04/23/2005
Steve Ballmer Issues Microsoft a Memo On Gay Rights Bill
Towleroad received an email from a source inside Microsoft saying that the buzz the blogs have generated over Microsoft's withdrawal of support from the Washington state gay rights bill is having a large internal impact at the company.
My source sent the text of an email that was sent to all U.S. employees by CEO Steve Ballmer last night in an effort to calm the internal conflict over the company's decision. Ballmer says that Microsoft never officially endorsed the bill and confusion arose because two MS employees testified before a House committee in support of the bill, but they were not representing the company's official position.
Text of Steve Ballmer memo to U.S. Microsoft employees:
From: Steve Ballmer
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 6:40 PM
To: All Employees of MS in Puget Sound; All Employees of MS in MSUS
Subject: Microsoft and the Anti-Discrimination bill
Over the past two days, there've been a lot of stories about Microsoft
and our position on an anti-discrimination bill in Olympia.
I've heard from a number of employees, and I take all of the input on
all sides seriously, so I wanted to talk directly with all of you
about the company's position and how I view these issues.
First, I want reaffirm my personal commitment -- and the company's
commitment -- to keeping Microsoft a company that values diversity.
That will never change.
As long as I am CEO, Microsoft is going to be a company that is
hard-core about diversity, a company that is absolutely rigorous about
having a non-discriminatory environment, and a company that treats
every employee fairly.
I'm proud of our track record on diversity issues. We were one of the
first companies to provide domestic partner benefits, or to include
sexual orientation in our anti-discrimination policies. And just this
year, we became one of the few companies to include gender identity or
expression in our protection policies.
There have been several news stories that imply that Microsoft changed
its position on an anti-discrimination bill, HB 1515, because of
pressure from a conservative religious group. I want to make it clear
that that is not the case.
When our government affairs team put together its list of its
legislative priorities in Olympia before the Legislative Session began
in January, we decided to focus on a limited number of issues that are
more directly related to our business such as computer privacy,
education, and competitiveness. The anti-discrimination bill was not
on this list and as a result Microsoft was not actively supporting the
bill in the Legislature this year, although last year we did provide a
letter of support for similar legislation.
On February 1, two Microsoft employees testified before a House
Committee in support of the bill. These employees were speaking as
private citizens, not as representatives of the corporate position,
but there was considerable confusion about whether they were speaking
on behalf of Microsoft.
Following this hearing, a local religious leader named Rev. Ken
Hutcherson, who has a number of Microsoft employees in his
congregation, approached the company, seeking clarification of whether
the two employees were representing Microsoft's official position. He
also sought a variety of other things, such as firing of the two
employees and a public statement by Microsoft that the bill was not
necessary.
After careful review, Brad Smith informed Rev. Hutcherson that there
was no basis for firing the two employees over the misunderstanding
over their testimony, but did agree that we should clarify the
ambiguity over the employee testimony. Brad also made it clear that
while the company was not taking a position on HB 1515, the company
remains strongly committed to its internal policies supporting
anti-discrimination and industry-leading benefits for gay, lesbian,
bisexual, and transgender employees.
I understand that many employees may disagree with the company's
decision to tighten the focus of our agenda for this year's
legislative session in Olympia. But I want every employee to
understand that the decision to take a neutral stance on this bill was
taken before the Session began based on a desire to focus our
legislative efforts, not in reaction to any outside pressure.
I have done a lot of thinking and soul-searching over the past 24
hours on this subject, and I want to share with you my thoughts on how
a company like Microsoft should deal with these kinds of issues.
This is a very difficult issue for many people, with strong emotions
on all sides. And that makes it a very difficult issue for me, as the
CEO of this company.
On this particular matter, both Bill and I actually both personally
support this legislation that would outlaw discrimination on the basis
of sexual orientation. But that is my personal view, and I also know
that many employees and shareholders would not agree with me.
We are thinking hard about what is the right balance to strike – when
should a public company take a position on a broader social issue, and
when should it not? What message does the company taking a position
send to its employees who have strongly-held beliefs on the opposite
side of the issue?
The bottom line is that I am adamant that Microsoft will always be a
place that values diversity, that has the strongest possible internal
policies for non-discrimination and fairness, and provides the best
policies and benefits to all of our employees.
I am also adamant that I want Microsoft to be a place where every
employee feels respected, and where every employee feels like they
belong. I don't want the company to be in the position of appearing
to dismiss the deeply-held beliefs of any employee, by picking sides
on social policy issues.
It's appropriate to invoke the company's name on issues of public
policy that directly affect our business and our shareholders, but
it's much less clear when it's appropriate to invoke the company's
name on broader issues that go far beyond the software industry – and
on which our employees and shareholders hold widely divergent
opinions. We are a public corporation with a duty first and foremost
to a broad group of shareholders. On some issues, it is more
appropriate for employees or shareholders to get involved as
individual citizens. As CEO, I feel a real sense of responsibility
around this question, and I believe there are important distinctions
between my personal views on policy issues and when it's appropriate
to involve the company.
I know that some employees will still feel frustrated by the position
the company has taken, but I wanted you to hear directly from me on
this. We will continue to wrestle with how and when the company
should engage on these kinds of political issues. And above all, I
want you to know that as long as I am CEO, Microsoft will always be
committed to diversity and non-discrimination in all of our internal
policies.
Thanks.
Steve
Related Microsoft Secretly Withdraws Endorsement of Gay Rights Bill [tr]
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 12:15 PM EST by Andy in Current Affairs | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Actually Microsoft founders supported the legislation through their own companies. Both Bill Gates' Corbis and Paul Allen's Vulcan Inc. endorsed the bill.
More snippets from Ballmer's mail can be found here:
http://microsophist.blogspot.com/
Posted by: JK | Apr 23, 2005 1:35:48 PM
Nice try, Microsoft (said with a sneer). I'll stick with Mac.
Posted by: cafegogo | Apr 23, 2005 1:44:53 PM
This is, I believe, yet another lie by Microsoft on this issue. This (via Americablog) from the Seattle Times a few days ago:
"Rep. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, the bill's sponsor, said a Microsoft lobbyist had told him toward the start of the legislative session that the company would support the bill this year as it had for the previous two years. Murray also said the lobbyist, who could not be reached for comment yesterday, said the company would send a letter of support.
Murray said he never received the letter, and that in the next few weeks he received phone calls from Microsoft employees, referring to pressure from Hutcherson on the company. He said Microsoft told him about a month later that it had changed its position to neutral on the bill."
Sure, I guess Steve Ballmer could be telling the truth and Ed Murray lying. Anyone here believe that?
Whatever one thinks of Microsoft taking a neutral position, their bullshit lying about it to try to make it all blow over is wrong, insulting, and worse than their betrayal in the first place. Fuck them.
Posted by: Glenn | Apr 23, 2005 1:57:10 PM
Nice job.
We can't let this blow over!
Posted by: Good As You | Apr 23, 2005 2:11:37 PM
lets not forget that it was the state representatives who voted the bill down, not microsoft.
Posted by: Dan B | Apr 23, 2005 2:28:14 PM
Thanks, Andy, (and your source)! Ballmer's excuses for their silence on the bill makes me angrier than their silence on the bill. How progressive of him not to have added, "Some of my best friends are Sodomites." Amoral horseshit. While denying direct cause and effect between the attempts of a SPECIFIC neo Nazi's influence on their decision to not do again what they'd done last year--issue a letter of support for the bill--he's effectively saying that the increased evidence of opposition from their neo Nazi employees caused them to cut out their own tongues/conscience. And the redundant singing of their own policy praises to the tune of Phil Ochs' "Love Me I'm A Liberal" adds insult to injury. "Sure, baby seals are being clubbed to death outside our gates as we count our billions but if any of them can drag their cute little asses inside they'll be safe here." Community Clown Reichen did a better job explaining he's "still gay" while asserting his innocence despite continuing to lead various women on.
Bill and Steve are hypocrites and mustn't be allowed to pretend otherwise, even if the most we can do, beyond dumping Hotmail accounts (don't the majority of MAC users, despite using Apple's operating system, still use MS software programs such as Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc.?), is publicly condemn them for that. As for Dan B--you're simply a pathetic idiot.
Posted by: Tagg | Apr 23, 2005 3:41:21 PM
Oh, and by the way, Andy, excellent work. Kudos to you and your source for this.
Posted by: Glenn | Apr 23, 2005 3:51:28 PM
Yes, Tagg, you are precisely correct--"Amoral" is the word. A corporation is an "amoral" entity, whose sole purpose is to create profit and enrich its shareholders. To expect a Corporation to take a "moral" stand is foolish, and is to disregard the fundamentals of capitalism. To the extent that a coporation's leadership determines that taking a political position is good for its profits, they may choose to do so. Microsoft does not support workplace diversity because it is the morally "right" thing to do, but rather as a tool to attract and keep the best quality employees; that increases their profit.
Seal pups are cute, but it is not the job of a software corporation to protect them.
And calling Dan B. a "pathetic idiot" is immature, un-called for and, frankly, mean. His point was objective and entirely correct. You should apologize.
Posted by: Zach | Apr 23, 2005 4:13:08 PM
So now a multi-billion dollar company that built themselves standing up for diversity, can no longer support us as they have in the past. And we are supposed to be fine with that? Doing what is right has never been easy. But certainly if any company can afford it, Microsoft can. Sounds to me that some people in Microsoft have lost their balls.
Posted by: Blake Fox | Apr 23, 2005 4:43:07 PM
Ballmer's remarks; ".... When our government affairs team put together its list of its legislative priorities in Olympia before the Legislative Session began in January, we decided to focus on a limited number of issues that are more directly related to our business such as computer privacy, education, and competitiveness. The anti-discrimination bill was not on this list and as a result Microsoft was not actively supporting the bill in the Legislature this year, although last year we did provide a letter of support for similar legislation. "
So to be clear on this;
1) Microsoft did support similar legislation last year. But felt that it did not merit the same level of legislative priority as other issues before the State Legislature for this year.
2) This decision was made internally before the Rev. Hutchinson meeting.
3) Rep Murray did not receive a letter from Microsoft this year supporting HB-1515, unlike in previous years. (Irrespecive of the verbal commitment from a MS lobbyist that he would.)
4) MS did not issue a letter of support for HB-1515 this year.
While this has the appearance of a reversal, and the Rev. Hutchinson is playing it as one for his personal aggrandizement, is it anything other than a PR nightmare for MS...versus being a betrayal? It certainly has been poorly-played from the MS-side of the table; but what is the actual truth?
I do fault MS as one of the State's largest progressive employers for not being more forthright and supportive. Did they betray the G/L community, I don't know yet in my own mind, but they did let it down. For that alone they should still feel some heat... I'm still open to hearing more facts on this.
Posted by: Ted B. | Apr 23, 2005 4:49:27 PM
"What message does the company taking a position send to its employees who have strongly-held beliefs on the opposite side of the issue?" Perhaps it sends a message that the religiously based prejudices those employees hold will not be tolerated in the public and business arenas, where they interfere with the functioning of a government or the productivity of a business, and therefore public/stockholder good. Zach, you might consider how capitalism is hindered by prejudices that prevent each person from participating fully in the system. For example, if those cute seal pups were actually gay men and women that were potential MS workers (who could increase the financial performance of the company), then it would make perfect sense to back a bill protecting them.
Fighting prejudice and discrimination and not pandering to bigots both make good business sense and definitely do not disregard the fundamentals of capitalism.
Posted by: Tom | Apr 23, 2005 4:58:56 PM
Tom, I agree absolutely. If there is a profit-driven rationale for a corporation to take the morally "right" position an action, they can and should be expected to do so.
My objection is to people who codemn the CEO of a corporation on moral grounds because the corporation failed to take a purely moral stand.
If Microsoft's research showed that the path to the greatest profits lay in keyboards lined with seal-pup fur, they would become the world's largest consumer of dead baby seals.
If we can demonstrate that an actively pro-gay position is the path to the highest profits, they will act accordingly.
Posted by: Zach | Apr 23, 2005 5:12:57 PM
On the issue of whether it's right for a company to take a stand on issues that don't directly affect its business or shareholders. As I understand it, this is an employment discrimination bill. If Microsoft's business interests are furthered by having access to as deep a pool of potential employees as possible, how is it not in the company's interest to support the bill?
Also, it's disingenuous for MS to say it doesn't want to support non-business and non-shareholder related policies, because I'm sure it has supported such policies in the past. Though I haven't researched this, I bet you'd find Microsoft on record supporting such employee-related matters as workplace safety and health and benefits related legislation. I also bet you'd find Microsoft standing up for such controversial social issues as environmental protection and education policy. Anyone seen those commercials where MS toots its horn about donating computers to public schools? I'm pretty sure they're doing that because "it's the right thing to do." The company also makes a huge deal in Washington, DC, about how it's a trusted partner with the United States government, most of which uses MS products to conduct such vital missions as national security and defense. MS is more than happy to wave the banner of patriotism. What does that have to do with business and shareholder interests, in the way Ballmer has so narrowly defined them?
The logic in Ballmer's memo is full of holes.
And, if nothing else, they supported the bill in the past, so who are they trying to fool now?
Posted by: S | Apr 23, 2005 5:56:00 PM
MS donates computers to public schools because it's a feel-good issue that only a tiny minority could possibly object to. It creates good will among the consumers, which leads to consumer support, which leads to...(say it with me, now) PROFITS.
Not because it's the "right thing to do".
Posted by: Zach | Apr 23, 2005 6:08:28 PM
Well, to be really cynical about it, MS donates computers to public schools to get little kids hooked on their products before they're exposed to Macs.
But I think you're proving the point here. MS will take non-business related positions only when it's not going to jeopardize the bottom line. And, of course, that's what a smart company would do. But for Ballmer to try and pass of MS as somehow on the vanguard of human rights by repeating over and over again how progressive their "internal" policy is, then try to worm out of taking a stand on what's good for ALL companies...that's just cowardice. Frankly, I don't know why he even sent the e-mail. He has just made things worse and exposed himself as a hypocrite.
Posted by: S | Apr 23, 2005 6:21:00 PM
He's been caught in the act of behaving like a CEO, after spending all this time trying to position himself as a "good guy" who "cares", and he's pedalling as fast as he can to get back to where he was before the world saw the man behind the curtains.
It's an interesting opportunity for us to evaluate how strongly MS values the gay market segment; will there be a significant placating gesture to us or just the 2,000 word email that said nothing? Of course, it has a lot to do with how much noise we make and how long we can keep the story on the front page.
Everybody got their noisemakers?
Posted by: zach | Apr 23, 2005 6:30:21 PM
I think an outright boycott of MS would be impractical, considering how ubiquitous they are. You won't get every gay person in America to join up. But you're right, keeping the issue in the headlines will surely bring pressure. If Ballmer keeps writing emails like this, he'll do that job for us.
Posted by: S | Apr 23, 2005 6:32:21 PM
In the software industry there is a lot of courting of "early adopters", people who take a new idea or product and run with it.
Yet here they are placating the "late adopters" who are stuck with ideas of sexual functioning from the pre-scientific era.
Does Microsoft really think that hard core evangelicals wouldn't really like to cut the internet way back or rigorously control it(after all there is sex stuff on there)?
And after they get control of the gays and everyones sex life, these hard core Christians may well be after control of everyones computers as well...
Posted by: Big Time Patriot | Apr 23, 2005 7:09:24 PM
Well, in the beginning of his email I was sympathetic, but he says later that they endorsed similiar legislature last year, so why not do the same this year unless it was because of political preasure to not? Also, I find it very hypocritical of him to say their company supports diversity and against discrimination of any kind, yet they won't support this legislature because some of their shareholders is against it? Well, aren't the same shareholders against the company policies they now have regarding gay rights? His postion makes no sense. He's just trying to talk his way around this to his employees.
Posted by: Patrick | Apr 23, 2005 9:39:43 PM
Funny how MSNBC hasn't covered this at all? Maybe some emails to their web site would alert them to the tremendous amount of talk and interest in this subject in such small news organizations like The New York Times among others......
Posted by: Matt-chicago | Apr 24, 2005 12:27:19 AM
Just a quick point, a true neutral position would be one that supports all anti-discrimination legislation. Ironically the religious bigots that oppose anti-gay discrimintion already have laws on the books protecting them from discrimination for their chosen beliefs.
Posted by: Don Sneesby | Apr 24, 2005 1:55:56 AM
It's quite obvious that MS MS'd up (haha, sorry but some humor needed to be thrown in). I continue to be dumbfounded by the amount of effort "the other side" puts toward ensuring that a group of people, who are by no means small in number, do not receive the same rights as them. What's sad is that given the country's sudden INTEREST in and FEAR of gay marriage, this is the time, if ANY, that MS should have offered it's support. It couldn't be more clear. Now that people are paying attention (I give you last year's elections), MS is scared shitless to actually take a stand when it might not be as popular to do so. Whenever and HOWEVER they made their decision to QUIT supporting a huge number of AMERICAN citizens, it's simply a horrible and unfortunate choice. I guess some people DO have a choice. Wow, I think I may be kinda upset.
Posted by: Chris | Apr 24, 2005 12:26:05 PM
I think what we should truly fear is a time when huge corporations are in control rather than the democracy that was created for the good of the people. Also I think we should commend Microsoft for having policies protecting their gay employees, and instead we should focus our outrage on those corporations that LACK such policies. The sole mission of a corporation is, in fact to generate profit for its shareholders - not to enact social change. For that we each have a vote, and government representatives. The blame here, in my opinion lies with the spineless Washington state politicians who don't do what's right for all citizens for whatever reason they may have - and even more shame on them if that is because its not supported by a large corporation. People need to run the country, not corporations.
This email was a great thing to be able to read, next lets see a list of major corporations who do NOT offer anti-discrimination policies for gay employees - and then lets target THEM.
Posted by: Dan B | Apr 24, 2005 5:20:40 PM
Hey Dan B,
If you think we should fear "a time when huge corporations are in control rather than the democracy that was created for the good of the people". Start fearing now.
Policical parties get substantial funds from large corps. And they wouldn't be parting with this money without 'buying' something.
Posted by: James T | Apr 24, 2005 6:15:20 PM
James T,
Try telling that to the former CEOs of Enron, Worldcomm, Tyco and Adelphia. I'm certain that they would disagree.
Regardless, my point that we need to hold our representatives acountable - be it for not passing this law or for "selling" too much to large corporate donors - still stands. You dont shoot the passenger to stop the truck.
Social change occurs over time, nothing happens overnight. With so many companies not offering domestic partner benefits and anti-discrimination policies protecting gays nowadays, I think its unfair for us to target Microsoft, which was in fact very early in the process of granting such equal protection for gays. There are a lot of gay men and women who have health insurance and other benefits because their partner works for Microsoft. There are many gay and lesbian employees who don't have to fear coworkers taunting them or being passed up for promotion because of their sexual orientation at Microsoft. And as a thanks for being progressive in these areas we chastize them for the actions of the Washington state legislature?
The first of their listed priorities is computer privacy and education. These are very important issues at the moment as well - and frankly they ARE more relevant to microsoft as a corporation - and positive movement on either would also be a benefit to all of us as well.
Posted by: Dan B | Apr 24, 2005 8:41:30 PM