The Boy Scout and Chik-Fil-A thread

SparrowHawk said:
What I think is being said is that if a Homosexual Couple can recieve benefits even though they are not legally married (Ignoring for the moment the legalities) then in the interest of fairness and equality Heterosexual couples that are not legally married should be afforded the same benefits.
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me. Southwind should immediately walk across the airfield to the G.O., and use his "direct relationship" to advocate for it. We'll see how far he gets.

Speaking of "benefits" per se, he mentioned flight benefits earlier. In that regard, he's dead wrong (again); single heteros *can* add people to their eligible passrider list.


southwind said:
Actually , no, you can't remain a single hetero and add your significant other to your bennies !
Click to expand...

See above. Maybe you should check out Travelnet...

Not all heteros are married or want to be married to their signifcant others or are you telling me "ALL" gay couples want to get married..............btw, I believe "Marriage" was a religious ceremony long before it was a state or federal ceremony !
Click to expand...

So is Sparrow's assessment of what you wrote correct, then?
 
Yep, my bad Kev, a hetero can add a significant other to their "Flight" benies, but my point is, they cannot add the same to their health benefits and Tree, I'm talking about people who live together and "DON'T" want to get married !
 
southwind said:
Yep, my bad Kev, a hetero can add a significant other to their "Flight" benies, but my point is, they cannot add the same to their health benefits and Tree, I'm talking about people who live together and "DON'T" want to get married !
Click to expand...

I understand that. The point I am making is that gays do not have that choice. So, if you want to make things equal, make them equal. Currently they are not equal and the benefit thing is the only way to level the playing field a little.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #202
CFO firing after Chick-fil-A post shows what's protected and what’s not in social media speech

Phoenix Business Journal by Mike Sunnucks, Senior Reporter

Date: Tuesday, August 14, 2012, 1:28pm MST

Mike Sunnucks
Senior Reporter- Phoenix Business Journal Email | Twitter | Facebook
When Tucson CFO Adam Smith was fired after he berated an Arizona Chick-fil-A drive thru attendant over the company’s opposition to same-sex marriages and posted it on YouTube, his now-former employer felt it had legal grounds for the termination because Arizona’s at-will employment laws and Smith didn’t live up to expected standards for company officers.
But if Smith was a Chick-fil-A employee complaining on YouTube or Twitter about work hours or if he had complained about his own former employer — medical device maker Vante Inc. — he could actually have federal protections from being fired or punished via a 77-year-old New Deal law protecting union organizing.
The National Labor Relations Board has started going after employers who sanction their workers for complaining about their bosses, pay or working conditions on social media sites, said John Balitis, an employment law expert and attorney with the Fennemore Craig PC law firm in Phoenix.
Balitis said the NLRB believes social media interaction between rank-and-file workers can be protected under the National Labor Relations Act, which protects workers’ ability to communicate with each other. The NLRA was approved in 1935 with the aim of protecting workers from being fired for talking about union organizing.
The Chick-fil-A issue will end up playing itself out in court, but could spark more employee complaints against employers over social media policies and dictate how those polices are crafted and enforced going forward.
Balitis points to a 2010 case where the NLRB sued a Connecticut company after it fired a worker for complaining about her boss on Facebook. The company ended up settling that complaint last year.
Balitis expects to see more cases nationally as companies craft and dictate social media policies and sometimes check up and discipline workers for their Twitter and Facebook posts. “There will be more complaints,” Balitis said.
He said the social media complaints through the NLRB are similar to federal discrimination lawsuits where a worker will complain to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which will then sometimes sue the employer on their behalf.
A May 30 NLRB report looked social media policies and restrictions developed by employers that restricts online posts or caution employees about their online activities and communications, including those related to the workplace. The NLRB memo says many of those social media policies could be construed as unlawful under Section 7 of the NLRA, which gives workers the right to communicate with each other.
The Chick-fil-A situation down in Tucson is a different animal.
Adam Smith grabbed national attention when he videotaped and then posted a visit to a Chick-fil-A drive-thru where he criticized the fast food chain over comments made by CEO Dan Cathy in opposition to gay marriage. Smith later apologized to the Chick-fil-A worker, Rachel Elizabeth, and also posted that on YouTube.
In that same apology post, Smith said Vante fired him after receiving hundreds of complaints and even some threats from those unhappy with his first post.
The Arizona attorney that advised Vante on the Smith firing said C-level executives are held to higher standards when they represent the company publicly and those are part of their fiduciary duties.
Joe Kroeger, a labor and employment attorney for the Snell & Wilmer LLP law firm in Tucson, said he’s provided legal advice and counsel to Vante on previous occasions. Kroeger said he was not aware of an employment contract for Smith.
Balitis said sometimes those contracts will include behavior clauses that be used as grounds for termination or discipline.
Kroeger cited client privilege in not getting into some specifics of Vante’s action. But he did say Arizona’s at-will employment laws give employers legal cover in many dismissals.
Montana is the only U.S. state without an at-will law, which allows employers to fire workers without cause. Most other countries’ legal systems require some kind of cause for a termination, according to the National Council of State Legislatures.
Kroeger also said employees need to realize their First Amendment rights aren’t universal in the workplace or their professional lives, and they have to be aware that their social media and online activities can impact their careers and their employers.
Smith never disclosed his employer or profession during his original interaction, but those upset with this actions found his company and title and complained to Vante. The company did not respond to requests for additional comments on this story, nor did Smith.
Vante statement on Adam Smith (Aug 2.):
Vante regrets the unfortunate events that transpired yesterday in Tucson between our former CFO/Treasurer Adam Smith and an employee at Chick-fil-A. Effective immediately, Mr. Smith is no longer an employee of our company.
The actions of Mr. Smith do not reflect our corporate values in any manner. Vante is an equal opportunity company with a diverse workforce, which holds diverse opinions. We respect the right of our employees and all Americans to hold and express their personal opinions, however, we also expect our company officers to behave in a manner commensurate with their position and in a respectful fashion that conveys these values of civility with others.
We hope that the general population does not hold Mr. Smith’s actions against Vante and its employees.
Mike Sunnucks writes about politics, law, airlines, sports business and the economy​
 
I cannot find anything on the Chick Fil A web site but various sources seem to indicate that CFA has had a change of heart. If this is true it appears they will no longer give financial support to anti-gay groups and make a formal statement saying that all people will be treated equally.

There is no way to verify it with out an admission from CFA but why would one change ones policy if the bottom line as not being affected in an adverse manner? Perhaps the blip in sales after the controversy was just that, a blip and now they are experiencing the blow back. Stands to reason that if your bottom line is not affected or if you are making more money why would you change?
 
Ms Tree said:
I cannot find anything on the Chick Fil A web site but various sources seem to indicate that CFA has had a change of heart. If this is true it appears they will no longer give financial support to anti-gay groups and make a formal statement saying that all people will be treated equally.

There is no way to verify it with out an admission from CFA but why would one change ones policy if the bottom line as not being affected in an adverse manner? Perhaps the blip in sales after the controversy was just that, a blip and now they are experiencing the blow back. Stands to reason that if your bottom line is not affected or if you are making more money why would you change?
Click to expand...

Branding experts, such as Jeff Lotman, said the change was a smart one by Chick-fil-A.
“I guarantee you it’s already brought in more traffic, and sales are up because of this,” said Lotman, who founded brand licensing agency Global Icons.
“The amount of time their name has been in various forms of media has been more valuable than any advertising they’d spend on in a year,” he said. “It raises awareness of Chick-fil-A to the top of people’s minds.”
Click to expand...



Chick-Fil-A hosts fundraiser for alpacas attacked by dogs

If you would like to help out, Thursday is a great opportunity to do so. From 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., 20% of Chick-Fil-A sales in Short Pump will go towards the farm. All you have to do is mention "Spirit Night." Children will have the chance to meet two alpacas tonight at the Chick-Fil-A.
Click to expand...

AKC says this is putting dogs in a bad light and may protest.
 
Ms Tree said:
I cannot find anything on the Chick Fil A web site but various sources seem to indicate that CFA has had a change of heart. If this is true it appears they will no longer give financial support to anti-gay groups and make a formal statement saying that all people will be treated equally.

There is no way to verify it with out an admission from CFA but why would one change ones policy if the bottom line as not being affected in an adverse manner? Perhaps the blip in sales after the controversy was just that, a blip and now they are experiencing the blow back. Stands to reason that if your bottom line is not affected or if you are making more money why would you change?
Click to expand...

Looking like they stand on their convictions.

On Friday, Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy said media reports claiming the restaurant chain will no longer give charitable donations to groups that oppose same-sex marriage are untrue.
Cathy issued a statement on former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s website, one day after Chick-fil-A released a company statement arguing that their corporate giving has been “mischaracterized” by the media.
“There continues to be erroneous implications in the media that Chick-fil-A changed our practices and priorities in order to obtain permission for a new restaurant in Chicago. That is incorrect. Chick-fil-A made no such concessions, and we remain true to who we are and who we have been,” Cathy wrote in his statement.
Click to expand...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/chick-fil-a-president-dan-cathy-we-have-made-no-concessions-on-same-sex-marriage/
 
Ms Tree said:
I cannot find anything on the Chick Fil A web site but various sources seem to indicate that CFA has had a change of heart. If this is true it appears they will no longer give financial support to anti-gay groups and make a formal statement saying that all people will be treated equally.
Click to expand...

What I've heard is that they will no longer support PAC's. Big difference in the rumors.

A part of our corporate commitment is to be responsible stewards of all that God has entrusted to us. Because of this commitment, Chick-­‐fil-­‐A’s giving heritage is focused on programs that educate youth, strengthen families and enrich marriages, and support communities. We will continue to focus our giving in those areas. Our intent is not to support political or social agendas.
Click to expand...

So they'll continue to give to groups that aren't PACs, and I'm sure some of those will still piss off the Southern Poverty Law Center and others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

EricLv2Fish
Christmas Giving In The Workplace
Replies
7
Views
1K
Prince of PAWOBs
Prince of PAWOBs
Insp4
Interesting read on Gun Control:
2 3 4
Replies
50
Views
6K
xUT
xUT
U
Most Americans have no idea what they are in for?
10 11 12
Replies
176
Views
18K
southwind
southwind
L
McCain vs Romney
Replies
12
Views
2K
NewHampshire Black Bears
N
Prince of PAWOBs
PAWOB Award - Weeks of 5/7 to 5/20/2007
Replies
10
Views
2K
noname
N

Latest posts

Back
Top