How do you feel about companies being political?

[Farrar]

I feel like my eyes are open about the media literacy aspects of this and the overly influential power that corporations have, plus the class and privilege issues involved in being able to ignore their marketing and views or embrace them.

But to me, the ways to fix this don't have to do with moaning about companies that air ads supporting pay equality for women or who give money to try to disenfranchise LGBTQ folks or give free beer to Pride parades... I mean, those things are all just going to happen. I don't favor the government stepping in to, what curb their ability to do any of that? I mean, I can't get behind that and I'm not sure what other remedy is even being proposed.

I do favor the government investing more in education, healthcare, and other things that would help with inequality in the US. I do favor the government taking away corporations' ability to control the political process by funding candidates in such large amounts. I strongly favor stronger laws specifically around our campaign system and I favor public funding of campaigns as part of that. And I favor at least discussing some of the media breakup plans that are being floated right now on the left. In a practical sense, none of that has anything to do with whether or not Penzey's should send out those (and let's just all agree on this one) sanctimonious emails. That's just y'all wanting to complain as far as I can see.

[Sneezyone]

11 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Oh, well as long as you're OK....

 

[sarc on] Indeed. That's the American way. [sarc off]. You often speak for the 'little folk' as though you have any idea what compromises are made to stay employed as an American of lesser means/non-white skin. You don't. The microaggressions that are tolerated on a daily basis, the compromises we make to continue working, convivially, with others are unfathomable to many/most. Please don't play pretend that you really know what that's like. Your system is FAR more forgiving than our own and you still present that you have some special insight into race/class in America. You don't.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Sneezyone

[gardenmom5]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

 

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.

reality is - employers are looking up job applicants social media postings.  in some cases, it really is indicative of a future troublemaker of whom they are well to steer clear.

I do think the majority are just young and  outspoken and will do their job, not realizing their previous postings are putting paid to future opportunities because an employer doesn't know if they are going to come to work and do the job they would be hired to do - or agitate (some do end up agitating. or worse.  the worse ones have done things to make the news... ).

some do realize their younger years postings jeopardize their future employment - and why there are now services to go and scrub social media history.  (so a potential employer wont' find anything.)

1 hour ago, StellaM said:

I mean, do people here really think that the price of employment is that you must act with your employers best (profit) interests foremost 24/7 ?

'Cos I'm shocked if you do. And I don't understand, if that is so, why you are all not out agitating for hugely increased compensation for workers at all levels as a result ?

dd is currently interviewing with a  major corp, that does look at that social media history.  while one of their goals is to make sure people will work well together (talking to others who were hired/not hired - the corporations goal is having people with their own political leanings.  so social media postings that are opposite of their own are weeded out.), she was never very active on social media to put paid to an application before she even completes the long interview process.  

1dd (current job is between the US and Canada .) has watched friends/employees with decades ago run-ins with the law  (including an oh - you have the same name as our suspect.  we need to talk to you.  oh - it's only the same name, you can go) - have affected their ability  to travel to Canada even though it was 40+ years ago.   all he did - was talk to the police, he wasn't arrested, let alone charged with anything.  he had many hoops to go through to have that expunged from his record so he would be able to go to Canada.

she had an employee with a one drunk driving arrest 20+ years ago.  Canada didn't wouldn't let him in, even though he was no longer drinking.  for other reasons, she ended up firing him.  but there is a connection of undependable in one area, can mean undependable in another.

eta: some of those youthful postings can affect ability to obtain a security clearance - in which case, the employee with worthless to the employer if the job requires one.

Edited July 22, 2019 by gardenmom5

[Sneezyone]

4 hours ago, LMD said:

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.

 

It does to some extent. When Oprah or Jay Z or Steph Curry buy an expensive item and is challenged due to their race, not so much.  I believe that money is necessary but insufficient to accomplish the aims suggested in this thread.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Sneezyone

[Skippy]

One thing that bugs me the most concerning this topic is the Shakedown strategy. Companies are threatened with boycott by bullying entities who approach them demanding money and support for their causes, like organized criminals demanding protection money. It is one thing for a company to voluntarily support a cause, but it is rotten when companies feel forced into it by these bullying tactics.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Skippy said:

One thing that bugs me the most concerning this topic is the Shakedown strategy. Companies are threatened with boycott by bullying entities who approach them demanding money and support for their causes, like organized criminals demanding protection money. It is one thing for a company to voluntarily support a cause, but it is rotten when companies feel forced into it by these bullying tactics.

 

Do you have an example of this? I'm unaware of this phenomenon.

[Farrar]

2 minutes ago, Skippy said:

One thing that bugs me the most concerning this topic is the Shakedown strategy. Companies are threatened with boycott by bullying entities who approach them demanding money and support for their causes, like organized criminals demanding protection money. It is one thing for a company to voluntarily support a cause, but it is rotten when companies feel forced into it by these bullying tactics.

Meh. If that was happening to your local corner shop, maybe I'd feel bad, but these corporations can take it. And they pick and choose. There's no way you can convince me that some lobby of an interest actually has more power than a large corporation.

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Plum said:

I'm so tired of it. 

There are companies that seem to think it's required for them to be political for whatever reason. I think they just end up making things worse for themselves. Nike for example

There are also companies that have political things happen to them through no fault of their own such as employees making things political on their own or by something being taken the wrong way or blown out of proportion specifically for political reasons. Starbucks has obvious political stances, but they also don't train employees on how to handle every random situation that comes their way during the busy day. They also have so many young employees that many things that make the news are a result of inexperienced and unsupervised employees. They may be well-meaning or naive but they do some things that make me shake my head. After my son started working there, I've started to see them in a different way. 

I really detest the idea that I can't wear a certain pair of shoes, a certain color hat or eat at certain restaurants because it signals whether I'm R or D. I'm Independent because the middle ground no longer seems to exist. 

 

Seriously? https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/27/nike-reports-fiscal-4q-2019-earnings.html

[LMD]

For example, Oprah still lives in a society with institutionalised racism which I'm sure she's not 100% immune to. But Oprah has economic means and a largely influential voice to promote products/companies/causes she deems as beneficial to society's future.

She can (and does), effectively, buy a platform to promote those people/companies which will help to shape society into the one she envisions it could be. Like endorsing Obama, like choosing books for her book club etc...

[gardenmom5]

2 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

International travel and a criminal history are very different issues to the rights of employees to expression on their own time.

Companies are ridiculous if they are hiring on political allegiance. As a shareholder, I want the company to be hiring the most accomplished worker, regardless of how they vote. I'm a card carrying member of a political party - why should someone be able to deny me an interview for something I'm well qualified to do on that basis ?

what part of "never arrested, never charged" did you miss?  merely spoken with because he had the same name.  40 years later, still couldn't go to Canada.

this is a major corporation with whom she is currently interviewing who is looking at social media history, and weeding out those with other political leanings.  this is why they look at social media - it tells them more than what political party with which you are registered.  this is an in  everyone's vocabulary corporation, and only those who go out of their way to not use their products - don't.  because they went out of their way to not use it.

[Sneezyone]

Just now, StellaM said:

 

Far more forgiving ? Hmm. So far as it is (and we catch the American diseases 2 min after you guys sneeze, so you are really overstating that), that's a direct result of people fighting for workers' rights, and refusing to accept that corporations are people, and that they can own their workers right to self expression. Long proud history of trade unionism in this country, and a long, proud history of social democracy, sadly now being undermined by American globalism.

I don't want your corporate personhood anywhere near me and mine, thanks, and I can speak for communities I'm part of - you may be unaware that the labor movement is global, not parochial.

 

 

So happy for you. Please don't extrapolate your notions of class, race, employment, or discrimination here. They don't translate.

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, LMD said:

For example, Oprah still lives in a society with institutionalised racism which I'm sure she's not 100% immune to. But Oprah has economic means and a largely influential voice to promote products/companies/causes she deems as beneficial to society's future.

She can (and does), effectively, buy a platform to promote those people/companies which will help to shape society into the one she envisions it could be. Like endorsing Obama, like choosing books for her book club etc...

 

She can buy a platform to express her views. She cannot but equality...e.g. the SAME platform that another white person of equal means might have. THAT is the difference.

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Nike is fascinating. They champion Kaepernick here and then profit of the backs of POC the world over, violating work ethics everywhere they go and avoiding countries that insist they provide certain standards of working conditions. And (some) Americans champion them and turn a blind eye to the rest. Talk about  corporate manipulation in action. 

Totally agree. But the suggestion that they are losing money because of their stance on Kaepernick...100% false.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, Plum said:

 That may be true but they seemed to piss a lot of people off on both sides (women especially) when they pulled that Betsy Ross flag shoe. And that was after the article. They may be just fine, I guess we’ll see. 

 

I did not see a single post about  that issue on my feed. Not one (and I am mostly connected to military spouses/women FWIW). The proof will be in the next quarter's earnings report.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

I'll speak about labor issues wherever and whenever I please, thanks all the same, particularly as your corporations with your employment practices like to colonise the rest of us.

 

I didn't tell you not to. I politely asked you not to speak on issues with with you have ZERO familiarity. You are free, of course, to ignore that request.

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

But they do to an extent. Maybe not something small like Penzey's. But Nike and so many others are multinational corporations, and in that case you are talking globalism and we definitely leave our mark for better or worse with our issues definitely rippling world wide. 

 

What evidence do you have that Nike is using the same marketing strategies abroad that it uses in the US? Multinational doesn't mean universal advertising messages. My Chinese students talk, incessantly, about Yao Ming not LeBron James.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Sneezyone

[LMD]

6 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

She can buy a platform to express her views. She cannot but equality...e.g. the SAME platform that another white person of equal means might have. THAT is the difference.

I don't know if you're deliberately misunderstanding me... this is a fast moving thread and I feel behind already. 

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, LMD said:

I don't know if you're deliberately misunderstanding me... this is a fast moving thread and I feel behind already. 

 

I am not. I am suggesting that money is not EVERYTHING. It cannot buy you equal treatment. It cannot buy you equality. This isn't a class issue. Minorities of equal means do not receive equal consideration as was suggested. It is something, for sure. It helps. It is not the end all, be all.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Sneezyone

[LMD]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

What evidence do you have that Nike is using the same marketing strategies abroad that it uses in the US? Multinational doesn't mean universal advertising messages. My Chinese students talk, incessantly, about Yao Ming not LeBron James.

Their marketing in America is hypocritical. They posit themselves as a champion for the oppressed and take the money (support) of people who want a more equal society. 

Nike uses that money to continue to act as the direct oppressor in other parts of the world, but that's not a problem/the same because...? I can understand people wanting to support local and direct political actions and make otherwise unlikely alliances. It's more, companies like Nike portraying themselves as a values-led corporation when it is demonstrably false. It's naive to think otherwise, about any wealthy entity.

[LMD]

6 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

I am not. I am suggesting that money is not EVERYTHING. It cannot buy you equal treatment. It cannot buy you equality. This isn't a class issue. Minorities of equal means do not receive equal consideration as was suggested. It is something, for sure. It helps. It is not the end all, be all.

That's not at all what I've been trying to say.

[Sneezyone]

6 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

I wasn't referring to universal advertising. I'm talking corporate presence as a whole. I don't own Nike stock so I have no idea what all they do. But to say they exist in a vacuum isn't true. And to think what they do here doesn't affect them on a global level seems insincere. If they piss a bunch of consumers in one country off so that their stock takes a hit, they're going to look to cut costs somewhere to compensate. So say they move to another "move favorable" country which is only more favorable because has no bar on environmental and work standards and allows for really shitty work conditions (maybe like China?). I mean, a large corporation commands its own ecosystem to an extent. What happens in America doesn't' just stay in America when you are talking global corporations and/or conglomerates. 

 

I didn't say they exist in a vacuum. I suggested that they appear to 'local' consumers consistent with local advertising. Do you really suppose German or Chinese consumers know or give two whits about Kaepernick? The consumers in the worlds fastest growing economies care about PRESTIGE. NIKE offers that. They haven't gotten to the point of caring about politics. That is a higher-order level of thinking. Working conditions are not paramount for those consumers and, even if they are, they value the employment opportunities over the working conditions. That is a first world concern.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, LMD said:

Their marketing in America is hypocritical. They posit themselves as a champion for the oppressed and take the money (support) of people who want a more equal society. 

Nike uses that money to continue to act as the direct oppressor in other parts of the world, but that's not a problem/the same because...? I can understand people wanting to support local and direct political actions and make otherwise unlikely alliances. It's more, companies like Nike portraying themselves as a values-led corporation when it is demonstrably false. It's naive to think otherwise, about any wealthy entity.

 

I don't disagree that those who produce the shoes overseas are underpaid and overworked. Again, I ask, what evidence do you have that this influences, in a negative way, American consumer behavior or consumer behavior around the world? Ultimately, dollars and cents rule the day and NIKE is not suffering as a result of their U.S. political stance.

[LMD]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

I didn't say the exist in a vacuum. I suggested that they appear to 'local' consumers consistent with local advertising. Do you really suppose German or Cinese consumers know oracle two whits about Kaepernick? The consumers in the worlds fastest growing economies care about PRESTIGE. NIKE offers that. They haven't gotten to the point of caring about politics. That is a higher-order level of thinking. Working conditions are not paramount for those consumers and, even if they are, they value the employment opportunities over the working conditions. That is a first world concern.

That is a class concern, and one that certainly still exists in the 'first world'

[Sneezyone]

9 minutes ago, LMD said:

That is a class concern, and one that certainly still exists in the 'first world'

LOL. My dad/stepmom worked as a farm laborers. I can assure you that while working conditions were of concern for them, it never crossed he minds of those consumers that drove the economy.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

6 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Well, I think they do because of social media. Except in cases where American companies like Google have caved and gone along with censorship by dictatorial governments to make a quick buck. I also thought last I checked that Germany was a first world country and both they and Chinese were capable of higher order level thinking?! Maybe I'm reading what you are saying wrong, but it seems a bit elitest to think only Americans are privy to this sort of concern where prestige trumps ethics. I sort of think Americans have cornered the market on prestige OVER ethics in many cases. 

 

Chinese social media is censored, as it is in many other economies around the world. No, they do not, by and large, care about working conditions b/c a lot of it (substandard by western notions) is a marked improvement. Must I relate how many reports of domestic labor abuse I read in Bahrain or how the company I work for promotes uncensored parent feedback as a selling point? It's not a matter of capacity for understanding but access to information. Folks do not know what they cannot know. We are, indeed, speaking at cross purposes.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Sneezyone

[LMD]

10 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

I don't disagree that those who produce the shoes overseas are underpaid and overworked. Again, I ask, what evidence do you have that this influences, in a negative way, American consumer behavior or consumer behavior around the world? Ultimately, dollars and cents rule the day and NIKE is not suffering as a result of their U.S. political stance.

Well, this thread is about how we feel about companies being political.

I posted that I feel companies being political are largely hypocritical and consumers largely naive - sometimes willfully so if their ideology is getting the limelight. I think that many companies being political together can be powerful and set a culture tone wherein other things are sacrificed.

Evidence of consumer behaviour? Well, the Pink Dollar for one. I'm just a mum chatting on a website, not writing a paper for a journal! Maybe I'm wrong. *shrug* 

7 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

LOL. My dad/stepmom worked as a farm laborers. I can assure you that while working conditions were of concern for them, t never crossest he minds of those consumers that drove the economy.

 

I'm having a lot of trouble following you, Sneezy, likely I'm in over my head 😄. Yes, consumers not caring about working conditions is part of the naive/hypocritical aspect of marketing.

Edited July 22, 2019 by LMD

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, LMD said:

Well, this thread is about how we feel about companies being political.

I posted that I feel companies being political are largely hypocritical and consumers largely naive - sometimes willfully so if their ideology is getting the limelight. I think that many companies being political together can be powerful and set a culture tone wherein other things are sacrificed.

Evidence of consumer behaviour? Well, the Pink Dollar for one. I'm just a mum chatting on a website, not writing a paper for a journal! Maybe I'm wrong. *shrug* 

 

I'm having a lot of trouble following you, Sneezy, likely I'm in over my head 😄. Yes, consumers not caring about working conditions is part of the naive/hypocritical aspect of marketing.

 

Yes, we are speaking at cross purposes.  Essentially, I agree that political messages can be hypocritical and may not drive additional financial support (pink-washing). My point was that political stances *can* be financially rewarding and *may also be* largely ignored by consumers who do not see  (or want to consider)  politics at all. Further, wealth and income do not insulate people/employees (whether in the NBA or corporate America) from criticism for taking political stances (nor should it). As an employee, you represent  your employer. I do not agree with substandard working conditions or poor labor practices. I do not support shameless pandering. That said, WITHIN MY OWN COUNTRY, I feel its my job to work within the available constructs to make change...not to superimpose my values on other places. Can I decry, sure. Advocate, sure. Tell them exactly what to do? Nope. I'm not a colonizer. Oh yeah, and please don't tell me that I'm privileged because I don't agree that speech (public, private, corporate or otherwise) should come without consequences.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Sneezyone

[Frances]

1 hour ago, StellaM said:

 

I would have handled it by bringing in the employee and first discussing the incident with him. I mgiht review any concerns about his behaviour in the workplace. I would remind him of workplace rules and values. I would put him on a probabation, and I would look to see if this was a one off or a pattern of behaviour. 

If it became clear this was a pattern of behaviour, and impacting on the workplace, I would let the employee know that he would no longer be employed if it continued. (if legal for me to do so.)

If it continued, then I would  let him go.

I'm not a fan of knee jerk reactions to social media, nor am I a fan of employers making assumptions about employees based on single incidents. 

 

I can agree with this. I thought you were advocating for no repercussions because it was not during work hours or work related.

[BusyMom5]

1 hour ago, Frances said:

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?

 

This was my thought as well.  It isn't about his position so much as it is about his behavior, which would affect the workplace and fellow employees.   It's fine to have a different view, but if it affects how you work with fellow employees you make it your employers problem.   This guy sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen and I'd fire him, too.  We need to get back to professional behavior in both CEOs and employees.

 

 

 

 

[Sneezyone]

53 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Well, it would have to be shown to impact on work.

Either directly or indirectly.

Otherwise it's a sort of de facto criminalisation of non-criminal behaviour.  

In any case, I would think a responsible employer would not escalate immediately to firing. It's possible that guy had a long track record of being nasty to underlings at work, and the social media exposure prompted the company to take it seriously. That would make the situation more understandable, at least, although the question arises of why the company was unaware or unwilling to do something about those behaviours before they went public.  Either way, the company doesn't look good to me. Equally, someone could be filmed doing something entirely out of character for a variety of reasons, that doesn't reflect how they normally live their lives or behave at work. Do they really deserve to be fired for a non-criminal one off ?

 

I'm sorry...whaaaat? WTH is a one-off? It's either in your character or it's  not. You get a pass for shooting at someone or calling them a.     one time but not the next?

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Woah. I did NOT say that.  Cut it out.

 

You either give people a pass for a "one-off" as you called it or you don't. Which is it?

[Farrar]

48 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Woah. I did NOT say that.  Cut it out.

 

 

I think this is a good example though of a cultural difference of the kind Sneezyone was mentioning. The exact argument you made IS used to justify that here. Routinely.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Farrar

[moonflower]

3 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

Really?  Huh.  Well there you go. lol

 

Not only did I not know about Penzey's political stances before I read about it on the WTM forms, I didn't know that Penzey's existed as a company, AND I didn't know that there was such a thing as a spice company separate of what you just pick up at the grocery store!  Seriously had no idea people regularly mail-ordered spices, of all things. 

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, StellaM said:

 

People are routinely excused from employment consequences  because 'they only used the n word once ?' OK. 

I actually think it would be more honest of the US to just go down the road of criminalising speech.

Calling someone the n word once, twice or a dozen times a day is hate speech here.  

Instead you farm out moral probity to corporations via threats to employment.  

 

Yes, yes they are. As well as hanging nooses in workplace lockers and saying "Go back to where you came from" to US citizens. Those people keep their jobs and the complainers are terminated and have to sue for damages. That's also not considered hate speech by many Americans. There is no such thing as criminal hate speech anyway, only incitement to violence which requires you to specifically encourage violence against others (and be the proximate cause of the same) or say things that a reasonable person believes will incite violence (and actually result in violence)...unless you have significant power, in which case these rules do not apply.

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, BusyMom5 said:

 

This was my thought as well.  It isn't about his position so much as it is about his behavior, which would affect the workplace and fellow employees.   It's fine to have a different view, but if it affects how you work with fellow employees you make it your employers problem.   This guy sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen and I'd fire him, too.  We need to get back to professional behavior in both CEOs and employees.

 

 

 

 

 

34 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

People are routinely excused from employment consequences  because 'they only used the n word once ?' OK. 

I actually think it would be more honest of the US to just go down the road of criminalising speech.

Calling someone the n word once, twice or a dozen times a day is hate speech here.  

Instead you farm out moral probity to corporations via threats to employment.  

 

 

 

 

It's not about a political stance, it is about behavior. Generally there is an "ethics clause" somewhere in the employment contract that gives the company the right to fire you if you are a jackass in public. 

[ktgrok]

29 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Yes, yes they are. As well as hanging nooses in workplace lockers and saying "Go back to where you came from" to US citizens. Those people keep their jobs and the complainers are terminated and have to sue for damages. That's also not considered hate speech by many Americans. There is no such thing as criminal hate speech anyway, only incitement to violence which requires you to specifically encourage violence against others (and be the proximate cause of the same) or say things that a reasonable person believes will incite violence (and actually result in violence)...unless you have significant power, in which case these rules do not apply.

A relative works for a fairly large us company and yes, has heard more than once the N word used by executives during meetings. In that environment Im okay with companies using commercials that promote racial justice issues. I'd prefer the company also live out those virtues, but lip service that possibly sways some opinions is better than nothing.  I can't fathom saying, "i don't want football players to express their feelings on criminal justice inequality because I'm just trying to enjoy myself". It's saying, "other people's difficulties are less important than my entertainment"

[MercyA]

Oh, man, you people are all WAY smarter than me. 🙂 

I'll say this--many of my friends assume that I share their politics. Sometimes I do, often I don't. Hearing them talk about where they won't shop and what they won't buy gives me a lot of insight into their views that I wouldn't have otherwise. I had no idea some people found Kaepernick so very offensive until they said they didn't want their kids wearing Nike stuff. It's interesting.

If I boycotted every corporation I disagreed with about something, I'd probably seriously be able to buy NOTHING.

Speaking as Christian: I figure, corporations are going to reflect the world, and I need to live in the world, and that's okay. I think of all the actions I take every day, buying things from this corporation or that one probably has much less significance than what I do and say to those around me. 

[Farrar]

If you work in a world with POC’s then I would not personally call using the n word “unrelated” to your work.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Farrar

[Farrar]

I also feel compelled to point out that much of this is not just companies doing whatever they want. It’s regulated by the EEOC and the free speech rights of employees are hashed out in the courts. You cannot sign away your right to free speech fully in the US. When companies have fired employees because they don’t like their speech done privately on their own time, they’ve been successfully sued. And companies are actually compelled to act against employees who further discrimination in the workplace, including with slurs. Not that these things are always followed by any means. Not even close. Plus, lawsuits aren’t a great remedy for ordinary people, though they exist.

[Farrar]

3 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

 For people who are very keen that words be not put in their own mouth, y'all are mighty fond of putting them in mine.

You’ve repeatedly used someone saying the n word a few times as an example of speech employees ate fired for at this point.

[SKL]

It annoys me when businesses attempt to sway people's politics OR use political rhetoric as a marketing tool.  Of course it is their right, but when they do that, they have to know it invites a politically motivated response from potential customers.  It is their choice if they want to go there.

On the other hand, I think it's different when someone else digs into the personal opinions of the owners/managers.  Well, I don't think people should do that in the first place, but if they do, customers should be able to separate the individuals' personal opinions from the corporation's ethics.

[TravelingChris]

12 hours 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. 

Exactly.   Which is why 2 of my family members who are working are employed by employee owned companies and the others want to be employed by such companies.  Second best, is privately held company where employer cares for workers, not just bottom line.  

[Guest]

11 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

We could buy less. Win-win. Sends a message to corporations, and is good for the environment.

Hard to do with basics though, but discretionary spending ? Just don't, or buy from small business.

I'd take a small business with politics opposite from mine, that gives back to their local community, has a decent product, treats all customers respectfully, treats their workers OK over a corporation that advertises wokely and cynically in line with my politics any day.

The thing is, Chick fil a pretty much fits that bill, except for the small part. That’s where I have problems. I do not agree with some of the things the corporate founders do and support, but at the grassroots level, they are honestly one of the nicest businesses around. They are probably one of the best employers in my area for students and people without a high school diploma, have consistent products (that I think are quite good) and provide great customer service and local community support. I can see kids I know getting to go to Camp WinShape when they wouldn’t have had that opportunity, and how awesome it is for them. 

So, do you support the company that is paying a decent wage, providing a good job situation for their workers, has good products and customer service, and is helping the community, even though their owner supports organizations that are downright hostile to some of the people in the community? Or do you support the one that is less good to work for and less helpful and provides less customer assistance, but is more quiet about their political views, or is more in line with mine? 

There’s a quote in Maria von Trapp’s autobiography that is something like “a diet is just eating what you want, but with a guilty conscience”. I kind of feel that this is where shopping is now. If I boycotted everyone I should be boycotting, there is no one left, except for maybe the homeschool mom who sells the extra eggs laid by her backyard chickens! 

 

[ktgrok]

7 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

Workers shouldn't have to sign ethics clauses unrelated to their work as a condition of their employment.

Not least because the 'person' defining ethics is a corporation, opaque and self-interested.

 

It's not just big corporations. The vet clinic I worked for had about a dozen employees at most, and we had an ethics clause. basically, if you were out causing bar fights and being a jackass in public you could be fired, because the clients would recognize you and it would reflect poorly on the business. 

[DawnM]

47 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

It's not just big corporations. The vet clinic I worked for had about a dozen employees at most, and we had an ethics clause. basically, if you were out causing bar fights and being a jackass in public you could be fired, because the clients would recognize you and it would reflect poorly on the business. 

 

We had teachers locally fired for risqué and drunken behavior and posting it on FB.  I don't know where the lines should be drawn sometimes. 

[gardenmom5]

13 hours ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Nike is fascinating. They champion Kaepernick here and then profit off the backs of POC the world over, violating work ethics everywhere they go and avoiding countries that insist they provide certain standards of working conditions. And (some) Americans champion them and turn a blind eye to the rest. Talk about  corporate manipulation in action. 

they know their customers base.

[HomeAgain]

1 hour ago, DawnM said:

 

We had teachers locally fired for risqué and drunken behavior and posting it on FB.  I don't know where the lines should be drawn sometimes. 

In my mind the line should be drawn based on the nature of the job.  If the job requirement is having a positive effect on the community, like teaching, therapy, youth leaders etc, then I think an ethics clause should definitely be in there.

My son's high school principal was fired for extremely bad behavior.  It was a small town.  His wife was a teacher at the school.  It came out that this was the third school to fire him for the same behavior, but the district hadn't checked beyond making sure he actually had worked at the other schools.  For the high schoolers, it was a clear case of "do what I say, not what I do" behavior and it negatively impacted how they thought about the principal and teacher.  It shook the integrity of the school and the respect for the authority there.
The teacher, his wife, wasn't fired.  But it was mentioned to her, and not the first time I'm sure she'd heard it, that it might be better not to return the next year.

So.....I don't know.  I think if a person's off-duty behavior negatively impacts their on-duty performance, that an ethics clause is needed.

[gardenmom5]

10 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

Workers shouldn't have to sign ethics clauses unrelated to their work as a condition of their employment.

Not least because the 'person' defining ethics is a corporation, opaque and self-interested.

 

actually, it's a group of people making up the board.  the ones who decide what direction they want to take their corporation and what image they want to project.

[DawnM]

30 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:

In my mind the line should be drawn based on the nature of the job.  If the job requirement is having a positive effect on the community, like teaching, therapy, youth leaders etc, then I think an ethics clause should definitely be in there.

My son's high school principal was fired for extremely bad behavior.  It was a small town.  His wife was a teacher at the school.  It came out that this was the third school to fire him for the same behavior, but the district hadn't checked beyond making sure he actually had worked at the other schools.  For the high schoolers, it was a clear case of "do what I say, not what I do" behavior and it negatively impacted how they thought about the principal and teacher.  It shook the integrity of the school and the respect for the authority there.
The teacher, his wife, wasn't fired.  But it was mentioned to her, and not the first time I'm sure she'd heard it, that it might be better not to return the next year.

So.....I don't know.  I think if a person's off-duty behavior negatively impacts their on-duty performance, that an ethics clause is needed.

 

What did the principal do?

This teacher was in a bikini, at the beach, acting drunk and crazy.  It wasn't anything illegal, but it was questionable.

[HomeAgain]

1 minute ago, DawnM said:

 

What did the principal do?

This teacher was in a bikini, at the beach, acting drunk and crazy.  It wasn't anything illegal, but it was questionable.

Oh, the principal was definitely doing illegal stuff.  It took quite a bit of our small police force to take him down and deal with him until sobriety hit.  So I guess maybe there's the difference?  I'll have to think on this more.  I don't look too kindly at schools that fire teachers for doing perfectly legal things, I guess.  A story of a teacher who was fired for being gay (not being in a relationship) from a church-run school comes to mind.
LOL The ideal part of my mind (which thinks ethics clauses aren't necessarily bad) is competing with the practical side that says that maybe we should just expect people to come to work and go home.  But I don't know which side would win if say, my kid's teacher was moonlighting as a stripper.  It's legal, but it would make me uncomfortable and I feel that would be a detriment to his/her day job.  But I don't know if that feeling's enough to put that on someone else's life and employment status.