But, ethics are matters of personal belief. (Except in special cases, e.g., formal codes of professional ethics.)
Just got back to my computer so I think a few responses are in order
-
KimmyGibler - the employer is not (directly) the Singapore Govt, and the issue is not about saying fuck you to a totalitarian govt. That sort of post isn’t particularly helpful
2. Tabby_Cat - thanks for posting the background, I think it makes the debate a little more informed. Although I did deliberately leave it out first time round - Don’t let the debate devolve into “gay rights” - that’s not want it was about. Its about conflation of working and private lives
- The employer (so far as I know) is relatively conservative, (hey, it’s a bank) but they have never taken a position re homosexual rights
I am personally in line with Odesio’s and Aruvqan’s comments. I am a bit disappointed by how much play the name of her employer is getting in the media, I don’t think it’s particularly relevant to the issue.
If I was the bank I would be pissed that I was being identified so much with the issue. HOWEVER what employees do in their private lives is their own concern. Unless they deliberately drag the employer into it - which the protagonist in this case hasn’t.
At the same time, I am in marketing, and I know that many decisions are based on perceptions and beliefs. So while she isn’t the “face” of the company by any stretch of the imagination (the general public actually wouldn’t know her at all) I am wondering how her beliefs have impacted her choice of which programmes / organisations get to partner with her employer - and this is something that I do have an issue with. Has she been / is she discriminating against “pro gay” promotional partners because she doesn’t beleive in homosexuality?
**
Tabby_Cat,** when the bank first came out against her taking the presidency, I was WTF? They should be happy (and generally the ex govt / temasek etc organisations are more than happy to have employees take up such posts) . Now seeing what has erupted and the fallout I am starting to wonder if there wasn’t more to their decision. In that they knew her beliefs, and why she did what she did and expected the massive fallout. What do you think?
But I do think the facebook page calling for her dismissal is unfair - until there is further information that she has actually let her beliefs intrude on her work life.
Wanted to post this…
"Last November,* VP of Marketing,* led the marketing team in a credit card campaign which supported the evangelical Christian organisation Focus On The Family (FOTF).
That credit card promotion where the* bank *said that it would donate money to FOTF, ‘a charity dedicated to helping children and families thrive’, led to calls to boycott the bank from members of the gay and lesbian community."
I have edited out the bank name, and the protagonist name because I don’t think it’s fair to drag the bank into this debate, and it’s not relevant to the discussion in hand.
It seems that her beliefs HAVE impacted her work, (although at the same time the marketing manager that totally avoids any sort of controversy isn’t doing much) … so does that change your perceptions at all?
I don’t think she is. As long as she’s not actively looking for staff with offensive beliefs to punish, then I think she’s well within her rights as a business owner to say “Sorry, but I’m not promoting someone who hates Kittens, especially not when they go on National Television to say how much they hate Kittens.”
If you (generic you, not you specifically, Laudenum) want to have beliefs at odds with what society generally considers “Polite”, “Acceptable”, “Civilised”, or “Right-thinking” then you have to accept that you may suffer negative consequences as a result of that. “Pissing off your boss” is one of those potential negative consequences.
Now, if Miss Elizabeth was penalising employees for supporting the wrong sports team or watching the wrong TV shows, then yes, a case could be made for her being “a bad person”. But sidelining or getting rid of employees with genuinely held dangerously offensive beliefs who choose to make them public (eg “Gay Marriage is Evil” or “There should be a new Inquisition to burn the Infidels and Unbelievers!”) doesn’t strike me as being an especially unreasonable course of action. YRMV, of course.
But one group’s position is “We hate those people” and the other group’s position is “We love ourselves”. They’re not diametric opposites/equals.
The greatest trick religion ever pulled was to equate these two positions. But one is bigotry and one is not.
So from a purely ethical standpoint - Ms. Bigot needs to GTFO. Of course the real world operates differently, but if I owned the company, that’s how it would play out.
I know somebody who was an admin for a fundamentalist church in LA. She’s not relgious herself. She went to watch Bill Clinton speak, and her later manager found out and fired her.
Can she sue?
That depends. Did she do it on company time? Was she given an urgent, time-critical task to perform?
I doubt that many churches would fire an employee simply for watching Bill Clinton–or any politician–speak. I’ve known staff members of conservative churches listen to liberals speak and then complain about what they heard. Similarly, it’s not uncommon for liberals to watch Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Sarah Palin, and they complain loudly afterwards.
For these reasons, I think there’s a great deal more behind the story than what you’ve just told, and probably more than what you’re privy to.
It depends on whether or not CA is an at-will employment state. I think it’s one of the few states that isn’t, so it’s possible that she has cause.
It was an evening event and didn’t impact her working hours.
Thank you for saying this. I almost didn’t post it, because I thought it sounded inflammatory. I’m glad you understood my point.
California is an at-will state.
Ed
I’m not sure how it could be considered “Inflammatory”… I mean, everyone knows that pissing off your boss will pretty much end your career. Going on (Inter)National Television to say that you hate Kittens and think anyone who likes Kittens is a horrible person who should be slapped with a dead mackerel is obviously going to piss your boss off, especially if they’ve got an “I Heart Kittens” coffee mug on their desk, a “Cat-A-Day” calendar on the wall behind them, and sends around a weekly LOLCat E-mail to the staff.
According to wiki, all states are. CA is one of the few that has more protections in place for the fired, though.
Using scriptural principals as I understand them:
What would be the intent/motivation behind this would be my first question. Is it hatred you are projecting towards them, or some sort of ‘I was just following orders’ reasoning? If either of these are the case I would back totally away from it, you will end up hurting yourself just as much as them if you take such action.
Is it that you believe you are helping people by selling your product and this person seems to be standing in the way, then it would seem appropriate IMHO to try to have them removed.
It is all the intent of your heart, not your thinking/justification process. Take the path of keeping your heart pure, justification of action contrary to that will damage you and them.
We all have wrong reasoning at times, and we need to forgive people for it, and realize that they are just searching for the truth just as we all are, and sometimes we make mistakes. As we treat others we will be treated.
When Anita Bryant came out (snicker) against gays in Florida, she had to signed to do a weekly variety show sponsored by Singer Sewing Machines. She created so much controversial that Singer pulled out (snicker) and the network cancelled the show.
Anita blamed the honosexuals.
There is a difference between being gay, and making a point out of making sure every one of your customers have the opportunity to know so on the evening news. It might be fun to think that the world is filled with equal opportunity shoppers, but its far from the truth. If I were to make a big presentation on the evening news about being an athiest, I would most likely see a sharp drop in business due to the fairly common beleif that athiests are somehow untrustworthy because of their glaring moral flaw of failing to beleive in god.
If one of my employees wants to do the same, especially if it is well known for whatever he is my employee, it reflects on me.
In the case that I set-out in the OP, it is NOT commonly known who she works for. She did not announce it, it is the media that announced it (which is common practise here, but I find very unfair)
Those that are in the (marketing) industry would know, and personally I would always have lingering doubts about her impartiality.
Would it be fair for the bank to now fire her, not for her beliefs as such, but more because extremism (of any sort) does not sit well in an environment where you should be giving “impartial” advice on partnerships.
Now that I know of her beliefs - I would think that she is always going to filtering promotions through those beliefs - anmd this particular person has already approved one controversial socially conservative fundraising programme.
If this is SOP for the media in your neck of the woods, a marketing manager should assume that such associations will be made. If this person was something other than a marketing manager I might be softer. For someone in this position it was intentional, knowing that such a connection would come out, or they are profoundly incompetent.
I stand by my earlier statement, numbers better go up next quarter, if not, make sure the door hits them on the way out.
Yes.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. That means EVERYONE. There must be no coercion, no intimidation, no demanding that anyone else “believe” what you believe, no abuse of your position or power to pressure anyone. That is the line in the sand.
I’m going to invent a quote here.
*You have a right to your opinion, as do I. I respect your right to your opinion, even though I am not required to respect that opinion myself. If you do not accord me this same courtesy, then to hell with you. *
I work every day, with people who are worlds apart from me politically. We get along fine. There is an “unspoken mutual agreement” that we will just not talk about some things. It works.