6mo ago

Costco shareholders overwhelmingly reject anti-DEI proposal

www.businessinsider.com Costco shareholders overwhelmingly reject anti-DEI proposal

Costco shareholders voted down an anti-DEI proposal just days after President Donald Trump issued sweeping new rules for federal agencies.

Summary

Costco shareholders voted overwhelmingly (98%) against a proposal by a conservative think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research, to assess risks linked to the company's diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.

Costco’s board supported DEI initiatives, dismissing the proposal as partisan and unnecessary.

This rejection contrasts with trends in other companies scaling back DEI efforts.

The vote comes amid new federal rules from Trump targeting DEI initiatives in federal agencies, potentially impacting private vendors working with the government.

You're viewing a single thread.

180 comments

A corporation not being absolute trash. Let's hope they deal fairly with their unionized employees.
- Not just the corporation, but their shareholders. Republicans have been worshipping at the altar of Shareholder Value since the 80's.
  Here you go, these shareholders just told you what they value! Will Republicans listen?
  
  Narrator: The Republican politicians did not listen.
  
  I want Samuel L for my narrator on this one.
  
  Say “what” again.
  Say “what” again.
  
  Not just the corporation, but their shareholders.
  The "shareholders" are mostly just Vanguard/Black Rock/etc. mutual fund managers who always vote for whatever the board recommends. So yes, just the corporation.
  Shareholder revolts against board proposals are exceedingly rare, and basically only happen when some individual rich fuck owns way too many shares.
  
  Right, but those mutual fund managers don't just vote "yes" because they aren't paying attention. If anything, they are paying lots of attention, and get special treatment, since they own so much of the company, and were likely consulted ahead of this move.
  And they are most definitely not bleeding-heart liberals. If they voted for this proposal it's because they think it will lead to better outcomes for the company.
  
  If anything, they are paying lots of attention, and get special treatment, since they own so much of the company
  Let's be clear about this: the fund managers own nothing. They are employed to manage the mutual funds that other people -- you and me and everybody else with a retirement account -- actually own. They disenfranchise us, the actual owners.
  (Yes, technically, it's true that the individual company shares are owned by the corporate entity of the mutual fund itself, and that what the mom & pop investors technically own shares in that fund. But that does not make it fair to say that anybody but the mom & pop investors deserve to vote the individual company shares, because it's their money that's being used for the whole thing!)
  And they are most definitely not bleeding-heart liberals. If they voted for this proposal it’s because they think it will lead to better outcomes for the company.
  If keeping DEI is better, why didn't they demand it for all the other corporations whose boards didn't propose keeping it? The answer is, again, the fund managers almost always just rubber-stamp the board. To claim that fund managers are actually forming their own opinion on the efficacy of DEI and influencing corporate governance accordingly is simply not true.
  In theory, mutual fund managers are acting on mutual fund share holders' behalf. In practice, "shareholders" of most large corporations are effectively asleep at the wheel -- the investment industry literally calls shares held in index funds "dumb money" -- and boards of directors can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want. In the era of huge mutual funds, especially index funds where the even the choice of which companies to own shares in is no longer a feedback mechanism, the check & balance of shareholder control is basically broken.
  The fix is "pass-through voting," by the way:
  https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2024/04/17/pass-through-voting-giving-individual-investors-a-voice-in-corporate-governance/
  https://www.morningstar.com/funds/new-proxy-voting-options-ivv-other-index-funds-blackrock-state-street-vanguard
  
  To claim that fund managers are actually forming their own opinion on the efficacy of DEI and influencing corporate governance accordingly is simply not true.
  That may a fair take, but take a moment to turn that around. The fact that fund managers are not forming their own opinion against the efficacy of DEI and influencing corporate governance accordingly is a sign that it's simply not as harmful as Republicans let on, and may actually be helpful. Because they know how to wield that influence if they feel they need to in order to preserve their funds' value.
  
  I didn't say not forming their own opinion "against;" I said "on" -- i.e., not forming their own opinion about the topic at all, in either direction. It is not an argument that can be "turned around" in the way you claim.
  When boards oppose DEI, fund managers support the board. When boards support DEI, fund managers support the board. My point this entire time has been that there is no influence being wielded here. The companies that are cancelling DEI policies are doing so on their own boards'/execs' initiative with no meaningful shareholder control, and the companies that are keeping DEI policies are likewise doing so on their own boards'/execs' initiative with no meaningful shareholder control.
  
  I hadn't thought about it quite like this before, so thank you for your comment
  
  Obligatory fuck Reagan
  
  Republicans: Not like that.
  
  YoU sAy ShArEhOlDeRs, I sAy RaDicAl LeFt OpErAtIvEs

180 comments

Say “what” again.