Reply #45: They did change policy

[jono]

specifically in regard to this piece of legislation, and Microsoft is engaging in dishonest word play when they try to claim otherwise. Ballmer's email stated, "The anti-discrimination bill was not on this list {of legislative priorities} and as a result Microsoft was not actively supporting the bill in the Legislature this year, although last year we did provide a letter of support for similar legislation...."

The email doesn't mention that they had provided a letter of support not just last year, but for many years before that. Nor does it mention that word did not trickle down to employees who on February 1 testified in front of the house State Government Operations and Accountability committee that DeLee Shoemaker, the man responsible for state-level government affairs for Microsoft, had already written a letter in support this year.

Even if Microsoft did not have a history of offering letters of support for this legislation for many years, it is still a change in corporate policy to offer a letter of support for the bill one year and not to offer the same letter of support for the same bill the following year (just because the corporate policy is in regards to a governmental policy doesn't make the corporate policy fundamentally any less corporate). Call it a change, call it "neutralization" as Microsoft does, whatever. The fact is that the support was there in previous years and it was not there this year.

It does not matter whether or not Microsoft was petitioned, what matters is the actions the company takes. In the past the company has taken actions that have won them awards from progessive organizations, and now they are no longer taking those same actions.

What do you suggest is "the first step in changing the process"?