4 ms·

Or the real story is how much businesses kowtow to the Chinese government and enable their human rights abuses. I would be quite happy to see Marriott face blow

Or the real story is how much businesses kowtow to the Chinese government and enable their human rights abuses. I would be quite happy to see Marriott face blowback in the US and other parts of the world over this as people show their support for a free Tibet. Letting China browbeat businesses into submission for the privilege of operating in that market isn't a good thing and more businesses need to be made to decide between China and the rest of the world. Otherwise, the Chinese government will continue to get away with this. But it was the Chinese government that blew a single like out of proportion and threatened Marriott with millions of dollars in lost business. Marriott's response to scapegoat and fire the individual to appease China makes complete sense so long as we continue to allow companies to get away with that behavior. It won't stop until we make an example out of one or two companies to show that they at least need to consider the financial ramifications of appeasement too.

azernik 9y ago
Sometimes a story captures lots of little elements of the world we live in all at once.
- LaGrange 9y ago
  That's crazy talk, every story is about one thing, everything has one clear reason, and there's only one flavour of ice cream, and it's raspberry.
  - your-nanny 9y ago
    Raspberry chocolate.
exolymph 9y ago
> Letting China browbeat businesses into submission for the privilege of operating in that market isn't a good thing I don't think "letting" is a very accurate word in this case — Marriott could pull out of China (likely at a loss) but the company doesn't want to because it would be financially stupid. In fact, as a public company Marriott is mandated to act in its shareholders' best financial interests.
- michaelmrose 9y ago
  "as a public company Marriott is mandated to act in its shareholders' best financial interests" The reality: You can't take shareholder money out on the front lawn and set it on fire What the internet thinks: Company not only can do insert shitty thing here but MUST do insert shitty thing here because they have a fiduciary duty. The problem is that the internet perception of reality is semi fictional. They damn well could have simply stated that they as a company don't take a personal position on Tibet but wont be bullied and faced near zero chance of successful lawsuit even if investors took a short term bath due to business in china. To refute this simply provide examples of investors who successfully sued because of decisions they didn't agree with an explain how this situation is similar.
  - wcunning 9y ago
    The recourses available in court are few and far between against officers of the company as a shareholder. That's not how this gets resolved or what the officers are concerned with. The shareholder power is to vote in a different board of directors that will do what you as a shareholder want done -- virtue signaling against China included. The best example of that, and the amount of power it actually takes is probably Carl Icahn.
- acct1771 9y ago
  > In fact, as a public company Marriott is mandated to act in its shareholders' best financial interests. Mandated by what law? What if Marriott determines that long-term goodwill in their brand is what's in their shareholders' best financial interests?
black_puppydog 9y ago
No, I disagree. that may be a story, too, but it's not this story. This story is about horrible situation of workers' rights in the US. It's pretty much a house made problem.
- MiguelHudnandez 9y ago
  It seems strange to me to think unfavorably about US workers’ rights, then about China in the same minute. About your point, if an international incident isn’t a legitimate reason to fire someone, I don’t know what is. And by extension, what kind of rights you are advocating. It might be more appropriate to take action against the system that let the error happen. But there are two ways to reduce errors. 1) improve the system, and 2) raise standards for the employees using the system. Cost/benefit analysis ensues.
  - black_puppydog 9y ago
    Really depends on if one thinks his being fired to be the appropriate response. If (like you seem to think) it is, then sure, there is no issue about workers' rights here. If you tend to believe him that this was an honest mistake, or even just that there's sufficient doubt, then the conclusion would probably be that he shouldn't have been fired, and his having been fired becomes a question of "how could this happen". And to this the (my) answer is "insufficient workers' rights, allowing a company to take an easy way out at the cost of an individual".
coldtea 9y ago
>Or the real story is how much businesses kowtow to the Chinese government and enable their human rights abuses. That's part of the story. It would be the main story if the workers having no rights in the US wasn't much worse for them, and impacted them 100x on their lives, than whatever their businesses do abroad.

azernik 9y ago

Sometimes a story captures lots of little elements of the world we live in all at once.

LaGrange 9y ago
That's crazy talk, every story is about one thing, everything has one clear reason, and there's only one flavour of ice cream, and it's raspberry.
- your-nanny 9y ago
  Raspberry chocolate.

exolymph 9y ago

> Letting China browbeat businesses into submission for the privilege of operating in that market isn't a good thing I don't think "letting" is a very accurate word in this case — Marriott could pull out of China (likely at a loss) but the company doesn't want to because it would be financially stupid. In fact, as a public company Marriott is mandated to act in its shareholders' best financial interests.

michaelmrose 9y ago
"as a public company Marriott is mandated to act in its shareholders' best financial interests" The reality: You can't take shareholder money out on the front lawn and set it on fire What the internet thinks: Company not only can do insert shitty thing here but MUST do insert shitty thing here because they have a fiduciary duty. The problem is that the internet perception of reality is semi fictional. They damn well could have simply stated that they as a company don't take a personal position on Tibet but wont be bullied and faced near zero chance of successful lawsuit even if investors took a short term bath due to business in china. To refute this simply provide examples of investors who successfully sued because of decisions they didn't agree with an explain how this situation is similar.
- wcunning 9y ago
  The recourses available in court are few and far between against officers of the company as a shareholder. That's not how this gets resolved or what the officers are concerned with. The shareholder power is to vote in a different board of directors that will do what you as a shareholder want done -- virtue signaling against China included. The best example of that, and the amount of power it actually takes is probably Carl Icahn.
acct1771 9y ago
> In fact, as a public company Marriott is mandated to act in its shareholders' best financial interests. Mandated by what law? What if Marriott determines that long-term goodwill in their brand is what's in their shareholders' best financial interests?

black_puppydog 9y ago

No, I disagree. that may be a story, too, but it's not this story. This story is about horrible situation of workers' rights in the US. It's pretty much a house made problem.

MiguelHudnandez 9y ago
It seems strange to me to think unfavorably about US workers’ rights, then about China in the same minute. About your point, if an international incident isn’t a legitimate reason to fire someone, I don’t know what is. And by extension, what kind of rights you are advocating. It might be more appropriate to take action against the system that let the error happen. But there are two ways to reduce errors. 1) improve the system, and 2) raise standards for the employees using the system. Cost/benefit analysis ensues.
- black_puppydog 9y ago
  Really depends on if one thinks his being fired to be the appropriate response. If (like you seem to think) it is, then sure, there is no issue about workers' rights here. If you tend to believe him that this was an honest mistake, or even just that there's sufficient doubt, then the conclusion would probably be that he shouldn't have been fired, and his having been fired becomes a question of "how could this happen". And to this the (my) answer is "insufficient workers' rights, allowing a company to take an easy way out at the cost of an individual".

coldtea 9y ago

>Or the real story is how much businesses kowtow to the Chinese government and enable their human rights abuses. That's part of the story. It would be the main story if the workers having no rights in the US wasn't much worse for them, and impacted them 100x on their lives, than whatever their businesses do abroad.