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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sounds like your boss was the problem, not the DEI hires. But that's okay, the racist conclusion is the most sensible one to jump to.

Wow that's funny because my sample size experience tells me the exact opposite of your experience. So my experience is also representative of the entire corporation

People downvote you but this is what I was talking about. It doesn’t really matter whether your situation was caused by DEI or not, what matters is that you feel that it happened partially because of DEI, which you wouldn’t if officially there was no DEI program. This is where he backlash is coming from, and people don’t see it because they are too focused on what it is on paper or how it is supposed to work.