Diversity Initiatives

Latest story

100 Shares189 Views

Under Trump, the Small Business Administration Clamps Down

by

For entrepreneurs who want a loan, a government contract or just some advice, the Small Business Administration is generally a first stop. But over the past few months, getting the agency’s help has become more difficult.Under its administrator, Kelly Loeffler, a corporate executive turned senator from Georgia and vocal supporter of President Trump, the agency has aggressively cut staff. It is rolling back changes made during the Biden administration aimed at easing access to credit for the smallest enterprises, and has lowered targets for how much the federal government should buy from them.The changes are especially problematic for Black, Hispanic and immigrant entrepreneurs. In the name of eradicating diversity, equity and inclusion practices, the Small Business Administration is shedding programs aimed at helping disadvantaged businesses, including those run by women.While banks that administer the S.B.A.’s major loan programs have welcomed some of the changes, Democrats and small-business advocates have decried them — especially as the agency is also supposed to inherit a $1.66 trillion student loan portfolio from the largely dismantled Education Department.“It’s unconscionable that the Trump administration would treat such a vital agency so callously,” said Senator Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. He noted that Ms. Loeffler had ignored his requests for information about the changes. “They’re destroying the areas where they do have expertise and it’s vital to invest, and then moving over areas where the agency is going to wind up overwhelmed,” Mr. Markey said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

More stories

  • 150 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Trump’s Attacks on DEI Get Approval From Some in the Left Wing

    by

    Many Democrats and activists are rallying to defend diversity programs, but others say they distract from deeper efforts to address inequality.A few days after President Trump issued an order urging the private sector to end “Illegal D.E.I. Discrimination and Preferences,” the Rev. Al Sharpton led about 100 people into a Costco in East Harlem for a so-called buy-cott. The idea was to shop and support the company for maintaining its diversity, equity and inclusion policies amid pressure from the new administration.But the gesture by the civil rights activist did not win universal acclaim on the political left. In interviews, self-identified socialists and other leftists worried that Mr. Sharpton’s action helped bolster the company at a moment when it faced pressure from unionized workers, who had threatened to strike beginning Feb. 1.“Al Sharpton making Costco into a titan of progress that needs mass support days before a potential strike,” Bhaskar Sunkara, the president of the progressive magazine The Nation, grumbled on the platform X.The episode at Costco, which did not respond to a request for comment, illustrates an underappreciated tension on the left at a time when Mr. Trump has targeted diversity initiatives: Some on the left have expressed skepticism of such programs, portraying them as a diversion from attacking economic inequality — and even an obstacle to doing so.“I am definitely happy this stuff is buried for now,” Mr. Sunkara said in an interview. “I hope it doesn’t come back.”Corporate-backed initiatives promoting diversity can take various forms. Starbucks, for instance, pledges to “work hard to ensure our hiring practices are competitive, fair and inclusive” and says it is “committed to consistently achieving 100 percent gender and race pay equity.” It also offers anti-bias training.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 75 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Can a Tech Giant Be Woke?

    by

    The December day in 2021 that set off a revolution across the videogame industry appeared to start innocuously enough. Managers at a Wisconsin studio called Raven began meeting one by one with quality assurance testers, who vet video games for bugs, to announce that the company was overhauling their department. Going forward, managers said, the lucky testers would be permanent employees, not temps. They would earn an extra $1.50 an hour.It was only later in the morning, a Friday, that the catch became apparent: One-third of the studio’s roughly 35 testers were being let go as part of the overhaul. The workers were stunned. Raven was owned by Activision Blizzard, one of the industry’s largest companies, and there appeared to be plenty of work to go around. Several testers had just worked late into the night to meet a looming deadline.“My friend called me crying, saying, ‘I just lost my job,’” recalled Erin Hall, one of the testers who stayed on. “None of us saw that coming.”The testers conferred with one another over the weekend and announced a strike on Monday. Just after they returned to work seven weeks later, they filed paperwork to hold a union election. Raven never rehired the laid-off workers, but the other testers won their election in May 2022, forming the first union at a major U.S. video game company.It was at this point that the rebellion took a truly unusual turn. Large American companies typically challenge union campaigns, as Activision had at Raven. But in this case, Activision’s days as the sole decision maker were numbered. In January 2022, Microsoft had announced a nearly $70 billion deal to purchase the video game maker, and the would-be owners seemed to take a more permissive view of labor organizing.The month after the union election, Microsoft announced that it would stay neutral if any of Activision’s roughly 7,000 eligible employees sought to unionize with the Communications Workers of America — meaning the company would not try to stop the organizing, unlike most employers. Microsoft later said that it would extend the deal to studios it already owned.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More