hotfudgedetroit.com

thunderstruck wrote:

Doctor Detroit wrote:

Mulligan wrote:Freeedom of speech (his donation) does not mean freedom from consequences of that speech.

I don't know why people seem to have such a difficult time grasping this concept. The government didn't force him to resign his job. A court didn't force him to resign his job. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. He's not in jail or fined. He can give money to whatever cause he feels like, but that doesn't mean others can't vote with their wallets in protest when he becomes CEO of a major company.

True. And that's fine by me. But I doubt the "tolerant" side in this would be all that sanguine about a different version of this when they're on the receiving end of some moral outrage. For example, it would be legal for a CEO to review the political contribution databases and fire any employees who donated to pro-gay-marriage groups. Or even just fire all the Democrat contributors. Or anyone who's social media channels were open enough to ascertain that their politics were opposite the preferred version.

Sure, there's an argument to be made that the leader is more visible so he can be forced out while underlings get the freedom to act on political issues with impunity. But if someone can be ostracized and forced out of a company for holding the same view in 2008 as Barak Obama, Bill and Hilary Clinton did, and that roughly half the country still holds, then maybe the gloves are off in the culture war and losing a job or a customer because your politics are different is just the price you'll have to pay for choosing to take a small stand. Everyone OK with that?

frank - up in grand blanc wrote:If any employee weakens a company's ability to deliver shareholder value, well, they need to be scrutinized. This applies to officers, but the ugly side of this maxim is that it also applies to the grunts, as in the recent example in Flint where the jobs of GM workers engaged in instrument cluster assembly were eliminated in order to off-shore production. Business is tough and all outside of the public and non-profit sectors should be outfitted with helmets. To wit, if Eich were objectively an impediment to corporate profits then it's his ass.

Doctor Detroit wrote:

thunderstruck wrote:

Doctor Detroit wrote:

Mulligan wrote:Freeedom of speech (his donation) does not mean freedom from consequences of that speech.

I don't know why people seem to have such a difficult time grasping this concept. The government didn't force him to resign his job. A court didn't force him to resign his job. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. He's not in jail or fined. He can give money to whatever cause he feels like, but that doesn't mean others can't vote with their wallets in protest when he becomes CEO of a major company.

True. And that's fine by me. But I doubt the "tolerant" side in this would be all that sanguine about a different version of this when they're on the receiving end of some moral outrage. For example, it would be legal for a CEO to review the political contribution databases and fire any employees who donated to pro-gay-marriage groups. Or even just fire all the Democrat contributors. Or anyone who's social media channels were open enough to ascertain that their politics were opposite the preferred version.

Sure, there's an argument to be made that the leader is more visible so he can be forced out while underlings get the freedom to act on political issues with impunity. But if someone can be ostracized and forced out of a company for holding the same view in 2008 as Barak Obama, Bill and Hilary Clinton did, and that roughly half the country still holds, then maybe the gloves are off in the culture war and losing a job or a customer because your politics are different is just the price you'll have to pay for choosing to take a small stand. Everyone OK with that?

His personal issues are costing the company money and business partners. That's why he's pushed out. CEOs have been booted from companies for less. Extramarital affairs, for example, have caused quite a few CEOs to be pushed out because of the distraction to the company. Does someone's personal sex life have any more to do with a company than their political donations? Money is the bottom line, it's what the board is concerned with and it's what the shareholders are concerned with. Not his morals or personal beliefs. Is it fair this became an issue for him? I don't know, maybe not. But your comparison to firing an employee because you looked into who they give money to is not apt. The employee is not costing the company money or being a major distraction to the company. The employee is not causing major players to cancel business deals. Because he is the CEO and the face of the company, he was directly causing them to lose money.

guest wrote:I've googled people and ended up on websites listing their political donations. That's reason enough to keep my wallet closed. I won't even get started on the NSA and other agencies poring over petitions or whatever other shit people want to darg me into.

The Suburban Avenger wrote:The snooping aside, I just hate the avalanche of begging emails that come after you donate to a candidate. I gave a little bit to a college friend who unsuccessfully ran for the state House a few years ago and get bombarded with all kinds of shit from the state Dems, MoveOn, etc.