How do you feel about companies being political?

[DawnM]

I guess every company has the right to do what they want with politics, but sometimes I just want to buy the product and not make it political, even if I happen to agree with the politics involved.

Am I over-reacting?

[Negin]

No, you're not overreacting. I'm tired of hearing everyone's opinions about politics and quite frankly, I think that it's unprofessional for companies to get politics involved. My attitude: Stay quiet and sell the product or provide the service. 

[PrincessMommy]

6 minutes ago, DawnM said:

I guess every company has the right to do what they want with politics, but sometimes I just want to buy the product and not make it political, even if I happen to agree with the politics involved.

Am I over-reacting?

I agree.  I'd rather not know.   

[Farrar]

I'm overall not bothered by it. But I've not had a company I really like do anything I found boycottable or anything like that. The companies I avoid I already didn't love or have nearly the same thing alternatives so it's an easy choice for me.

Even companies that espouse messages I agree with often do other things I dislike. I do think it's becoming more political for companies. Some of it is the political climate. But some of it is that they're using politics to try to get your brand loyalty so that you'll become a brand evangelist because their politics are "good". That was untapped much in the past and increasingly companies are using politics to try and tap it.

[scholastica]

Totally agree. Stay out of it. Just make a great product at a fair price. I don’t buy or not buy based on politics and it just gets icky.

[Farrar]

I guess I'm not swayed by politics I agree with and don't see companies in my area or that I would normally use anyway espousing views I disagree with very often. So it's just like advertising to me. Something I try to be savvy about.

[HomeAgain]

I find it hard to separate.  I mean, let me see if I can explain well. Politics affect all of us, and company decisions.  It's a country that is supposed to be run by representatives of the people, and that includes those who run companies and expect things to go in their favor.  So, they're all political.  It only bothers me when they directly advocate against human rights using the money they got from me, without being upfront that I would be indirectly supporting that.  If they're going to lobby and try to take rights from people, I'd like to know in advance.

[Janeway]

I agree 100% with you.

 

I hate it also, when people in Hollywood start in with their "vote who I support or you should not be allowed to vote or watch my shows" bit. It is disgusting. They claim to be all about democracy, but then say that anyone who doesn't vote for their candidate should not be allowed to vote. 

[ktgrok]

13 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:

I find it hard to separate.  I mean, let me see if I can explain well. Politics affect all of us, and company decisions.  It's a country that is supposed to be run by representatives of the people, and that includes those who run companies and expect things to go in their favor.  So, they're all political.  It only bothers me when they directly advocate against human rights using the money they got from me, without being upfront that I would be indirectly supporting that.  If they're going to lobby and try to take rights from people, I'd like to know in advance.

This. I don't want to support a company that is actively lobbying to harm my community. I have no problem with them being upfront about that, and appreciate the heads up. 

[DawnM]

14 minutes ago, Janeway said:

I agree 100% with you.

 

I hate it also, when people in Hollywood start in with their "vote who I support or you should not be allowed to vote or watch my shows" bit. It is disgusting. They claim to be all about democracy, but then say that anyone who doesn't vote for their candidate should not be allowed to vote. 

 

I haven't heard them say that.  Interesting. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

I know that companies can be political in supporting certain candidates or lobbies but unless I were to look it up, how would I know?  Do most make their views "in your face" in some way?  And how?  Is it in ads or posters or something like that?  (The only ones I have heard of have been ones where it seems like their store/product is apolitical but people have gotten up in arms regarding the views of the owner.) 

[happi duck]

I don't like when a parent company takes a political stance which then hurts franchise owners.

If there is not a franchise situation and the politics aren't hidden then I don't mind. 

If things are up front then I can make an informed decision.

[Carrie12345]

For me, it depends on how one defines political, and then to what degree. A company that proudly sends money to causes that hurt my children, for example, isn’t a company I want to give my money to then, in turn, send to those causes.  Is that political? Many would say yes. I call it exercising my humanity through my household’s hard earned dollars.

It can be exhausting. And I do make moral compromises I’m uncomfortable with. But at least there are a million other ways to get chicken.

[KathyBC]

When companies support charities, even that can get political. If Wendy's supports the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption, for example, no problem. But I haven't bought a bottle of Yellowtail wine since they donated money to more extreme animal rights.

[Annie G]

I usually don’t let it bother me but after the last election Bill Penzey got so obnoxious that we stopped buying from Penzey’s.  It was difficult for me- I loved Penzeys and really looked forward to the store visits. But he was just...insulting.  (and I didn’t even vote for the guy he hated!) 

Spice House has the same quality without the politics and I’m happier buying from them.  Same family too- I bet their family gatherings are interesting!

[Farrar]

Obviously we can't get too specific about politics, but I feel more politically courted than anything else by companies these days. Especially by large corporations airing emotional messaging ads. The companies that I'm unwilling to support because of their "louder" political stances simply aren't that big overall. I wonder if most of the folks who are complaining are just more likely to be on the other side of the aisle from me or if it's just genuinely that people don't want politics with their razors, shoes, coffee, etc.

[alisoncooks]

I'd rather not know. I buy what I buy based on the merit of the product, not the beliefs of the CEO/creator/president/ etc. 

[Farrar]

5 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I don't want politics in my razors.  I care more about whether or not my razor gives me red bumps than who else uses them.  I care more about whether or not my kids shoes are going to fall apart before they outgrow them, than I do about who they put on their commercials.  I take my kids to Chick Fil A because they have a play place that my kids can run off energy in when it's a million degrees outside.....not because they are closed on Sunday.  

See, to me, it's not that I care per se. Like, I won't go to places that don't think I or my friends should have certain rights because that's a no brainer to me.

The emotional tugs stuff - the women are great, America is the best, we support teachers, etc. kind of stuff is more interesting to me as a sort of advertising ploy. Like, it's not any more or less "annoying" to me than advertising in general. Everything they do is just to manipulate you. Like, to me, a company putting the military in their ad isn't significantly different than them using bright colors to draw your eye or flashy food photography to try and make things look better than they are. So I'm not bothered by it any more than I'm bothered by any other advertising techniques.

But to people who think, say, that the sentiment is offensive, then maybe that's as offensive as the "we're lobbying as a company to take away your rights" companies.

[Farrar]

1 minute ago, happysmileylady said:

I think that generally..............."the media" isn't real life.  And by "The Media" I mean pretty much most of the anecdotes on the news or online.

So for me, "places that don't think I or my friends should have certain rights" don't often exist in my *real life.*  I am not in any way suggesting that such things don't exist, of course I am not suggesting that.  But, to use the cake shop/gay wedding "issue" (for lack of a better word....is there one?)  As a occasional wedding vendor myself, I have never actually encountered such a thing.  I have photographed weddings.  My sister used to own a cake shop.  I can't count the number of bridal shows/wedding conventions that myself, my sister, or both, have attended.  Never have we ever actually met someone IRL who would refuse to serve a same sex wedding.  Do those things happen?  OF COURSE.  But in every day life of most people, I just don't find them common. 

But, I feel like more and more, companies are playing to those uncommon situations, and making political issues much more of a *thing* than they actually are to the average person.  The concept of "if you aren't outraged, then you aren't paying attention" seems to have become an advertising engine.  

And that....I don't like.  

 

 

I put the B in LGBTQ and have LGBTQ+ friends. There are businesses that specifically lobby for LGBTQ folks to not have the right to marry (even now), not to have the right to adopt, not to have the right to serve in the military. I'm also a woman and consider access to birth control and abortion a right. There are businesses that lobby against those. I do not consider those things unusual situations.

I'm not talking about cakes.

[gardenmom5]

1 hour ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

I know that companies can be political in supporting certain candidates or lobbies but unless I were to look it up, how would I know?  Do most make their views "in your face" in some way?  And how?  Is it in ads or posters or something like that?  (The only ones I have heard of have been ones where it seems like their store/product is apolitical but people have gotten up in arms regarding the views of the owner.) 

One company puts their message on their product containers. Almost every customer gets one of those containers. 

[Farrar]

7 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I am not talking about cakes specifically either.  I was using it as an example because yes, cakes have become a political issue.  As have shoes and chicken sandwiches.

If a company getting political bugs you, you can organize/boycott/tweet at them. But companies have always been political in some ways. They've just become more visible about it now. Don't like the Penzey's packages, just don't buy them. Ya know? It's working for them as a business strategy though and so they'll probably keep doing it, no matter what you think.

When a company is aligning themselves with a certain image but not really doing anything, I could genuinely care less. Like, I definitely care about toxic masculinity, but I couldn't care less about Gillette trying to tell us about it. I honestly eyerolled my friends oversharing it. Same thing with companies that use the military or teachers or women or whatever. But when a company gives actual money to something that actually hurts me and mine, I avoid it if I'm aware and can. And you're welcome to do the same. Or to have an even closer line in the sand and avoid companies with all open political statements. Or to do the opposite and buy from Hobby Lobby and Ben & Jerry's and purposefully ignore it all.

Edited July 21, 2019 by Farrar

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

If you follow their Twitter pages, and I'm guessing other social media, you would probably be surprised. 

As a shareholder for any corporation that steps into it, I want that stuff cut out ASAP. Corporations cannot move as fast as public opinion and trying to do so they only shoot themselves in the foot and lose their shareholders money in the process. They make fools of themselves so often now it's ridiculous. 

People keep saying that, but it certainly doesn't seem to be true. Pretty much every time someone says that about a company they do just as well or better. And even if they didn't, some political topics are actually moral topics, and I won't fault a company for putting morality before profit. 

Edited July 21, 2019 by Ktgrok

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, StellaM said:

I don't like companies using political causes to sell more goods. See corporate-washing of Pride.  Seriously, p*ss off. A rainbow on your website doesn't make you moral and your product more compelling. It's just cheap advertising, and unless your company has a proven track record of money where their mouth is, won't make me buy from you. 

Re business owners, they are entitled to hold political views, and make a risk assessment re effect on customers around sharing those views. 

My greater concern is corporations owning what employees can say in regard to political or politicised issues on their own time, on their own private media. That worries me a lot.  It worried me when a sports journalist here was sacked by a government owned TV station for espousing, privately, out of work hours and on a private account, leftist views about militarism, and it worries me that the sports team employing Folau's wife is under pressure to discipline and sack her for sharing, privately, and out of work hours, a link to her husband's fundraiser. It actually seems counter productive to me that Folau himself was sacked for quoting (nasty bits) of the Bible. I actually don't care about where your politics fall, if they fall short of direct incitement to violence, and they occur out of work hours, I do not want to see corporations acting as moral arbiters, and depriving people of jobs they are otherwise performing satisfactorily.

 

Yeah, sorry, I appreciate it when my work environment is not made hostile by someone encouraging my government to send me back to wherever I came from. Maybe that counts as an incitement to violence tho 'cause I won't be going without a fight.

[Sneezyone]

9 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

As I said in my post, if the workplace is made hostile by someone's views which they enact in work time, that's not performing their job competently.  If, for example, the sports journo who was sacked for reminding his followers on Anzac Day that Anzac soldiers engaged in  war crimes, decided to bully co-workers who are in the Army reserve at work as a result of his feelings about the military, then his beliefs would impact on his work performance, and discipline would be appropriate.

Same as Folau's wife. If she harasses the other sportswomen she works for into signing a petition or donating to a fundraiser, that's hostility in the work place and I would expect discipline. Same as Folau. If he refuses to shake hands with gay players, or uses gay slurs on the field or in training or any other hostile action towards gay people while he is working, I'd expect him to be disciplined, up to and including sacking. 

I am not part of an American context, and I think it a little unfair to riff off my post with a very American politics specific point, but whatever.

If you work with a person who holds racially prejudiced views and you hear or are affected by their views at work, then absolutely - that's unacceptable. To what extent a corporation can fire them for views held outside work, but not expressed or acted upon at work ? I think there's a slippery slope there. What about someone working for Hobby Lobby who volunteers in their own time for PP but in work hours simply sticks to organising stock and serving customers.  Should they be sacked ? There's an over-arching principle around the extent to which corporations can interfere in a person's non-work life, including beliefs they hold that may or may not align with beliefs they profess to hold.

If a corporation, in their hiring process, decides that someone's beliefs expressed on social media makes them a poor fit for a company and so do not hire them in the first place, I think that's different. If you are in a workplace riven with racially prejudiced people who want black and brown women to 'go home', maybe the question is around company hiring practices.

Otherwise, I think it is poor practice, and not remotely intersectional, to deprive current workers of employment for their personally held beliefs, if those beliefs do not impact on their work performance, including an ability to work constructively with others.

 

Employment is not an entitlement. Freedom of speech protects against government action not corporate ones. I don't want White nationalist teachers teaching my kids and I don't want to work alongside someone who sees me as a lesser citizen because of my race whether they espouse that idea in my presence or behind my back. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Back on topic, these are CORPORATIONS. If someone doesn't like the political stance they take, each of us is free to shop elsewhere. If the objection is to corporations taking a right/wrong stance as they see it, yeah, I think folks should get over it and spend their money in accordance with their values.

Edited July 21, 2019 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I think though that at least part of the point is that I don’t want to have to think about the companies political position when I decide whether or not to buy shoes or chicken sandwiches.  Or whatever.   I don’t want to have to research a company’s political positions to decide if they ar ok to buy their wedding invite from of if I should watch their sports casts.  Sometimes I really do jus want to watch a football game and not listen to to the star’s opinions on the president.  

 

Then don't. You can do like the vast majority of folks these days and ignore anything uncomfortable that only affects others. This whole thread sounds like, "I don't want to have to see other people's struggles/concerns." Yeah...get over it.

Edited July 21, 2019 by Sneezyone

[regentrude]

2 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I think though that at least part of the point is that I don’t want to have to think about the companies political position when I decide whether or not to buy shoes or chicken sandwiches.  Or whatever.   I don’t want to have to research a company’s political positions to decide if they ar ok to buy their wedding invite from of if I should watch their sports casts.  Sometimes I really do jus want to watch a football game and not listen to to the star’s opinions on the president.  

You are free to do that and simply buy. Nobody forces you to pay any attention to a company's political stance.

Others are free to think about it and boycott the businesses that don't align with their values. 

 

[gardenmom5]

36 minutes ago, StellaM said:

I 

My greater concern is corporations owning what employees can say in regard to political or politicised issues on their own time, on their own private media. That worries me a lot. 

depending upon the level/grade of that employee - they do represent their employer.

I think of  the guy who went through the drive through and lectured the clerk, all while filming himself so he could post it online - was a c-level.  he was fired because at his level,  he DID represent his employer (who was staying out of the controversy), and they didn't want anyone to think they approved his behavior - lecturing a clerk (re: a peon) and posting it online.  it displayed a serious lack of judgment.  no one was interested in his political message - they saw an executive who was essentially bullying some minimum wage employee, and bragging about it online.  some news site did a follow-up.  he's having a hard time getting a decent job, as no one else wants to be associated with someone who would do something that stupid either.

[Farrar]

It's definitely not true that businesses taking political stands hurts them. Because it is getting them more customers and more brand loyalty. I think this is what many people in this thread don't fully get.

Like, let's say a business takes an open political stand. It annoys, say, 30% of their customers. Some of those customers are so annoyed, they send lots of angry letters and make angry videos. That helps boost the company's profile for the most part, thus drawing attention to them. No publicity is bad publicity. They lose, let's say, 10% of their customers in the end. Ugh. But they gain a few too. Probably fewer, but let's say they add back a quarter to a third of the customers they lost. Plus, now a solid third of their customers have a greater sense of brand loyalty. They don't shop around as much - they just go to that store or buy that product without questioning it so much. Buying the product makes them feel like they took the stand too. It gives them a feeling that they "did something." So the brand now creates an emotion. That's super powerful for a brand to be able to do that. And they gained a few "brand evangelists." These are folks who aren't just loyal, they share the brand's posts on social media, talk the brand up to their friends, maybe even stand in line like Apple evangelists to buy new products. Heck, they'll even sponsor legislation to help the brand! That's the kind of publicity you can't just purchase straight out. That's super valuable to them. So in the end... they've gained by using the issue.

Does this bug people? I mean... I don't know. It's complex. Let's take something most people here would probably agree on like, say, greater recognition of veterans. The brand gives some money to veteran charities, maybe even starts some good programs, and makes some really issue raising, super emotional ads. Like, it's hard for me to be *mad* at them about this, even if I'm trying to see through it. The veterans got something. Awareness was probably raised. I think the danger is that then someone buys those (and I'm just making this up) potato chips and is like, I helped veterans. Um, no, you didn't. The veterans are still homeless. They still need your help. You were just lazy if that was your goal.

[hippiemamato3]

If I agree with the politics, I will buy and support them. If I don't, I will stop buying.

[Sneezyone]

12 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

depending upon the level/grade of that employee - they do represent their employer.

I think of  the guy who went through the drive through and lectured the clerk, all while filming himself so he could post it online - was a c-level.  he was fired because at his level,  he DID represent his employer (who was staying out of the controversy), and they didn't want anyone to think they approved his behavior - lecturing a clerk (re: a peon) and posting it online.  it displayed a serious lack of judgment.  no one was interested in his political message - they saw an executive who was essentially bullying some minimum wage employee, and bragging about it online.  some news site did a follow-up.  he's having a hard time getting a decent job, as no one else wants to be associated with someone who would do something that stupid either.

 

You and I probably have very different political views but I agree. I always expect to circumscribe my public statements (and message board and FB posts which are also public) when I am employed by someone else to communicate THEIR message(s). I have worked in some very conservative states and, outside of opinions DIRECTLY related to the work I was paid to do, I said nothing.

[Sneezyone]

19 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Maybe you're sitting on different earnings calls than I am. I'm sure some boards LOVE to court risk, perhaps like Nike. Most boards don't like unnecessary risk though, and being political courts unnecessary risk. That's antithetical to a board's entire purpose of existing. There is a lot of research and statistics that show that while a majority of people do like to know political leanings of companies, that stances rarely brings in long term new customers whereas if they make a political stance that is unpopular it is more likely to drive customers away than bring in new ones. 

Add in a 24 hour new/social media cycle that makes it extremely difficult to predict which way the wind will blow in weeks, much less months or years, and a good number of boards are risk adverse on that front. I am sure there are exceptions that are like "hey we don't care- we'll take the hit on this quarter's earnings to be woke!" but I think that attitude is fewer and further between than an exception like Nike would lead one to think. 

 

I think we can all be pretty sure which way the winds are blowing in the USA, demographically anyway, regardless of what the next 4-6 years looks like. I will eat my hat if these positions blow back on ANY major employer over the long term. Whether the shareholders reflect that rising tide or not, I cannot say. They employ statisticians and public opinion firms for a reason. 

Edited July 21, 2019 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

35 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

OK. 

I disagree with you.

It's a dystopian world where corporations can effectively own private speech.  I can't personally imagine being OK with a sports journalist being sacked because he doesn't toe the line regarding the faux-holiness of Anzac soldiers, but maybe as an American, you are missing the whole context there. Frankly, it was this situation that made me furious about the rights or a workplace to control the private expressions of employees - 'protecting' the rights of the racially prejudiced or the Biblically fundamentalist to mouth off in their own time, so long as that doesn't then impact on their ability to be a competent worker, is an unfortunate side effect of protecting the rights of other workers whose beliefs and morals DO align with mine

 

They do not own public speech. Any of us is free to start our own business, work for a like-minded employer, stop espousing controversial views in public, or not work. These are all options. I cannot guarantee their palatability but they are all options.

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

I'm also wondering, how with shareholders and boards, and the ever increasing amount of activist investors in the US, how anyone can apply "morality" to a publicly traded corporation in the first place. They are made to profit. They don't have "morals". Honestly, I wonder how many Americans actually understand how boards and corporations function at any level beyond looking at a stock price and thinking, "well they're doing great!" and having absolutely no clue at all about the inner workings of massive, multinational corporations. That is honestly, a pretty slick move they've achieved that we apply "morality" to these types of organizations. With a straight face no less. Public corporations are sort of like the Terminator. They don't really have loyalty except to the shareholder, and if that doesn't work the activists will sweep in, clean house, ratchet the price up and then dump them in a hot minute. 

 

Corporations are people. They get to have views.

Edited July 21, 2019 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Well I'll give you that. Very special people that legally they seem to have more rights than anyone else, that's for sure. 

 

I do not disagree. I didn't make the law. It is what it is.

[LMD]

I think, tribalism and purity politics is annoying. Potentially dangerous.

I think the young, woke activists are going to burn out by 30 and realise that big multinational corporations aren't your friend, even if they pretend to be to wrest away your money.

In fact, I find the very American perspective that you can buy/sell your way into a more egalitarian society quite... ironic.

[Sneezyone]

7 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

I'm sorry, but this reeks of class privilege (I know Americans don't believe in it - doesn't mean it doesn't exist).

No, not every worker is free to start a business, or pick and choose who they work for, or choose not to work at all.  That's pure ignorance about the realities of many workers.

 

It's not class privilege. It's the system Americans have chosen over other available options. I know many, many low-income entrepreneurs, including the woman I mentioned in another thread who has paid for her BA, MA and now her PhD as an erotic content creator (no actual sex). I choose to work with this system/within this system, however much I am told that I do not 'love it', disdain it, and should be sent away from it, because it is *MINE* and I prefer it to other systems. My eyes are wide open. That's not ignorance.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, LMD said:

I think, tribalism and purity politics is annoying. Potentially dangerous.

I think the young, woke activists are going to burn out by 30 and realise that big multinational corporations aren't your friend, even if they pretend to be to wrest away your money.

In fact, I find the very American perspective that you can buy/sell your way into a more egalitarian society quite... ironic.

 

The only Americans who think they can buy their way into a more egalitarian society are ethnically white, delusional, or both. This isn't really about egalitarianism. It's about clout/money which can only get you so far. The last mile of the way, true equality, is a heart issue not a financial one.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Sneezyone

[Carol in Cal.]

Penzey’s and Ravelry’s sanctimonious and overblown rants are very annoying even when I agree with them.  I don’t know of anything approaching that in other firms.  

There is a lower level of stuff where firms sort of quietly take positions but don’t lobby others to take them as part of their marketing.  I feel like, OK, that’s information about you, that I can take into account or not as I choose.  I would put Hobby Lobby and Chick Fil A and some local small businesses in that category.  

A step down further from that is when a corporate exec has a position on something political but doesn’t expect the employees to necessarily espouse it—it’s more of a private position though because that person is well known it becomes known to the public.  Examples would include Sergey Brin demonstrating against immigration restrictions or the VP of Facebook who attended the hearings for the last Supreme Court nomination, seemingly as a supporter of the nominee.  I find it kind of ludicrous that employees were so shocked by those actions, and felt threatened by them enough to say that they should step down.

As an American, I feel like in all of these cases if the firm is privately held they have the right to do either of these things if they want to, and I would defend that right even if they personally annoyed me.  

That’s a separate issue from nonprofits.  I am a Confessional Lutheran, and in our faith tradition the way you apply your faith to, say, voting decisions is considered adiophora; and although I expect moral education from my pastor, I would be very surprised (and not in a good way) if he officially espoused a certain candidate on a single issue basis.  That is an overreach.

 

Edited July 22, 2019 by Carol in Cal.

[Sneezyone]

8 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

OK, then own your classism. Your preferred system enables people with resouces (who tend to be male, whiter and benefiting from a higher socio-economic background - people who can start their own business, pick and choose who they work for, or choose not to work at all) to express their beliefs outside of work hours, while forcing people without resources (who tend to be female, less white, and from lower socio-economic backgrounds, who often don't have the capital to start a business, can't afford to not work, or to leave an employer on the basis of morals) to refrain from expressing their beliefs outside work hours. What a truly offensive system.

 

Please don't put words in my mouth. This has absolutely nothing to do with preference. This is about what is. Me and my family have been working, for YEARS, DECADES, within this system to make a place for ourselves and our progeny. I have ZERO time or energy to play with pie in the sky ideas that don't put food on the table. You have a great idea to market your unpalatable idea to the masses...run with it! I applaud your ingenuity even if I detest your person/ideas. I won't support it with my $$ but others might. Please do not speak to me as though I have not lived al 43 years in a non-white body.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

So here’s- I think- a fairly non-political as far as parties and laws, example of a company stepping out on an issue- Gillette and their “toxic masculinity” ad earlier this year. What I’ve never figured out is what exactly this is supposed to indicate about Proctor and Gamble as a corporation. I would be interested to hear how one who likes corporations to use this type of thing to explain what this indicates about the actual corporation. Because aside from pandering to certain woke terms,  I’m not exactly sure what it accomplished. 

Iirc this is the same company who has been known, and was still last I checked, charging more for women’s razors than for men’s for the EXACT same product. But they’re going to get applause for making a commercial on toxic masculinity and be applauded for their moral stance, LOL? 

 

I very much felt like Farrar, that was a cynical PR ploy and accomplished/said nothing of any import. It didn't make me more inclined to buy their product at all. razors, for me, are price-sensitive, LOL.

[LMD]

11 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

The only Americans who think they can buy their way into a more egalitarian society are ethnically white, delusional, or both. This isn't really about egalitarianism. It's about clout/money which can only get you so far. The last mile of the way, true equality, is a heart issue not a financial one.

It's literally part of the free market philosophy...

Supporting (or not) corporations with your dollars based on ideology = buying a more egalitarian society, shaping the society you live in through adding your individual economic power to the success of a company. Not an individual buying their own individual way into a society that happens to be more egalitarian.

[Sneezyone]

8 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Penzey’s and Ravelry’s sanctimonious and overblown rants are very annoying even when I agree with them.  I don’t know of anything approaching that in other firms.  

There is a lower level of stuff where firms sort of quietly take positions but don’t lobby others to take them as part of their marketing.  I feel like, OK, that’s information about you, that I can take into account or not as I choose.  I would put Hobby Lobby and Chick Fil A and some local small businesses in that category.  

As an American, I feel like in all of these cases if the firm is privately held they have the right to do either of these things if they want to, and I would defend that right even if they personally annoyed me.  

That’s a separate issue from nonprofits.  I am a Confessional Lutheran, and in our faith tradition the way you apply your faith to, say, voting decisions is considered adiophora; and although I expect moral education from my pastor, I would be very surprised (and not in a good way) if he officially espoused a certain candidate on a single issue basis.  That is an overreach.

 

Honestly, I don't like Penzey's e-mails either. I find them sanctimoious. 

[DawnM]

Just now, happysmileylady said:

Ok, call me dumb

 

What is Penzey's?

 

Spice company

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, LMD said:

It's literally part of the free market philosophy...

Supporting (or not) corporations with your dollars based on ideology = buying a more egalitarian society, shaping the society you live in through adding your individual economic power to the success of a company. Not an individual buying their own individual way into a society that happens to be more egalitarian.

 

Not so much. Money is only a small, small part of the egalitarian 'issue' and, as most wealthy, non-white people know, does not buy you equality. Ask Oprah, or Jay Z, or Steph Curry. No, purchasing power does not but you equality. In America, money does not buy you the ability to criticize the government, it's policies, or your fellow citizens, particularly those at the top.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Sneezyone

[DawnM]

10 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Penzey’s and Ravelry’s sanctimonious and overblown rants are very annoying even when I agree with them.  I don’t know of anything approaching that in other firms.  

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Honestly, I don't like Penzey's e-mails either. I find them sanctimoious. 

 

yup

[Frances]

52 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

I think that's a very US, rah-rah capitalism pov, that employers can effectively own you, your speech and your behaviour out of work hours. 

It's immoral in itself, imo, because the concern is not for one's workers, but for one's shareholders and profit margins, with workers' rights seen as subordinate to  company image. I know many places in the US can fire at will, something I also think is immoral.  

Some people are compensated for their ownership of their private lives and expressions, and accept that compensation comes with ownership - most workers are not.  If you think they are, take their weekly wage, divide it by the number of work + private hours in the week, and see how their hourly rate looks then.

 

In the example gardenmom5 gave, which I’m not familiar with, it appears the C level employee was being a bully and an ahole to an innocent person, and then bragging about it online. That’s all I know, since I don’t even know what political point he was trying to make. Given that behavior, it’s probably safe to assume he treats at least some of his subordinates at work badly and gets away with it because he has the power and the title. I would say that is being concerned about employees. If you know someone is a bully and a jerk because they’ve proudly shared that behavior with the whole world, do you wait until someone at work feels brave enough to report their inappropriate behavior there or do you let them go?

[Carol in Cal.]

4 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

 

I guess that is my point. People fall for the pandering. But very few people take the time to delve into what I feel like are actually more of the political topics. Like, what percentage of Americans actually research the corporate policies of the companies providing the gasoline they buy? Or what stance a corporation takes on H1B1- I mean outsourcing is a crazy hot topic. You don't see very many corporations taking huge stances on that. To me those are the real political topics. But companies here slap a rainbow logo on for June, throw up a commercial to get props, and that is what people accept as a "political stance" and applaud them. I'm probably not articulating it well, but that's my point. I think for most companies those types of shenanigans are exactly that, and any company for which I own stock I'd prefer to them to shut up and stop pandering because it's all a dog and pony show anyway. Obviously that is my personal opinion- but that is how I feel as an answer to the OP's question. 

I think part of this is just because there is no reasonable alternative.

[Sneezyone]

21 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

OK, then own your classism. Your preferred system enables people with resouces (who tend to be male, whiter and benefiting from a higher socio-economic background - people who can start their own business, pick and choose who they work for, or choose not to work at all) to express their beliefs outside of work hours, while forcing people without resources (who tend to be female, less white, and from lower socio-economic backgrounds, who often don't have the capital to start a business, can't afford to not work, or to leave an employer on the basis of morals) to refrain from expressing their beliefs outside work hours. What a truly offensive system.

 

Speak for yourself. I'm plenty outspoken and have consistently worked whenever I wanted to.

[Sneezyone]

7 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

 

I guess that is my point. People fall for the pandering. But very few people take the time to delve into what I feel like are actually more of the political topics. Like, what percentage of Americans actually research the corporate policies of the companies providing the gasoline they buy? Or what stance a corporation takes on H1B1- I mean outsourcing is a crazy hot topic. You don't see very many corporations taking huge stances on that. To me those are the real political topics. But companies here slap a rainbow logo on for June, throw up a commercial to get props, and that is what people accept as a "political stance" and applaud them. I'm probably not articulating it well, but that's my point. I think for most companies those types of shenanigans are exactly that, and any company for which I own stock I'd prefer to them to shut up and stop pandering because it's all a dog and pony show anyway. Obviously that is my personal opinion- but that is how I feel as an answer to the OP's question. 

 

I consider that an education issue. A consumer awareness issue. I take that upon myself at home. Advertisers gonna advertise. It's up to us to instill discernment. It always has been.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Sneezyone

[LMD]

4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Not so much. Money is only a small, small part of the egalitarian 'issue' and, as most wealthy, non-white people know, does not buy you equality. Ask Oprah, or Jay Z, or Steph Curry. No, purchasing power does not but you equality. In America, money does not buy you the ability to criticize the government, it's policies, or your fellow citizens, particularly those at the top.

I feel like we're cross talking.

Money does not buy an individual immunity to inequality in an unequal society.

How many individuals with money choose to spend that money will help a company to succeed or not. Many individuals deciding to work together to help a company succeed because that company shares their hopes for society's future = using money to buy a more egalitarian society.

I hope that clarifies what I mean.