Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

FxYHXBAWcAUDeZH?format=jpg&name=small.jpg

[AlabamAlum]

A lot of these diversity initiatives at these big corporations are not done because these execs at the C suite level are real "woke". It is an outgrowth of anti-discrimination laws,.sexual harassment laws and civil rights laws. They quite correctly don't want to get sued.

Public policy statements do not now, nor have they ever kept you from being sued. HR policies, set in stone, that mandate fair treatment of protected class employees don’t even keep you from being sued, but they come much closer to limiting lawsuits and losses from lawsuits than some marketing department VP deciding to make fun of their customer base and hiring a controversial representative as a 180-degree turn from who actually consumes the company’s product. And make no mistake, most of the companies enduring boycotts had nothing to do with anything promoting equality for their employees; rather it was marketing to show wokeness with a misguided hope of gaining marketshare.

As a member of an exec team that had multiple medical centers and over ten thousand employees, we never, ever released public policy statements on some some socio-political topic du jour, but we made damn sure we had a foundation of policies that ensured fair treatment and rights for all.

[Hannibal]

A lot of these diversity initiatives at these big corporations are not done because these execs at the C suite level are real "woke". It is an outgrowth of anti-discrimination laws,.sexual harassment laws and civil rights laws. They quite correctly don't want to get sued.

Wrong. These inititatives go miles beyond that and, if anything, make them open to class action lawsuits from DEI discrimination victims, should those ever become mainstream. Just about every fortune 500 company right now is a class action lawsuit waiting to happen. A cursory glance at hiring practices would no doubt reveal the same data as what the anti-discrimination lawsuits against academia have revealed.

Coca Cola training their employees to "Be less white" does not reduce the likelihood that they will get sued. That decision has nothing to do with finance, and everything to do with the core beliefs of Woke, and an insatiable desire to ram it down people's throats.

it was marketing to show wokeness with a misguided hope of gaining marketshare.

You're giving these intellectual lightweights way too much credit. The dipshit Bud Light exec's reasoning for employing Dylan Mulvaney was because Bud Light was too "fratty" as a brand, and so she wanted to change it. ("fratty" in this case is simply her way of conveying a negative stereotype of "White male"). She was motivated 100% by her personal feelings, and not data or logic. There was no calculation done.

[Hannibal]

The Target backlash was also a very good thing. In their case, I don't think that it will hurt them, because their consumer base is on board with the concepts. But it helped expose the degree to which LGBTQ materials are aimed at children, something that Liberals have been lying about for decades.

[froot loops]

Public policy statements do not now, nor have they ever kept you from being sued. HR policies, set in stone, that mandate fair treatment of protected class employees don’t even keep you from being sued, but they come much closer to limiting lawsuits and losses from lawsuits than some marketing department VP deciding to make fun of their customer base and hiring a controversial representative as a 180-degree turn from who actually consumes the company’s product. And make no mistake, most of the companies enduring boycotts had nothing to do with anything promoting equality for their employees; rather it was marketing to show wokeness with a misguided hope of gaining marketshare.

As a member of an exec team that had multiple medical centers and over ten thousand employees, we never, ever released public policy statements on some some socio-political topic du jour, but we made damn sure we had a foundation of policies that ensured fair treatment and rights for all.

Like I said, the Disney feud began after a mutiny by the employees who were pissed at Chapek for not saying something about the Don't Say Gay legislation.

[froot loops]

[Tom W]

You're giving these intellectual lightweights way too much credit. The dipshit Bud Light exec's reasoning for employing Dylan Mulvaney was because Bud Light was too "fratty" as a brand, and so she wanted to change it. ("fratty" in this case is simply her way of conveying a negative stereotype of "White male"). She was motivated 100% by her personal feelings, and not data or logic. There was no calculation done.

To be fair, she likely calculated how many "fratty boys" confused her for a horse.

[AlabamAlum]

Like I said, the Disney feud began after a mutiny by the employees who were pissed at Chapek for not saying something about the Don't Say Gay legislation.

I wouldn’t say “mutiny”. The Disney “walkout” was 150 employees in California complaining about a Florida law that they never really read. A good percentage of those employees only walked out during their 15-minute breaks to avoid being fired. Chapek caved, though. I have a good friend who works for Disney in Orlando in a position of leadership. I told him about it. He was unaware. I think its scope and impact are greatly overstated, certainly within American business, and probably even with Disney itself.

Anyway, this was isolated activism (mainly) by a small number of vocal California loons. It certainly shouldn’t set a policy for addressing socio-political topics that have nothing to do with a company’s core business.

Let me ask you this: if 150 Oscar Mayer employees in Mississippi walk out because don’t like a pro trans law in Oregon, do you think that the CEO should release a statement condemning the Oregonian pro trans law? Of course not. It’s silly and unneeded. It’s bad business acumen that opens up a Pandora’s Box of potential arm-twisting employee activism.

[froot loops]

You might be right on that AA, but I think in Disney's case it was more than a 150 people in California. It's a tricky subject but I think a lot of it has to do with the employees. It's very hard to sell your employees on being fair to everyone if you sit on the sidelines when they are passing the Don't Say Gay bill, especially when the previous CEO was vocal in his opposition to the law.

Another company to put on the list for people in the GOP to boycott.

[Tom W]

Hasn't it been determined that "Don't Say Gay bill" is even less credible than "Russian Collusion"?

Asking for a friend.

[froot loops]

If it isn't credible, somebody forgot to tell Ron DeSantis as he has declared war on Disney because of their public opposition to it. It's in the papers and everything. He even gloated about it in his latest memoir.

[Tom W]

Maybe it's in your papers. Oddly enough, the bill itself doesn't actually mention "gay", anywhere, so it's pretty unclear what this "War" is all about.

[froot loops]

There is dueling lawsuits between DeSantis and Disney. You can search for it on http://www.google.com

[AlabamAlum]

Froot,

The original estimates were “hundreds” and was later reduced to an estimate of 150 by an NPR writer. Honestly that number, imo, is probably generous. But it doesn’t really matter.

The “don’t say gay bill” doesn’t actually have the word gay in it anywhere. It was a restriction on teaching gender identity or sexual orientation in kindergarten through third grade classrooms with a vague “age appropriate” addition. It also gave parents rights to know what healthcare or counseling services that the school gave their children. Yes, I read the Bill because I am for gay rights and what I heard on some media outlets was not what I actually what I read. That said, the Bill was poorly written, but not the boogeyman I was led to believe it was.

Finally, I will never concede that a business should be strong-armed into releasing a political statement on some other state’s Bill, misinterpreted or not, that has nothing of substance to do with the product or service that company offers. Giving in to such things to appease a fringe group of your employees is a monumentally bad idea and leads to uncomfortable situations like the Oscar Mayer question I offered above. The opposite scenarios are easy to imagine. From anti-trans to pro-guns to anti-abortion, and so on.

I mean, who decides what stance Ruffles Potato Chips has on gun control or whether the company supports aid to Ukraine? Do they do an employee vote? Is it the discretion of the CEO? The Board? When there is employee turnover, do they need to vote again? Or if the CEO decides and he dies in a horrible kiln explosion does the new CEO have to decide his take on all hot button political topics - both in state and out? It’s just folly.

[froot loops]

I don't think your Oscar Meyer hypothetical is analogous to the the Disney situation. Is Oscar Meyer employ a lot of people Oregon. I'm not familiar with that company. I am familiar with Disney and it employs a lot of the workers in Florida and from what I read, they were pissed about the Don't Say Gay bill.