is the right choice, as bad DEI is magnitudes worse than no DEI.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Yes, but most things that are badly implemented in a work place don’t lead to people feeling resented and angry at society.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago

People feeling resented and angry at society… Are these the same people that tell me I need to pull up my own bootstraps? If so, the two messages are conflicted.

Usually how this goes, there is a few bad implementations that go viral and make everyone else look bad…

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago

Once again, Costco surprises me with basic human decency that is largely missing in the corporate world. I know it's not a high bar, not as if they're on the forefront of progressivism, or anything. But it's well beyond the average in the profit-driven and labor grinding society, and that sort of corporate action, among their other positives as an employer, should be recognized and supported. Good on you, Costco.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago

...called DEI programs "illegal, immoral and detrimental to shareholder value,"

Wrong, wrong, and only if they implemented DEI as a blind performance metric... Which is also wrong. You get half a point out of three, or 16.6%.
And with a grade that low, I'm completely justified in giving that person...
A Super F!

[–] [email protected] 99 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

FYI: for normal corporations (i.e. not ones with individual majority stockholders like Musk) shareholder votes are almost always dominated by votes from the big mutual funds, and the managers of those funds always vote for whatever the board recommends as a matter of policy. The actual mom & pop investors who own the shares through those mutual funds in their 401(k)s etc. are entirely disenfranchised.

In other words, the actual owners of Costco had mostly fuck-all to do with this. We're just lucky that Costco's board of directors isn't terrible, for once.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 days ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 6 days ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The whole dei firing thing doesn’t make any sense. It’s not like unqualified people were hired.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago

Right. Not sure why I used logic…

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

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

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 week ago

Shareholders, if you keep that up, maybe I'll grudgingly, once in a while, "think of the shareholders".

[–] [email protected] 219 points 1 week ago (1 children)

A corporation not being absolute trash. Let's hope they deal fairly with their unionized employees.

[–] [email protected] 171 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 6 days ago

Obligatory fuck Reagan

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

YoU sAy ShArEhOlDeRs, I sAy RaDicAl LeFt OpErAtIvEs

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Not just the corporation, but their shareholders.

The "shareholders" are mostly just Vanguard/Black Rock/etc. mutual fund managers who always vote for whatever the board recommends. So yes, just the corporation.

Shareholder revolts against board proposals are exceedingly rare, and basically only happen when some individual rich fuck owns way too many shares.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Right, but those mutual fund managers don't just vote "yes" because they aren't paying attention. If anything, they are paying lots of attention, and get special treatment, since they own so much of the company, and were likely consulted ahead of this move.

And they are most definitely not bleeding-heart liberals. If they voted for this proposal it's because they think it will lead to better outcomes for the company.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

If anything, they are paying lots of attention, and get special treatment, since they own so much of the company

Let's be clear about this: the fund managers own nothing. They are employed to manage the mutual funds that other people -- you and me and everybody else with a retirement account -- actually own. They disenfranchise us, the actual owners.

(Yes, technically, it's true that the individual company shares are owned by the corporate entity of the mutual fund itself, and that what the mom & pop investors technically own shares in that fund. But that does not make it fair to say that anybody but the mom & pop investors deserve to vote the individual company shares, because it's their money that's being used for the whole thing!)

And they are most definitely not bleeding-heart liberals. If they voted for this proposal it’s because they think it will lead to better outcomes for the company.

If keeping DEI is better, why didn't they demand it for all the other corporations whose boards didn't propose keeping it? The answer is, again, the fund managers almost always just rubber-stamp the board. To claim that fund managers are actually forming their own opinion on the efficacy of DEI and influencing corporate governance accordingly is simply not true.

In theory, mutual fund managers are acting on mutual fund share holders' behalf. In practice, "shareholders" of most large corporations are effectively asleep at the wheel -- the investment industry literally calls shares held in index funds "dumb money" -- and boards of directors can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want. In the era of huge mutual funds, especially index funds where the even the choice of which companies to own shares in is no longer a feedback mechanism, the check & balance of shareholder control is basically broken.

The fix is "pass-through voting," by the way:

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2024/04/17/pass-through-voting-giving-individual-investors-a-voice-in-corporate-governance/

https://www.morningstar.com/funds/new-proxy-voting-options-ivv-other-index-funds-blackrock-state-street-vanguard

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

To claim that fund managers are actually forming their own opinion on the efficacy of DEI and influencing corporate governance accordingly is simply not true.

That may a fair take, but take a moment to turn that around. The fact that fund managers are not forming their own opinion against the efficacy of DEI and influencing corporate governance accordingly is a sign that it's simply not as harmful as Republicans let on, and may actually be helpful. Because they know how to wield that influence if they feel they need to in order to preserve their funds' value.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago

I didn't say not forming their own opinion "against;" I said "on" -- i.e., not forming their own opinion about the topic at all, in either direction. It is not an argument that can be "turned around" in the way you claim.

When boards oppose DEI, fund managers support the board. When boards support DEI, fund managers support the board. My point this entire time has been that there is no influence being wielded here. The companies that are cancelling DEI policies are doing so on their own boards'/execs' initiative with no meaningful shareholder control, and the companies that are keeping DEI policies are likewise doing so on their own boards'/execs' initiative with no meaningful shareholder control.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 91 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Narrator: The Republican politicians did not listen.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›