Corporate Boycotts and Employee Termination

[The Black Forrest]

You are free to believe that. You are wrong but you are free to believe that.

Jobs are created to solve a need.

A person doesn’t have a need for a chicken sandwich. They have a desire.

A manager doesn’t get a desire to have a person to run a lathe. They have a need.

Manager != customer.

So how would you define customer, so that my paying you to make me a chicken sandwich is included but my paying you to run a lathe is not?

You could have a need to eat and desire a chicken sandwich.

You could also have a desire to fill a needed position.

A customer may need to eat and yet doesn’t desire your chicken sandwich.

If there is a position; you need it filled.....

[Diopolis]

In both cases, I am trading my money for goods or services from another entity. That service may be making me a chicken sandwich or running a lathe in my shop.

And both you and a plucked chicken are bipedal animals with no feathers. That doesn't mean I can go to Chick-fil-a and get an Elwher burger. A single point of similarity doesn't make things the same.

If anything, terminating an employee for his political actions is ,ore fair than boycotting a national chain. In the first case, the person acting immorally is the one being targeted. In the second case, the manager and workers of a local establishment are being targeted for decisions well above their pay grade.

I could be wrong, but I don't think that fast food franchises operate on a commission basis. The manager and workers of your local Chick-fil-a get paid just as much whether you buy lunch there or not.

Chic fil a’s are owned individually and pay a tax to the corporation in return for the use of their name and techniques, iirc.

[Ifreann]

And both you and a plucked chicken are bipedal animals with no feathers. That doesn't mean I can go to Chick-fil-a and get an Elwher burger. A single point of similarity doesn't make things the same.


I could be wrong, but I don't think that fast food franchises operate on a commission basis. The manager and workers of your local Chick-fil-a get paid just as much whether you buy lunch there or not.

Chic fil a’s are owned individually and pay a tax to the corporation in return for the use of their name and techniques, iirc.

It would be a fee, not a tax, but yeah, that's my understanding of how franchises in general work. But my point stands. Employees, whether on the till or in management, make a wage. They don't take home less money at the end of the month if there's one less customer any more than they get a bonus if there's one more customer.

[Diopolis]

Chic fil a’s are owned individually and pay a tax to the corporation in return for the use of their name and techniques, iirc.

It would be a fee, not a tax, but yeah, that's my understanding of how franchises in general work. But my point stands. Employees, whether on the till or in management, make a wage. They don't take home less money at the end of the month if there's one less customer any more than they get a bonus if there's one more customer.

My understanding is that Chic fil a in particular regulates ownership such that I’d feel a little worse about taking money out of their pockets as compared to say, McDonald’s,, but still not particularly relevant to the broader point.

[Chessmistress]

Depends.
It's a private citizen buying a service from a professional? Then the service contract can be terminated as per law and eventual rules agreed by contract.
It's a single-owner company hiring an employee? Then no.

Why not? If I can decide not to spend my chicken sandwich money due to the producer's politics, why can't I decide not to spend my employee salary money due to the producer's politics?

Because in the first case you haven't signed a contract where you agreed to spend your money in the chicken sandwich, while in the second case the employer and the employee have signed a contract.

Aren't contracts relevant anymore in the capitalism 4.0?

Do you realize that using such strawman of your then McDonald's could be able to sue you since you did choose Burger King and by so you "boycotted McDonald's"?

So, yeah: the relationship between two entities who have a contract is VERY different from the relationship between two entities who do NOT have signed a contract.

[Aclion]

Chic fil a’s are owned individually and pay a tax to the corporation in return for the use of their name and techniques, iirc.

It would be a fee, not a tax, but yeah, that's my understanding of how franchises in general work. But my point stands. Employees, whether on the till or in management, make a wage. They don't take home less money at the end of the month if there's one less customer any more than they get a bonus if there's one more customer.

Not true. As an example. Wages are going up in shipping because there are more people ordering things online now and not enough people willing and able to do the work. Companies actually need to compete for workers now, and need to hold those workers to higher standards. That means workers can demand higher wages.

[Chessmistress]

I voted "boycotts are right, firings are wrong" because it's the closer option.
Actually the two are not even comparable, and OP is based on a flawed reasoning, practically a strawman:
Boycott is a free market choice: consumers haven't signed contracts obliging them to buy from Chick-a-Fill, McDonald's, etc. Consumers have no formal relationship with Chick-a-Fill or McDonald's.
Firing is termination of a contract.
Boycott cannot be a termination, because there isn't the beginning, there isn't the contract and therefore there isn't the termination of the contract.

[Chessmistress]

Depends entirely on the cause. Firing a nazi or a klansman is good. Firing someone who supports Black Lives Matter or Antifa is bad. Boycotting a company that readily bends to the will of a totalitarian regime is good. Boycotting a company that seeks to increase diversity in an industry is bad.

So you would agree that firing an employee who supports an immoral cause is acceptable, as is boycotting a company who does the same?

The hiring process of an employee involves signing a contract.
Such contract can be terminated for reasons stated within the contract itself.
"Boycotting a company" is something that we all do, always: it's a free choice not regulated by a contract. I.E.: if you drink Pepsi and you dislike Coke, then you're boycotting Coke, and viceversa. The reasons of your choice are irrelevant because there isn't contract between you and the Coca-Cola Company. You can dislike the Coca-Cola Company due the taste of its products, due its logo, due its prices, due its policies, still it doesn't matter in the slighest because by lacking the contract they have no rights over you, just like you don't have rights over them.

[Elwher]

So you would agree that firing an employee who supports an immoral cause is acceptable, as is boycotting a company who does the same?

The hiring process of an employee involves signing a contract.
Such contract can be terminated for reasons stated within the contract itself.
"Boycotting a company" is something that we all do, always: it's a free choice not regulated by a contract. I.E.: if you drink Pepsi and you dislike Coke, then you're boycotting Coke, and viceversa. The reasons of your choice are irrelevant because there isn't contract between you and the Coca-Cola Company. You can dislike the Coca-Cola Company due the taste of its products, due its logo, due its prices, due its policies, still it doesn't matter in the slighest because by lacking the contract they have no rights over you, just like you don't have rights over them.

Most employment contracts do not have a specific term, nor do they specify the conditions under which either party can terminate.

[Elwher]

In both cases, I am trading my money for goods or services from another entity. That service may be making me a chicken sandwich or running a lathe in my shop.

And both you and a plucked chicken are bipedal animals with no feathers. That doesn't mean I can go to Chick-fil-a and get an Elwher burger. A single point of similarity doesn't make things the same.

If anything, terminating an employee for his political actions is ,ore fair than boycotting a national chain. In the first case, the person acting immorally is the one being targeted. In the second case, the manager and workers of a local establishment are being targeted for decisions well above their pay grade.

I could be wrong, but I don't think that fast food franchises operate on a commission basis. The manager and workers of your local Chick-fil-a get paid just as much whether you buy lunch there or not.

No, but if your boycott is successful the business will go under and the manager and the employees will be out of their jobs.

[Chessmistress]

The hiring process of an employee involves signing a contract.
Such contract can be terminated for reasons stated within the contract itself.
"Boycotting a company" is something that we all do, always: it's a free choice not regulated by a contract. I.E.: if you drink Pepsi and you dislike Coke, then you're boycotting Coke, and viceversa. The reasons of your choice are irrelevant because there isn't contract between you and the Coca-Cola Company. You can dislike the Coca-Cola Company due the taste of its products, due its logo, due its prices, due its policies, still it doesn't matter in the slighest because by lacking the contract they have no rights over you, just like you don't have rights over them.

Most employment contracts do not have a specific term, nor do they specify the conditions under which either party can terminate.

That's no a "free for all party", lacks of specific conditions implies:
First - the respect of the local laws establishing workers' rights.
Second - an employer and an employee behavior in line to average habits is expected. Nothing weird or inusual is going to pass: if you want to be able to use weird/unusual reasons to fire someone, then you have to specify it in the contract. Laziness and ignorance are not worthy excuses, especially by those (employers) who claim to be the ones who are the main the engine of the economical development of the society.

[Ifreann]

It would be a fee, not a tax, but yeah, that's my understanding of how franchises in general work. But my point stands. Employees, whether on the till or in management, make a wage. They don't take home less money at the end of the month if there's one less customer any more than they get a bonus if there's one more customer.

Not true. As an example. Wages are going up in shipping because there are more people ordering things online now and not enough people willing and able to do the work. Companies actually need to compete for workers now, and need to hold those workers to higher standards. That means workers can demand higher wages.

Unless you can show me the wages of fast food workers being tied to the number of customers served each month then what I said is true.

---

And both you and a plucked chicken are bipedal animals with no feathers. That doesn't mean I can go to Chick-fil-a and get an Elwher burger. A single point of similarity doesn't make things the same.


I could be wrong, but I don't think that fast food franchises operate on a commission basis. The manager and workers of your local Chick-fil-a get paid just as much whether you buy lunch there or not.

No, but if your boycott is successful the business will go under and the manager and the employees will be out of their jobs.

If the boycott is successful the business will change the practices provoking the boycott and the workers will all keep their jobs.

[Diopolis]

Not true. As an example. Wages are going up in shipping because there are more people ordering things online now and not enough people willing and able to do the work. Companies actually need to compete for workers now, and need to hold those workers to higher standards. That means workers can demand higher wages.

Unless you can show me the wages of fast food workers being tied to the number of customers served each month then what I said is true.

---

No, but if your boycott is successful the business will go under and the manager and the employees will be out of their jobs.

If the boycott is successful the business will change the practices provoking the boycott and the workers will all keep their jobs.

What if I can show that the majority of Chic fil a franchisees own one location which they work at full time? Would that count?

[Ifreann]

Unless you can show me the wages of fast food workers being tied to the number of customers served each month then what I said is true.

---

If the boycott is successful the business will change the practices provoking the boycott and the workers will all keep their jobs.

What if I can show that the majority of Chic fil a franchisees own one location which they work at full time? Would that count?

A worker also being the owner is, obviously, an exception. If the person taking your order is on $12/hr then they will get $12 that hour whether you patronise the business or not. So it is wrong to suggest that declining to patronise a business is harming the workers at that business. In fact, I would characterise such a suggestion as foulest capitalist propaganda, an attempt to set workers against one another lest they recognise the true enemy.

[Elwher]

Not true. As an example. Wages are going up in shipping because there are more people ordering things online now and not enough people willing and able to do the work. Companies actually need to compete for workers now, and need to hold those workers to higher standards. That means workers can demand higher wages.

Unless you can show me the wages of fast food workers being tied to the number of customers served each month then what I said is true.

---

No, but if your boycott is successful the business will go under and the manager and the employees will be out of their jobs.

If the boycott is successful the business will change the practices provoking the boycott and the workers will all keep their jobs.

No one at the local store level has any input into that decision. If sales go down due to the boycott, the first result will be worker's hours being cut or workers being let go. The owner will be losing money because sales are down as well. The people who are being directly affected are not those who make the decision being protested.

[Ifreann]

Unless you can show me the wages of fast food workers being tied to the number of customers served each month then what I said is true.

---

If the boycott is successful the business will change the practices provoking the boycott and the workers will all keep their jobs.

No one at the local store level has any input into that decision. If sales go down due to the boycott, the first result will be worker's hours being cut or workers being let go. The owner will be losing money because sales are down as well. The people who are being directly affected are not those who make the decision being protested.

You're telling me that if the person giving a company money stops giving that company money, the company is not being directly affected?

Are you serious?

[The Emerald Legion]

No one at the local store level has any input into that decision. If sales go down due to the boycott, the first result will be worker's hours being cut or workers being let go. The owner will be losing money because sales are down as well. The people who are being directly affected are not those who make the decision being protested.

You're telling me that if the person giving a company money stops giving that company money, the company is not being directly affected?

Are you serious?

If Joe makes his money selling Chicken Sandwich supplies to Jeff, who then makes and sells Chicken Sandwiches to you...

In order for Joe to be effected at all, you must completely obliterate Jeff's business.

That's how franchises work. They don't care about how much money the franchise owner makes. The franchise owner just pays their fees and buys their supplies and that's it.

[Elwher]

No one at the local store level has any input into that decision. If sales go down due to the boycott, the first result will be worker's hours being cut or workers being let go. The owner will be losing money because sales are down as well. The people who are being directly affected are not those who make the decision being protested.

You're telling me that if the person giving a company money stops giving that company money, the company is not being directly affected?

Are you serious?

Yes I am. The amount of sales a particular store makes does not affect the franchise fee that the store owner pays the parent company in most cases. Unless the franchise is put out of business, as I suggested in a previous post, the host company is not affected in the least. Even in the case where the franchise fee is a percentage of earnings, very unusual I might add, the greatest effect is on the person I am giving my money to, the franchise owner, and not the person making the decision I am protesting, the host company.

[Ifreann]

You're telling me that if the person giving a company money stops giving that company money, the company is not being directly affected?

Are you serious?

If Joe makes his money selling Chicken Sandwich supplies to Jeff, who then makes and sells Chicken Sandwiches to you...

In order for Joe to be effected at all, you must completely obliterate Jeff's business.

That's how franchises work. They don't care about how much money the franchise owner makes. The franchise owner just pays their fees and buys their supplies and that's it.

Thank you, I do understand how franchises work.

---

You're telling me that if the person giving a company money stops giving that company money, the company is not being directly affected?

Are you serious?

Yes I am. The amount of sales a particular store makes does not affect the franchise fee that the store owner pays the parent company in most cases. Unless the franchise is put out of business, as I suggested in a previous post, the host company is not affected in the least. Even in the case where the franchise fee is a percentage of earnings, very unusual I might add, the greatest effect is on the person I am giving my money to, the franchise owner, and not the person making the decision I am protesting, the host company.

So the people who are being directly affected are not just the local workers.

You seem to think that boycotts are both so effective that businesses will be crippled, but also so ineffective that the actual targets of the boycott will not be impacted. But that's ridiculous. All in an effort to dissuade people from boycotting businesses by making it seem like doing so is attacking innocent, uninvolved workers.

[Diopolis]

If Joe makes his money selling Chicken Sandwich supplies to Jeff, who then makes and sells Chicken Sandwiches to you...

In order for Joe to be effected at all, you must completely obliterate Jeff's business.

That's how franchises work. They don't care about how much money the franchise owner makes. The franchise owner just pays their fees and buys their supplies and that's it.

Thank you, I do understand how franchises work.

---

Yes I am. The amount of sales a particular store makes does not affect the franchise fee that the store owner pays the parent company in most cases. Unless the franchise is put out of business, as I suggested in a previous post, the host company is not affected in the least. Even in the case where the franchise fee is a percentage of earnings, very unusual I might add, the greatest effect is on the person I am giving my money to, the franchise owner, and not the person making the decision I am protesting, the host company.

So the people who are being directly affected are not just the local workers.

You seem to think that boycotts are both so effective that businesses will be crippled, but also so ineffective that the actual targets of the boycott will not be impacted. But that's ridiculous. All in an effort to dissuade people from boycotting businesses by making it seem like doing so is attacking innocent, uninvolved workers.

It’s actually possible for both to happen at once, even if it takes some specific situations. For example, the chic fil a boycott was bad for the Chuc fil a workers and owners in blue states, but Chic fil a corporate saw record profits.
Anecdotally, everything I’ve heard is that chic fila tends to be a somewhat better employer than other fast food chains if that’s relevant(and I do count damages towards the owners of individual franchises as relevant).
Now there weren’t a whole lot of cfa restaurants in blue states, so it’s a pretty minor impact overall.

[Izandai]

Depends entirely on the cause. Firing a nazi or a klansman is good. Firing someone who supports Black Lives Matter or Antifa is bad. Boycotting a company that readily bends to the will of a totalitarian regime is good. Boycotting a company that seeks to increase diversity in an industry is bad.

So you would agree that firing an employee who supports an immoral cause is acceptable, as is boycotting a company who does the same?

That's pretty much what I just said, yes.

[Bear Stearns]

If you discovered that someone you knew was a Nazi*, would you out that to the public and also contact their employer to get them fired?



*Or any other bogeyman ideology

[Ifreann]

Thank you, I do understand how franchises work.

---

So the people who are being directly affected are not just the local workers.

You seem to think that boycotts are both so effective that businesses will be crippled, but also so ineffective that the actual targets of the boycott will not be impacted. But that's ridiculous. All in an effort to dissuade people from boycotting businesses by making it seem like doing so is attacking innocent, uninvolved workers.

It’s actually possible for both to happen at once, even if it takes some specific situations. For example, the chic fil a boycott was bad for the Chuc fil a workers and owners in blue states, but Chic fil a corporate saw record profits.
Anecdotally, everything I’ve heard is that chic fila tends to be a somewhat better employer than other fast food chains if that’s relevant(and I do count damages towards the owners of individual franchises as relevant).
Now there weren’t a whole lot of cfa restaurants in blue states, so it’s a pretty minor impact overall.

"The target of the boycott wasn't impacted, it was just a minor impact"

[Izandai]

If you discovered that someone you knew was a Nazi*, would you out that to the public and also contact their employer to get them fired?



*Or any other bogeyman ideology

"Boogyman" is an interesting way to describe the ideology responsible for this minor incident you might of heard of called the Holocaust. Also this brief spat you've probably also seen mentioned in passing called World War II.

[Diopolis]

It’s actually possible for both to happen at once, even if it takes some specific situations. For example, the chic fil a boycott was bad for the Chuc fil a workers and owners in blue states, but Chic fil a corporate saw record profits.
Anecdotally, everything I’ve heard is that chic fila tends to be a somewhat better employer than other fast food chains if that’s relevant(and I do count damages towards the owners of individual franchises as relevant).
Now there weren’t a whole lot of cfa restaurants in blue states, so it’s a pretty minor impact overall.

"The target of the boycott wasn't impacted, it was just a minor impact"

The chic fil a corporate group did not see any impact, but it was bad for certain franchisees and possibly also for workers in some markets.
These are not contradictory statements.