NationStates

A question for those who support boycotting companies due to the causes they support, i.e. not buying from Chick-Fil-A because they fund causes that work against anti-discrimination legislation for homosexuals.

If it is right for an individual to refuse to patronize a company because of what they do with the money you give them in exchange for their service, is it right for a company to refuse to employ an individual because of what they do with the money given them in exchange for their service?

Would it be right to fire an employee because he sends money to Al Sharpton, since he is an avowed anti-Semite?

If not, what is the difference between the two scenarios?

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.

Generally firing employees for political reasons is wrong, but I could also think of situations where an employee might need to be disciplined in connection to politics. For example, an employee wearing a political accessory such as a MAGA hat or a button supporting a particular candidate could be driving away business, or somebody whose political ideology harms their ability to interact with coworkers or customers. Maybe even an employee doing something public and highly controversial, like attending a neo-Nazi rally, would warrant disciplinary action. But merely donating to candidates or privately supporting a particular ideology are not cause to fire someone.

Boycotting is different because it holds companies, not people, accountable for public actions.

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

We live in a world where any publicity, even negative publicity, is merely free advertising a companies' products and/or services.

As examples, I've seen a movie because I heard about it from people saying "don't watch this movie". I even once purchased an under-$10 computer game because someone made a video about how they didn't like it (said game provided some fun on a laptop during a bus trip at a time when internet on phones wasn't common). Another recent example was in the Pacific Northwest, where a union called for a boycott of a major chain over contract negotiations. It's over now, but all it did was serve as an advertisement.

Elwher wrote:…is it right for a company to refuse to employ an individual because of what they do with the money given them in exchange for their service?

Would it be right to fire an employee because he sends money to Al Sharpton, since he is an avowed anti-Semite?

If not, what is the difference between the two scenarios?

I'm obviously not a legal professional, but as I understand firing an employee and refusing to employ someone are two different matters. Employers can already "move forward with other candidates that more closely match the qualifications for the position" through a simple web search for a person's name and evaluating the results and/or searching other available data and resources. As for firing someone who donated money to someone or something, I think they have to prove why and how it hurts their business and that the standards are applied fairly across everyone who works for the company (again, not a lawyer, not a legal professional, not advice of any kind, NS isn't the place to seek nor find this kind of advice, etc.).

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/

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

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

I think it depends on the facts and circumstances more than anything; you could go down a pretty dangerous path by justifying termination solely on the basis of an employee's political beliefs, how they spend their money or whatever else they do outside of work. Boycotting a business and firing an employee aren't really comparable in terms of impact or the nature of the transaction either.

Termination should always be a last resort after other methods of discipline have been exhausted and used only when the circumstances leading to termination are clearly defined in the employee handbook provided to the at the start of employment.

Boycotts are perfectly fine. People choose to do that.

Firing an employee because you don’t like their politics? Sorry.

Now the employee wearing logos....mentioning the business....firing is warranted if the business can show it was hurt by the actions.....

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/

I'll say it: unless he was proselytizing or treating customers badly because of his beliefs on the job, then no, should not have been fired.

The Black Forrest wrote:Boycotts are perfectly fine. People choose to do that.

Firing an employee because you don’t like their politics? Sorry.

Now the employee wearing logos....mentioning the business....firing is warranted if the business can show it was hurt by the actions.....

Exactly, that sums up the best approach very well.

I think it's also important to emphasize how serious a termination is in terms of consequences and costs for both employee and employer, hence why most employers are so reluctant to do so except as a last resort. It simply doesn't compare to someone's decision not to buy from a particular company.

Cappuccina wrote:

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

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?

The Black Forrest wrote:Boycotts are perfectly fine. People choose to do that.

Firing an employee because you don’t like their politics? Sorry.

Now the employee wearing logos....mentioning the business....firing is warranted if the business can show it was hurt by the actions.....

People choose to do the firing as well.

If boycotting a company because you do not like their politics is fine, why is boycotting an employee because you don't like their politics not?

95X wrote:

Elwher wrote:…is it right for a company to refuse to employ an individual because of what they do with the money given them in exchange for their service?

Would it be right to fire an employee because he sends money to Al Sharpton, since he is an avowed anti-Semite?

If not, what is the difference between the two scenarios?

I'm obviously not a legal professional, but as I understand firing an employee and refusing to employ someone are two different matters. Employers can already "move forward with other candidates that more closely match the qualifications for the position" through a simple web search for a person's name and evaluating the results and/or searching other available data and resources. As for firing someone who donated money to someone or something, I think they have to prove why and how it hurts their business and that the standards are applied fairly across everyone who works for the company (again, not a lawyer, not a legal professional, not advice of any kind, NS isn't the place to seek nor find this kind of advice, etc.).

My question, however, was not if it is legal but is it right. Slavery and the Holocaust point out the difference between the two.

Elwher wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:Boycotts are perfectly fine. People choose to do that.

Firing an employee because you don’t like their politics? Sorry.

Now the employee wearing logos....mentioning the business....firing is warranted if the business can show it was hurt by the actions.....

People choose to do the firing as well.

If boycotting a company because you do not like their politics is fine, why is boycotting an employee because you don't like their politics not?

You don’t boycott an employee.

Elwher wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:Boycotts are perfectly fine. People choose to do that.

Firing an employee because you don’t like their politics? Sorry.

Now the employee wearing logos....mentioning the business....firing is warranted if the business can show it was hurt by the actions.....

People choose to do the firing as well.

If boycotting a company because you do not like their politics is fine, why is boycotting an employee because you don't like their politics not?

People choose to fire others for violation of policy; failing to do the job; hurting the business, etc. They are not boycotted.

Politics is usually not a measurement of work. Just like religion. If I don’t like Christians, I can’t fire them or not hire them because of them being one. Now if they try to evangelize while on the job and ignore warnings? Termination is warranted.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Elwher wrote:
People choose to do the firing as well.

If boycotting a company because you do not like their politics is fine, why is boycotting an employee because you don't like their politics not?

People choose to fire others for violation of policy; failing to do the job; hurting the business, etc. They are not boycotted.

Politics is usually not a measurement of work. Just like religion. If I don’t like Christians, I can’t fire them or not hire them because of them being one. Now if they try to evangelize while on the job and ignore warnings? Termination is warranted.

Then is not the work of a company the sale of its products? If so, then why is politics a measure of that work?

If it is right for you, as a purchaser of chicken sandwiches, to decline to do business due to politics then why would it not be right for you, as a purchaser of labor, to decline to do business due to politics?

Kowani wrote:

Elwher wrote:
People choose to do the firing as well.

If boycotting a company because you do not like their politics is fine, why is boycotting an employee because you don't like their politics not?

You don’t boycott an employee.

A boycott is a refusal to do business with an entity or person. As an employer, terminating the employment relationship is a refusal to do business with that person. Therefore, boycott and termination are equivalent.

Elwher wrote:If it is right for an individual to refuse to patronize a company because of what they do with the money you give them in exchange for their service,

Yes because an individual gets to choose where to spend his own money.

is it right for a company to refuse to employ an individual because of what they do with the money given them in exchange for their service

No because companies aren't people.

Would it be right to fire an employee because he sends money to Al Sharpton, since he is an avowed anti-Semite?

No because an individual gets to choose where to spend his own money.

If not, what is the difference between the two scenarios?

The personhood recognised to human individuals isn't the same as the legal personhood of human groups such as companies. And rightly so.

Elwher wrote:

Kowani wrote:You don’t boycott an employee.

A boycott is a refusal to do business with an entity or person. As an employer, terminating the employment relationship is a refusal to do business with that person. Therefore, boycott and termination are equivalent.

Wrong because employees and companies aren't the same thing.

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/

Looks like he didn't associate his work and workplace to the expression of his political (shitty) ideas, so yeah, I think he shouldn't have been fired.

Risottia wrote:

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/

Looks like he didn't associate his work and workplace to the expression of his political (shitty) ideas, so yeah, I think he shouldn't have been fired.

I will be honest with you I am all for firing nazis and communist.

Elwher wrote:A question for those who support boycotting companies due to the causes they support, i.e. not buying from Chick-Fil-A because they fund causes that work against anti-discrimination legislation for homosexuals.

If it is right for an individual to refuse to patronize a company because of what they do with the money you give them in exchange for their service, is it right for a company to refuse to employ an individual because of what they do with the money given them in exchange for their service?

Would it be right to fire an employee because he sends money to Al Sharpton, since he is an avowed anti-Semite?

If not, what is the difference between the two scenarios?

What's your opinion?

Risottia wrote:

Elwher wrote:If it is right for an individual to refuse to patronize a company because of what they do with the money you give them in exchange for their service,

Yes because an individual gets to choose where to spend his own money.

is it right for a company to refuse to employ an individual because of what they do with the money given them in exchange for their service

No because companies aren't people.

Would it be right to fire an employee because he sends money to Al Sharpton, since he is an avowed anti-Semite?

No because an individual gets to choose where to spend his own money.

If not, what is the difference between the two scenarios?

The personhood recognised to human individuals isn't the same as the legal personhood of human groups such as companies. And rightly so.

So what if it is not a corporation but one person hiring another? Is that the same thing?

Unstoppable Empire of Doom wrote:

Elwher wrote:A question for those who support boycotting companies due to the causes they support, i.e. not buying from Chick-Fil-A because they fund causes that work against anti-discrimination legislation for homosexuals.

If it is right for an individual to refuse to patronize a company because of what they do with the money you give them in exchange for their service, is it right for a company to refuse to employ an individual because of what they do with the money given them in exchange for their service?

Would it be right to fire an employee because he sends money to Al Sharpton, since he is an avowed anti-Semite?

If not, what is the difference between the two scenarios?

What's your opinion?

They are the same thing and therefore, equally right.