39 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Well obviously it is my choice. I was getting at the larger implication of shareholder sentiment if they don't squash this like a bug. There are a few million people with their fingers about to hit the sell button if this goes bad.

 

Like it or not the military is one of the largest growth areas in business. If MSFT won't deal with the military they have just limited a great amount of potential growth. All that sweet sweet tax payer money.

Other investors will love it when Microsoft declares to stop military orders.

27 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

repurpose

I rest my case

 

Is that similar to recursion?

10 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Yeah they should show their bravery and moral stance by resigning

They may do that if management doesn't listen to them.

6 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Other investors will love it when Microsoft declares to stop military orders.

 

The military and the government are the biggest money there is. There will not be a rush to buy the stock if Microsoft  says no to many billions of dollars of growth opportunity. The market doesn't work that way. Maybe shares of Ben & Jerry's trade like that but not large cap tech.

 

One of the easiest way to identify stocks that will move up is to scan for news on military contracts. If the market was a casino then the military and government are that loud stupid billionaire who loses money every time he makes a move. That kind of customer is what you want.

 

Also the anti-military complex folks like AOC are unlikely to buy stocks or be able to even afford them.

 

Edited February 23, 20197 yr by Cryingdick

6 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

The military and the government are the biggest money there is. There will not be a rush to buy the stock if Microsoft  says no to many billions of dollars of growth opportunity. The market doesn't work that way. Maybe shares of Ben & Jerry's trade like that but not large cap tech.

 

One of the easiest way to identify stocks that will move up is to scan for news on military contracts. If the market was a casino then the military and government are that loud stupid billionaire who loses money every time he makes a move. That kind of customer is what you want.

 

Also the anti-military complex folks like AOC are unlikely to buy stocks or be able to even afford them.

 

How very American!

36 minutes ago, Grouse said:

How very American!

Only if they sue! 

11 hours ago, keith101 said:

Microsoft employees are paid to do a job and paid very well so if they don't like their job they have the option of finding another job not dictating what they do .

Perhaps microsoft employees, an international company dedicated to improve technologies

that enhance human communication to all the world feel uncomfortable that they are also now employees of the US military.

 

4 hours ago, Grouse said:

Rednecks will never understand pointy heads. Successfully managing and motivating extremely talented staff requires great guile. You think money motivates them? Environment is far more important. 

Thai motivation tool No.1

 

4 hours ago, Hayduke said:

 

Wonder how many of these highly principled people will carry the noble fight further and refuse to pay income taxes.

 

 

What? Are you for real. They are not tax dodgers. They expressed the notion that they are not employed by the military.

They have no issue with promoting communications with the rest of the world (in a non military way)

 If US asks these highly skilled workers to be part of a military organisation, that seems acceptable.

But to ask normal non military and non global expansionists to start to do military service in

what is a global inclusive organisation is beyond the pale. Good on them.

I hope some will be offered a better pay rate in the military than they currently get.

Microsoft should not be a stooge for US military. That has never been its mandate 

The article is  inaccurate about the stock. It trades at $110.97 and hasn't lost 7 cents. $117.97 is in fact above what Microsoft's historical all time high is. In fact the opposite happened and MSFT actually has rallied to it's highest close since December 3rd. This is some shoddy reporting by Reuters. 

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/msft?ltr=1

 

Here is a better article which includes the employees letter and a response from Microsoft. 

 

https://www.recode.net/2019/2/22/18236290/microsoft-military-contract-augmented-reality-ar-vr

 

TLDR, 

 

We appreciate your letter but when it comes to money the State Department owns the world now get back to work.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 23, 20197 yr by Cryingdick

1 hour ago, Prissana Pescud said:

What? Are you for real. They are not tax dodgers. They expressed the notion that they are not employed by the military.

They have no issue with promoting communications with the rest of the world (in a non military way)

 If US asks these highly skilled workers to be part of a military organisation, that seems acceptable.

But to ask normal non military and non global expansionists to start to do military service in

what is a global inclusive organisation is beyond the pale. Good on them.

I hope some will be offered a better pay rate in the military than they currently get.

Microsoft should not be a stooge for US military. That has never been its mandate 

Microsoft is currently dueling with Amazon for a $10 Billion cloud computing contract with the Pentagon. This story is just a part of the daily filler for the 12 people who still visit this website..

Edited February 23, 20197 yr by lannarebirth

58 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

The article is  inaccurate about the stock. It trades at $110.97 and hasn't lost 7 cents. $117.97 is in fact above what Microsoft's historical all time high is. In fact the opposite happened and MSFT actually has rallied to it's highest close since December 3rd. This is some shoddy reporting by Reuters. 

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/msft?ltr=1

 

Here is a better article which includes the employees letter and a response from Microsoft. 

 

https://www.recode.net/2019/2/22/18236290/microsoft-military-contract-augmented-reality-ar-vr

 

TLDR, 

 

We appreciate your letter but when it comes to money the State Department owns the world now get back to work.

 

 

 

 

 

Sigh

7 minutes ago, Prissana Pescud said:

Sigh

 

Sorry to correct a glaring error in the article and offer another source on the matter. 

Edited February 23, 20197 yr by Cryingdick

1 hour ago, Prissana Pescud said:

What? Are you for real. They are not tax dodgers. They expressed the notion that they are not employed by the military.

They have no issue with promoting communications with the rest of the world (in a non military way)

 If US asks these highly skilled workers to be part of a military organisation, that seems acceptable.

But to ask normal non military and non global expansionists to start to do military service in

what is a global inclusive organisation is beyond the pale. Good on them.

I hope some will be offered a better pay rate in the military than they currently get.

Microsoft should not be a stooge for US military. That has never been its mandate 

 

Military service? they will simply be private contractors to the military. Nobody is being drafted.

15 hours ago, keith101 said:

Microsoft employees are paid to do a job and paid very well so if they don't like their job they have the option of finding another job not dictating what they do .

Turkeys voting for Christmas.

10 hours ago, Grouse said:

The pointy heads have an absolute right not to work on military projects. Very brave and moral stance. Well done!

They have an absolute right to take a REAL moral stance and RESIGN ! But no want to stay in the comfort zone and keep collecting rewards !

Todays Pointy Heads are Yesterday Pampered Wets. Not Nam Era real Men with an allegiance to the Flag, just Cannabis.

12 minutes ago, john ianson said:

They have an absolute right to take a REAL moral stance and RESIGN ! But no want to stay in the comfort zone and keep collecting rewards !

 

Probably all too young to remember Muhammad Ali and what a principled stand looks like.

17 hours ago, keith101 said:

Microsoft employees are paid to do a job and paid very well so if they don't like their job they have the option of finding another job not dictating what they do .

The majority of MS employees would be shareholders so perfectly entitled to express their opinion as the Executive have confirmed. Also Executive have confirmed the staff who have raised the issue can apply to be transferred to alternate roles. However, upon reading the staff complaint letter it is evident the staff view the reutilisation of the tool from civilian use to combat training goers beyond the remit of the original product development with which they are very upset - fair enough. Accordingly, IMO, MS should establish a Business Unit specifically tasked for the development of military use software with it's own P/L, thereby minimising staff ethical conflict / morale concerns.

Edited February 23, 20197 yr by simple1

16 minutes ago, simple1 said:

The majority of MS employees would be shareholders so perfectly entitled to express their opinion as the Executive have confirmed. Also Executive have confirmed the staff who have raised the issue can apply to be transferred to alternate roles. However, upon reading the staff complaint letter it is evident the staff view the reutilisation of the tool from civilian use to combat training goers beyond the remit of the original product development with which they are very upset - fair enough. Accordingly, IMO, MS should establish a Business Unit specifically tasked for the development of military use software with it's own P/L, thereby minimising staff ethical conflict / morale concerns.

 

The majority of shareholders however are not Microsoft employees. Microsoft has a legal obligation to its shareholders. Any corporate policy stating that MSFT will not do business with the military would basically violate this. 

 

Even Buffett said in the past that he only builds wind generators on massive scales in places like Iowa is because of the tax incentives. He said that the government policy is a bit nuts but he has a legal obligation to his shareholders to maximize all available tax advantages that he can.

 

This is really no different. Shareholders do get to vote and the employees can feel free to exercise their rights to have a say as shareholders in that avenue.

Edited February 23, 20197 yr by Cryingdick

Dear US Army,

 

Switch to Mac OsX if you do not want those big ICBM nukehead birds to accidently take off !! ????

35 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

The majority of shareholders however are not Microsoft employees. Microsoft has a legal obligation to its shareholders. Any corporate policy stating that MSFT will not do business with the military would basically violate this. 

 

Even Buffett said in the past that he only builds wind generators on massive scales in places like Iowa is because of the tax incentives. He said that the government policy is a bit nuts but he has a legal obligation to his shareholders to maximize all available tax advantages that he can.

 

This is really no different. Shareholders do get to vote and the employees can feel free to exercise their rights to have a say as shareholders in that avenue.

 

Amorality is a not a baseline legal obligation to shareholders.

1 hour ago, HAKAPALITA said:

Todays Pointy Heads are Yesterday Pampered Wets. Not Nam Era real Men with an allegiance to the Flag, just Cannabis.

We have enough evidence that being of the ‘Nam Era’ and being a ‘real man’ are not mutually inclusive, let alone ‘allegiance to the Flag’.

8 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

The military and the government are the biggest money there is. There will not be a rush to buy the stock if Microsoft  says no to many billions of dollars of growth opportunity. The market doesn't work that way. Maybe shares of Ben & Jerry's trade like that but not large cap tech.

 

One of the easiest way to identify stocks that will move up is to scan for news on military contracts. If the market was a casino then the military and government are that loud stupid billionaire who loses money every time he makes a move. That kind of customer is what you want.

 

Also the anti-military complex folks like AOC are unlikely to buy stocks or be able to even afford them.

 

Book mark that and we’ll come back to it the next time you’re on an anti socialism pro free market rant. 

7 hours ago, kannot said:

Thai motivation tool No.1

 

I once interviewed a neural network pointy head for a job in Winchester. Exceedingly bright. Asked what his ambition was he said "to be able to sit under a tree and think"! He got the job.

2 hours ago, HAKAPALITA said:

Todays Pointy Heads are Yesterday Pampered Wets. Not Nam Era real Men with an allegiance to the Flag, just Cannabis.

Deary me

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

 

The majority of shareholders however are not Microsoft employees. Microsoft has a legal obligation to its shareholders. Any corporate policy stating that MSFT will not do business with the military would basically violate this. 

 

Even Buffett said in the past that he only builds wind generators on massive scales in places like Iowa is because of the tax incentives. He said that the government policy is a bit nuts but he has a legal obligation to his shareholders to maximize all available tax advantages that he can.

 

This is really no different. Shareholders do get to vote and the employees can feel free to exercise their rights to have a say as shareholders in that avenue.

Shareholder value and quarterly results are the ONLY things many Americans care about.

13 hours ago, Grouse said:

The pointy heads have an absolute right not to work on military projects. Very brave and moral stance. Well done!

The company should also have the right to assign them to that work and fire them if they refuse. Should not just work one way.

7 minutes ago, Trouble said:

The company should also have the right to assign them to that work and fire them if they refuse. Should not just work one way.

Where did you take your MBA?

5 minutes ago, Trouble said:

The company should also have the right to assign them to that work and fire them if they refuse. Should not just work one way.

Sure the company could do that.

 

I’m guessing you don’t really understand the environment of creativity, cooperation and ‘ownership’ successful IT companies invest in and foster.

 

But as you say they could just fire people, it works when running a car wash or taxi business, why not with a world leading IT corporate?!