Herman Miller, Steelcase, Whirlpool among companies ranked perfect for LGBT policies

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

Illustration courtesy Chicago Tribune

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Eight Michigan companies have earned perfect scores for having inclusive, non-discrimination policies for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers.

The businesses are Dow Chemical, Dykema Gossett, Ford Motor, General Motors, Herman Miller, Kellogg, Steelcase and Whirlpool. They are among 407 companies across the U.S. to get the highest ranking.

The rankings were released this week by the Human Rights Campaign, a national LGBT advocacy group. The survey focused on non-discrimination policies, employment benefits, demonstrated accountability around LGBT diversity and inclusion and other categories.

Fair Michigan, a group pursuing a state constitutional amendment to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, is applauding the companies but says there are still too many Michigan businesses without inclusive policies.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


    • Heisenblergh

      And thanks to your comment, we now know who’s an a-hole. Also, aren’t you supposed to be over on KKO’s disqus channel there, commonsense? Did you give up the fight over there or something?

      • Commonsense

        No idea what kko is. I do know that anyone who supports the homosexual lifestyle and them forcing their perversion on the rest of us is no one I want to do business with.

      • Commonsense

        As I said, I prefer to deal with companies who do not support homosexuality. If you choose to support the sinners you support the sin.

        • Mel Lewis

          Then you better quit using Facebook, your computer, Honey Maid brand, etc. etc. etc., because there are many companies across the nation that you support with your dollars by purchasing them in grocery stores, vehicles, and many, many more. Just do a google search, and you’ll see just who you’re supporting. Since you don’t know how it works, I took the opportunity to do the search for you. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=LGBT+friendly+companies

          • Commonsense

            Actually, I already choose not to do business with many gay friendly companies. And since I am sure my IQ is far superior to yours I don’t require your help searching the internet.

          • Darryn F.

            Hmmm…I see “human right” instead of “human rights”, and I see you referring to an individual with a plural pronoun as well. So your literacy is indeed legitimately called into question. And since it follows logically that someone with limited literacy skills will be less able to fully comprehend issues in written formats like this one, establishing a lack of literacy is a de facto legitimate diminishment of your credibility.
            That said, since we are discussing equality and fairness, it should be pointed out that singling out and ranking business entities based on social criteria (not business criteria) is itself unfair.

            What is worse though, is that it is largely misleading. The implication here is that these companies actively pursue the goals reflected by these policies, but nobody has shown that to be the case. It may very well be that these companies happen to have already had a history of employing LGBT people because they all operate in a part of the state with a statistically high LGBT population percentage. It is likely, extremely probable in fact, that the adoption of these policies had absolutely no effect on any part of operations or business practices whatsoever, and that they have been adopted NOT because these companies are actively and independently concerned about social issues but rather in response to an opportunity to make it appear as if they are. These companies HAVE to be LGBT friendly given where they are located simply in order to maintain the staffing level they need to do business. The adoption of official policies reflecting something that you are doing anyway is hardly praise-worthy, and in this case should be seen for what it really is…companies publically using a serious social issue that they happen to find themselves coincidentally on the popular side of in order to get some free good PR.

            And you are all falling for it.

  • Kevin Rahe

    I wouldn’t make employment decisions based on the attractions someone experiences or the relationships they engage in, but offering same-sex partners the same benefits as married spouses does the latter an injustice.

    • Mel Lewis

      Um, you do know that they passed marriage equality, right? Even if a company does offer same sex benefits, it’s their business. I also don’t see how it would be an injustice to offer benefits to anyone’s significant other, whether straight or gay.

      • Kevin Rahe

        There are a lot of things people fail to see these days, especially in relation to marriage, so take comfort that you’re not alone.

        Before asking the first question about employment benefits, it’s best to set aside the whole LGBT issue, which takes the emotions out of it, and simply ask how an employer offering benefits to spouses and dependents of married employees is fair to single employees. After all, Dave and Bob might be doing the exact same job, but if Bob is married and Dave is not, then a larger percentage of the benefits both of their efforts contribute to go to Bob than to Dave. How is that fair? The answer is that when Dave gets to the point that he wants to retire, it’s likely that Bob will be the one who makes that possible by providing someone to take over Dave’s job. It will also be Bob who contributes people to society that Dave will need to re-roof his house, plow his driveway and help him rehabilitate after a knee replacement. To do that Bob will have had to give up some of the luxuries that Dave had plenty of money for, which makes it fair for Bob to have gotten a greater share of those company benefits in the first place.

        Now enter an employee with a same-sex partner. If the employer gives benefits to that partner, that is unfair to Dave because they’re no more likely to contribute people to take over his job or provide him services when he retires than he is all by himself. And it’s unfair to Bob because those same-sex partners are going to dilute the pool of benefits available to all employees, meaning that given level spending on employee benefits, Bob and his family will benefit less than they would if same-sex partners were not granted benefits. Not only are those same-sex couples no more likely than a single person to make the contributions to society that Bob and his wife likely will, but unlike Bob’s wife, the same-sex partner likely has as much opportunity to be educated and develop a high-paying career and get good employee benefits themselves as any other single person.

      • Kevin Rahe

        By the way, I wouldn’t put too much stock in Obergefell. I’ve already gotten one member of the U.S. House who hasn’t directly opposed the decision to publicly disavow a key provision of it after pointing out how illogical it is. I would wager I could do the same with anyone in Congress. THE – DECISION – WILL – NOT – ENDURE.


    A simple DNA test will answer all questions.
    If you have a Johnson between you legs even of you pretend to be female, you are male.
    Where I work we have two “men” who identify as women and use the women restroom. We had to install rubber gaskets on the doors and seal the stalls because these fake women were peaking at the real women and taking pictures with their I phones.
    And, as a father of two daughters, the first time a male who wants to pretend he’s female walks into a restroom or changing room when my daughter(s) are using that restroom, are going wish they hadn’t. damn the consequence, somethings are just wrong and a night in jail would be worth it.
    My kids come first before some PC bullshit.

    • Kevin Rahe

      I don’t have a problem with an employer or a business that serves the public that wants to accommodate someone who’s uncomfortable using restroom or locker room facilities designated for people of their biological sex. It is when such a business obliges EVERYONE ELSE to COOPERATE in that accommodation unwillingly and especially unwittingly that it becomes a problem.