NationStates

Cekoviu wrote:

Diopolis wrote:I’m of the school of thought that boycotting businesses for political reasons is usually stupid but broadly within the pale of acceptable behavior. Firing, not so much.
So not eating chic fil a is acceptable, even if it is dumb. Mozilla firing Brandon Eich, on the other hand, is both unacceptable and dumb.

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.

Grinning Dragon wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:I've never been. Is it good?

Popeye's Chicken is meh.

Too much breading. You're better off with home-made, but if not, KFC Extra Crispy.

Katganistan wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:Popeye's Chicken is meh.

Too much breading. You're better off with home-made, but if not, KFC Extra Crispy.

Kentucky Fried Crap? You gotta be kidding me

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.

In what article?

Cekoviu wrote:

Katganistan wrote:
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.

In what article?

In this case I think Kat was referring to the Top Dog employee who "resigned" but the facts are the same for Brendan Eich.

In professional services firms and in managerial roles in any business, especially the C-Suite, nobody is ever actually fired unless your conduct is so egregious it's essentially criminal...what happens is when the company is ready to fire you, you're given the opportunity to "resign" voluntarily with a severance package based on your history with the company and role.

It's a win-win, actually; by resigning "voluntarily", the company is immune from lawsuits due to unlawful termination and the employee can honestly say that they resigned when looking for another position rather than state that they were fired, with the former employer's HR department confirming that action as part of the severance agreement.

Vetalia wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:In what article?

In this case I think Kat was referring to the Top Dog employee who "resigned" but the facts are the same for Brendan Eich.

In professional services firms and in managerial roles in any business, especially the C-Suite, nobody is ever actually fired unless your conduct is so egregious it's essentially criminal...what happens is when the company is ready to fire you, you're given the opportunity to "resign" voluntarily with a severance package based on your history with the company and role.

It's a win-win, actually; by resigning "voluntarily", the company is immune from lawsuits due to unlawful termination and the employee can honestly say that they resigned when looking for another position rather than state that they were fired, with the former employer's HR department confirming that action as part of the severance agreement.

I mean, there was apparently internal support by some Mozilla people, so I think that would've been a rather controversial choice, but okay. Honestly doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me for a guy with as impressive a resume as him to have been pressured into resigning anyway, and his public actions could certainly be considered to cause damage to the company (see: OkCupid alerting Firefox users to his donation). I don't think pressuring somebody into quitting is ever good, but it's less bad here than elsewhere.

Elwher wrote:

Cappuccina wrote:The politics of an employee has nothing to do with their work performance, that should be the company's only concern.

To which I respond, the politics of a company has nothing to do with the performance of the service they supply either, so why should that not be the customer's only concern? Chick-Fil-A's job is selling chicken sandwiches, how do their donations affect that?

They don't. I don't believe in boycotting businesses for their choices in charity either.

Cekoviu wrote:

Katganistan wrote:
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.

In what article?

Greed and Death wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:Boycotts are fine. What I don't agree with, when a company fires somebody because of his or her political affiliations or groups they may or may not support in contrast of their corporate employer. What a person does on their own time is their business. Now if said person was doing this on company time, then fine, no issue in firing said person.

So if I am reading this correctly, you believe the neo nazi who lost his job as a hot dog seller shoulnd't have been fired ?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/201 ... 569487001/

Sorry, "voluntarily". Which pretty much, the same as I said originally.

Katganistan wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:In what article?

Greed and Death wrote:
So if I am reading this correctly, you believe the neo nazi who lost his job as a hot dog seller shoulnd't have been fired ?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/201 ... 569487001/

I thought you were talking about Eich, since that's what I was talking about in the post you quoted.

In order for me to want to boycott a company, they would have to go beyond merely "the owner/CEO/whatever" having different political views. I have no trouble at all with people I disagree with, I do have a problem with people and organizations that allow their views to get in the way of basic decency.

Cekoviu wrote:I mean, there was apparently internal support by some Mozilla people, so I think that would've been a rather controversial choice, but okay. Honestly doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me for a guy with as impressive a resume as him to have been pressured into resigning anyway, and his public actions could certainly be considered to cause damage to the company (see: OkCupid alerting Firefox users to his donation). I don't think pressuring somebody into quitting is ever good, but it's less bad here than elsewhere.

I was reading into it further on Wiki and the alternative proposed by the board of directors was for him to take "another role" with the company, which for a CEO would be ludicrous as it amounts to a massive demotion, so it was pretty much the classic "resign or be fired".

Elwher wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Workers have rights, including protection from arbitrary termination. Businesses do not have rights. Therefore I can choose to boycott any business for any reason, but businesses, whether multinational corporations or sole traders, cannot arbitrarily fire their workers.

I understand and agree on the legal position. My question, however, is not is it legal but is it right? Why should a person not have the right to stop patronizing an employee due to politics but have the right to stop patronizing a business for the same reason.

Because being an employer and being a customer are different things. We don't treat them the same because there's no reason to do so.

Elwher wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Nope. Is he doing the job as expected? Is he being disruptive? Nobody is going to argue if you tried to correct his work output or talked to him over being disruptive and the problems continue.

The operative word is “customer” if you want them; their views matter. If you want the customers who support homosexual rights; don’t get the business involved in the issue. This is not a new thing. Most businesses avoid politics and religion for that reason. Rember the dominos CEO who was highly involved with Operation Rescue. They chose to separate ties due the the publicity issues.

As an employer, I am the customer for the employee's work. If he wants me to continue as his customer, my views matter in the same way that if a business wants me as a customer for their product.

No you are not.

You are the boss.

Thermodolia wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:We don't get that out west.

You poor people. Y’all need to get one. Bojangles offers great chicken biscuits, Cajun chicken biscuits, and buttermilk biscuits all day long. They are to die for.

Dang. Will have to try them when I can get out that way :|

The Black Forrest wrote:

Elwher wrote:
As an employer, I am the customer for the employee's work. If he wants me to continue as his customer, my views matter in the same way that if a business wants me as a customer for their product.

No you are not.

You are the boss.

And the Boss says Commies need not apply.

Greed and Death wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
No you are not.

You are the boss.

And the Boss says Commies need not apply.

Funny. I missed that box when I did hourly jobs.

Ifreann wrote:

Elwher wrote:
I understand and agree on the legal position. My question, however, is not is it legal but is it right? Why should a person not have the right to stop patronizing an employee due to politics but have the right to stop patronizing a business for the same reason.

Because being an employer and being a customer are different things. We don't treat them the same because there's no reason to do so.

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.

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.

Elwher wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Because being an employer and being a customer are different things. We don't treat them the same because there's no reason to do so.

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.

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.

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.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Elwher wrote:
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.

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.

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

Jobs are created due 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.

That's a good distinction imo. Well put.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Elwher wrote:
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.

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.

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.

But what if I'm really hungry tho

The Black Forrest wrote:

Elwher wrote:
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.

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.

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.

Manager != employer.

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.

Izandai wrote: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 Black Forrest wrote:

Elwher wrote:
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.

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.

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?

Elwher wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Because being an employer and being a customer are different things. We don't treat them the same because there's no reason to do so.

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.