BEST OF THE WEB
That’s similar to ExxonMobil’s
line. The oil behemoth is the only
Fortune 50 company that doesn’t
explicitly protect its employees from
discrimination due to sexual orientation, as Mobil did prior to its
merger with Exxon in 1999.
“If they’re so sure that they
don’t discriminate, we’re simply asking that they use all of the common
channels to communicate that to
the work force,” Herrschaft said.
An ExxonMobil spokesperson
did not return calls seeking comment.
ExxonMobil has faced increasing pressure from shareholders to
expand its antidiscrimination statement since the merger. A vote has
been held every year, with 28. 9 per-
policies. JPMorgan Chase, No. 11
on The 2006 DiversityInc Top 50
Companies for Diversity list, in
May was facing a vote on whether
to exclude any reference to sexual
interests, activities or orientation in
its equal-employment policy.
The resolution, submitted by
Bernhard and Helga Roegele, a New
York City couple with 189 shares,
states that “the sexual interests,
inclinations and activities of all
employees” are a private matter.
JPMorgan Chase came out
against the proposal in its proxy statement, recommending that shareholders vote against it because the request
is contrary to the company’s core values. “Diversity enhances business,”
“If they’re so sure that they don’t discriminate,
we’re simply asking that they use all of the common
channels to communicate that to the work force.”
Daryl Herrschaft, director, HRC’s Workplace Project
cent supporting a revised policy in
2004 and 29. 4 percent in 2005.
Shareholders were set to vote again
at the end of the month.
There was reason to believe that
the percentage in favor of change
would continue to rise. The Vanguard
Group, the fourth-largest institutional holder of ExxonMobil shares
(holding 149 million), announced
in December that it would vote
in favor of sexual-orientation workplace protection.
Citing leadership changes at
the company, Herrschaft said he was
optimistic about ExxonMobil. “We
hope that the company will join the
mainstream in the oil and gas
industry and ensure both in policy
and in practice that GLBT people
will be treated fairly,” he said.
Shareholder resolutions also can
aim to strip companies of inclusive
the statement reads. “Diversity
enhances a company’s ability to
attract and retain the best talent, to
identify opportunities that improve
the quality of products and services,
and to create an organization that
clients and employees are proud to be
affiliated with. Companies that can
manage and market to diverse groups
have a competitive advantage.”
Robert Hurley, an Illinois doctor who owns 674 shares of Ford
Motor Co.’s common stock, introduced a similar resolution at the
automaker. Shareholders overwhelming opposed the proposal, with 95
percent voting against it. Ford, No.
37 on The 2006 DiversityInc Top
50 Companies for Diversity list,
responded along the lines of
JPMorgan Chase in its proxy statement: “Ford, and numerous other
leading companies, believe that a
diverse workforce, free of discrimination, is the most advantageous
environment to attract and retain
talented employees and to allow
them to excel in their jobs.”
Hurley’s resolution came after
the American Family Association
reinstituted a boycott of the
automaker because of its longtime
support of the gay community.
Implementing such a proposal
would adversely affect Ford’s ability
to attract and retain top talent, the
company argues, noting that
recruiters work on college campuses
that have nondiscrimination policies
that include sexual orientation. “If
the proposal were implemented, Ford
would be excluded from recruiting at
many of the country’s finest institutions,” the company stated. “Such a
decision would prevent Ford from
recruiting the best potential employees regardless of sexual orientation.”
The bottom line: “The
Company strongly believes that its
employment policies regarding nondiscrimination are extremely beneficial to its business, its employees,
and its shareholders.”
Ford spokesperson Becky Sanch
declined to comment further. Ford
asked the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) to exclude the
proposal from its proxy statement,
but the SEC said this month that a
rule allowing companies to reject
proposals that deal with “ordinary
business operations” doesn’t apply.
Herrschaft said proposals such
as Hurley’s are unwise. “Shareholders
trying to meddle in corporate policies that are years old, that are well-founded on business principles, are
really swimming against a very
strong tide,” he said. DI
For more articles, visit us at
www.DiversityInc.com
