[Discussion on Issues raised by] AJ getting pie in the face

[serfty]

[Moderator Hat]

Closed for Review​

[/Moderator Hat]

Review complete and thread reopened after pruning.

Please remember the forum rules when you post.

 

[Rebekkap]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

Originally Posted by RooFlyer And no, I don't think corporate bosses should use their company platforms to take 'social' positions. They should stick to running their companies and not court controversy for their company by being outspoken on 'hot' issues'.# No controversy is in their shareholder's interests, and those are the ONLY interests they should be concerned with.

I'm curious - in your belief then, can companies and their CEOs support non-controversial social issues?

If so, it's OK for Qantas to support breast and prostate cancer, UNICEF, and reconciliation* because these are non-controversial causes?
(*For some, reconciliation may be a controversial cause).

I'm asking because I'm wondering in general where the threshold between controversial and non-controversial is. I suspect that threshold is influenced very much by personal beliefs and attitudes, though there are probably some general views that hold a majority consensus within a particular culture.

A company takes social positions for a variety of reasons that are very much an integral part of "running their companies" in "their shareholder's (sic) interests".

Firstly, it's a part of branding, whether it's marriage equality or supporting cancer research, designed to give a certain segment of the population who are an important customer base for the company the warm and fuzzy feelings that make them more positive towards or loyal to the brand. It's a cheap form of advertising, it's a very cheap way of generating positive PR, and if you're doing it right and targeting it correctly, it will generate returns for shareholders.

Secondly, it's an important part of staff engagement, and the more engaged staff are, the better they perform for the business. That is measurable, and is measured by most big companies by staff engagement surveys. Higher engagement means more discretionary effort, more innovation, and lower staff turnover.

The idea that corporate bosses shouldn't take 'social' positions belongs in the last century along with other outdated management theories. Some customers may be less likely to purchase as a result (although as Virgin Australia also publicly support marriage equality, domestically customers don't have much option if they want to avoid an airline that supports it. They also won't be able to pay for their flights using a credit card, or a debit card from any of the major banks CORPORATE SUPPORT | Australian Marriage Equality - internationally I suppose you can fly the middle eastern flagship carriers - they're unlikely to come out in support of marriage equality) but if you are targeting correctly your most profitable customers and potential customers will be more likely to buy.

 

[Danger]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

There seems to be a lot of talk in the thread about Alan Joyce using Qantas to call for same sex marriage (or whatever it is being specifically lobbied for).

But I don't think that's quite right.

Alan Joyce as an individual is lobbying, joining a number of other high profile people who are also CEOs of large companies who are also acting of their own accord. Yes, Alan Joyce is CEO of Qantas. But the man is entitled to take up any old cause as an individual that he sees fit. Short of campaigning in front of Qantas banners and writing letters on company letterhead, I think it's important to separate Alan Joyce the man and Alan Joyce, CEO of Qantas.

 

[drron]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

I guess then you don't support SSM activists targeting IBM when one of their execs in his personal life was a member of an organisation that was anti SSM.
Or target Coopers because a video of 2 MPs who were having a discussion on SSM(1 opposed,1 for SSM)were drinking Cooper's beer in the video.
There are more.

And before calling me homophobic I have been a supporter of SSM.A family member is a prominent member of the Australian Marriage equality movement.
But I say have been because I don't want to see a section of society getting their deserved equality by having another section of society being denied theirs.A company executive should have the right to hold Christian views in their private life without bullies trying to have him/her/other dismissed.

 

[Vic]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

No one is being bullied for holding christian views. They are criticised because they want to deny others equality because of those christian views. SSM does not prevent, diminish or deny christian view points. They just need to accept that others are different and get over it.
Ironically a point that the cooper's thing was trying to make, but that was totally lost on the crazies.

 

[drron]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

No one is being bullied for holding christian views. They are criticised because they want to deny others equality because of those christian views. SSM does not prevent, diminish or deny christian view points. They just need to accept that others are different and get over it.
Ironically a point that the cooper's thing was trying to make, but that was totally lost on the crazies.

But it is SSM activists pushing for people to be forced to resign from committees that don't support SSM.Those committees are not in any way associated with their employment-bullying.
Nocookies | The Australian

Also an academic-
Nocookies | The Australian

The activist in this article has this to say about his target-

Mr Barnett said he did not know if LMI or Dr Chavura had ever issued any anti-gay material, but said “I don’t think they are going to be running floats down Mardi Gras.”

So it's not for anything he has done but merely because he is Christian.

 

[turtlemichael]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

But it is SSM activists pushing for people to be forced to resign from committees that don't support SSM.Those committees are not in any way associated with their employment-bullying.
Nocookies | The Australian

Also an academic-
Nocookies | The Australian

The activist in this article has this to say about his target-


So it's not for anything he has done but merely because he is Christian.

In your last couple of posts you appear to be saying that you did support SSM but now don't because of the activities of some activists? If SSM is a legitimate aim, which you supported, you would now deny it to those who wanted it because of the activities of a few? Am I interpreting you correctly? I can assure you that Mr Barnett could hold a meeting of his supporters in a phone box (if we still have such things). Overwhelming the people who want Equal Marriage are conservative or liberal ordinary citizens who should not be denied that right because of the activities of a few over whom they have no control. The issue is either worthwhile on its own merits or it is not.

I should state an interest. I married my SS partner in Canada 11 years ago and we have now been together 44 years.

 

[marki]

Avoiding this thread .......lots of pruning is never a good sign. I should know.

 

[Vic]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

But it is SSM activists pushing for people to be forced to resign from committees that don't support SSM.Those committees are not in any way associated with their employment-bullying.
Nocookies | The Australian

Also an academic-
Nocookies | The Australian

The activist in this article has this to say about his target-


So it's not for anything he has done but merely because he is Christian.

Nothing to say about that, paywalled stories that can't be read. Difficult to understand sentences - is it the committees or people that don't support SSM? Great way to prevent people from replying.

If someone sticks their nose where it doesn't below to deny people equality, then they have made a choice to be challenged.

 

[Pushka]

Maybe if we could prune the crazies at both ends of the spectrum we might actually get to some useful discussion - referring to real world not this thread.

 

[Vic]

I have no trouble ignoring extremists of all types.

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

In your last couple of posts you appear to be saying that you did support SSM but now don't because of the activities of some activists? If SSM is a legitimate aim, which you supported, you would now deny it to those who wanted it because of the activities of a few? Am I interpreting you correctly? I can assure you that Mr Barnett could hold a meeting of his supporters in a phone box (if we still have such things). Overwhelming the people who want Equal Marriage are conservative or liberal ordinary citizens who should not be denied that right because of the activities of a few over whom they have no control. The issue is either worthwhile on its own merits or it is not.

I should state an interest. I married my SS partner in Canada 11 years ago and we have now been together 44 years.

I'm pretty sure sure you are not interpreting drron correctly. I 've said before in the pre-reallocated thread that I too support SSM, but I loath and have contempt for the gay activists who target and bully those who hold Christian and/or anti SSM views, even those who hold those views quietly and mind their own business. . If activists are hurling names ... and worse ... , getting people sacked etc, I certainly won't support them, nor will I associate myself with them or their cause. That will mean staying mute, rather than changing my views.

Its amazing how those who think they hold the high moral ground can so quickly debase themselves.

ps. Why has the guy been banned from flying Qantas & affiliates? Because he is a danger? Or because it was the CEO of Qantas who was the target? I suspect plenty of convicted criminals, rapists, murders fly Qantas/Jetstar quite regularly. Their names are a matter of public record. Why not ban them, if "safety" is a reason for banning the pie-man?

No, Joyce is determined to extract maximum vengeance and he is in exactly the right job to do so. Well done Alan; that'll teach 'em. No turning the other cheek for you.

 

[burmans]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

But I say have been because I don't want to see a section of society getting their deserved equality by having another section of society being denied theirs. A company executive should have the right to hold Christian views in their private life without bullies trying to have him/her/other dismissed.

Of course they have the right to their own views, the problem is that they have been (mis)using that right by seeking to deny the rights of one sector of society just living the life they want. I don't disagree that some SSM supporters are activist, if I had had my rights trampled on by a bunch of people I strongly suspect I'd be an activist by now too.

 

[drron]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

In your last couple of posts you appear to be saying that you did support SSM but now don't because of the activities of some activists? If SSM is a legitimate aim, which you supported, you would now deny it to those who wanted it because of the activities of a few? Am I interpreting you correctly? I can assure you that Mr Barnett could hold a meeting of his supporters in a phone box (if we still have such things). Overwhelming the people who want Equal Marriage are conservative or liberal ordinary citizens who should not be denied that right because of the activities of a few over whom they have no control. The issue is either worthwhile on its own merits or it is not.

I should state an interest. I married my SS partner in Canada 11 years ago and we have now been together 44 years.

I know I often get misinterpreted but English was never my strong point at school-apart from poetry but that is another story.And thanks for asking for clarification.No I have not changed my support but I usually have now gone mute.
The problem is I know a few people who have changed their views because of such actions.
Now that you live in Victoria,though even in QLD now,your marriage is recognised in all but name under State law.Only WA and the NT will offer no recognition though both should change now.Though SA only brought in changes in December 2016.

So credit where due-the Tasmanian Government brought in new legislation in 2004 straight after the amendments to the Marriage Act giving SS couples a way to have their relationship given legal recognition.
As well K Rudd,who people will know I have a low opinion of,did in 2009 enact legislation to give those in civil unions-which included heterosexual de facto couples as well-the same rights as married couples in many areas including things such as super.About the only thing he couldn't change was the attitude of some in the Family Court.

 

[Pushka]

The guts of the issue for me, is that those who want same sex marriage to be legal in Australia just want something to happen - for them. Those against same sex marriage want something stopped (or in this case, never allowed) but for others. Does anyone not see the injustice here?

 

[RooFlyer]

But maintaining the status quo is not wanting to "stop" something - its the status quo! And the law doesn't change just for those who want to get married, it changes for everyone. And society changes by it.

If we (including me) want to bring in a change (ie in the law), we need to have it debated in a rational way and the public at large won over, not by abusing and personally targeting those who argue against your (and my) position, or .. "God" forbid .. happen to expose their Christian views. Oh, the cheek of them.

The mob will ultimately lose this one .. which is a shame.

Did you know the Catholic Church in Tas got hauled up before the HRC by a same sex advocate for doing nothing but having a pamphlet outlining the church's views? The lawyers got rich, at least.

 

[Pushka]

The older I get the more willing I am to challenge the status quo when it's based on principles I likewise challenge. But I take your point.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

Only WA and the NT will offer no recognition though both should change now.

Actually in WA de facto couples have the same legal rights as married couples and the legislation is silent on gender.
They even have access to the WA Family Court (a uniquely state based court - the Family Court elsewhere is a federal court).
So same sex marriage is arguably unnecessary in WA.
Except for symbolism.

 

[Danger]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

ps. Why has the guy been banned from flying Qantas & affiliates? Because he is a danger? Or because it was the CEO of Qantas who was the target? I suspect plenty of convicted criminals, rapists, murders fly Qantas/Jetstar quite regularly. Their names are a matter of public record. Why not ban them, if "safety" is a reason for banning the pie-man?

No, Joyce is determined to extract maximum vengeance and he is in exactly the right job to do so. Well done Alan; that'll teach 'em. No turning the other cheek for you.

Interesting. I'd never thought of it like that.

 

[love_the_life]

But maintaining the status quo is not wanting to "stop" something - its the status quo! And the law doesn't change just for those who want to get married, it changes for everyone. And society changes by it.....

However, the law regarding marriage was changed when John Howard slipped through the amendment which specified marriage was to be only between a man and a woman. That went through with no community consultation or discussion, just a fait accompli.
Not wanting to get into a political discussion here