Microsoft Says Bye-Bye DEI, Joins Growing List Of Corporations Dismantling Diversity Teams | Atlanta Daily World
atlantadailyworld.com
In a surprising yet increasingly common move, Microsoft has quietly dismantled its team dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).  The decision, communicated via email to the affected employees on July 1, cited “changing business needs” as the reason for the layoffs. While the exact number of employees impacted remains unclear, the team’s lead didn’t … Continued

cross-posted from: https://yall.theatl.social/post/3229309

From the Atlanta Daily World:

In a surprising yet increasingly common move, Microsoft has quietly dismantled its team dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).  The decision, communicated via email to the affected employees on July 1, cited “changing business needs” as the reason for the layoffs. While the exact number of employees impacted remains unclear, the team’s lead didn’t … Continued

The post Microsoft Says Bye-Bye DEI, Joins Growing List Of Corporations Dismantling Diversity Teams appeared first on Atlanta Daily World.

  • @[email protected]English
    12•5 months ago

    They are not legally compelled to do so. That’s a nonsense myth, even for publicly traded companies.

    • @[email protected]English
      -1•5 months ago

      A CEOs job is literally to serve the financial interests of the shareholders.

      In fact a CEO can be fired or charged for not doing it.

      How is that not legally compelling a company to make the most money possible, when to have their top employee by the balls like that?

      • @[email protected]English
        18•5 months ago

        A CEO can be fired for anything.

        A CEO can absolutely not be criminally charged for not maximizing short term profits at all costs. That’s not what fiduciary duty means.

        • @[email protected]English
          1•5 months ago

          Fair, charged is the wrong word.

          But please explain how you see the fiduciary duty then?

          • @[email protected]English
            15•5 months ago

            It’s not “how I see it”. It’s a clearly defined legal term, that functionally means that you’re required to act in good faith.

            It doesn’t mean more than that, and minority shareholders that have tried to sue on the grounds that they have any additional legal obligation have been laughed out of court.

      • @[email protected]English
        6•5 months ago

        Serving the financial interests of shareholders doesn’t necessarily mean maximizing short-term profits, as this often leads to less profit in the long term due to things like legal issues, loss of reputation, high turnover, etc. Long term growth and stability can be much more valuable than a couple quarters of unsustainable profit.

        A good example of this is Red Lobster, whose new owners sold off all their restaurant real estate holdings to a newly formed shell company and then began charging each individual restaurant massive amounts of rent. Selling these properties gave the company a short-term boost of cash, but now they’re bankrupt because they saddled the company with so much debt and rent that they can’t cover.