bbauska

I do not see a difference for a CEO and an employee, People need to be treated equally after all. Are you saying that hired employees should be treated differently RickyP? That sounds like discrimination on it's face!!

If you think CEO's and employees are or should be treated equally then you have a problem with reality.
If you think that CEO's and employees have the same responsibilities to the company or corporation then again - you have a problem with reality.
The CEO is the key executive, the key person representing and managing a corporation.
There's a reason he is paid so much more than the average employee. He has great responsibility. And as such, much higher standards often apply.

I did not say that the CEO had less responsibility. I said they should be treated the same.

If that makes me have a problem with reality, then you have a problem with equality. The CEO has more responsibility, and gets paid for it.

I am sure you are not advocating the lower class person not being held to a lower standard. That is denigrating. People should be held to the same standard of honesty, fairness and treatment of others.

BTW, Eich was an employee.

So you don't subscribe to the risk-reward principle, bbauska?

A CEO has more responsibility than a clerk. The reward is they get paid more. The risk should be that they are more accountable. You do know what 'responsibility' means, I assume?

Pay someone the same as a CEO, and then you can expect the same of them. Pay them close to minimum wage, and then of course you are treating yhem differently. If you want the same standsrd to apply to all employees, does that mean you want the same wages for all employees?

Risk/reward would be a company firing the CEO for a poorly performing company. The employee does not get fired for the company doing poorly.

Do you not have a problem with an employee providing $1000 to Prop 8? After all, RickyP said that is discrimination. Is it discrimination for a CEO, but not a lower level wager earner? You would think that "discrimination" is treated the same regardless of the level.

Stealing... A CEO embezzles 1 million dollars, a wager earner steals a $500 air conditioner. Which one should be fired? I would say both. Both, regardless of the level of employment. If it is wrong, it is wrong.

Proselytizing... A CEO "witnesses" to the board the story of conversion to Christianity. A wage earner does the same thing at the lunch table with fellow employees. There is a policy prohibiting proselytizing. Who should be fired? I would say both. Both, regardless of level of employment. If it is wrong, it is wrong.

Shall I continue to give examples of equal treatment?

(Oh, and yes, I do understand what responsibility means. I would probably be one of the most hyper-responsible you would ever meet.)

BTW, if you are ever in the Northwest, I would LOVE to meet you, Danivon. I am sure neither of us are as we are seen by the other sometimes.

I will be in Seattle on the weekend of the 4th of July (and after that heading along the Oregon coastline)

The point is that Eich was not pushed out for his belief, or his donstion. It was the repuational risk that led to his resignation.

So if a clerk does something that sparks mass boycotts, then that would be the same.

bbauska

Risk/reward would be a company firing the CEO for a poorly performing company. The employee does not get fired for the company doing poorly

.
The CEO has responsibility for the overall performance of the company. The employee only his job function. If he performs badly in that he may be fired...
On the other hand, an employee can do a great job personally, but because the CEO performs poorly, and the company performs poorly he loses his job due to lay offs.
In the case of Eich, boycotts, and customer dis-satisfaction with his political activities and how they conflicted with the stated ideals of Mozilla threatened to directly affect the companies performance.For a stakeholder or an employee this is dangerous, and the CEO is responsible. And must go.
The CEO dos not enjoy the luxury of anonimity . He has chosen to take up a very responsible position.... he is rewarded financially many times that of an ordinary employee because the role is onerous.

Do you not have a problem with an employee providing $1000 to Prop 8? After all, RickyP said that is discrimination. Is it discrimination for a CEO, but not a lower level wager earner? You would think that "discrimination" is treated the same regardless of the level.

If an employee of Mozilla other than Eich had made a public donation to Prop 8, I expect the issue of their donation would be discussed internally. However, if it was a largely anonymous employee, not in a leadership position I suspect it would be given a pass. Maybe someone in the management might have a quiet word with the employee to discuss how Prop 8 conflicted with Mozilla's code.
How do I conclude this? Because Eich's donation was made before he became CEO, and he retained his position. Despite there being some internal debate. It wasn't till he became the CEO, in the very responsible leadership position that the act became an over riding issue. Even then, if he had repudiated his position on Prop 8, he could have held on to the CEO position. He didn't repudiate.
But he himself, understood that the controversy was damaging the company and therefore made the decision to leave before he damaged the company more...
If you can find a mail clerk who's political positions or donation would have the same effect on the company's performances I'll argue he should be treated equally to Eich.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

Risk/reward would be a company firing the CEO for a poorly performing company. The employee does not get fired for the company doing poorly

.
The CEO has responsibility for the overall performance of the company. The employee only his job function. If he performs badly in that he may be fired...
On the other hand, an employee can do a great job personally, but because the CEO performs poorly, and the company performs poorly he loses his job due to lay offs.
In the case of Eich, boycotts, and customer dis-satisfaction with his political activities and how they conflicted with the stated ideals of Mozilla threatened to directly affect the companies performance.For a stakeholder or an employee this is dangerous, and the CEO is responsible. And must go.
The CEO dos not enjoy the luxury of anonimity . He has chosen to take up a very responsible position.... he is rewarded financially many times that of an ordinary employee because the role is onerous.

Do you not have a problem with an employee providing $1000 to Prop 8? After all, RickyP said that is discrimination. Is it discrimination for a CEO, but not a lower level wager earner? You would think that "discrimination" is treated the same regardless of the level.

If an employee of Mozilla other than Eich had made a public donation to Prop 8, I expect the issue of their donation would be discussed internally. However, if it was a largely anonymous employee, not in a leadership position I suspect it would be given a pass. Maybe someone in the management might have a quiet word with the employee to discuss how Prop 8 conflicted with Mozilla's code.
How do I conclude this? Because Eich's donation was made before he became CEO, and he retained his position. Despite there being some internal debate. It wasn't till he became the CEO, in the very responsible leadership position that the act became an over riding issue. Even then, if he had repudiated his position on Prop 8, he could have held on to the CEO position. He didn't repudiate.
But he himself, understood that the controversy was damaging the company and therefore made the decision to leave before he damaged the company more...
If you can find a mail clerk who's political positions or donation would have the same effect on the company's performances I'll argue he should be treated equally to Eich.

Thank you for the clarification. I still consider it a double standard, but I understand your point more.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/05/01/pasadena-public-health-director-placed-on-leave-for-reportedly-making-anti-gay-anti-catholic-remarks/

Public outcry on this one too?

I guess I must have missed it. The PASTOR is chastising schools for giving special treatment. Perhaps preaching equality is not what is acceptable anymore.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/community-manager-fired-after-controversial-tweets-about-embattled-nba-owner-donald-sterling/1100-6419367/

Another CEO fired. Oh wait... It was a game developer. This game developer had the audacity to say that Sterling has a right to be a bigot in his own home.

Is that offensive these days?

http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/BREAKING-NEWS/EASTSIDE-CATHOLIC-PRESIDENT-RESIGNS-br-Over-backlash-in-firing-of-gay-principal-1612082

Apparently you cannot fire someone for having values contrary to the Catholic School the gay Vice principal was at without causing an uproar.

Does this meet the criteria for double standard yet?

bbauska

The PASTOR is chastising schools for giving special treatment. Perhaps preaching equality is not what is acceptable anymore

.

from the story you sourced .....

after a sermon he gave in 2006 in which he attacked schools for their tolerance of gays and lesbians and denounced women’s rights surfaced.

The story claims he was preaching against tolerance of gays..... How did they arrive at such a different interpretation of his sermon?

bbauska

Apparently you cannot fire someone for having values contrary to the Catholic School the gay Vice principal was at without causing an uproar.
Does this meet the criteria for double standard yet?

One problem for the Church is that gay marriage is legal in Washington. And therefore society considers gay marriage to be moral.
I get it that the Church doesn't but its a case of Church and State....
Does this school receive public funding?
I noticed that the teachers at the school were seeking his reinstatement. Which seems to indicate that some of the prime stakeholders aren't in agreement with the policy.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

Apparently you cannot fire someone for having values contrary to the Catholic School the gay Vice principal was at without causing an uproar.
Does this meet the criteria for double standard yet?

One problem for the Church is that gay marriage is legal in Washington. And therefore society considers gay marriage to be moral.
I get it that the Church doesn't but its a case of Church and State....
Does this school receive public funding?
I noticed that the teachers at the school were seeking his reinstatement. Which seems to indicate that some of the prime stakeholders aren't in agreement with the policy.

This is not separation of Church and State. The Church wants to be separate. The State is inflicting the rules on a clearly anti-Catholic position. I thought you would have exempted for that, but I guess not.

As for the other teachers... Their position, although nice, is not the one that matters.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

The PASTOR is chastising schools for giving special treatment. Perhaps preaching equality is not what is acceptable anymore

.

from the story you sourced .....

after a sermon he gave in 2006 in which he attacked schools for their tolerance of gays and lesbians and denounced women’s rights surfaced.

The story claims he was preaching against tolerance of gays..... How did they arrive at such a different interpretation of his sermon?

I don't know. I didn't write it. He chastised the schools (as I said).