NationStates

Diopolis wrote:

Ifreann wrote:"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.

Was it a minor impact overall or no impact?

Ifreann wrote:

Diopolis wrote: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.

Was it a minor impact overall or no impact?

I’m too tired by now to argue over semantics. Chic fil a became the most popular fast food restaurant in the country after the boycott began but got driven out of certain markets entirely. That encapsulates my point about the effects of a boycott.

Diopolis wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Was it a minor impact overall or no impact?

I’m too tired by now to argue over semantics. Chic fil a became the most popular fast food restaurant in the country after the boycott began but got driven out of certain markets entirely. That encapsulates my point about the effects of a boycott.

I have you over here saying that the backlash to the boycott made Chic-fil-a so popular that corporate profits rose. But I have Elwher and TEL over there saying that corporate's income is tied to the number of restaurants open, and to hurt corporate you need to shut a franchise down. So, what, did two new restaurants open for every one that closed?

You're all arguing against boycotts from mutually exclusive angles. It's too damaging! It doesn't do anything! It helps actually!

Katganistan wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:He resigned, mate.

Notice the air quotes in the article. "Resigned" does not mean resigned. "Resigned" means told to leave immediately with some measure of dignity and receive severance pay, or be fired and do without, generally.

It was a hot Dog place so my guess is he was told they wouldn't fight unemployment.

Ifreann wrote:

Diopolis wrote:I’m too tired by now to argue over semantics. Chic fil a became the most popular fast food restaurant in the country after the boycott began but got driven out of certain markets entirely. That encapsulates my point about the effects of a boycott.

I have you over here saying that the backlash to the boycott made Chic-fil-a so popular that corporate profits rose. But I have Elwher and TEL over there saying that corporate's income is tied to the number of restaurants open, and to hurt corporate you need to shut a franchise down. So, what, did two new restaurants open for every one that closed?

You're all arguing against boycotts from mutually exclusive angles. It's too damaging! It doesn't do anything! It helps actually!

Reading their last quarterly report they opened 7 for everyone 1 closed.

Aureumterra wrote:Companies should be able fire for any reason, if the higher ups think its bad for business, they have the right to fire

Disagree with this, especially for public companies. Some decisions have to come from shareholders. There are sometimes situations where firing someone is not in the interest of the shareholders of a company. The money is held by the stockholders, not the higher ups.

Aureumterra wrote:Companies should be able fire for any reason, if the higher ups think its bad for business, they have the right to fire

That worked out really well for Enron.