NATION

PASSWORD

Corporate Boycotts and Employee Termination

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

Advertisement

Remove ads

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
The Black Forrest
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36095
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Black Forrest » Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:44 am

Elwher wrote:
The Black Forrest wrote:
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.....
*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
Diopolis
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13315
Founded: May 15, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Diopolis » Fri Oct 18, 2019 8:41 am

Ifreann 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.

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.
Trad-Catholic, hispanophile Texan distributist and paleoconservative.
Economic left -3.88, authoritarian 6.15
Thoughts
Abortion is not healthcare.
St Generalissimo Francisco Franco, pray for president Trump!

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 134862
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Ifreann » Fri Oct 18, 2019 8:49 am

Diopolis wrote:
Ifreann wrote: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.
Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Banter For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Snark That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Sarcasm
He/Him

Dangerous this Jack o' Hearts.
With his kiss
the riot
starts

User avatar
Diopolis
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13315
Founded: May 15, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Diopolis » Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:08 am

Ifreann wrote:
Diopolis wrote: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.
Trad-Catholic, hispanophile Texan distributist and paleoconservative.
Economic left -3.88, authoritarian 6.15
Thoughts
Abortion is not healthcare.
St Generalissimo Francisco Franco, pray for president Trump!

User avatar
Chessmistress
Senator
 
Posts: 4902
Founded: Mar 16, 2015
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Chessmistress » Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:19 am

Elwher wrote:
Risottia wrote: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"? :eek:

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.
Last edited by Chessmistress on Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:25 am, edited 3 times in total.
Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed law and know that, in Canada, gender and sex are the same thing

OOC:
Radical Feminist, caring about the oppressed gender, that's why I have a strong sense of justice.

PRO:
Radical Feminism (proudly SWERF - moderately TERF),
Gender abolitionism,
birth control and population control,
affirmative ongoing VERBAL consent,
death penalty for rapists.

AGAINST:
patriarchy,
pornography,
heteronormativity,
domestic violence and femicide.


Favorite Quotes: http://www.nationstates.net/nation=ches ... /id=403173

User avatar
Aclion
Senator
 
Posts: 4716
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Aclion » Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:21 am

Ifreann wrote:
Diopolis wrote: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.
XKI: Recruiter, TITO Tactical Officer, Deputy WA Secretary, Emissary to Forest
TEP: Deputy Minister for WA affairs
Forest: Cartographer Emeritus
Oatland: Consul ,Caesar and Cartographer Emeritus
A free society rests on four boxes: The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box.
It is the citizen's duty to understand which box to use, and when.

User avatar
Chessmistress
Senator
 
Posts: 4902
Founded: Mar 16, 2015
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Chessmistress » Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:34 am

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.
Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed law and know that, in Canada, gender and sex are the same thing

OOC:
Radical Feminist, caring about the oppressed gender, that's why I have a strong sense of justice.

PRO:
Radical Feminism (proudly SWERF - moderately TERF),
Gender abolitionism,
birth control and population control,
affirmative ongoing VERBAL consent,
death penalty for rapists.

AGAINST:
patriarchy,
pornography,
heteronormativity,
domestic violence and femicide.


Favorite Quotes: http://www.nationstates.net/nation=ches ... /id=403173

User avatar
Chessmistress
Senator
 
Posts: 4902
Founded: Mar 16, 2015
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Chessmistress » Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:57 am

Elwher wrote:
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 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.
Last edited by Chessmistress on Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed law and know that, in Canada, gender and sex are the same thing

OOC:
Radical Feminist, caring about the oppressed gender, that's why I have a strong sense of justice.

PRO:
Radical Feminism (proudly SWERF - moderately TERF),
Gender abolitionism,
birth control and population control,
affirmative ongoing VERBAL consent,
death penalty for rapists.

AGAINST:
patriarchy,
pornography,
heteronormativity,
domestic violence and femicide.


Favorite Quotes: http://www.nationstates.net/nation=ches ... /id=403173

User avatar
Elwher
Senator
 
Posts: 3965
Founded: May 24, 2012
Capitalizt

Postby Elwher » Fri Oct 18, 2019 10:04 am

Chessmistress wrote:
Elwher wrote:
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.
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: 3965
Founded: May 24, 2012
Capitalizt

Postby Elwher » Fri Oct 18, 2019 10:05 am

Ifreann 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.

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.
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
Chessmistress
Senator
 
Posts: 4902
Founded: Mar 16, 2015
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Chessmistress » Fri Oct 18, 2019 10:12 am

Elwher wrote:
Chessmistress wrote:
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.
Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed law and know that, in Canada, gender and sex are the same thing

OOC:
Radical Feminist, caring about the oppressed gender, that's why I have a strong sense of justice.

PRO:
Radical Feminism (proudly SWERF - moderately TERF),
Gender abolitionism,
birth control and population control,
affirmative ongoing VERBAL consent,
death penalty for rapists.

AGAINST:
patriarchy,
pornography,
heteronormativity,
domestic violence and femicide.


Favorite Quotes: http://www.nationstates.net/nation=ches ... /id=403173

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 134862
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Ifreann » Fri Oct 18, 2019 10:20 am

Aclion wrote:
Ifreann wrote: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.


Elwher wrote:
Ifreann wrote: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.
Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Banter For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Snark That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Sarcasm
He/Him

Dangerous this Jack o' Hearts.
With his kiss
the riot
starts

User avatar
Diopolis
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13315
Founded: May 15, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Diopolis » Fri Oct 18, 2019 10:29 am

Ifreann wrote:
Aclion wrote: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.


Elwher wrote:
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?
Trad-Catholic, hispanophile Texan distributist and paleoconservative.
Economic left -3.88, authoritarian 6.15
Thoughts
Abortion is not healthcare.
St Generalissimo Francisco Franco, pray for president Trump!

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 134862
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Ifreann » Fri Oct 18, 2019 10:38 am

Diopolis wrote:
Ifreann wrote: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.
Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Banter For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Snark That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Sarcasm
He/Him

Dangerous this Jack o' Hearts.
With his kiss
the riot
starts

User avatar
Elwher
Senator
 
Posts: 3965
Founded: May 24, 2012
Capitalizt

Postby Elwher » Fri Oct 18, 2019 11:43 am

Ifreann wrote:
Aclion wrote: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.


Elwher wrote:
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.
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
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 134862
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Ifreann » Fri Oct 18, 2019 12:15 pm

Elwher wrote:
Ifreann wrote: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?
Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Banter For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Snark That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Sarcasm
He/Him

Dangerous this Jack o' Hearts.
With his kiss
the riot
starts

User avatar
The Emerald Legion
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7437
Founded: Mar 18, 2011
Corporate Police State

Postby The Emerald Legion » Fri Oct 18, 2019 12:47 pm

Ifreann wrote:
Elwher wrote:
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.
"I must play this game by my rules/ I will conquer the world with my tools/ All my machines are made for destruction/ I will build my empire/ I will succeed and you will see/ With my machines there is no retreat." ~ E.G.G.M.A.N.
I frequently lapse into self parody, that isn't to say that I don't have extreme views, just that I occasionally go over the top for comedic effect.
Genivaria wrote:The Emerald Legion is NSG's personal Reaper.

The Drone Empire wrote:"Enlighten the willing, enslave the conquered, eradicate the defiant."
A typical Legionary strategy meeting.
The appropriate pronoun for me is It.
Philosophically Biophobic.

User avatar
Elwher
Senator
 
Posts: 3965
Founded: May 24, 2012
Capitalizt

Postby Elwher » Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:06 pm

Ifreann wrote:
Elwher wrote:
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.
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
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 134862
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Ifreann » Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:18 pm

The Emerald Legion wrote:
Ifreann wrote: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.


Elwher wrote:
Ifreann wrote: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.
Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Banter For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Snark That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Sarcasm
He/Him

Dangerous this Jack o' Hearts.
With his kiss
the riot
starts

User avatar
Diopolis
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13315
Founded: May 15, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Diopolis » Fri Oct 18, 2019 4:00 pm

Ifreann wrote:
The Emerald Legion wrote:
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.


Elwher wrote:
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.
Trad-Catholic, hispanophile Texan distributist and paleoconservative.
Economic left -3.88, authoritarian 6.15
Thoughts
Abortion is not healthcare.
St Generalissimo Francisco Franco, pray for president Trump!

User avatar
Izandai
Senator
 
Posts: 3822
Founded: May 27, 2009
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Izandai » Fri Oct 18, 2019 5:01 pm

Elwher wrote:
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?

That's pretty much what I just said, yes.
Shinkadomayaka wrote:
JUNCKS wrote:Ozzy is awesome but Jesus is awesomer

Hey, this is a church thread. No mentioning religion!

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:
Rambhutan wrote:
My blind porcupine takes exception to this


Your blind porcupine can read text? :blink:

Neanderthaland wrote:
Izandai wrote:I try to be a generous fuck. I'm more likely to have sex with someone more than once that way.

Although for some reason they always act insulted when I try to pay them to communicate how much I value sex.

Ism wrote:We don't dislike what Trump does because he's Trump, we dislike Trump because of what Trump does.

Fartsniffage wrote:
Telconi wrote:
Lots of people are evil, and most of them are closer to home than ISIS


Oooooh. The rare self burn.
Age subject to change without notice.
#24

User avatar
Bear Stearns
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5290
Founded: Dec 02, 2018
Corporate Bordello

Postby Bear Stearns » Fri Oct 18, 2019 5:04 pm

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
Last edited by Bear Stearns on Fri Oct 18, 2019 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. is a New York-based global investment bank, securities trading and brokerage firm. Its main business areas are capital markets, investment banking, wealth management and global clearing services. Bear Stearns was founded as an equity trading house on May Day 1923 by Joseph Ainslie Bear, Robert B. Stearns and Harold C. Mayer with $500,000 in capital.
383 Madison Ave,
New York, NY 10017
Vince Vaughn

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 134862
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Ifreann » Fri Oct 18, 2019 5:07 pm

Diopolis wrote:
Ifreann wrote: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"
Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Banter For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Snark That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Sarcasm
He/Him

Dangerous this Jack o' Hearts.
With his kiss
the riot
starts

User avatar
Izandai
Senator
 
Posts: 3822
Founded: May 27, 2009
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Izandai » Fri Oct 18, 2019 5:19 pm

Bear Stearns wrote: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.
Shinkadomayaka wrote:
JUNCKS wrote:Ozzy is awesome but Jesus is awesomer

Hey, this is a church thread. No mentioning religion!

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:
Rambhutan wrote:
My blind porcupine takes exception to this


Your blind porcupine can read text? :blink:

Neanderthaland wrote:
Izandai wrote:I try to be a generous fuck. I'm more likely to have sex with someone more than once that way.

Although for some reason they always act insulted when I try to pay them to communicate how much I value sex.

Ism wrote:We don't dislike what Trump does because he's Trump, we dislike Trump because of what Trump does.

Fartsniffage wrote:
Telconi wrote:
Lots of people are evil, and most of them are closer to home than ISIS


Oooooh. The rare self burn.
Age subject to change without notice.
#24

User avatar
Diopolis
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13315
Founded: May 15, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Diopolis » Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:05 pm

Ifreann wrote:
Diopolis wrote: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.
Trad-Catholic, hispanophile Texan distributist and paleoconservative.
Economic left -3.88, authoritarian 6.15
Thoughts
Abortion is not healthcare.
St Generalissimo Francisco Franco, pray for president Trump!

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Arkeyana, Chernoslavia, Des-Bal, Gormwood, Ifreann, Joohan, Memelandia Major, Pax Nerdvana, Phoenicaea, Port of Flora, Proctopeo, Vassenor, Window Land

Advertisement

Remove ads