Of all things. . .

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by superstring01, Oct 9, 2010.

  1. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    Here goes my .02 cents:

    Regardless of the corporate nature and all around general good-guys image the company has, it also has an outward image and consciousness of the fact some people's stomach is turned by the idea of gay.

    My gay relative worked her way up in the mid 70s/early 80s. Her partner for corporate chit-chat was her roommate. No if's and's or but's. That was her private life and she was adjusted enough to know that it was more important for work for her job ability to be forefront and not her personal life. There were plenty of people in her working relationships that knew full well her roommate was her partner. And the hell with the rest of them.

    Corporate image is directly related to social image. You want the chance to move up, then it might be in your best interest to take the critique and implement it in your public persona. Adapt to the environment and replace the term boyfriend with roommate. Know your audience can mean, assume the worst and present the best. You cant change peoples minds over a social lunch so dont gamble your future on a social idea when the purpose of the lunch isnt about such things. Without knowing each persons background around that table (goat farmer with kids?), how do you know that persons psychology wont mean from this point on, he doesnt remember anything about you at all, but that your gay?

    For all intents and purposes, the gathering was to promote your work and ability.

    Anyways, thats what I think the critique was about.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,985
    Yep SS... it ant a perfect world yet... so which do you thank will make you'r life happier... playin the game an increase you'r chanses of premotion... or take a moral stance which will likely harm you'r chanses of premotion.???
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Ripley Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,411
    ^^ (Milkweed) Yeah, I can agree to that. I mean, on the one hand, the popular "behind-closed-doors-is-no-one's-business" defense, is in conflict with the modern gay world's desire to emulate the straight world—in a straight world.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Incorrect. I'm experiencing conservative prejudice right now.

    ~String
     
  8. Ripley Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,411
    Not if you would outwit it.
     
  9. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    I never said that I would allow it to make me fail. In fact, my post here in no way indicated any such idea, only that I was being asked to stifle a part of who I am in order to fit within an artificial mold.

    My only intention here is to solicit the advice of our better members on how to confront that issue in an effective way. I didn't make it this far being a failure or a quitter.

    ~String
     
  10. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    Stifle a part of who I am? You check that at the door when you become employed. Free speech can and is regulated in employment situations from political views, to religion, to even sex talk. They can tell you not to talk about your boyfriend at corporate functions. Your boyfriend is not work related.

    An employer can make rules that no one talks about their marriage on company time. People do get fired for proselytizing, regardless of freedom of religion (as an example). And what we are talking here IS corporate image, not personal freedom. You represent the company at these functions. They have bought you via your paycheck.

    And then there is just the smart thing to do.

    Confront the issue in an effective for who's way? Show any indication you might sue for discrimination and we will see how far up the corporate ladder you get. They wont fire you for being gay, they will fire you for not doing your job, which is to present the image they want displayed at their functions (and depending on the fine print in the employment contract, what you do off the job in some cases). Or they will just get rid of your position. And if you try to sue them, they will present several other employees who are gay and are advancing to prove they dont discriminate against gays.

    If I am understanding this correctly, you have been given written notice that boyfriend talk is unacceptable at corporate functions.

    "one day, I may be asked to take on an assignment in a "conservative" part of the country and they are worried that I can "keep my 'alternative lifestyle'** out of work ""
     
  11. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    You're talking to an HR manager. I write company policy. I know that. But, it just so happens (and had you read the entire post), my beef is with the (a) disparity of treatment and (b) that such disparity of treatment runs contrary to company guidelines.

    More to the point, and I guess I should have thought a little better about this, the whole purpose of this post was to see what wisdom our members have on how to handle it.

    I'm awesome at helping others with personal advice, but since I'm me, I have trouble separating the "me" from the situation. A fresh set of eyes usually helps, and thus far, some of it has.

    Except, we were at lunch, discussing our pets and "significant others". My SVP discussed her multiple divorces. The guy next to me discussed his five kids. My brief statement was in response to a question. I didn't bring it up and I didn't offer any indication that I was gay except when my SVP asked me why I didn't put my cat down. (did you even read what I wrote?)

    Question answered. You didn't read the entire post.

    Duh. Not six months ago I had to separate an employee for religious preaching.

    That part is true.

    Who said anything about suing? I love the company and will retire from it (barring any unforeseen issues). Seriously, do you not even bother to read the threads before you post? We're discussing effective ways to confront an issue with my manager, not taking down the corporate structure through legal action.

    I never said that I was passed over for employment. In fact, our EVP of HR is an openly gay guy (and black to boot!). I never mentioned anything about being passed over for promotion. Not once, because I've been out for the five years I've been with the company, and have been promoted twice so far. I live at work and am pretty well married to my job. It helps that I love what I do and it helps that I have no wife and kids to get pissed when I come home late.

    No. That is not the case. In fact, such "notice" would make me very rich. In the USA and Ohio it's illegal for a company to knowingly violate it's own policies, and since (if you had read), we have very strong and clear policies against such things, I would retire with ease if I got such a statement in writing. But I didn't. It was a "this is not in writing" sort of thing.

    ~String
     
  12. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    You're getting a bit off topic, but I'd say you're experiencing liberal hypocrisy.

    Regardless of how you choose to label it, it sucks. Nevertheless, it certainly doesn't sound like you're working in an environment that is pervasively intolerant or hostile to you due to your sexual orientation. So, boneheaded though that one comment may have been, I'd advise you to not get too worked up about it. Consider it an insensitive but well intended piece of advice.

    The reality is that simply mentioning homosexuality will make some people uncomfortable. You're own behavior (going out of your way to avoid discussing your boyfriend and only mentioning him by accident) suggests that you are well aware of this.

    When you get down to it, all they were really asking you to do is what you were doing already.

    We live in a time in which homosexuality is rapidly becoming more socially acceptable. However, there are still many people who are offended by it, embarrassed by it, or consider it an outright abomination. Giant retailers aren't in the business of social engineering. They want to sell to everyone, regardless of what retrograde ideas they might subscribe to. Thus, liberal or no, they want their employees to be discreet about any controversial beliefs, practices, etc they might have.
    .
     
  13. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    I'm certainly experiencing "hypocrisy" and there are liberals who are doing it, but you're avoiding the point. Is it a liberal or conservative position (in the actual definition of the word AND in terms of American politics) to be "anti gay". The fact that you are conservative and happen to have a slightly progressive (see that word: progressive, just a substitute for "liberal") on gay issues doesn't mean that conservativism is inherently liberal.

    I'm starting to really tire of people trying to spit hairs on this. It's my company's fear of "conservative" Americans that resulted in this conversation. It's not like my company was worried about liberal reaction, were they? The fact that the company is intentionally bypassing it's LIBERAL policies in order to appease it's CONSERVATIVE elements (within and without) is a sure answer to this question.

    No. There are gays everywhere--it's retail for Allah's sake--but gays are required to not mention significant others above a certain rank.

    That was the advice of another person, and one that--after getting over the annoyance--I will probably heed.

    But, rest assured, asking for the many opinions of this forum doesn't mean I'm getting worked up. Just the opposite. I was more deflated than anything.

    Duh. I clearly said I know this. But, the point still stands, that you wouldn't dare ask any other person (black, female, etc.) to avoid discussing their "intrinsic" differences as a matter of civil and non-political discourse. You wouldn't say, "Loquetia, don't talk about your family being from Ghana" or "Carlos, don't ever say that your parents are from Mexico" or "Suzy, don't talk about the fact that you're a woman."

    Gay's can hide who they are, so it's part-and-parcel that they do just that, even when being asked to do so is in direct conflict with a companies implicit and explicit policies.

    . . . .

    But, I will gravitate back to the fact that this is my job and will navigate the system, no matter how flawed it is, and keep the job and my head up regardless of the stupidity of certain policies.

    Then why my companies' donation of money to Planned Parenthood? Why their requirement that all charities be "of progressive social values" (thus, the Salvation Army is banned)?

    ~String
     
  14. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    No one should ever half to cowtow to the bigotries of others. if some has an issue with gay people that's not your problem and something you should have to work around it some they should.
     
  15. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    Yeah, I read your whole post:

    "Travel and sundry expenses paid by the company (which is really nice)

    From the moment you land in the hotel, until you leave, you're being "monitored". Every discussion, every break, lunches, dinners, meetings. Every moment observed to see your "true" behavior.

    I don't work to prove a political point. If I want to change the world, I'll go to city hall or Haiti. I'm at work to make myself and the company money, that's it. "

    end of truncated quote

    I dont know if you will sue or not. Neither do they. But here we are, with a company that has gone beyond the call of duty to provide people with an equal opportunity and your in a miff because "Its who I am...". What I was saying is the corporate viewpoint is looking at all of the scenarios. You start making waves about their corporate policies and you could find yourself expendable, or transfered to Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. Doesnt matter what your intent is, its how they see its spin for their company.

    While it was a slip up on your part, it is a liability for the corporation and you've now been made aware corporate persons are expected to separate home from work. Technically, and by your own words, you were on company time even at lunch. They paid for your meal, they paid for your presence and you were talking to co-workers within earshot of non-corporate people.

    They dont want you working for them in Mississippi and turn up dead because you causally mentioned having a boyfriend at a hotel resturant where you have no idea what your waiters last name is. They dont want some conservative working for them in Alabama to know what your private lifestyle is. Its none of the conservatives business and you volunteered the information. Its the first impression that will stick with someone who does give a shit about such things.

    There are 100 valid reasons for the company to want you to keep it private when out there working for them. They are not telling you, you cant have a boyfriend, they are telling you its not work related.

    Too bad if you dont like what I have to say, but wisdom doesnt always reveal itself to be in harmony with a particular agenda.

    Basically, I dont think you have a complaint.

    As far as the "law"... as I understand it, HB 176 was not voted into law which means in Ohio, you have no legal protection
    "Seven states have laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in public sector employment only: Illinois, Indiana, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington."

    That is public sector only.
     
  16. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Actually, their written policy is something else. And, more importantly, the disparity of treatment--that others can discuss their multiple divorces--is at odds with their "core beliefs". Either way, I'm not disputing your business claims. I know full well what kind of water I may be wading into, which is why--ultimately--I'll tread lightly.

    Either way, I wasn't debating the finding of facts, on which we mostly agree. I was soliciting opinions on how to proceed and musing about the ethics of such actions.

    Wait, did I disagree with your facts? No. I disagreed with your conclusions.

    You are wrong. In Ohio, it isn't illegal to fire someone if they are gay, so I never maid that claim. Re-read what I wrote. I said it's illegal--and I would know this as it's my job to know the policies and how they gel with the law--for any company to knowingly violate its own policies. It's a civil case, not a criminal one. And one I'm not willing to undergo.

    ~String
     
  17. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,784
    Usually I find people’s complaint rather trivial and self absorbed, but you expressed yourself in a way, in which I could sympathize with your dilemma.

    It’s funny how your topic was “Why are we losing all our good people.” I couldn’t read the entire article, which you linked, but I did notice the part that mentions how difficult it may be to gain autonomy at a new company. This doesn’t seem too difficult in my opinion. Nor, does it seem like a huge incentive, which I would even consider. Let’s face it, people work for money. However, if you are a company that is not in a financial position to compete with larger corporations, there are still others means available. There are many cost effective ways for companies to express their appreciation towards valuable employees.

    How about encouragement for one thing? Cheering them on and believing in them can increase their efficiency, like no tomorrow. And yet, here you are finding yourself a little discouraged. You are between a rock and a hard spot. I wouldn’t want to be seen as someone who pulls out the gay card, but your discouragement is completely valid. I’m sorry that this happened to you. Too bad that it happened after the fact or you could have included it in your discussion.
     
  18. keith1 Guest

    The SVP already knew you were gay, so the extra reference by you was your attempt at control of furthering the issue--where were you going with that?:

    "...I used to date my SVP's good friend...She knows I'm gay...my direct manager to pay for the dinner for me and my boyfriend..."

    Obviously not by your definition of full equality. Kind of like your definition of prejudice. And you knew that well ahead as well.

    Under the circumstances, let's define the whole incident "unnecessarily confrontational to the audience".

    Take the hint.
     
  19. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,784
    It was probably difficult for him to not appear as though he was intentionally trying to hide the fact that he’s gay, especially in front of someone who is already aware of it.

    I’m just going to tell you what I would do, if it was me. I’ve always believed that business is business. The few times when I’ve had to solve problems, which have been in a predominately male arena. I noticed that a great deal of time was wasted, while exchanging pleasantries. I like to get straight to business.

    I’ve always felt that what people do in their private lives should remain private. In the United States business should be gender and colored blind. Any intelligent adult should assume that everyone has a sex life, but not that everyone is heterosexual. I would feel more uncomfortable with an employee discussing their divorce, than someone who casually mentions their boyfriend. It’s odd how heterosexuals act when they learn someone is gay. Even though you mentioned fewer details than the others, it’s as if you shared some deep, dark, personal secret.

    If it were me, I would just want to reiterate to my supervisor that I hoped he/she realized that I was capable of separating my private life from business. I’m sure that they assumed the others, who shared their divorce and mistakes in life, were capable of this. Why should they assume any differently with you? And maybe, leave it at that.
     
  20. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    I agree. I think SS is underestimating the fact that there are many people who are less or more anti-gay (or anti something else, be it against blacks, Hispanics, Hindus, former alcoholics, whichever) and that companies need to take this into account - or they will lose business.

    Any person that is any relevant way non-average is a potential risk for the business.
    It's as simple as that.
     
  21. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Try to see it from the company's perspective: they cannot afford to place into a visible position someone whom a certain percentage of clients and other employees may object to.

    It's not conservative prejudice to protect one's profits.
     
  22. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    No, it's likely your company's fear of losing business.

    I suppose though that they talk about business issues in a raw and literal manner only in those companies that are struggling to survive. The rest are somewhere up in the clouds. Like saying you "separated" an employee ...


    Actually, I think such things can happen too.

    There are times, for example, where it is expected that a female employee not speak up among men.


    Public image, connections to other important companies ... Whatever seems good for business.
     
  23. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    My apologies for missing this post. Honestly, I tire of the assumption that anyone who disagrees is automatically a bigot or homophobe and I tend to ignore those conversations (not saying you were touting homophobe, just that the conversation was drifting that way).

    The above is singular. Your personal characteristic.

    If you were a swinger (wife swapping) and I worked there, would it be out of line if I asked you not to discuss wife swapping at work? Now I am not talking about the gory details, I am talking about general conversation, where you might have met-up with a wonderful couple and thought this could become a lasting relationship between you and your spouse and them. It is heterosexual behavior, between conscenting adults, not illegal but not a legal marriage situation. Because seriously and truely, as a heterosexual, I do not want to know this about my co-worker. It would make me uncomfortable and I would be expected to make the wife swapper lifestyle neutral in any exchanges between me and this co-worker, regardless of the fact my personal thoughts and feelings on that lifestyle are not neutral. It is a part of someones private life that simply, I do not want to know. Being as your an HR person, how would you resolve the issue?

    You cannot avoid the fact that hetero or homo, the words themselves are about sex. And when used in a work environment, it conjures up an image that may make a co-worker or potenital client uncomfortable. And as far as people discussing divorce, that is all wrapped around a legal human situation. At your meeting, how many heterosexuals discussed their live in girlfriend/boyfriend situations? Over the years I have known several corporate types who did not reveal they were in a live-in boyfriend/girlfriend situation just-in-case someone higher up decided that wasnt the company image they wanted from their corporate officers.

    Its hard to say whether a judge in a civil action in Ohio would rule in your favor, regarding your private life. It is quite possible that a judge would say living with a man in a homosexual relationship is not a personal characteristic and the company is within it rights to ask an employee not to discuss their personal life on the job . Its not about your personal characteristic, its about your lifestyle (see wife swapping example). There are plenty of examples unrelated to sex where legal activity can be regulated by an employer, even off the clock. I worked at an alcohol/drug treatment facility (support staff, not counsling). I had no contact with patients (now called clients for PC reasons). It was required of me to not discuss alcohol on the job or on the property. Didnt matter if we were on break and all my co-workers drank off the job, we could not discuss it among ourselves. We could all get together after work and drink, but on that property, it was required that we not discuss alcohol use.

    Anyways, I can see it going either way in the hypothetical of a civil action.
     

Share This Page