2 ms·

> How is it absurd? If my employee is trying to, in your words, "persuade people to take the other side and stop progress I'm hoping to see", then why would I w

> How is it absurd? If my employee is trying to, in your words, "persuade people to take the other side and stop progress I'm hoping to see", then why would I want to voluntarily support that? Because that's akin to saying if my hot secretary refuses to date me, why shouldn't I fire her. It's an abuse of power and in many states could get you sued. The employer/employee relationship is completely different than the producer/consumer relationship and that should really be totally obvious and require no explanation. > Not all issues are like this--certainly not health care reform. Many people would disagree. There's room for debate on how such reform should happen, but there seems to be little room for disagreement that reform is necessary. > I think boycotts are a good way to protest against companies that actually do things to halt progress. Writing an Op-ed in a major nationally read paper is doing something to halt progress. I think you underestimate the power of words to affect people. We don't have to agree on when boycotts are appropriate, there's room for reasonable disagreement here, but boycotts themselves are an appropriate action for a consumer to take whenever they feel they should. If you don't support a particular boycott, then don't join it, if you do, then do; that's how it works. But it's petty to stand there and tell someone else that they're not being civil because you don't happen to agree with their boycott. You can't seriously expect everyone to agree on exactly when a boycott is or isn't necessary. It's necessary anytime any consumer feels he doesn't want to give his money to any company for any reason whatsoever, and if enough people agree with him such a boycott will be successful, if not, then it won't.

philwelch 17y ago
"The employer/employee relationship is completely different than the producer/consumer relationship and that should really be totally obvious and require no explanation." The employer/employee relationship is a special case of the producer/consumer relationship. It's not different at all. "There's room for debate on how such reform should happen, but there seems to be little room for disagreement that reform is necessary." Mackey agrees that reform is necessary, he's just engaging in the debate on how such reform should happen. "I think you underestimate the power of words to affect people." That's your mistake: to you, words are insufficient to respond to words. If you're dead set against paying this guy's $1 salary that's your call, but in the long run, all you're doing is discouraging rational discussion and encouraging dumb conflict. Plus--and here's the kicker--there are lots of people who make far more than $1 from Whole Foods whom this boycott personally hurts. Not getting paid because your boss is a libertarian seems a lot less fair than not getting paid because you work for a company that racially segregates its customers or puts rootkits on CD's. It's arguably immoral to work for a company that engages in racism and destruction of property, but working for a company that was founded by some opinionated dude? Do people really need to be punished for that?
- gnaritas 17y ago
  > The employer/employee relationship is a special case of the producer/consumer relationship. It's not different at all. I disagree, but whatever. > Mackey agrees that reform is necessary, he's just engaging in the debate on how such reform should happen. I really don't care at all what Mackey actually said, that's not the point. I'd be defending peoples right to boycott even if I agreed with every single word he said; I'm not boycotting anything. Other people have a right to spend their money however they want, it is not uncivil for them to do so. Clearly you think it is, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    "Other people have a right to spend their money however they want" Except employers? "I'd be defending peoples right to boycott" ...except you're not doing that, you're trying to argue that they're not being jackasses. I already conceded there's a right to be a jackass.
    - gnaritas 17y ago
      > Except employers? Yes expect employers, who are generally bound by laws such as the Equal Opportunity Act which prohibits such types of discrimination. Consumers are under no such obligations. > ...except you're not doing that, you're trying to argue that they're not being jackasses. And I already said, we just aren't going to agree about this, so what's you point this time?
      - philwelch 17y ago
        The Equal Opportunity Act covers things like "...sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or individuals with disabilities..." which would also be particularly immoral reasons to boycott a business. The main reason there's no equal opportunity law against boycotts is because it would be rather unenforcable--I would certainly consider it reprehensible (though perfectly within one's legal rights) to boycott a business due to the race, sex, religion, etc. of the proprietors. Other than that, US employers have the right to either continue or terminate employment "at-will". Things that we would normally boycott companies for, like putting rootkits on people's computers or engaging in unethical business practices, are also normally acceptable things to fire employees for. And considering that the purpose of employment is for the employer to purchase the services of the employee for an indefinite period of time, how is it not a special instance of the producer/consumer relationship? What else could it be?

philwelch 17y ago

"The employer/employee relationship is completely different than the producer/consumer relationship and that should really be totally obvious and require no explanation." The employer/employee relationship is a special case of the producer/consumer relationship. It's not different at all. "There's room for debate on how such reform should happen, but there seems to be little room for disagreement that reform is necessary." Mackey agrees that reform is necessary, he's just engaging in the debate on how such reform should happen. "I think you underestimate the power of words to affect people." That's your mistake: to you, words are insufficient to respond to words. If you're dead set against paying this guy's $1 salary that's your call, but in the long run, all you're doing is discouraging rational discussion and encouraging dumb conflict. Plus--and here's the kicker--there are lots of people who make far more than $1 from Whole Foods whom this boycott personally hurts. Not getting paid because your boss is a libertarian seems a lot less fair than not getting paid because you work for a company that racially segregates its customers or puts rootkits on CD's. It's arguably immoral to work for a company that engages in racism and destruction of property, but working for a company that was founded by some opinionated dude? Do people really need to be punished for that?

gnaritas 17y ago
> The employer/employee relationship is a special case of the producer/consumer relationship. It's not different at all. I disagree, but whatever. > Mackey agrees that reform is necessary, he's just engaging in the debate on how such reform should happen. I really don't care at all what Mackey actually said, that's not the point. I'd be defending peoples right to boycott even if I agreed with every single word he said; I'm not boycotting anything. Other people have a right to spend their money however they want, it is not uncivil for them to do so. Clearly you think it is, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
- philwelch 17y ago
  "Other people have a right to spend their money however they want" Except employers? "I'd be defending peoples right to boycott" ...except you're not doing that, you're trying to argue that they're not being jackasses. I already conceded there's a right to be a jackass.
  - gnaritas 17y ago
    > Except employers? Yes expect employers, who are generally bound by laws such as the Equal Opportunity Act which prohibits such types of discrimination. Consumers are under no such obligations. > ...except you're not doing that, you're trying to argue that they're not being jackasses. And I already said, we just aren't going to agree about this, so what's you point this time?
    - philwelch 17y ago
      The Equal Opportunity Act covers things like "...sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or individuals with disabilities..." which would also be particularly immoral reasons to boycott a business. The main reason there's no equal opportunity law against boycotts is because it would be rather unenforcable--I would certainly consider it reprehensible (though perfectly within one's legal rights) to boycott a business due to the race, sex, religion, etc. of the proprietors. Other than that, US employers have the right to either continue or terminate employment "at-will". Things that we would normally boycott companies for, like putting rootkits on people's computers or engaging in unethical business practices, are also normally acceptable things to fire employees for. And considering that the purpose of employment is for the employer to purchase the services of the employee for an indefinite period of time, how is it not a special instance of the producer/consumer relationship? What else could it be?