Tuesday, December 6th 2016
AMD Named a Best Place to Work for LGBT Equality
AMD (NASDAQ: AMD) today announced that it has received a perfect score on the Human Rights Campaign Foundation's 2017 Corporate Equality Index (CEI), naming it a "Best Place to Work for LGBT Equality". The CEI is a benchmarking tool that rates corporate equality policies and practices for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) employees including equal employment opportunity policies, non-discrimination protections, and benefits.
"At AMD we believe that creating an inclusive environment where every employee is empowered to bring their diverse set of perspectives to the table each day is the key to bringing out the best, most innovative ideas," said Ruth Cotter, chief human resources officer and senior vice president of Corporate Communications and Investor Relations at AMD. "We are proud of the progress we have made to achieve our CEI score and to be named alongside other leading companies as we collectively pursue equality for everyone in the workplace."
"Achieving a score of 100 on the CEI was one of the first goals we set when we formed the AMD Pride employee resource group. We knew it was important to continue fostering a positive, safe, and inclusive work environment and culture that accepts everyone, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation, and celebrates those differences. We have come a long way, but we know there is always more work to do. We are excited to continue working to make sure that everyone is able to bring their whole self to work every day," said Steven Guzzo, co-chair of the Pride LGBT and Allies employee resource group at AMD.
The Human Rights Campaign is the largest U.S. national civil rights organization working to achieve equality for LGBT people through education and encouraging the adoption of LGBT-inclusive policies and practices.
Some of AMD's programs and initiatives for LGBT employees include:
"At AMD we believe that creating an inclusive environment where every employee is empowered to bring their diverse set of perspectives to the table each day is the key to bringing out the best, most innovative ideas," said Ruth Cotter, chief human resources officer and senior vice president of Corporate Communications and Investor Relations at AMD. "We are proud of the progress we have made to achieve our CEI score and to be named alongside other leading companies as we collectively pursue equality for everyone in the workplace."
The Human Rights Campaign is the largest U.S. national civil rights organization working to achieve equality for LGBT people through education and encouraging the adoption of LGBT-inclusive policies and practices.
Some of AMD's programs and initiatives for LGBT employees include:
- Equal employment opportunity and non-discrimination policies that cover all facets of diversity, including sexual orientation, gender, and gender identity;
- Employee Resource Groups such as the Pride LGBT and Allies group;
- Health coverage for all U.S.-based employees that includes full benefits for domestic partners and comprehensive coverage for transgender employees;
- Member of the Business Coalition for Equality, a group of U.S. corporations that support the Equality Act.
94 Comments on AMD Named a Best Place to Work for LGBT Equality
I've seen the consequences of this; and the worst is not to have to compensate for their incapacity (I'm talking sheer stupidity in some cases) but the arrogance of someone who's being led to believe Society owns them something for being different. And Society is always white, male, heterosexual and (the horror) Christian.
Even when choosing from the " gay/black/women/whatever" pool, no one says you have to hire a moron. There are plenty of skilled people in those demographics. If you're hiring incompetent workers, it's a hiring problem, not an affirmative action symptom.
Also that is just an utter lie to say there is no law against discriminatory hiring practices, so your math as well as your fact-checking skills are equally shit...that's just a fact...jack:)
First off you point to statistics saying by the stats minority/gay/women etc may be underemployed, that may or may not be true for starters in any given instance. However by then going on to say you don't have to hire morons from that pool of minorities doesn't that beg this question....What if there aren't enough qualified applicants of the said pool to hire unless you hire someone utterly unqualified OR who is less qualified than this white young guy over here who applied?
This is why quotas (what you're talking about whether you realize it or not) DON'T and can't work. First off it's simply reversing discrimination which only keeps division alive all the more, and whether it's affirmative action specifically as you state or whatever the hell you want to call it for gays etc whatever happened to not judging a man by his character and not the color of his skin? None of this would fly if you ran it by Martin Luther King Jr., once you determine someone must be hired or NOT to fulfill a statistical need by their color, sex, race, who they screw etc, you are discriminating and this is not what freedom or what proper hiring looks like.
Period.
my answer: You do realize popular vote doesn't elect presidents? and...If you take out either California or New York Trump won popular vote big league, do you want one nutty state voting for whole country? Also, we could get into actual election fraud and illegal voting etc, but I notice you addressed nothing else I said about snowflakes and their nutty behavior, so I just assume you agree it's Kosher that adults act that way.
When I applied for a job in Emirates, they were asking stupid ridiculously question like, what's your orientation, are you friend with a gay person, are you friend with a Jew person, what's your religion, do you plan to convert to Islam religion, do you drink alcohol, do you eat meat, do you have any piercing, do you have tattoos, etc, etc. I just canceled the interview in the middle. :)
I'm not saying the current system is set up that way, because it largely isn't. The current system is indeed set up to try to make up for the "history of oppression" by hiring a disproportionate amount of the populations of said groups. I don't agree with that personally. I think programs like you are reading about here, friendly hiring practices and such, work better, along with a little gentle proportional affirmative action. But the idea that affirmative action inherently leads to "reverse discrimination" and that my two statements are contradictory is patently false.
Depending on the election, different party presidential hopeful can sway them his or her way, except for TX, CA, and NY. Personally, I want every state to have a say, not just NY and California, which a purely popular vote would do.
As it stands, my vote never counts. Why? Because I live in Washington, which votes democrat everything. Unless I vote democrat, I am literally unrepresented in the general election. Swell system...
I want every person to have a say, and the states can suck eggs.
However I'd buy the argument of never liking the electoral college except as I just posted everyone pre-election results was pounding that Trump had no path to 270 and the map was "very difficult" for any Republican and even a few commentators mentioned he could win popular vote but it doesn't matter he can't win the electoral map as it's laid out. Obviously I can't speak for your individual view on this but come on, the rules for this game are as old as the country and they are great if first woman who's a Democrat wins but when she loses it's the systems fault? That's like playing a game of football and your team gets 500 yards and 14 points with touchdowns, and the other team gets 300 yards and got 21 points with one more touchdown, well your team got more yards why didn't we win??? Sorry, game was played with rules no one groused about publicly till the game was lost. I'll have a discussion on why you're wrong about the electoral college, but don't blame it for your candidates' loss when she played the game under that set of rules with the intent to win every state she could and win every elector she could.
Also on quotas etc, I didn't say anything about likelihood of education etc, you did however make a false assessment that there should be no problem finding plenty of qualified minorities if you set quotas up right...you are making an assertion with nothing to base it on. Also that aside, I will point out you say "gentle affirmative action" what is that? Kudos you correctly point out the reverse discrimination as it's done is wrong on many levels as I point out. But when is it ever right to mandate a private business to hire people solely based on skin color however "gentle" the rules? However to me you are simply favoring a lesser form of discrimination somehow justifying it under the guise of being "fair" to....make up for " A history of oppression"? If you make any rule favor or disfavor anyone due to their sexual orientation or skin color etc, it is discrimination and again you can just throw away all of Martin Luther Jr's quotes because discrimination is wrong and immoral whoever it's against white or black, "gentle" or by Isis throwing gays off of buildings. Fixing discrimination with discrimination is no solution.
As for the election, you'll get no qualms from me that we lost, at least unless some kinda pre-electoral collage vote upset happens (really unlikely). I just don't think it should be how things are done. I've thought that since I was a young teen (yeah, Al-Gore may have had something to do with it back then, but my reasoning is more refined now).
That is the correct answer, losing is losing winning is winning. I'm fine with Democrats living in denial so they lose for another generation but I admit it grates on me to hear the whining and excuses about the system and rigging day in and day out...when these same people were badgering Trump and Republicans for months if they didn't immediately accept the election results (no matter what) we were committing something akin to treason, again the irony....yeah no need re explaining with my chainsaw vs butter knife analogy.
Here, I'll fetch a quote:What I failed to do was link them together strongly in my paragraphs.