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.
Pressure from the rich racist fucks who own everything. Something is clearly wrong with them.
Technically, shareholder votes allow everyone who owns a stock share to vote. I regularly vote on Volkswagen, VYM, and others because a third of my savings are in stocks. It ain’t much but it’s honest work.
With that in mind, that means these votes very well could be from racist common folks, which is an even more grim scenario.
Common folks don’t own very much of the stock market.
Three Wall Street firms control the majority share of 95% of S&P500 companies
Thats fair, but in Costco’s particular case Vanguard owns 9.33% and BlackRock owns 7.49%. State Street Corp owns 4.20% (Nice)
Institutional shares in total are 71.86% split among 71 different 13F filers, which includes the three listed above.
That means 28.14% are owned by individuals with the largest individual owner being former CEO Craig Jelinek 0.08% of all outstanding shares as of July 19, 2024. He leads with a very very large margin.
So with that in mind, the most likely event was that a large enough number of companies and individuals voted yes, and that some mixture of both also voted no. But I absolutely do concede to your very well made point, you were correct to say, that disproportionately a bunch of rich suits and ties voted for the end of DEI. Especially if they perceived economic incentive to hire literally anybody, prioritizing high efficiency able bodied and minded people, over specifying a diverse team. I do not agree with that sort of business philosophy but I have to acknowledge their reasoning: a larger pool of workers means lower labor costs.
Costco W
You wouldnt think that people who are anti-dei would invest in companies like costco.
Costco has, notoriously, been very “woke”, since before they were even told what woke was or to hate it by fox news.
Costco has, notoriously, been very “woke”
Like seizing the means of $1.50 hotdog production?
“I came to (Sinegal) once and I said, ‘Jim, we can’t sell this hot dog for a buck fifty," Jelineck said, according to 425 Business. “We are losing our rear ends.’ And he said, ‘If you raise (the price of the) effing hot dog, I will kill you. Figure it out.’ That’s all I really needed.”
I don’t have a dog in this race (I’ve never had a Costco membership), but this quote makes me feel like Costco’s leadership has at least one of their priorities straight.
‘If you raise (the price of the) effing hot dog, I will kill you. Figure it out.’
Be careful you might get banned for promoting violence.
from the makers of bowser’s big bean burrito…
Sounds like there’s one company that cares more about employees than Nazi investors.
Bruh…
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.
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.
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.
What is the value of shareholders for massive corporations?
Corporations don’t start off massive. They start off small and lacking “capital” or money with which to fund the creation and support of their products before they become profitable and self-sustaining. So, how do they motivate people to lend them money? They sell shares, aka ownership, of the company. If the company succeeds, the shares become more valuable and the shareholder that bought them can sell them for more than they initially paid. Mostly, massive corporations don’t need to raise money in this way of selling shares, so most shares are traded publicly through third parties.
Is it that they fund retirements of future generations?
Kind of. Retirement is expensive, and saving alone isn’t really enough to pay for it. On the whole, stocks tend to go up, so people mostly invest their savings into the stock market for years before they retire so that their money will grow enough to retire. Individually, people are usually trying to find their own retirements, not future generations. However, there do exist big retirement funds for entire companies called pensions that are interested in growing a pool of money for its current employees and future ones. Vanguard, and similar companies, offer tools to make investing for retirement easier, like accounts that you don’t have to pay taxes on until you retire, or single shares that are actually thousands of different company’s shares grouped into one.
To your last point, there could be better ways, but we don’t currently use them. There are problems with the system for sure.
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
This all makes sense, but I do wonder if we should have a limit on the company size and shares. As you say massive corporations don’t need to raise money this way and it just extracts value from other areas. So I would be nice to see a system where shares are all bought back and cease trading once a company grows so large.
Thanks for the quick deep dive nfo
I thought costco was a worker owned co-op? When did it get motherfucking shareholders?
What? That hasn’t been the case…
You might be thinking of WinCo.
Uh, the year 2000?
Hey pieces of shit that proposed this, please don’t boycott Costco. ! Pleasssseee!!! It would be such a bummer to have shorter lines and to not see you dragging your shitty kids around the store by the arm with you’re cart full of cheese and camo jackets.
What’s wrong with a cart full of cheese? I haven’t bulk bought cheese in my adult life, but I have bought several bars and several bags of shredded cheese at the same time. I’d do it again, too!
Just the illiteration… Cheese away, my friend!
My brain is exploding at the idea of cheese and jacket being illiterative and I hate it but the sound is so close that I can’t really argue.
deleted by creator
Huzzah! I’m not stingy with the cheese, btw. Havarti plain, with dill, and with jalapenos for everyone!
Mmmm……and that giant Oaxaca Cheese Knot they sell. And 3 pound blocks of tillamook cheddar. God I do love cheese.
That Oaxaca cheese knot sounds amazing! Anyone know if Sam’s has something similar? We don’t have a CostCo near me.
Like great that Costco shut this down, because of decency and what is right but also… good fucking god the bar is so low.
I also forgot to say that a new Costco recently went in in my city, bulldozed yet another black neighborhood. So excuse me while I see some PR covering up some structurally racist hubris. Like i said, the bar is exceedingly low.
If they were going to bulldoze an inner city neighborhood, it’s likely that neighborhood was going to be predominantly black whether they like it or not. The white flight phenomenon predates Costco by a wide margin, and that fuckery already happened decades ago. While there were already inroads to corralling the country’s black population in cities around the turn of the century, the ball really got rolling on that in the post-war period following WW2 with redlining, block busting, widespread segregation prior to the civil rights movement, and the white middle class retreating to the then-new suburbs.
It is in a first ring suburb, a suburb that is very multicultural. The black neighborhood is exactly like my jewish working class neighborhood. The developer used questionable blighting tactics to use TIFs. Racist tale old as time. Every time they think their project is the exception to being racist. Every time they know they are lying to themselves.
Well, okay. In that case, definitely fuck 'em.
DEI sounds like an incredibly easy and cheap policy to follow if you weren’t already shitheels to begin with.
The worst things about DEI is that it has become politicized. What was once another boring HR policy about being fair at work, is now weapon for idiots it get all upset about.
How was DEI not politicized from the very beginning? It was literally born out of the civil rights movement.
The thing is, DEI was always going to become political. Evey single conservative is some level of white supremacist.
You cannot hold conservative beliefs and also be a fan of diversity, equity, or inclusion.
The conservative mind sees people as all innately fitting into social hierarchies. And brown people are always at the bottom.
Trying anything that changes that hierarchy is seen as a direct attack on conservativism. Because in a very real way, it is. Which is the fucking point. DEI policies were a subtle attack on white supremacy via capitalism.
The argument was that companies that practiced DEI made more money.
It worked for a time, but the jackasses would rather throw money away than abandon their social hierarchies.
They’re kind of mask off about it all now.
White supremacy is DEI for white people.
Those who would enforce social heirarchies belong at the bottom of them.
You cannot hold conservative beliefs and also be a fan of diversity, equity, or inclusion.
This is the way it’s been in recent US political culture, where everything has somehow turned into identity politics and social markers. But I don’t believe that applies to conservatism in general. Politics has almost always been driven by economic goals, not identity, and DEI has been implemented because it’s been determined to be good for the bottom line. That it’s useful to rile up the base on id-pol in order to get into power doesn’t change that. The owners still only care about profits, and would hire or fire anyone if it was determined that it’d add to the bottom line.
You don’t seem to actually understand conservatism.
I’ll give you a little primer. Edmund Burke and Joseph de Maistre created the philosophy of Conservatism as a response to the French Revolution. They were searching for a way to maintain the power of the Nobility in a world that was chopping off the heads of the worst offenders.
Make no mistake, the power of the nobility meant white supremacy as well, because that’s how the nobility always functioned.
But anyway, Conservatism says that the rich are deserving of their riches because they’re just better than you and I. Often invoking God or some bullshit argument that doesn’t boil down to the truth of “my ancestors were fucking monsters who stole a bunch of shit and would literally kill anyone who didn’t obey.”
Anyway, Conservatism has always relied on their being an in class, and then everyone else, but separating that “everyone else” into classes and then sparking resentment among those lower classes.
That’s how it works. Apartheid is when Conservatism is winning, you have your rich elite, and then two out groups, the poor whites and then the bulk of your disfavored minority group (who might very well be the actual majority).
This gives the rich assholes the opportunity to exploit two different groups against each other, lowering the pay of both. And that’s good for the bottom line.
Actually having to pay real wages to the minorities, to treat them as equal to the poor whites who are also being exploited, well that raises everyone’s wages and is seen as the greatest evil that conservatism knows.
Probably could’ve expressed my thoughts better, but I believe your definition and my thoughts aren’t necessarily opposed. I was clumsily trying to say that DEI as is doesn’t really upset the hierarchies you mentioned, and is therefore not opposed to conservatism. Accepting the premise that in conservatism the rich are deserving of their riches because they are better, my point was that DEI actually works to solidify that class disparity because it’s mostly designed to give the appearance of inclusivity in order to attract clientele from all segments of society, thus increasing the flow of income. If DEI means diversity at the bottom of the corporate structure while maintaining a homogenous owner class at the top, which is my argument, then it’s just a tool to transfer money from the bottom to the top, while expanding the pool of money to take from the bottom through inclusivity. I think I fucked up the argument again, but hope it at least clarifies what I was trying to say a little bit.
DEI was a direct response to white supremacist social hierarchies prevalent in the US for over 250 years. Whether or not a business sees it as profitable or good for business is irrelevant.
Modern conservatism is about returning America to greatness. Go out and ask random conservatives when that was. Can you guess?
How does including qualified candidates. That would have been passed over based on culture or race. Reinforce class hierarchies? Race and culture are not classes. Though they are used by supremacist to define classes. Something DEI directly if imperfectly addresses better than anything we’ve ever tried.
But please do explain how you think a policy that directly attacks class hierarchies in horses them. And tell us what you would do that would be better. That isn’t more of the economic liberalism that’s already failed.
Go out and ask random conservatives when that was. Can you guess?
It’s always 30 years ago. 30 years ago it was still 30 years ago.
let’s not hire people from color to avoid lawsuits about racism
Awesome proposal
First the hotdogs, now this. Go Costco management, go.
Don’t forget the $5 rotisserie chicken! And paying their employees a livable wage too!
And paying their employees a livable wage too!
Honestly, that needs to be at the top of the list.
It shows that it is possible for a company to be very profitable without having to shit on its workers.
And the CEO, last I heard, doesn’t take an obscene salary… Still good pay, but not millions, more like a couple hundred thousand (that was a few years ago I heard that though so maybe that’s changed, IDK)
Hiring is one of the places DEI belongs, I only have a problem when it dictates creative endeavors.
Good on Costco. Get fucked shareholders
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.
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.
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.
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.
For as long as you’re alive anyway.
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…
Or until someone Luigi’s them during a progressive’s term. Not that that will ever happen. The progressive term, not the other thing.
We’re moving to a future where the elite will live in a fortified city where only the rich and elite can enter, while the plebs live outside the walls and luigi is just a plumber.
We already have gated communities for the wealthy…
Too small scale.
California entirely walled off. Anyone outside the walls in poverty. Anyone inside the walls, the equivalent of a decamillionaire or more. Nothing in between.
Edit: Throw in NYC on the other coast so the wealthy have a choice of coast.
If that happens, AVALANCHE won’t be far behind. Barrett, Tifa, and their friends will infiltrate and terrorize their cities till they stop killing the planet.
Some strifes call for more of a Cloud than a Luigi
In our reality, Luigi seems to be an awful lot like Cloud Strife. He’s certainly swinging around a massive
swordpopular clout.Edit: FUCK… I just made an argument for Kingdom Hearts to exist.
Going on vacation to a world with toon physics, don’t ask why I’m bringing lube and a bicycle pump.
So back to castles and seiges
But this time, the bricks are filled with coins!
I still don’t understand why everyone’s so obsessed with Dale Earnhardt, Inc. He’s been dead for over 20 years.
Reminds me of Fans Against Gordon.
Nice. Some good news for a change.
Don’t get used to it.
I like you.
Don’t get used to it.
Me too. They’re funny.
