Quote:
Originally Posted by bassplayinMacFiend
To the OP, how do we know this is just Steve's agenda? If same-sex benefits were enacted before Steve came back as the iCEO then would this not be a general company stance as opposed to a Steve stance?
Also, if the ban went through, isn't it at least possible that Apple's benefits costs could increase dramatically if they were forced to self-insure same sex couple's partners as the insurance companies could easily use this ban as an out to providing partner benefits?
|
Its conjecture. Steve is known as being left-of-center, and he's also known for running the company dictatorially. Theoretically, of course, the Board of Directors can tell Steve "no," but look what happened to Apple the last time that happened. If it takes $100k to a political campaign to keep Steve happy, I suspect they'd just give it to him.
Of course, when I phrase it like that, it does make it seem like this donation is good for Apple--what's good for Steve is good for Apple.
As to the medical benefits thing... I see your point, but would Apple be "forced" to insure the partners of employees in same-sex couples if Prop. 8 passes? I could see Apple
wanting to insure them, but I don't think they'd be forced to. They could simply say, "Sorry guys. The voters passed Prop. 8, which means that our insurance providers no longer cover your partners." Not that they would--clearly, Apple supports homosexual rights--but they could.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucker
A company that publicly speaks out for equal gay rights is far more attractive to potential gay employees. Why needlessly scare away potentially bright talent?
|
I think Apple would do just as well when it comes to recruiting potential gay employees if they stayed neutral. As long as a company isn't anti-gay, I don't think gays will have any problem working for it.