I think that’s an important point and that it’s really impossible to decide, without all the other context, whether is behavior in that instance merited an ouster. If his record was clean in the past, then probably not. If his record wasn’t so clean, then maybe it did merited the ouster.
Then, thank you for your un-cited anecdote. You don’t mention what the fallout was, so I didn’t see how it would apply.
Does anyone dispute that if instead of the slur that he used the phrase “the n word” that he wouldn’t have lost his job?
I think it is terribly childish to restrict speech in that manner. Note how nobody in this thread after the OP used the word. We use all kinds of terrible words on this board all of the time, but not that one?
You may say that is the worst of all because of the offensive nature of it, but that is my point. Nobody in this thread has referred to that word in an offensive nature and arguably the CEO did not either. Are we in a modern age of infantile discussion where certain words are simply banned?
Just of record, when looking to see if Col. Sanders actually did say N****r I found this
So not only is it a bad argument, its also false.
If it was clear from the context in the room that he was using the Colonel’s hypothetical racism to excuse his own racist behavior, then I don’t think it would have mattered whether he used n-word or nigger.
Is he in a right-to-work state? If so, they can fire him for any reason they like. God bless America!
I don’t get why you’re so keen about this point.
As far as I can tell, you repeatedly figure that all of us will agree that he wouldn’t have lost his job if he’d just said “the n word” instead. It seems obvious to you, to the point where you think that must be the unanimous opinion hereabouts.
And this guy was too stupid to do that. You keep saying we can all agree that he just had to make that one easy change — and, well, he’s too stupid to do that. He had an easy task in front of him, and he’s just too stupid to do that.
Of course I’d want to fire that guy! What the heck would he stupidly bungle next?
I think you mean an at-will employment state. Right-to-work states are places where you can work in union shops without being in the union (I believe).
Huh, I’d thought “right to work” was some kid of Orwellian term Americans used to mean “they can fire you any time they want.” I stand cheerfully corrected.
Anyway, if the OP feels the guy was fired unfairly… too fucking bad, this is America! What, you hate capitalism or something, comrade?!
I’ll dispute that. I have absolutely no idea if he’d have been fired if he had said “the n-word” instead. I have absolutely no idea if he’d have been fired if he’d never brought up the dumb Colonel Sanders thing in the first place. Him being fired may very well have been a foregone conclusion going into the meeting, regardless of what the guy said.
From the Times article about this, it seems his face is part of their logo, and so anything he does wrong is going to be magnified.
But I bet the real reason is that their sales are bad. He whined that it was all the fault of the NFL protesters, but Pizza Hut bid on and won the NFL pizza franchise, so they obviously thought it was a good deal. So the controversy might have been an excuse for kicking his ass to the curb because of the business.
And, I think the meeting was in the context of containing PR problems in the context of his perceived racial insensitivity, right? I’m happy to be corrected on that, but if that’s true, it makes his boneheaded use of that word even dumber.
At least he didn’t use the really stupid excuse that rappers use it all the time, right?
Sorry you didn’t understand the thread topic being something to the effect of racial sensitivity run amok.
Perhaps you should describe under what circumstances, and how many times, you’ve used this racist term before the group can properly address your question.
When circumstances like that happen, I don’t understand why a huge corporate chain just doesn’t say “Oh shit, sorry about that. Labels ran out and it had nothing to do with race. Here, let us cater an entire party for you or something”
But it seems like they hem and haw, and ignore emails and all kinds of crap. I don’t understand that corporate logic. It doesn’t make any sense.
Oh, I thought this thread was about whether a chairman who lost his CEO job due to racial insensitivity was being stupid or racist when bringing forth a dumb argument while using a controversial word while on the phone with a PR firm hired to deal with controversy due to his racial insensitivity. Instead, it’s about stupid people misreading some note, like that idiot who objected to the term niggardly. Thanks for clearing that up.
I feel like further conversation here will not be time well spent, so off I flounce.
Actually that is pretty much what happened. The Westworld article is sparse. The Manager apologized profusely, but the church was more interested in holding a demonstration. You had to see the local news coverage for the full story.
Well there seem to be two stories:
Jones reached out to Famous Dave’s staff via email on June 21, June 25 and July 10. By July 14, he says he had still not heard back from Famous Dave’s lawyers. “I’ve never experienced anything like this in my entire career of practicing law," he says. "We have never had our concerns acknowledged.”
“We have offered to meet and talk about it. The church is not being receptive. I’m afraid it’s turning into something that it shouldn’t,” says Jeff Meyer, director of operations for Famous Dave’s Colorado.
Correct. Because one side views it quite differently than the other. If you saw the 9news coverage on last evening’s broadcast, you’d understand. Once it hits the cyberwaves all bets are off…
Was there more on the coverage than “One side says this, and the other side says that”?