Negotiating Salary

[Pakuni]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation

https://www.businessinsider.com/danone-planning-to-be-worlds-largest-benefit-corporation-2018-10

Making money is still a primary objective of benefit corporations.

[Chili]

Making money is still a primary objective of benefit corporations.

I always thought it was to maximize shareholder equity?

[Coleman]

Making money is still a primary objective of benefit corporations.

It is one of them, yes. Among several.

[forgetful]

See also: providers, healthcare

Did you say that with a straight face?  Seriously, providers/healthcare.  What makes you think their primary motif is not profit?

Edit:  Sorry, misunderstood your post.  Reading comprehension apparently is not my friend today.

[GGGG]

Did you say that with a straight face?  Seriously, providers/healthcare.  What makes you think their primary motif is not profit?

No that's his point.  He was agreeing that many non-profit health companies act as if profit is a primary motive.

[forgetful]

No that's his point.  He was agreeing that many non-profit health companies act as if profit is a primary motive.

I suck at reading comprehension sometimes.

[WarriorDad]

Please show evidence of a corporation - not a non-profit - that doesn't have making money as its primary goal.

I never said corporation.  I said employer, for which there are all kinds, some for profit, some non-profit, some gov't, etc.

[MU82]

Chik-fil-a

That's funny, Benny. I needed the laugh.

[WarriorDad]

And I would also suggest that many not-for-profits still engage in making money has a primary purpose.  While that purpose may be charitable in nature, many will treat their employees no different than a for-profit enterprise would - both positively and negatively.

Where did anyone say businesses exclusively? Or corporations for that matter?  I said employers.  Employers include schools, the gov't, charities, corporations (for profit and non profit).

[Benny B]

That's funny, Benny. I needed the laugh.

Not funny at all.  If money was their primary goal, why are they closed on Sundays?

[MU82]

Not funny at all.  If money was their primary goal, why are they closed on Sundays?

Being closed on Sundays helps them make money. It's part of their schtick.

If altruism or religiosity or love were their primary goal, why wouldn't they give employees $20 an hour and full health benefits? Why wouldn't they let poor people eat for free?

I did not say corporations didn't do things that seemingly cost them money. Costco famously treats its employees better than any other retailer does. This undoubtedly "costs" them money. But they also have the best employee loyalty in the business - meaning less turnover, less money spent on training, less stealing by employees, employees who actually want to do a day's hard work, etc. Plus, customers seem to appreciate that Costco treats its employees well. So does Costco have a different primary objective ... or is being good to employees part of what helps Costco make money?

Same with Starbucks. They give 20-hour/week employees access to reasonably priced health insurance. Plus they take on many altruistic (some say liberal) causes. But does this mean Starbucks' primary goal is not to make money?

Corporations have to make money as Job 1 ... or else they'll go out of business. Publicly traded ones have even more money-making obligations.

Maybe Chik-fil-A is an outlier ... but I don't think so.

And chicos2 throwing non-profits into the discussion ... hilarious.

[WarriorDad]

Being closed on Sundays helps them make money. It's part of their schtick.

If altruism or religiosity or love were their primary goal, why wouldn't they give employees $20 an hour and full health benefits? Why wouldn't they let poor people eat for free?

Schtick?  They make more money as a result of staying closed?  Some say they are leaving about $1.1 billion in revenue off the table by staying closed on Sundays. 

Because $20 an hour would put them at a tremendous disadvantage in terms of business along with those full health benefits.  Fewer customers could afford their costly food which would have to be raised in price to sustain those costs. You can't do much good if you aren't in business.  How much one pays is dictated by market forces.

Employers don't always mean corporations.  Keep digging that hole.

[MU82]

Schtick?  They make more money as a result of staying closed?  Some say they are leaving about $1.1 billion in revenue off the table by staying closed on Sundays. 

Because $20 an hour would put them at a tremendous disadvantage in terms of business along with those full health benefits.  Fewer customers could afford their costly food which would have to be raised in price to sustain those costs. You can't do much good if you aren't in business.  How much one pays is dictated by market forces.

Employers don't always mean corporations.  Keep digging that hole.

Nice goalpost shifting, c2. Keep pretending that you were talking about not-for-profits and the government. To stop your silliness, I will hereby stipulate that making money isn't always the primary goal of not-for-profits, and isn't the goal of governments.

Now ...

If making money isn't Chik-fil-A's primary goal, as you (and Benny?) seem to be implying, what do you think is their primary goal? What is the main reason they are in business? To do good deeds? Well, their owner Dan Cathy is a bazillionaire. He doesn't need to sell chicken sammiches at a profit to do good deeds. He could just do good deeds, no?

Couldn't making money be Chik-fil-A's primary goal but closing on Sundays be a sign that taking a day off or supporting Christian values or "tradition" or whatever other reasons also are important to their bazillionaire owner? Do they have to be mutually exclusive?

Don't many (dozens? hundreds? more?) companies often "leave money on the table" to create an image of themselves that help them "win" at public relations, thereby helping them succeed over the long haul?

BTW, closing on Sundays doesn't appear to have been some kind of major Christian statement at all. From Wikipedia:

In an interview with ABC News's Nightline, Truett's son Dan T. Cathy told reporter Vicki Mabrey that the company is also closed on Sundays because "by the time Sunday came, he was just worn out. And Sunday was not a big trading day, anyway, at the time. So he was closed that first Sunday and we've been closed ever since. He figured if he didn't like working on Sundays, that other people didn't either." The younger Cathy also quoted his father as saying, "I don't want to ask people to do that what I am not willing to do myself."

Being homophobic ... now that's more of a major Christian statement by Cathy and his kin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy

[mu03eng]

Being homophobic ... now that's more of a major Christian statement by Cathy and his kin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy

Timeout, where did Cathy or Chick Fil A make homophobic statements? They may have a different opinion on Same Sex marriage but that does not make one homophobic. Unless I missed a statement somewhere I've seen a position I wildly disagree with but I hardly would describe as homophobic

[MU82]

Timeout, where did Cathy or Chick Fil A make homophobic statements? They may have a different opinion on Same Sex marriage but that does not make one homophobic. Unless I missed a statement somewhere I've seen a position I wildly disagree with but I hardly would describe as homophobic

This from Wikipedia:

The WinShape Foundation, a charitable endeavor of Chick-fil-A founder S. Truett Cathy and his family, stated that it would not allow same-sex couples to participate in its marriage retreats.[14] Chick-fil-A gave over $8 million to the WinShape Foundation in 2010.[15] Equality Matters, an LGBT watchdog group, published reports of donations by WinShape to organizations that the watchdog group considers anti-gay, including $2 million in 2009, $1.9 million in 2010 and a total of $5 million since 2003, including grants to the Family Research Council and Georgia Family Council. WinShape contributed grants to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and Exodus International, an organization noted for supporting ex-gay conversion therapy

On June 16, 2012, while on the syndicated radio talk show, The Ken Coleman Show, Chick-fil-A president and chief operating officer (COO) Dan Cathy stated:

I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, "We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage". I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.

The following month, on July 2, Biblical Recorder published an interview with Dan Cathy, who was asked about opposition to his company's "support of the traditional family." He replied: "Well, guilty as charged."

Cathy continued:

"We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. ... We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized. "We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."

The day after the Supreme Court of the United States struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, Cathy tweeted, "Sad day for our nation; founding fathers would be ashamed of our gen. to abandon wisdom of the ages re: cornerstone of strong societies." The tweet was subsequently deleted, but was archived by Topsy.

In March 2014, Cathy said he regretted drawing his company into the controversy. He told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution he has been working with Shane Windmeyer of Campus Pride since 2012. The article noted that WinShape and the Chick-fil-A Foundation had "dramatically" cut donations to groups opposed by same-sex marriage supporters.


So mu03, you can decide if Cathy's comments, donations to organizations that support gay-conversion therapy, and other comments/actions are homophobic.

If you think "homophobic" is the wrong word, I'm open to hearing another. Gay-basher, perhaps?

It does sound like in recent years he is trying to be less of a public gay-hater, for PR purposes if nothing else, so I guess that's a good thing.

[mu03eng]

This from Wikipedia:

The WinShape Foundation, a charitable endeavor of Chick-fil-A founder S. Truett Cathy and his family, stated that it would not allow same-sex couples to participate in its marriage retreats.[14] Chick-fil-A gave over $8 million to the WinShape Foundation in 2010.[15] Equality Matters, an LGBT watchdog group, published reports of donations by WinShape to organizations that the watchdog group considers anti-gay, including $2 million in 2009, $1.9 million in 2010 and a total of $5 million since 2003, including grants to the Family Research Council and Georgia Family Council. WinShape contributed grants to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and Exodus International, an organization noted for supporting ex-gay conversion therapy

On June 16, 2012, while on the syndicated radio talk show, The Ken Coleman Show, Chick-fil-A president and chief operating officer (COO) Dan Cathy stated:

I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, "We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage". I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.

The following month, on July 2, Biblical Recorder published an interview with Dan Cathy, who was asked about opposition to his company's "support of the traditional family." He replied: "Well, guilty as charged."

Cathy continued:

"We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. ... We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized. "We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."

The day after the Supreme Court of the United States struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, Cathy tweeted, "Sad day for our nation; founding fathers would be ashamed of our gen. to abandon wisdom of the ages re: cornerstone of strong societies." The tweet was subsequently deleted, but was archived by Topsy.

In March 2014, Cathy said he regretted drawing his company into the controversy. He told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution he has been working with Shane Windmeyer of Campus Pride since 2012. The article noted that WinShape and the Chick-fil-A Foundation had "dramatically" cut donations to groups opposed by same-sex marriage supporters.


So mu03, you can decide if Cathy's comments, donations to organizations that support gay-conversion therapy, and other comments/actions are homophobic.

If you think "homophobic" is the wrong word, I'm open to hearing another. Gay-basher, perhaps?

It does sound like in recent years he is trying to be less of a public gay-hater, for PR purposes if nothing else, so I guess that's a good thing.

Maybe an unpopular stance, but I don't view their position as homophobic, misguided certainly, but it's not like they are calling for the discrimination against people because they are gay or refusing to employ people because they are gay. They believe marriage/family is not something that should be available to gay couples, from a religious standpoint that is certainly within their rights....from a government standpoint it can be a policy position (thankfully an outdated one) but it's not gay-bashing, largely because I suspect their religious beliefs are informing their policy positions (which isn't unheard of in this nations history).

[GGGG]

Maybe an unpopular stance, but I don't view their position as homophobic, misguided certainly, but it's not like they are calling for the discrimination against people because they are gay or refusing to employ people because they are gay. They believe marriage/family is not something that should be available to gay couples, from a religious standpoint that is certainly within their rights....from a government standpoint it can be a policy position (thankfully an outdated one) but it's not gay-bashing, largely because I suspect their religious beliefs are informing their policy positions (which isn't unheard of in this nations history).

Advocating for gay couples not to be married is "calling for the discrimination against people because they are gay."  I don't know how you could claim otherwise.

[mu03eng]

Advocating for gay couples not to be married is "calling for the discrimination against people because they are gay."  I don't know how you could claim otherwise.

Religious or government married? Now or 6 years ago?

[Jay Bee]

Advocating for gay couples not to be married is "calling for the discrimination against people because they are gay."  I don't know how you could claim otherwise.

No it's not.

Is advocating for special BENEFITS to be given to gays (and others) who marry discriminatory against those - straight, gay or otherwise - who choose not to be married?

Why should special treatment be given to those who marry?

[GGGG]

No it's not.

Is advocating for special BENEFITS to be given to gays (and others) who marry discriminatory against those - straight, gay or otherwise - who choose not to be married?

Why should special treatment be given to those who marry?

So your position is to lobby against all marriage then.  Good for you.

[GGGG]

Religious or government married? Now or 6 years ago?

If a religious group doesn't want people to marry for whatever reason, that is their right.

But we are talking about a government benefit (and they acknowledge that in their quote as well.)  And advocating for that position now, six years ago, 100 years ago or 1,000 years ago is still discrimination.  It's just was more socially acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation back then.

[MU82]

Maybe an unpopular stance, but I don't view their position as homophobic, misguided certainly, but it's not like they are calling for the discrimination against people because they are gay or refusing to employ people because they are gay. They believe marriage/family is not something that should be available to gay couples, from a religious standpoint that is certainly within their rights....from a government standpoint it can be a policy position (thankfully an outdated one) but it's not gay-bashing, largely because I suspect their religious beliefs are informing their policy positions (which isn't unheard of in this nations history).

Interesting take, mu03. Walking a bit of a fine line, but I understand where you're coming from.

Still ...

Cathy did give millions to organizations that pushed Pray Away The Gay "therapy." And he invoked the Founding Fathers, as if he could possibly know what any of them would think about his stance on this. I happen to think many of the Founding Fathers would have strongly advocated for the rights of gay people, including gay marriage, if they were around today. Hell, a few of them might have been gay.

If Cathy's religious beliefs inform an anti-Jew policy - Jews killed Christ, after all, right? Or at the very least, they are hell-bound because they don't accept Jesus as their lord and savior, correct? - would that be that OK?

I do think we can agree Cathy certainly has been outwardly gay-unfriendly. Although, again, maybe at least publicly he is chilling the rhetoric.

Finally, this conversation is taking us away from the main point of my earlier comment, that corporations - even seemingly altruistic ones - must put a priority on making money. It doesn't make them evil or nasty or bad. It just is. If it isn't, then they won't be successful corporations for long.

[Jay Bee]

So your position is to lobby against all marriage then.  Good for you.

Maybe it's your position. Why should people who marry be given special treatment?

[GGGG]

Maybe it's your position. Why should people who marry be given special treatment?

I never said they should.

[mu03eng]

Maybe it's your position. Why should people who marry be given special treatment?

This is the crux of my point, government marriage (rightly or wrongly) and it's associated benefits was created as a mechanism to promote what was viewed as a "stabilizing lifestyle". All tax policy, whether the people determining the policy recognize it or not, are creating incentives and disincentives around behavior.

First question, should government marriage be a policy?

Second, how do we define this marriage (two people, same and/or opposite genders, groups, etc)?

With those definitions what behaviors are we encouraging and discouraging, is that acceptable for society, etc?