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.

Friends have been asking me about what's going on with Microsoft and Washington House Bill 1515, which would add sexual orientation protection into the state civil rights statute.

I don't have any information that's not in the public domain. Also, I didn't even know this whole thing was happening until Steve Balmer (MS CEO) sent a company wide email about it on Friday evening. Today I did some reading (including tons of blog posts) to try to piece it all together.

First of all, I mostly agree with the above quote from the memo. It's unclear whether it's appropriate from a business standpoint for Microsoft to take an official corporate stand on things like this. That's not really the purpose of the company, which is to make money. That said, I think we all would like to see our corporations acting like responsible citizens, standing up for the things they believe in. Trying to make the world a better place, instead of just trying to get some it's the world's money. Of course, we supported it in the past and a few other big name companies continue to support it including Boeing, Coors, Nike, HP, Vulcan and Washington Mutual. It doesn't seem like too radical of a thing in the corporate world.

I also really want to believe Steve. He's a good guy, and a good corporate leader. But some of the articles I've read (New York Times, Seattle times, and especially The Stranger) don't really corroborate Steve's story. Where I stand is this: if Microsoft wants to change it's public policy profile that's fine, there are good business reasons to do so. But if they make those changes they have to own them, and the email I got on Friday makes me think they're trying to spin this thing a little too hard. That said, I don't have enough information to really know what's going on and I hope the dust settles a little over the next week and we can see more clearly. For now, I'll let you draw your own conclusions about what happened.

This whole issue reminds me of my work a decade ago to try to get similar legislation added to Oregon's civil rights statute. I don't see why things like this are so threatening to people. No one wants to be discriminated against because of things unrelated to their job performance, or ability to take care of an apartment they're renting. But I guess if you can't identify with the group being discriminated against it's easier to watch it happen (or encourage it in too many cases.)

I always wished I was really loaded so I could pull a PR stunt. I'd buy some blue collar style company with 50-100 employees. First order of business after I get into the new office is to interview every employee. It's a one question interview: "are you gay or straight?" Anyone who responds that they're straight gets fired on the spot. Does that sound unfair to you? Under current Washington State law this is 100% legal, and all this bill was doing is trying to make that discrimination illegal.

And for those of you that complain that this will lead to people being paralyzed for fear of discrimination lawsuits, I'm not worried. My Dad spent most of his career being an employment discrimination attorney. I heard stories about people that were very clearly screwed over, and they had a really tough time winning those cases. Discriminateion cases are tough: the burden of proof is on the victim and you have to show the motive behind the firing was race, sex, age, etc. It's usually not that clear cut. Besides, would we all like to live in a society where you couldn't be summarily fired, or denied housing, or insurance, just because of who you find attractive?

Still want more?
Read the Archives!