Businesses in France Feeling Sting of Boycott

[salm]

Exactly why should some one buy French wine (for example) instead of something domestic if they disagree with France?

because france consists of a whole bunch of individuals. if you boycott french whine you not only target the anti war workers and families of the factory but also the pro war workers and families.

damn, is it so hard to understand that a nation doesn´t have one single concousness? it´s not like every frenchmen is a tiny part of one giant frog with chiracs face!

[Perinquus]

Exactly why should some one buy French wine (for example) instead of something domestic if they disagree with France?

because france consists of a whole bunch of individuals. if you boycott french whine you not only target the anti war workers and families of the factory but also the pro war workers and families.

damn, is it so hard to understand that a nation doesn´t have one single concousness? it´s not like every frenchmen is a tiny part of one giant frog with chiracs face!

Welcome to reality. Things are tough all over. It rains on the just and the unjust alike.

In any case, with somthing like 75% of the French being supporters of Chirac's anti-war stance, the "collateral damage" will not be all that great.

[Glocksman]

because france consists of a whole bunch of individuals. if you boycott french whine you not only target the anti war workers and families of the factory but also the pro war workers and families.

damn, is it so hard to understand that a nation doesn´t have one single concousness? it´s not like every frenchmen is a tiny part of one giant frog with chiracs face!

The same argument could have been made about apartheid-era South Africa.

[salm]

Exactly why should some one buy French wine (for example) instead of something domestic if they disagree with France?

because france consists of a whole bunch of individuals. if you boycott french whine you not only target the anti war workers and families of the factory but also the pro war workers and families.

damn, is it so hard to understand that a nation doesn´t have one single concousness? it´s not like every frenchmen is a tiny part of one giant frog with chiracs face!

Welcome to reality. Things are tough all over. It rains on the just and the unjust alike.

oh, thank you for the enlightenment.

In any case, with somthing like 75% of the French being supporters of Chirac's anti-war stance, the "collateral damage" will not be all that great.

great!

[salm]

because france consists of a whole bunch of individuals. if you boycott french whine you not only target the anti war workers and families of the factory but also the pro war workers and families.

damn, is it so hard to understand that a nation doesn´t have one single concousness? it´s not like every frenchmen is a tiny part of one giant frog with chiracs face!

The same argument could have been made about apartheid-era South Africa.

elaborate

[Glocksman]

Not every single person in SA was a foaming at the mouth racist.

The boycotts affected those who opposed apartheid as well as those who supported it. In fact, many of the companies that were pressured to leave SA often provided jobs to the majority black population as well to whites.

The unintended effect of the SA boycott was to increase black unemployment as well as unemployment among whites who may or may not have supported the Afrikaner apartheid regime.

[Master of Ossus]

Let's suppose some guy working at a factory in New York was fired because he expressed anti-war views. Would you support that? Because I don't see much difference between that and attempting to cause financial damage to French businesses for their nation's antiwar views.

I wouldn't agree with it, but there's no real way to prevent that from happening. The fact is that businesses should be allowed to regulate who they hire and fire, for their own reasons. If someone isn't performing well, they can be terminated and replaced with someone else.

A voluntary boycott of goods from any nation is perfectly reasonable, and sometimes even desirable. No business can dictate to the public what its tastes and preferences in goods should be, or we'd all be running around endlessly purchasing worthless goods and services. The way the free-market system is set up, people have a choice in what they buy. Can Safeway sue Bayer because the German firm's brand-name allows them to charge a higher price than Safeway for similar medicine? Of course not. Something similar is going on here. Consumers simply have to be allowed to buy whatever they want to buy and for whatever reasons, assuming that they are willing to accept the marginal cost of doing so. Unless you're advocating a VERY stringent model of communism (or, at the very least, consumer rationing), you can't tell people what they should wish to purchase. Granted, you can disagree with someone else (should YOU buy peanuts or cashews?), but you similarly cannot tell them what to purchase or not purchase with the money that they've earned.

[Darth Wong]

Under certain circumstances the emplower would be justified in firing the employee for such views. Let's put it this way, if an employee were constantly preaching anti-war propaganda to the customers, then the employer would be justified in firing him. Otherwise, people are free to hold whatever opinions they wish.

Because the employee may be costing the company business by allowing his opinions to alter he way he does his job. How is France harming America by having a different opinion?

The point is, American consumers may want to hit the French in their pocketbook, and thus force the French government to stop opposing U.S. efforts so stridently. Wealthy owners of French vinyards are in a far better position to affect their government's policies than Joe Soap the spot welder at the Ford plant. Why would anyone be that concerned to pressure him to change his views?

The point is, American businesses may want to hit employee dissenters in their pocketbook, and thus force them to stop opposing U.S. efforts so stridently. Voters in America are in a far better position to affect U.S. policy than some foreigners in France. Why would anyone be that concerned to pressure foreigners to change their views?

Labor laws were written for the express purpose of preventing behavior that is held to be unethical.

Correct. Do you understand the ethical justifications for them?

Again, an employee has the right to hold any opinion he wishes.

But a country, apparently, does not.

As long as he is not using his place of work as a forum to express his political views, it would be unethical to fire him for that. The labor laws reflect this, and he would be able to sue for wrongful termination.

And since French businesses are generally not putting antiwar propaganda into their advertising, it would be unethical to boycott them just for having a different opinion.

Mike, this is simply not true. At least not universally. You've heard the phrases "it's a seller's market", or "it's a buyer's market".

Are you telling me that you think there's no such thing as a buyer's market or a seller's market for labour? Please don't tell me you subscribe to Karl Marx's misconceptions of the basic supply/demand nature of the labour market.

Depending on market conditions, the commodity in question, it's scarcity, the demand for it or lack thereof, conditions may favor either the buyer or the seller. If a seller is hawking something that is scarce and for which the demand is high, the conditions will very definitely favor the seller.

See the salaries paid to employees with highly valued skills, vs the salaries paid to employees with poorly valued skills. Supply/demand works there too. You are working awfully hard to establish some great distinction where no such thing exists.

And it's a rather different proposition when, say, I hire a man to roof my house and he quits with the job half done, even though he's taken my money. In such a case, as you say, I can sue for breach of contract.

And what about unfair processes for tendering bids on a job? Companies can and have sued for such things before.

But a customer who has yet to pay for anything may freely opt to do business with someone else, even if he's been doing business with a particular merchant for a long time.

And an employer who has yet to pay for the next year's labour may freely opt to hire someone else, even if the employee has been with the company for a long time. Frankly, this is just too easy.

There's no contract there, not even an unwritten, verbal agreement. It's a simple merchant/customer situation more analagous to whether or not you will chose to buy a television at Sears or at Circuit City. It's not the same thing.

Most employees don't sign a contract either. Do not apply the mentality of unionized workers to the labour market at large.

Not quite as simple as that. The company is bound by law (which were written to reflect practices that are held to be fair and ethical) not be discriminatory in its hiring practices.

And why are those practices fair and ethical? Because it is deemed wrong to penalize people for issues which have nothing to do with their ability to do the job. You don't see how this applies?

I'm simply pointing out that the conditions between employer and employee are different in several ways from the conditions between seller and buyer, and this makes the analogy suspect.

And I'm pointing out that despite your efforts to exaggerate that distinction, the only real distinction is one of scale, and unfairness. Specifically, it is actually MORE unfair to penalize an entire company and its shareholders and all of its employees and all of their families for the opinions of its management, never mind the government of the nation in which they happen to be located.

[Darth Wong]

Let's suppose some guy working at a factory in New York was fired because he expressed anti-war views. Would you support that? Because I don't see much difference between that and attempting to cause financial damage to French businesses for their nation's antiwar views.

I wouldn't agree with it, but there's no real way to prevent that from happening. The fact is that businesses should be allowed to regulate who they hire and fire, for their own reasons. If someone isn't performing well, they can be terminated and replaced with someone else.

Holding an unpopular political opinion is tantamount to poor job performance?

A voluntary boycott of goods from any nation is perfectly reasonable, and sometimes even desirable. No business can dictate to the public what its tastes and preferences in goods should be, or we'd all be running around endlessly purchasing worthless goods and services.

I'm not talking about FORCING people not to use boycotts to punish people for having unpopular opinions. I'm talking about whether it's ethical.

The way the free-market system is set up, people have a choice in what they buy. Can Safeway sue Bayer because the German firm's brand-name allows them to charge a higher price than Safeway for similar medicine? Of course not. Something similar is going on here. Consumers simply have to be allowed to buy whatever they want to buy and for whatever reasons, assuming that they are willing to accept the marginal cost of doing so. Unless you're advocating a VERY stringent model of communism (or, at the very least, consumer rationing), you can't tell people what they should wish to purchase. Granted, you can disagree with someone else (should YOU buy peanuts or cashews?), but you similarly cannot tell them what to purchase or not purchase with the money that they've earned.

It's too easy to convert a question of ethics into a question of rights by simply assuming that the other party wants to outlaw something rather than simply point out that it's unethical.

[Master of Ossus]

Not true. The buyer is in a conspicuously higher position than the seller, and if you've been on both sides of that equation, you will know what I'm talking about. And there is an obligation; companies have been sued for unfair practices when tendering contracts or terminating business arrangements, for example.

Oh, come on, Mike. The French wine companies aren't suing any particular buyer (for instance, liquor stores) for breech of contract. The stores, in the vast majority of cases, never agreed to purchase a fixed amount of wine/time period.

Frankly, the French wine makers are learning the benefits of a futures market, right now. They should have joined the 19th and 20th centuries a couple of years back.

[Darth Wong]

Not true. The buyer is in a conspicuously higher position than the seller, and if you've been on both sides of that equation, you will know what I'm talking about. And there is an obligation; companies have been sued for unfair practices when tendering contracts or terminating business arrangements, for example.

Oh, come on, Mike. The French wine companies aren't suing any particular buyer (for instance, liquor stores) for breech of contract. The stores, in the vast majority of cases, never agreed to purchase a fixed amount of wine/time period.

That's not the point I was trying to make. Perinquus claimed that there is zero ethical or business obligation whatsoever between buyer and seller. I was only pointing out that this is not the case. He is working very hard to claim that firing an employee for his political views and boycotting an entire company for its political views are vastly different from an ethical standpoint.

Frankly, the French wine makers are learning the benefits of a futures market, right now. They should have joined the 19th and 20th centuries a couple of years back.

As long as you support the right of companies to fire employees for unpopular political views, as least you're consistent. An employee can always go get another job, after all, and he gets paid a healthy severance cheque.

[Master of Ossus]

Let's suppose some guy working at a factory in New York was fired because he expressed anti-war views. Would you support that? Because I don't see much difference between that and attempting to cause financial damage to French businesses for their nation's antiwar views.

I wouldn't agree with it, but there's no real way to prevent that from happening. The fact is that businesses should be allowed to regulate who they hire and fire, for their own reasons. If someone isn't performing well, they can be terminated and replaced with someone else.

Holding an unpopular political opinion is tantamount to poor job performance?

Not necessarily. In this case, I don't think it is. That's why I stated that I disagreed with it. However, if I was running (say) a magazine catering to minority interests, and I found out that one of my writers was a neo-Nazi, could I fire him because of that? Of course I could, because his views ARE impacting his job performance. In this case, since I don't see the connection in most businesses, I don't think that your hypothetical NY firm's decision was reasonable, however I also think that the business should be allowed to regulate its own personnel. That's part of the free-market system.

A voluntary boycott of goods from any nation is perfectly reasonable, and sometimes even desirable. No business can dictate to the public what its tastes and preferences in goods should be, or we'd all be running around endlessly purchasing worthless goods and services.

I'm not talking about FORCING people not to use boycotts to punish people for having unpopular opinions. I'm talking about whether it's ethical.

But that's exactly what the French wine-makers in this article want to see happen. They're DEMANDING that people from other nations change their tastes and preferences. If every company could do this, imagine what kind of a world we'd live in.

The way the free-market system is set up, people have a choice in what they buy. Can Safeway sue Bayer because the German firm's brand-name allows them to charge a higher price than Safeway for similar medicine? Of course not. Something similar is going on here. Consumers simply have to be allowed to buy whatever they want to buy and for whatever reasons, assuming that they are willing to accept the marginal cost of doing so. Unless you're advocating a VERY stringent model of communism (or, at the very least, consumer rationing), you can't tell people what they should wish to purchase. Granted, you can disagree with someone else (should YOU buy peanuts or cashews?), but you similarly cannot tell them what to purchase or not purchase with the money that they've earned.

It's too easy to convert a question of ethics into a question of rights by simply assuming that the other party wants to outlaw something rather than simply point out that it's unethical.

That's not what I'm doing. I'm disagreeing with the French wine-makers, who are currently asking that other people change their tastes and preferences, which I strongly disagree with. As a company, you are not in a position to dictate to people what to purchase, except with the VERY limited model of advertising.

[Darth Wong]

That's not what I'm doing. I'm disagreeing with the French wine-makers, who are currently asking that other people change their tastes and preferences, which I strongly disagree with. As a company, you are not in a position to dictate to people what to purchase, except with the VERY limited model of advertising.

It's wrong to ASK people to change their preferences?

[Master of Ossus]

Frankly, the French wine makers are learning the benefits of a futures market, right now. They should have joined the 19th and 20th centuries a couple of years back.

As long as you support the right of companies to fire employees for unpopular political views, as least you're consistent. An employee can always go get another job, after all, and he gets paid a healthy severance cheque.

I'm not advocating such a position at all. I'm pointing out that an actual contract between a buyer and a seller ALSO changes the morality of the situation involved. If I sign a contract with you, that says that you're going to do something and I'm going to pay you X amount of money in exchange for that work, BOTH of us are obligated to fulfill that contract. If you perform the service, and I refuse to pay, I am obviously in the wrong. Similarly, if you DON'T do what you agreed to do, YOU are in the wrong.

In this case, I don't see any contracts being breeched, even though wine would almost certainly be an EASY market to sell futures in. The contract, however, alters the circumstances surrounding the ethics of the question. Ethically, I think that up until the point where you actually agree to pay someone for services rendered, you still have every right to back out of the agreement and go to someone else or forego the service they were going to provide you.

[Darth Wong]

I'm not advocating such a position at all. I'm pointing out that an actual contract between a buyer and a seller ALSO changes the morality of the situation involved. If I sign a contract with you, that says that you're going to do something and I'm going to pay you X amount of money in exchange for that work, BOTH of us are obligated to fulfill that contract. If you perform the service, and I refuse to pay, I am obviously in the wrong. Similarly, if you DON'T do what you agreed to do, YOU are in the wrong.

True. However, most employees sign no contract either.

In this case, I don't see any contracts being breeched, even though wine would almost certainly be an EASY market to sell futures in. The contract, however, alters the circumstances surrounding the ethics of the question. Ethically, I think that up until the point where you actually agree to pay someone for services rendered, you still have every right to back out of the agreement and go to someone else or forego the service they were going to provide you.

And since no company ever lays out a contractual agreement stipulating what criteria they have for continuing their business arrangement with their employees, they have every right to fire an employee for ideologically opposing the management.

[Master of Ossus]

That's not what I'm doing. I'm disagreeing with the French wine-makers, who are currently asking that other people change their tastes and preferences, which I strongly disagree with. As a company, you are not in a position to dictate to people what to purchase, except with the VERY limited model of advertising.

It's wrong to ASK people to change their preferences?

He's not asking. He's demanding or dictating (as I said above). Look at the quote, which I have italicized portions of for ease of reference:

"Certain French enterprises are suffering today from the differences that have arisen among states over the Iraqi question," the Movement of French Enterprises (Medef) said. "It is necessary to say to those who are unhappy with the positions of French diplomacy that they are free to criticize, but they must keep products and services of our enterprises outside their quarrel."

That is simply wrong. I cannot, and should not, force someone to buy my newspaper even though I believe it is a good service at a reasonable price. If someone wants to buy the local Herald, the NY Times, or the Wallstreet Journal I should not be able to demand that they change their preferences. At most, I can point out the features that my newspaper has that the competing papers do not, or attempt to minimize the advantages that the other papers have (ie. "Do you REALLY have time to read the comics every Sunday?"). To simply state that people MUST change their preferences is wrong.

[Darth Wong]

He's not asking. He's demanding or dictating (as I said above). Look at the quote, which I have italicized portions of for ease of reference:

"Certain French enterprises are suffering today from the differences that have arisen among states over the Iraqi question," the Movement of French Enterprises (Medef) said. "It is necessary to say to those who are unhappy with the positions of French diplomacy that they are free to criticize, but they must keep products and services of our enterprises outside their quarrel."

That is simply wrong. I cannot, and should not, force someone to buy my newspaper even though I believe it is a good service at a reasonable price.

Oh come now, let's not exaggerate things, OK? He says it is necessary to SAY this to people, not that they should be forcibly coerced into doing it. Read it again.

If someone wants to buy the local Herald, the NY Times, or the Wallstreet Journal I should not be able to demand that they change their preferences. At most, I can point out the features that my newspaper has that the competing papers do not, or attempt to minimize the advantages that the other papers have (ie. "Do you REALLY have time to read the comics every Sunday?"). To simply state that people MUST change their preferences is wrong.

You are playing with the semantics of his statement rather than looking at his content. At no point is he advocating the idea of FORCING people to buy French. Saying that someone must try to be fair doesn't mean I'm going to put a gun to his head and force him to be fair.

[Master of Ossus]

Mike, are you claiming that placing economic sanctions on certain goods must ALWAYS be wrong? Your position seems to hold that I cannot alter my tastes and preferences with regards to what I know. If I disagree with killing dolphins to eat tuna, you're argument would also seem to hold that I cannot buy dolphin-safe tuna. Further, your position would seem to indicate that bans on the importation of things like Cocaine and automatic weapons is ethically incorrect.

[Darth Wong]

Mike, are you claiming that placing economic sanctions on certain goods must ALWAYS be wrong?

No, it's a question of how severe the offense is, and the analogy of an employee DOES work. Firing an employee for being a neo-Nazi (to use your example) is much more acceptable than firing him for being a peacenik.

Your position seems to hold that I cannot alter my tastes and preferences with regards to what I know. If I disagree with killing dolphins to eat tuna, you're argument would also seem to hold that I cannot buy dolphin-safe tuna. Further, your position would seem to indicate that bans on the importation of things like Cocaine and automatic weapons is ethically incorrect.

At no point did I state that there should be an absolute prohibition. I only stated that there is an ethical equivalency between firing an employee and boycotting a company. Is an anti-war stance sufficient justification for infliction of material punishment? If you think it is, then be consistent and agree that it's OK to fire an employee for the same thing.

[Master of Ossus]

Mike, are you claiming that placing economic sanctions on certain goods must ALWAYS be wrong? Your position seems to hold that I cannot alter my tastes and preferences with regards to what I know. If I disagree with killing dolphins to eat tuna, you're argument would also seem to hold that I cannot buy dolphin-safe tuna. Further, your position would seem to indicate that bans on the importation of things like Cocaine and automatic weapons is ethically incorrect.

Edit: Furthermore, by the standards you have been putting forward, Martin Luther King's famed boycott of segregated buses would be morally incorrect.

[Darth Wong]

Mike, are you claiming that placing economic sanctions on certain goods must ALWAYS be wrong? Your position seems to hold that I cannot alter my tastes and preferences with regards to what I know. If I disagree with killing dolphins to eat tuna, you're argument would also seem to hold that I cannot buy dolphin-safe tuna. Further, your position would seem to indicate that bans on the importation of things like Cocaine and automatic weapons is ethically incorrect.

Edit: Furthermore, by the standards you have been putting forward, Martin Luther King's famed boycott of segregated buses would be morally incorrect.

Do not engage in strawman distortions. The more accurate statement is that it would have been just as correct to fire a manager for being a racist and refusing to hire a black man, which I would support completely. I am only pointing out the equivalence of firing and boycotting.

[Master of Ossus]

Mike, are you claiming that placing economic sanctions on certain goods must ALWAYS be wrong?

No, it's a question of how severe the offense is, and the analogy of an employee DOES work. Firing an employee for being a neo-Nazi (to use your example) is much more acceptable than firing him for being a peacenik.

Your position seems to hold that I cannot alter my tastes and preferences with regards to what I know. If I disagree with killing dolphins to eat tuna, you're argument would also seem to hold that I cannot buy dolphin-safe tuna. Further, your position would seem to indicate that bans on the importation of things like Cocaine and automatic weapons is ethically incorrect.

At no point did I state that there should be an absolute prohibition. I only stated that there is an ethical equivalency between firing an employee and boycotting a company. Is an anti-war stance sufficient justification for infliction of material punishment? If you think it is, then be consistent and agree that it's OK to fire an employee for the same thing.

Mike, I never claimed that what the boycotters are doing is morally correct, I'm pointing out that the French wine-maker's attitude towards this change is wrong.

Now, I'm kind of surprised that you're advocating a determination of morality in terms of the degree of the alleged offense, but I also don't see what the difference between CHOOSING to buy dolphin-safe tuna is, and choosing not to buy French wine. I'm not seeing a distinction between the two actions.

[Darth Wong]

Mike, I never claimed that what the boycotters are doing is morally correct, I'm pointing out that the French wine-maker's attitude towards this change is wrong.

The French wine-maker has the right to complain that people must try to be more fair. How is that wrong?

Now, I'm kind of surprised that you're advocating a determination of morality in terms of the degree of the alleged offense

How is that a surprise? A small offense does not warrant a large punishment, but a large offense does.

but I also don't see what the difference between CHOOSING to buy dolphin-safe tuna is, and the choosing not to buy French wine. I'm not seeing a distinction between the two actions.

There is also no distinction between choosing not to buy French wine because of the French government's antiwar policies and choosing not to continue paying an employee with antiwar views. That equivalence is the only thing I've been trying to say here.

[Master of Ossus]

Do not engage in strawman distortions. The more accurate statement is that it would have been just as correct to fire a manager for being a racist and refusing to hire a black man, which I would support completely. I am only pointing out the equivalence of firing and boycotting.

I still don't agree with that sense of morality. I think that firing a racist manager, whose racism may obviously impact the company he works for (if, through no other way, than by lawsuits) is MUCH more reasonable than refusing to hire a black-man based who is qualified for a position in that same firm.

[Darth Wong]

Do not engage in strawman distortions. The more accurate statement is that it would have been just as correct to fire a manager for being a racist and refusing to hire a black man, which I would support completely. I am only pointing out the equivalence of firing and boycotting.

I still don't agree with that sense of morality. I think that firing a racist manager, whose racism may obviously impact the company he works for (if, through no other way, than by lawsuits) is MUCH more reasonable than refusing to hire a black-man based who is qualified for a position in that same firm.

What does that have to do with the moral equivalency of firing vs boycotting over political differences?