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.

  • Hellsfire29@lemmy.worldBanned from community
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

    • Tedesche@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      People don’t want to wait for the systemic problems to be solved, so “positive discrimination” measures are promoted. I dislike it too.

  • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Okay… but “Shareholders” means just one group of its many shareholders. It’s not like they are rejecting the consensus of their shareholders or something.

    I could buy some shares and then send them a letter suggesting they leave the wholesale food market and they could reject that proposal.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Hiring is one of the places DEI belongs, I only have a problem when it dictates creative endeavors.

    Good on Costco. Get fucked shareholders

    • phx@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Depends on how it’s presented. If it’s tied to strict quotas in terms of hiring then that can cause a lot of issues as well.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        True it would be awkward to be in the situation where you have a white male candidate who exceeds the qualifications, and a black female candidate who barely meets them… Doubly so if DEI people are pressuring you to deliver, but unfortunately your company is in a position where it absolutely needs someone who can give them a homerun.

        Now I’m not saying white male candidates are always more qualified than black female candidates. I know someone will take this comment that way. What I’m saying is, talent doesn’t care what color you are before it decides to bestow itself upon you, unfortunately DEI Hiring practices do.

        • phx@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Sometimes it’s also just a matter of available local demographics.

          The last position I helped interview for (my own as I was changing jobs) I saw the most diverse but frankly least qualified - or even interested - range of candidates ever. It’s also for - last I checked - one of the top employers in the area for wages/benefits, and fairly diverse in employee base already.

          We had applicants who:

          • No-showed video-interviews
          • With knowledge that obviously did NOT match their paper skills/experience
          • At least one who was possibly a stand-in
          • And not least, just really bad communications ability

          It was very heavy with people who fairly recently immigrated or still overseas but just getting their papers.

          Like, I get off you’re enthusiastic about a job. I’ve even recommended people based on an obvious ability to learn, work in a team, and case skillset when they didn’t have the specific job experience (that can be learned after all). Having an idea about the area and local wage-scale is also important (e.g. maybe don’t expect New York/Silicon Valley wages or expenses in Oklahoma) but candidates didn’t even seen to know the posted scale nor anything about the area.

          The last set we had to repeat (non technical parts of) questions multiple times to be understood, was asked stuff about WRITTEN questions that was literally in the question, or had to deal accents do thick none of us could understand. It was rough.

          This went on for months and we honestly we getting ready to pick the “best of the unqualified” and just hope it worked out before we finally went one more round and got somebody decent.

          Now is DEI part of that? Hard to say but if you start filtering interviews with that in mind, or narrowing your already-small pool of qualified candidate/applicants to meet such it’s not going to come out well IMO.

          I’d be more than happy to work with a qualified candidate of wherever ethnicity and gender. I really enjoy hanging out with people from different places or backgrounds (because - frankly - average-Joes are often kinda boring) but when it comes to work being able to do the job and communicate needs to be a top priority. You can have a workforce full of diverse backgrounds but if they can’t apply that to the work and work together it’s just as unhelpful as having an office full of unoriginal middle-aged/boomer white guys.

  • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    The shareholders argued that the Supreme Court ruling in the case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard found that Harvard’s use of race when choosing who to admit to the school violated the 14th Amendment.

    We are just gonna keep paying a godawful price for allowing this vile stacked court.

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        My kids will be suffering from these policies long after I’m gone.

        It takes a long time to rebuild systems and protections.

        And very little time or effort to destroy them…

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Or until someone Luigi’s them during a progressive’s term. Not that that will ever happen. The progressive term, not the other thing.

  • WhatSay@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    Sounds like there’s one company that cares more about employees than Nazi investors.

  • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Ok, but biggest owners are Blackrock & Vanguard megavultures (like all the everythings).

    The proposal came from a racists NCPPR group, so without significant support & the board just jumped at the free PR opportunity.

    • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      How is Vanguard a mega-vulture? Their ownership stake derives from their index funds, which make up American retirement funds like 401ks and IRAs. They mostly vote according to board recommendations, but have increasingly tried to offer customers other voting options.

      • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        You might be able to answer this for me as I don’t really understand.

        What is the value of shareholders for massive corporations? Is it that they fund retirements of future generations?

        Surely there has got to be a better way. The way I see companies structured with shareholders seems to inevitably make the product or service worse due to demand for increase growth and return for shareholders and it really frustrates me.

    • vga@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Costco stock price is about $930, so to become “a group of shareholders”, you’d technically need three people to spend that much money and then start making their demands.

      Or at least I wasn’t able to find how large this “group of shareholders” was. If it had been a significantly large one, Costco wouldn’t have been able to brush it off so easily, I believe.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    let’s not hire people from color to avoid lawsuits about racism

    Awesome proposal

  • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Costco knows their customers stan DEI because on average they’re more wealthy and educated.

    • legion02@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Doubt it. Costco as a corporation has been very employee-friendly for a long time. I’ve heard Costco employees call the job a career killer because many who have aspirations for another career after they finish their degree (I’ve heard they have good education programs too) wind up working for Costco corporate because the pay and benefits are so good and Costco prefers to promote from within when possible.