Corporation Hostage?

Anyone else notice how when a state passes a law or is looking at passing a law that some corporations don't like the corporations start pulling out of that state or holding the state "hostage" over jobs in that state..Like paypal  not doing business in North Carolina over LGBT laws..

No different from individuals not patronizing businesses that have policies that are not acceptable to them. except for the scope.  I know people who won't eat at Dominos or Chick-fil-a because they support pro-life groups.  I know people who haven't watched a Disney movie in years because of they were one of the first big corporations to offer same-sex partner benefits.  It's a way of trying to create change through economic means. 

Actually, there is some difference.  Corporations also have to consider how laws affect the candidate pools for potential job openings.  That's one reason you often saw public universities rally behind same-sex marriage legislation.  If the best candidate for a position was a lesbian and her partner would not be eligible to be covered under her benefits or if the state would not recognize the legality of their relationship, she is not likely to choose to work there.

Chambers of commerce often fight against so-called anti-gay legislation because their cities will lose conventions and tourism dollars.  In the midst of Indiana's (overblown) stink over our "religious freedom" law, the city of Indianapolis was working overtime to put the word out that they did not support it because it relies heavily on tourism and conventions, not to mention that it often hosts NCAA basketball tournament games, the Big 10 basketball and football champtionships, the NFL Combine, and other big ticket events that could potentially be threatened if the sponsoring organizations didn't want to get caught up in the political stink.

So I don't have a problem with corporations doing that.  It's the (new) American Way.

This makes no sense to me, on a individual or business level, on any scale.
You won't do / You do X so you don't get / I won't go to Y.

Dude H from band X gave me the stink eye during a show so I won't listen to their music.
Checkout girl G at Walmart had an abortion so I won't go through her line.
Manager at restaurant K doesn't like gays so I won't eat there.
Grocery store guy W killed a tarantula in the bananas, and I like tarantulas so I candled the windshield on his car.
Electronics store J fired my friend so I won't step foot in the place.

Makes no sense.

Then again, I'm PARTIALLY guilty of this.  One of the (multiple) reasons I won't get a personal Facebook page is because they pay $1 a day to people in 3rd world countries to watch snuff and child porn all day...  and then remove it from Facebook accounts that post millions of that stuff every day. (I get its a dirty job and someone's got to do it but Facebook is a multi billion dollar company.  Pay a red blooded American who gets screened and regularly counseled, not someone desperate to feed their family and then they kill themselves because they watch that garbage 60 hours a week and don't have access to psychiatric help!)

...but its not like that's the only reason I won't get a Facebook.  (there's actually a bigger, more logical reason than that that I won't!)

I wouldn't call it corporation hostage.  I think of it more as corporate activism.  The corporation is just trying to influence the culture around them.  It is only seen as a negative when the corporation is taking a stance against something that is considered the new status quo. If that corporation is taking a stance that people strongly support, they would be applauding them and shopping there more frequently to show that support.

I see nothing wrong with that.  We do it on individual levels, as well.  It is the only way to let businesses know if they are doing something you like or dislike.  If you dislike their practices enough, why not do a personal boycott?

I wasn't aware Paypal isn't doing business with North Carolina. That's pretty dumb.

Blake wrote:I wasn't aware Paypal isn't doing business with North Carolina. That's pretty dumb.

SA's statement is a little misleading (benefit of the doubt--he's not likely intending to misleading us, just didn't communicate it clearly).  Paypal was planning to build a facility in Charlotte and has now pulled out.  It doesn't mean you can't use Paypal in North Carolina, it means they aren't moving there and employing 400 people there.

SA's statement is a little misleading (benefit of the doubt--he's not likely intending to misleading us, just didn't communicate it clearly)

no..I said what the press headline said..it was intentional..Misleading is what us more liberal minded people do   ...
................

It obviously works for corporations to boycott or be active but does it really change anything when the individual is? I dont really think so.. i remember the whole Disney boycott..especially by the baptist church..did it change anything..no. in fact Disney dug in deeper and got bigger...I remember the flip side a few years ago when pro gay people boycotted Chick-fil-a..did it change anything..No..

Definitely a legitimate means for demand to influence supply, IMO.  I don't always like or agree with the reasons or causes, but I think it's much more healthy and reasonable to try to influence an entity through supporting or withdrawing support/business than to try to pass laws that tell people or businesses how they must conduct themselves.  If a society decides that business shouldn't make employees wear funny hats, I think it's much more legitimate to stop patronizing such businesses and create an environment where it's beneficial for businesses to react to market forces than for politicians to draw up "employee hat-self-respect" laws, to use a hopefully absurd example to establish/demonstrate a principle.

Grindboy wrote:Definitely a legitimate means for demand to influence supply, IMO.  I don't always like or agree with the reasons or causes, but I think it's much more healthy and reasonable to try to influence an entity through supporting or withdrawing support/business than to try to pass laws that tell people or businesses how they must conduct themselves.  If a society decides that business shouldn't make employees wear funny hats, I think it's much more legitimate to stop patronizing such businesses and create an environment where it's beneficial for businesses to react to market forces than for politicians to draw up "employee hat-self-respect" laws, to use a hopefully absurd example to establish/demonstrate a principle.

↑ this makes sense to me, but it seems to be completely backwards from the example of the original post.  (which again, doesn't make sense)

Using your example, it would be like North Carolina has a law saying employees musts wear funny hats and PayPal refuses to take a brick and mortar address there because they don't like that law.

PayPal not coming to North Carolina won't change the laws.  30 companies refusing to come there for that reason won't change the laws.  The state as a whole doesn't care because a law about restrooms has nothing to do with jobs created or not created.
All this is doing is not creating new jobs (for the state or the company).  ... all because PayPal doesn't like hats.

This does NOT make sense to me and is petty on behalf of PayPal.

My opinion, what PayPal should do is follow the bathroom laws, (restroom labels or whatever) in accordance to state laws, but not enforce them as a company.  That way, the state has more work, the business has more employees - everyone's happy.  In the rare (perhaps nonexistent) chance someone would monitor the situation, then take the employee into a coaching room and pretend to slap their wrist.

This stuff happens all the time.  

For example, my job does it.  There's a drug free workplace policy set where I work, like any jobs in my state, but its not enforced as a company.  When I was a manager, I was actually coached by upper management for trying to address it.  "I need you to spend that time working on this instead" and "some people work better when they're high" was the reasoning I got.  

If someone shows up obviously wasted, they're sent home, marked off as sick (which counts towards attendance), but that's all that ever comes of it.  ...which in a way is actually a good thing.  Drug testing and firing half the building (or not hiring people) because of the results would just hurt the company demand and employee economy.

The example was intentionally silly and has limitations.  I was simply saying that, in principle (which is how I tend to think/operate), using market forces is preferable to legal mandates.  Maybe it's petty.  If people don't like how Paypal operates, they can stop using Paypal, just like how Paypal can not set up in NC if they don't like how NC operates. 

This is tiny and silly, but one of the supermarket chains where I live used to do the thing where everything had 2 prices -- one "regular" and a lower one if you signed up for a free card thing so that they could track what you bought.  They were free to do business how they saw fit, but I hated the whole charade pretty desperately, and refused to support them and their way of doing business.  Then they did away with it (obviously not because of me and my tremendous economic influence, although google Bill Burr's bit if you don't mind bowling words), and now I have no problem shopping there.

You're right.  Paypal not hiring 400 people isn't going to make a bit of difference to the NC legislature.  Just like me not buying gas from BP didn't hurt them one bit.  But, what if Bank of America, which is headquartered in Charlotte and is the largest corporate employer in the state AND a huge political donor, announced it was moving its base of operations somewhere else.  That might get some people thinking.  What if in the wake of that decision American Airlines decided to move its Charlotte hub to Richmond.  What if (and I know this is ridiculous) NASCAR then decided to pull Charlotte and Rockingham races from the schedule.  And the NCAA refuses to hold tournament games in the state.  And the NFL rejects a bid to host the Super Bowl.  Now we are seeing significant economic impacts on the largest city in the state and the state as a whole.  Is any of that going to happen?  Not likely, because there are a number of other factors at work.  For one, many of these stands are pure PR BS.  I'm not saying there aren't people with real convictions in these corporations, but taking a public stand is not done lightly.  There is a huge cost/benefit analysis conducted.  Many companies that take big stands against these "religious freedom" laws stood idly by a few years ago when the big things was "protection of marriage" laws.  Not a peep when states said you couldn't marry someone with the same genitalia, but boy do they blow up when they say your genitalia determines which pot you can pee in.  They didn't call it discrimination back then, but they sure do now.  For that matter, many of them (including Paypal) are rattling their sabers here in the US over "anti-gay" legislation while maintaining a physical business presence in countries where people are executed for being gay.

Here's the other thing that bothers me about the way government works:  those farthest removed from a situation have the greatest control over it.  Charlotte passed an ordinance that it believed was in its best interest and reflected the values they wanted to communicate to businesses and tourists (Mr. Cynic here:  again, its all about getting $$).  The state can then pass a law that invalidates the city's law.  The next step will be for the U.S. Congress to consider a law that would invalidate NC law.  Now, I'm not an anarchist in any way.  But control should be like a funnel with the strictest, most restrictive laws coming at a local level, not the other way around.

Grindboy wrote:The example was intentionally silly and has limitations. I was simply saying that, in principle (which is how I tend to think/operate), using market forces is preferable to legal mandates. Maybe it's petty. If people don't like how Paypal operates, they can stop using Paypal, just like how Paypal can not set up in NC if they don't like how NC operates.

This is tiny and silly, but one of the supermarket chains where I live used to do the thing where everything had 2 prices -- one "regular" and a lower one if you signed up for a free card thing so that they could track what you bought. They were free to do business how they saw fit, but I hated the whole charade pretty desperately, and refused to support them and their way of doing business. Then they did away with it (obviously not because of me and my tremendous economic influence, although google Bill Burr's bit if you don't mind bowling words), and now I have no problem shopping there.

Bill Burr is hilarious.  A grocery store I worked at while I was in college had a scan card system like that.  It was funny to see the little old ladies refuse to get one because they thought it was (literally) the mark of the beast.

I see how this works both ways, and of course making this choice on behalf of a market tactic is way "easier" than fighting it legally.  I think its just as silly to not use PayPal because they won't build a headquarters in their state.  Its a big jagged line with the results little more than drinking poison and expecting the other person to get sick.

Jagged line:
Jeff refuses to eat at the local diner because he doesn't like Wendy that works there.
Wendy refuses to buy merchandise from Mark because he refuses to use PayPal.
Mark refuses to use PayPal because they didn't build in his state/city.
PayPal didn't build in his state/city because of a state bathroom law.
The bathroom state law was set into effect because a congressman got scared by a tranny in his bathroom.
The tranny is the reason Jeff doesn't like Wendy.

Its just mayhem I tell you.  ...and all this accomplished is

Jeff doesn't have a good place to eat.
Wendy didn't get what she wanted to buy.
Mark has to use some 2nd rate online banking system.
PayPal now has to find somewhere else to build.
People don't know which bathrooms to use in North Carolina
No one gained any revenue over this...

All for what, so people can publicly value their opinion over the chance to make money and supply the demand for others?  This just looks like ugly pride to me.

ThomasEversole wrote:This just looks like ugly pride to me.

DING DING DING!!!!

It's turtles all the way down.


Oh, one correction--the congressman is scared for his wife and daughter.  It is always born out of concern for someone else.  Politicians are ALWAYS putting the needs of others ahead of their own interests.

messiaen77 wrote:You're right.  Paypal not hiring 400 people isn't going to make a bit of difference to the NC legislature.  Just like me not buying gas from BP didn't hurt them one bit.  But, what if Bank of America, which is headquartered in Charlotte and is the largest corporate employer in the state AND a huge political donor, announced it was moving its base of operations somewhere else.  That might get some people thinking.  What if in the wake of that decision American Airlines decided to move its Charlotte hub to Richmond.  What if (and I know this is ridiculous) NASCAR then decided to pull Charlotte and Rockingham races from the schedule.  And the NCAA refuses to hold tournament games in the state.  And the NFL rejects a bid to host the Super Bowl.  Now we are seeing significant economic impacts on the largest city in the state and the state as a whole.  Is any of that going to happen?  Not likely, because there are a number of other factors at work.  For one, many of these stands are pure PR BS.  I'm not saying there aren't people with real convictions in these corporations, but taking a public stand is not done lightly.  There is a huge cost/benefit analysis conducted.  Many companies that take big stands against these "religious freedom" laws stood idly by a few years ago when the big things was "protection of marriage" laws.  Not a peep when states said you couldn't marry someone with the same genitalia, but boy do they blow up when they say your genitalia determines which pot you can pee in.  They didn't call it discrimination back then, but they sure do now.  For that matter, many of them (including Paypal) are rattling their sabers here in the US over "anti-gay" legislation while maintaining a physical business presence in countries where people are executed for being gay.

I can understand how a big business like PayPal wouldn't be hurt from not building in that location. It still seems petty though. This actually appears to be more of an ethical issue rather than a financial one, and I certainly hope PayPal weighed "reputation" along with cost/benefit analysis. I mean, no one wants to lose a cool new job coming to their city because of bathrooms.

I don't run any company, but I think the best ethical corporate/business/staff approach is to apply Alcoholics Anonymous's Tradition Ten. (I'll replace AA with blanks for the example)

10. "__________ has no opinion on outside issues; hence the ___________ name ought never be drawn into public controversy."

messiaen77 wrote:Here's the other thing that bothers me about the way government works:  those farthest removed from a situation have the greatest control over it.  Charlotte passed an ordinance that it believed was in its best interest and reflected the values they wanted to communicate to businesses and tourists (Mr. Cynic here:  again, its all about getting $$).  The state can then pass a law that invalidates the city's law.  The next step will be for the U.S. Congress to consider a law that would invalidate NC law.  Now, I'm not an anarchist in any way.  But control should be like a funnel with the strictest, most restrictive laws coming at a local level, not the other way around.

I didn't know that's how that worked. That's crazy.
...and I agree with your last sentence ENTIRELY.

messiaen77 wrote:Politicians are ALWAYS putting the needs of others ahead of their own interests.

Counselors too. Just ask my certified counselor ex wife.

I guess I don't care about Jeff and Wendy.  They're free to live as they see fit.

Of course I do also agree about decisions being made on as local of a level as is possible.  And of course what was described is exactly how things work.  Wasn't that the whole deal with, for instance, the Supreme Court and same-sex marriage, and effectively telling every state -- including states where the actual voters had actually voted against same-sex unions being called "marriage" being overridden by federal authority?  Not at all trying to open a same-sex union discussion, it's just a recent well publicized example.

I dont think any government (from city to Washington) should be legislating morality issues like marriage, sex, gun control, alcohol or drug use or even issues like end of life decisions (suicide, voluntary euthanasia) or issues like seat belt laws, helmet laws, child seat laws or bathroom laws...
people should be free to live as they want on issues like those ... things like violent crime, theft, murder and the such should be legislated...
I think company's do have a right to conduct business as they want and people should be able to react to the way a business does business by simply not shopping there or working there (even though the company won't care)..I guess in a way we all play the game...I avoid walmart as much as possible and shop local when I can..I avoid christian book stores and I avoid certain restaurants (because i hate there food   )..I get agitated at food nazi's and tend to eat what I want...I could care less if someone is gay or not or what religion they are ...I admit though I am somewhat bigoted and racist at times but I think everyone is...I dont think religion should be allowed in the schools or the government...But if a company ceo wants to proudly claim his religious beliefs thats fine but his beliefs should not be a factor in who he hires or allows to shop in his store..

Savage Amusement wrote:I avoid walmart as much as possible and shop local when I can..

A former manager of mine needed a table and bought one at Rural King for $100 instead of lowering his opinion of Walmart and buying the same damn table there for $20. I'm sure he felt like he was sticking it to the man and proud of it and it was a small battle for America he won.
Too bad the facts are,
- WalMart doesn't need his $20.
- He paid $80 too much for a table

Savage Amusement wrote:I avoid christian book stores and I avoid certain restaurants (because i hate there food )

I also hate the food at Christian bookstores.

Savage Amusement wrote:I admit though I am somewhat bigoted and racist at times but I think everyone is...

Um no, I don't think everyone is bigoted and racist at times...

Um no, I don't think everyone is bigoted and racist at times...

yeah, keep telling yourself that

A former manager of mine needed a table and bought one at Rural King for $100 instead of lowering his opinion of Walmart and buying the same damn table there for $20. I'm sure he felt like he was sticking it to the man and proud of it and it was a small battle for America he won.
Too bad the facts are,
- WalMart doesn't need his $20.
- He paid $80 too much for a table

I say bravo to him..I would spend the extra money to shop local! I do it all the time...walmart is a job killer and they treat people like dirt and brainwash you into thinking they are the cheapest when they are not.... Target is cheaper than walmart most of the time and our local grocery stores do better than walmart alot of the time anyway (and our gas stations sell cheaper yet better fuel than walmart)... I am not trying to stick it to walmart..I just dont like shopping there..their stores around here are filthy, their products are crap and their clientele are not usually  people I want to be around..not to mention alot of their employees are clueless...If (and thats a big if) I shop corporate it will be Target every time...

Savage Amusement wrote:

Um no, I don't think everyone is bigoted and racist at times...

yeah, keep telling yourself that

I don't know everyone, nor do I claim to.  All I can say is I'm not "racist" at times.  Speak for yourself man.
I can't believe I'm having this conversation.

Savage Amusement wrote:

A former manager of mine needed a table and bought one at Rural King for $100 instead of lowering his opinion of Walmart and buying the same damn table there for $20. I'm sure he felt like he was sticking it to the man and proud of it and it was a small battle for America he won.
Too bad the facts are,
- WalMart doesn't need his $20.
- He paid $80 too much for a table

I say bravo to him..I would spend the extra money to shop local! I do it all the time...walmart is a job killer and they treat people like dirt and brainwash you into thinking they are the cheapest when they are not.... Target is cheaper than walmart most of the time and our local grocery stores do better than walmart alot of the time anyway (and our gas stations sell cheaper yet better fuel than walmart)... I am not trying to stick it to walmart..I just dont like shopping there..their stores around here are filthy, their products are crap and their clientele are not usually  people I want to be around..not to mention alot of their employees are clueless...If (and thats a big if) I shop corporate it will be Target every time...

I wish I lived by you so I could sell you a table.

The point isn't that Walmart is or isn't the cheapest - its about pride vs. common economical sense.  Walmart is a job killer?  Um, they employ people - that's kind of a job provider.  If you don't like their items, that's different.

Do you know their "clientele" the same way that you know that EVERYONE is racist sometimes?

When walmart comes it kills jobs at local grocery stores, hardware stores, clothing stores and other home grown locals...alot of towns now are telling walmart they are no longer welcome because of this..yeah, its about pride..pride in our homegrown buisness's and our LOCAL bussinessmen and our towns and states...thats a pride your generation doesnt understand...how sad for you..
........
Springsteen just canceled NC shows over thier laws and mississippi says tourism is bad in their state because of their religious laws...

Savage Amusement wrote:...thats a pride your generation doesnt understand...how sad for you..
........

For crying out loud. Will you stop trying to include EVERYONE or groups/generations of people into something? I'm not representing a group here - just giving my single solitary opinion. No reason to try to make this a stereotype.

Walmart doesn't have staff meetings over a cauldron where they decide which small local business to destroy next. You are making Walmart a victim of their own success, and to be honest, saying Walmart KILLS small businesses is like saying the 2000+ model cars KILLED the 1984 Pontiac Parisienne.

It's just better and you go with what's better, nothing personal.

...and I DO know what it's like to have that rapport with quaint local businesses. A couple blocks from my house is a lumber yard / hardware store, you go in, I know everyone by their first name, gab for a while before and after the purchase, they give you discounts because they want to....

Would Walmart KILL that business? No. ...but no one's going to go with a worst product for more money, so they would have to do something to compete.
If not, again, it's just better and you go with what's better, nothing personal.

Local businesses need to grow or go - specialize and thrive. Don't be a martyr to Walmart. That's just goofy.

Local businesses need to grow or go - specialize and thrive. Don't be a martyr to Walmart.

I wholeheartedly agree, Thomas.  We have several small town hardware stores that survive just fine against despite Walmart, Lowe's, and Home Depot being just a few miles away.  They carry things that Walmart doesn't (plumbing supplies) and several items that you would need in an emergency that you might not want to take the time to drive to Lowe's.  They sell tools, too, but they can't compete against the prices of power tools at other stores.  So, they don't carry that.  You can get a better shovel for $8 at my local hardware store than you can at Walmart for $5.  The de-icer I bought in the winter was better there too as it was formulated not to ruin a sidewalk.  You can't say that for Walmart, either.  This hardware store has specialized and has GROWN since they started a few years ago.

We also have a few clothing stores popping up now that are more boutique like.  You won't find the same things at Walmart, JC Penney's, or even GAP.  They are specializing and doing just fine as they are growing all the time.

Local restarants are thriving against their corporate competition, too.  How?  They have different food and a home grown service that a corporate entity can't or won't provide.

Instead of whining against Walmart, you have to start running your business to WIN against Walmart.  It can be done if you are a smart business owner.

alldatndensum wrote:
I wholeheartedly agree, Thomas.  We have several small town hardware stores that survive just fine against despite Walmart, Lowe's, and Home Depot being just a few miles away.  They carry things that Walmart doesn't (plumbing supplies) and several items that you would need in an emergency that you might not want to take the time to drive to Lowe's.  They sell tools, too, but they can't compete against the prices of power tools at other stores.  So, they don't carry that.  You can get a better shovel for $8 at my local hardware store than you can at Walmart for $5.  The de-icer I bought in the winter was better there too as it was formulated not to ruin a sidewalk.  You can't say that for Walmart, either.  This hardware store has specialized and has GROWN since they started a few years ago.

We also have a few clothing stores popping up now that are more boutique like. You won't find the same things at Walmart, JC Penney's, or even GAP. They are specializing and doing just fine as they are growing all the time.

Local restarants are thriving against their corporate competition, too. How? They have different food and a home grown service that a corporate entity can't or won't provide.

Instead of whining against Walmart, you have to start running your business to WIN against Walmart. It can be done if you are a smart business owner.

Absolutely. My local hardware store does have things Walmart doesn't. Wasted my time at Walmart trying to upgrade my shower of fix my screen door first, then my local hardware hooked me up. Plus the quantity is better/easier than some things at Walmart. "A bag" of drywall nails is not only cheaper, but less annoying that buying a bunch of packaged boxes and wiping the shelf clean to get the same amount elsewhere.

Walmart is preferred for pork steaks, but I'd rather buy eye-of-the-round else for even cheaper and without them hiding brown meat at Aldi. Walmart snacks are ok, but better and cheaper snacks are at Dollar General. I don't see Walmart make fresh chicken tenders in front of anyone either, yet my local store deli has them for $5 for 5lbs - you'd easily spend twice as much getting the same amount of processed junk at Walmart.

All this just makes boycotting Walmart (or any corporate goods/services) even sillier to me. Its only to prove some sort of a personal point or raise the power of their personal pride. Why shoot yourself in the foot that one time to rebel against "the man" for no reason, like a punk teenager, when most of what's gotten locally is better/more economical anyway?