Cooper is hoping that other companies can learn from Goldman’s example and open up a dialogue with employees, even if it isn’t easy: “We all have to get comfortable being uncomfortable.”
Now the rest of the LinkedIn team has gotten in on the act, trumping up Edith Cooper’s race discussion at Goldman Sachs. If you remember from my prior article, Edith Cooper is the “global head of human capital management” at Goldman. She is seen above having a discussion in a conference room with several other Goldman employees, notably CEO Lloyd Blankfein, at the far left of the panel in the photo. Blankfein has been a Hillary supporter for years, and has been donating heavily to her campaign since she first ran against Obama in 2008. It would take a search of OpenSecrets.org to see exactly how much has been donated by Blankfein, but no such distinctions are made for DNC or other PAC donations by Blankfein, so it is much more difficult to know how much he has personally contributed to her cause. However, notably absent from this discussion is anything regarding Donald Trump, or how all Goldman employees, not just partners, risk termination if found to have contributed to his campaign.
So here you have the CEO of Goldman, at a roundtable discussion on race with one of the other heads of the firm, trying to foster discussion, but surreptitiously doing everything they can to stifle it at the same time. That is because, as I previously stated, Goldman Sachs employees, and not just partners, are fired for donating to Trump’s campaign, but not for donating to Hillary’s. So, a lot of Trump supporters at Goldman refuse to discuss their Trump support, out of fear of being terminated. So much for “promoting” discussion, right?
It seems Goldman is truly concerned – not with race, but with appearances and control. They want to appear to be progressive, forward looking, and fair, but they are more concerned with controlling their employees discussions, and holding sway and control over whoever wins the Presidency. It is important to recall that Trump has not taken any funds from Goldman, but Clinton has taken over $675,000 in Goldman speaking fees alone, not counting other donations.
It truly shows that not just the employees at Goldman, but the editors at LinkedIn and plenty of other MSM outlets, are all trying to show how Goldman is being progressive and trying to encourage discussion. But, behind the closed doors of their offices, any discussion of Trump among employees is likely nonexistent, or only done in extreme confidence.
I suppose Goldman would prefer a throwback to the prior election, where they were able to donate heavily to BOTH candidates, and weren’t shut out by the candidate willing to speak the truth about surreptitious corporate donations and business practices.