Ballmer Reverses Course for Microsoft

Surely there are those out there that will again claim that MS caved to special interests, this time from the left. IMHO, management has been very contemplative on the subject and you can see in his missives that Steve's really struggling with right and wrong on this.

Here's a quote from his latest email:

"After looking at the question from all sides, I’ve concluded that diversity in the workplace is such an important issue for our business that it should be included in our legislative agenda. Since our beginning nearly 30 years ago, Microsoft has had a strong business interest in recruiting and retaining the best and brightest and most diverse workforce possible. I’m proud of Microsoft’s commitment to non-discrimination in our internal policies and benefits, but our policies can’t cover the range of housing, education, financial and similar services that our people and their partners and families need. Therefore, it’s appropriate for the company to support legislation that will promote and protect diversity in the workplace."

And, frankly, I'm torn, too.

I am very proud of Microsoft's corporate policies of non-discrimination and extremely liberal (in the classical sense) policies for same-sex partners. I think our policies are a model for other companies and institutions.

On the other hand, is it right for the company to materially support legislation that forces private companies to enact similar policies? The Reverend Ken Hutcherson (whom I fundamentally disagree with), at the center of this bruhaha, makes a good point when he says (paraphrased) "I don't demand you enact my beliefs; why should you force yours on me?".

The right thing, in a civil society, is to treat every member of that society the exact same, where possible, to be given the same considerations and opportunities. I am very wary of any legislation that demands equal rights in a punititve way.

(UPDATE -- OpinionJournal opinion on the subject that cuts to the chase) Posted here but can also be found on www.opinionjournal.com\best

Rand + La Rochefoucauld = Ballmer

Ayn Rand claimed that selfishness was a virtue, while Francois de La Rochefoucauld observed that "hypocrisy is an homage that vice renders to virtue." That would mean that someone who claims insincerely to be acting in his own self-interest is a Randian Rochefoucauldian. Such a man is Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft.

Ballmer sent an e-mail to employees Friday in which he explained his decision to take a position in favor of proposed legislation to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in Washington state, where Microsoft has its headquarters. The company had originally said it would take no position on the legislation; the change of heart came after pro-gay pressure groups accused it of caving in to pressure from antigay pressure groups. But Ballmer described it as a business decision:

After looking at the question from all sides, I've concluded that diversity in the workplace is such an important issue for our business that it should be included in our legislative agenda. Since our beginning nearly 30 years ago, Microsoft has had a strong business interest in recruiting and retaining the best and brightest and most diverse workforce possible.

The trouble with this argument is that it makes no sense. Microsoft already has a nondiscrimination policy and a commitment to "diversity"; it doesn't need a law to compel it to adopt same. The effect of such a law would be to compel Microsoft's competitors to do so.

True, it's common for big companies to favor government regulation for anticompetitive reasons: The smaller you are, the more costly it is to comply. But a policy of nondiscrimination costs nothing and actually makes good business sense. A company that bases hiring decisions on irrelevant characteristics is depriving itself of the best talent available. That means it's actually in Microsoft's interest if its competitors do discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, for that leaves Microsoft with a broader pool of prospective employees from which to draw.

Ballmer seems to anticipate this objection. He explains in his e-mail that his concern isn't really about the software industry's hiring practices at all:

I'm proud of Microsoft's commitment to non-discrimination in our internal policies and benefits, but our policies can't cover the range of housing, education, financial and similar services that our people and their partners and families need. Therefore, it's appropriate for the company to support legislation that will promote and protect diversity in the workplace.

Now this makes sense. The bill Microsoft supports would make Washington state a more gay-friendly place to live, thus making it easier for the company to attract talented gay employees who might otherwise prefer to work in other states. But the next sentence in the Ballmer memo gives the lie to this:

Accordingly, Microsoft will continue to join other leading companies in supporting federal legislation that would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation--adding sexual orientation to the existing law that already covers race, sex, national origin, religion, age and disability.

If discrimination against homosexuals were eliminated nationwide, Microsoft would lose whatever competitive advantage it gains either from its own nondiscrimination policy or from the law it is now urging Washington state to pass. One suspects, then, that the real reason Ballmer is urging these laws is simply that he thinks it is the right thing to do. If so, why not forthrightly stand on principle rather than claim implausibly to be acting selfishly?