NATION

PASSWORD

Corporate Boycotts and Employee Termination

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Boycott a company and/or terminate an employee for the causes they support?

Both are right
8
14%
Neither are right
6
10%
Boycotts are right, firing is wrong
42
72%
Firing is right, boycotts are wrong
2
3%
 
Total votes : 58

User avatar
Elwher
Senator
 
Posts: 3977
Founded: May 24, 2012
Capitalist Paradise

Corporate Boycotts and Employee Termination

Postby Elwher » Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:15 pm

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?
CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
Ambrose Bierce

User avatar
Grinning Dragon
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6593
Founded: May 16, 2011
Anarchy

Postby Grinning Dragon » Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:38 pm

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.
I prefer Dangerous Freedom over peaceful slavery! Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Gun-Control is the belief that declawing the cat will protect it against other animals; also why are anti-gun people so violent?
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery!
Socialism- the herpes of economic systems.
My Constitutional Rights trump your dead. Proud American infidel since the 1970's-Deus Vult
The made up term "toxic masculinity" is founded on nonsense psychologism

User avatar
Cekoviu
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12097
Founded: Oct 18, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Cekoviu » Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:48 pm

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.
Вы всегда завтракаете в Алжире, да?
she/her
Torrocca wrote:"Your honor, it was not mein fault! I didn't order the systematic genocide of millions of people, it was the twenty kilograms of pure-cut Bavarian cocaine that did it!"
Liriena wrote:anyone to the left of Pinochet: *exists*

right-wingers: wat about vuvuzelaaa lmao gottem

User avatar
Aureumterra
Senator
 
Posts: 4542
Founded: Oct 25, 2017
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Aureumterra » Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:52 pm

Companies should be able fire for any reason, if the higher ups think its bad for business, they have the right to fire
♔-Put this in your sig if you’re a Monarchy/Empire
Global Politics Roleplay!
Pro: Trump, MAGA, Capitalism, Gender Equality, MAGA 2020
Anti: Democrats, 3rd wave feminism, Racism, Socialism, ANTIFA
Icelandic Nationalist and proud
I’m your average Íslandic NS player
I DO NOT USE NS STATS!
A 12 civilization, according to this index.
Currently running for city council in Kópavogur, follow news here (Translated from Icelandic to English, expect errors)

User avatar
95X
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1170
Founded: Sep 30, 2004
Capitalist Paradise

Re: Corporate Boycotts and Employee Termination

Postby 95X » Wed Oct 16, 2019 2:02 pm

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.).
Nation not my RL views, etc.
Poe's Law. Nonpartisan, except:
Jay Inslee for WA Governor
Carolyn Long for WA-3
Atlantian Oceania. The Place.
“An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field.”—Niels Bohr
“If you want to read books, read books.”—Dennis James
AOCAF 22 & 47 Champions! • Volleyball World Expo 1, 2, 4 & 7 Champions!

User avatar
Greed and Death
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49341
Founded: Mar 20, 2008
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Greed and Death » Wed Oct 16, 2019 3:46 pm

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/
"Trying to solve the healthcare problem by mandating people buy insurance is like trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating people buy a house."(paraphrase from debate with Hilary Clinton)
Barack Obama

User avatar
Cappuccina
Minister
 
Posts: 2603
Founded: Jun 05, 2018
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Cappuccina » Wed Oct 16, 2019 3:57 pm

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.
Muslim, Female, Not white..... oppression points x3!!!!
"Show forgiveness, enjoin kindness, avoid ignorance' - Holy Quran, Al-Araf, 7:199
Automobile fan!!! ^_^
Left/Right: -5.25
SocLib/Auth: 2.46

Kamb la tis je ste nemaj udevirtij, id tal adorad sí po Doj solem!!!

User avatar
Vetalia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11212
Founded: Mar 23, 2005
Corporate Bordello

Postby Vetalia » Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:29 pm

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.
Economic Left/Right: 1.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.05

Honk Honk

User avatar
The Black Forrest
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36130
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Black Forrest » Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:43 pm

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.....
*I am a master proofreader after I click Submit.
* There is actually a War on Christmas. But Christmas started it, with it's unparalleled aggression against the Thanksgiving Holiday, and now Christmas has seized much Lebensraum in November, and are pushing into October. The rest of us seek to repel these invaders, and push them back to the status quo ante bellum Black Friday border. -Trotskylvania
* Silence Is Golden But Duct Tape Is Silver.
* I felt like Ayn Rand cornered me at a party, and three minutes in I found my first objection to what she was saying, but she kept talking without interruption for ten more days. - Max Barry talking about Atlas Shrugged

User avatar
Katganistan
Senior Game Moderator
 
Posts: 32069
Founded: Antiquity
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Katganistan » Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:53 pm

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.

User avatar
Vetalia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11212
Founded: Mar 23, 2005
Corporate Bordello

Postby Vetalia » Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:54 pm

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.
Economic Left/Right: 1.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.05

Honk Honk

User avatar
Elwher
Senator
 
Posts: 3977
Founded: May 24, 2012
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Elwher » Wed Oct 16, 2019 10:29 pm

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?
CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
Ambrose Bierce

User avatar
Elwher
Senator
 
Posts: 3977
Founded: May 24, 2012
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Elwher » Wed Oct 16, 2019 10:31 pm

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?
CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
Ambrose Bierce

User avatar
Elwher
Senator
 
Posts: 3977
Founded: May 24, 2012
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Elwher » Wed Oct 16, 2019 10:33 pm

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.
CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
Ambrose Bierce

User avatar
Kowani
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18047
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kowani » Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:05 pm

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.
Atheist and still proud of it. Spanish Expat.
Post-Capitalist, Post-Nationalist. Rights are functionally just privileges society has deemed important.
Seangoli wrote:You are spouting nonsensical drivel with no coherent thought, little logic, and at the end of it all just angry opining at the clouds based on a truly astonishly low level of knowledge or understanding of the subject matter.

Turbofolkia wrote:And it’s not like the 1000 different offshoots of Protestantism that you have in America are any better. Even if they’re not abusing children, it’s just megachurches filled with people on mobility strollers donating their life savings to Pastor Hamburglar so that he can buy his sixth McMansion.

0% Capitalism

User avatar
The Black Forrest
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36130
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Black Forrest » Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:56 pm

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.
*I am a master proofreader after I click Submit.
* There is actually a War on Christmas. But Christmas started it, with it's unparalleled aggression against the Thanksgiving Holiday, and now Christmas has seized much Lebensraum in November, and are pushing into October. The rest of us seek to repel these invaders, and push them back to the status quo ante bellum Black Friday border. -Trotskylvania
* Silence Is Golden But Duct Tape Is Silver.
* I felt like Ayn Rand cornered me at a party, and three minutes in I found my first objection to what she was saying, but she kept talking without interruption for ten more days. - Max Barry talking about Atlas Shrugged

User avatar
Elwher
Senator
 
Posts: 3977
Founded: May 24, 2012
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Elwher » Thu Oct 17, 2019 3:17 am

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?
CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
Ambrose Bierce

User avatar
Elwher
Senator
 
Posts: 3977
Founded: May 24, 2012
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Elwher » Thu Oct 17, 2019 3:19 am

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.
CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
Ambrose Bierce

User avatar
Risottia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52452
Founded: Sep 05, 2006
New York Times Democracy

Postby Risottia » Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:23 am

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.
Statanist through and through.
Evilutionist Atheist Crusadjihadist. "Darwinu Akhbar! Dawkins vult!"
Founder of the NSG Peace Prize Committee.
I'm back.
SUMMER, BLOODY SUMMER!

User avatar
Risottia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52452
Founded: Sep 05, 2006
New York Times Democracy

Postby Risottia » Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:24 am

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.
Statanist through and through.
Evilutionist Atheist Crusadjihadist. "Darwinu Akhbar! Dawkins vult!"
Founder of the NSG Peace Prize Committee.
I'm back.
SUMMER, BLOODY SUMMER!

User avatar
Risottia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52452
Founded: Sep 05, 2006
New York Times Democracy

Postby Risottia » Thu Oct 17, 2019 7:25 am

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.
Statanist through and through.
Evilutionist Atheist Crusadjihadist. "Darwinu Akhbar! Dawkins vult!"
Founder of the NSG Peace Prize Committee.
I'm back.
SUMMER, BLOODY SUMMER!

User avatar
Greed and Death
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49341
Founded: Mar 20, 2008
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Greed and Death » Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:04 am

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.
"Trying to solve the healthcare problem by mandating people buy insurance is like trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating people buy a house."(paraphrase from debate with Hilary Clinton)
Barack Obama

User avatar
Unstoppable Empire of Doom
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1160
Founded: Dec 18, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Unstoppable Empire of Doom » Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:35 am

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?
Grammar errors attributed to my cellphones autocorrect.

The poor don't hate the rich, they hate those who masquerade inherited wealth as hard work.

Democracy is a tyranny of the majority. All other forms of government are tyrannies by a minority.

User avatar
Elwher
Senator
 
Posts: 3977
Founded: May 24, 2012
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Elwher » Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:47 am

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?
CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
Ambrose Bierce

User avatar
Elwher
Senator
 
Posts: 3977
Founded: May 24, 2012
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Elwher » Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:48 am

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.
CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
Ambrose Bierce

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ameriganastan, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Bloodshade, Cantelo, Duvniask, Forumland, Liriena, Nakena, Neu California, Novus America, Philjia, SD_Film Artists, Solanos, Stellar Colonies, The JELLEAIN Republic, The Two Jerseys, Uiiop, Zurkerx

Advertisement

Remove ads