Businesses in France Feeling Sting of Boycott

[jegs2]

Businesses in France are starting to feel the sting of an American boycott against French goods:

American importers of French wine are reporting sharp drops in sales in the past two months, and other French products also have been affected. The Federation of Wine Exporters has called a meeting Thursday to discuss how to respond.

The nation's principal business federation took the unusual step of publicly acknowledging the problem, conceding today that sales, recruitment and business contacts have been hurt. It appealed to consumers and businesses to keep political differences from affecting commerce.

"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."

[theski]

I am starting to hear the Canadian biz leaders grumbling as well..

[Next of Kin]

I am starting to hear the Canadian biz leaders grumbling as well..

I think they're more worried as to what could happen. In the past, Canadian Soft wood and steel have been slapped with some tariffs. What else are they going to boycot? Jos-Louis snack cakes?

[theski]

No Hockey 1 year

[Next of Kin]

No Hockey 1 year

Make that no CFL for a year!

[Master of Ossus]

Businesses in France are starting to feel the sting of an American boycott against French goods:

American importers of French wine are reporting sharp drops in sales in the past two months, and other French products also have been affected. The Federation of Wine Exporters has called a meeting Thursday to discuss how to respond.

The nation's principal business federation took the unusual step of publicly acknowledging the problem, conceding today that sales, recruitment and business contacts have been hurt. It appealed to consumers and businesses to keep political differences from affecting commerce.

"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."

I love the quote, there at the end.

"Don't criticize our business because of our state. Instead, allow us to criticize you on your policies, and attempt to dictate what your consumer tastes and preferences should be."

[LordShaithis]

*points at France*

[Nelson]Ha ha![/Nelson]

[Stormbringer]

I love the quote, there at the end.

"Don't criticize our business because of our state. Instead, allow us to criticize you on your policies, and attempt to dictate what your consumer tastes and preferences should be."

Yeah. France, world leaders in baseless arrogance and hypocrisy.

[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.

[Col. Crackpot]

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.

Bad analogy Mike.... if he was laid off from working at a factory because of the factory's management anti war views,or becasue of the action of the american government then it would be more relevant. The French workers aren't being fired, however they may be victim of economic hardship.

[theski]

Isn't this capitalisim at its finest. It my choic,if I want to by goods made in France. Just like, if I want to buy from a local store instead of Best Buy. I don't see the connection Mike..

[Gil Hamilton]

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.

Didn't you get the memo? If you're not with us one hundred percent, you're Judas and deserve what you get. In the mean time, dig into a big old plate of Freedom Fries! Yum!

[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.

Bad analogy Mike.... if he was laid off from working at a factory because of the factory's management anti war views,or becasue of the action of the american government then it would be more relevant. The French workers aren't being fired, however they may be victim of economic hardship.

Why is it different? An employment contract is a business arrangement. I provide services for your company, you pay me. How is that different from any other business arrangement, where the company provides a good or service, and you pay them? In both cases, the buyer looks at the other party's anti-war views and decides that criticism isn't enough; they must be PUNISHED, so he refuses to continue the contract.

You can't show a false analogy by simply showing that the two situations are not identical in every respect; you must show that the difference is relevant to the issue being discussed.

[Darth Wong]

Isn't this capitalisim at its finest. It my choic,if I want to by goods made in France. Just like, if I want to buy from a local store instead of Best Buy. I don't see the connection Mike..

The labour market is also capitalism at its finest. You don't WANT to see the connection.

[theski]

It must be Sat *bangs head on office desk* no matter how I look at this,I just can't make that connection. I look at it as a consumer (who in my biz) always has the right to walk down the street, if I fail to satisfy them in any way. Maybe I'm just stupid today

[Darth Wong]

It must be Sat *bangs head on office desk* no matter how I look at this,I just can't make that connection. I look at it as a consumer (who in my biz) always has the right to walk down the street, if I fail to satisfy them in any way. Maybe I'm just stupid today

And a business has the right to look for a different employee. Morally speaking, the two actions are the same.

In fact, the company firing the employee is arguably not as bad, because they're targeting an individual with known attitudes, whereas the act of punishing a company and all of its employees will inevitably cause collateral damage since some of its employees undoubtedly disagree with the stance of management.

[Col. Crackpot]

so what your saying Mike, is that if i choose to show my disagrement with someone speech by excersizing my right to free choice, i'm no better than an employer who fires an employee whith whom he disagrees? I beleive in free speech as much as the next guy, but everything should and does have consequences.

[Stormbringer]

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

[Darth Wong]

so what your saying Mike, is that if i choose to show my disagrement with someone speech by excersizing my right to free choice, i'm no better than an employer who fires an employee whith whom he disagrees? I beleive in free speech as much as the next guy, but everything should and does have consequences.

Precisely. The employee's attitudes have consequences. See how your own argument can be used against you?

EDIT: also note that your careful use of the term "free speech" for refusing to continue a mutually beneficial business arrangement and "firing" for a business doing the exact same thing is an obvious rhetorical ploy.

[Darth Wong]

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

Exactly. Why should someone continue paying an anti-war employee instead of a pro-war employee if they disagree with them?

[Perinquus]

There's another aspect to this Mike. Boycotting French businesses is a way for American consumers to put pressure on the French people to pressure their government to change it's policies (whether it's an effective means of doing this is another matter). Firing a guy with opinions you don't like accomplishes no such thing.

And it really is a bad analogy in any case. An employer undertakes certain responsibilities when he hires someone, and among them is not terminating someone's employment wrongfully. He can even be sued for this if he does wrongfully terminate the employee. The arrangement between employer and employee is an unequal arrangement, with the employer in the superior position. People are held to have certain responsibilities and obligations to their underlings.

The business relationship between a buyer and a seller is different. It is much more of an equal relationship, with neither one being in a conspicuously higher position than the other, and thus that sense of obligation is not there. The buyer is always free to go seek another seller if he doesn't like the one he's doing business with. The seller has the absolute right to refuse service and go looking for another buyer if he so chooses. And unlike an employee, who's job is usually his sole source of income, a merchant usually has many clients, so losing one effects him far less.

[Darth Wong]

There's another aspect to this Mike. Boycotting French businesses is a way for American consumers to put pressure on the French people to pressure their government to change it's policies (whether it's an effective means of doing this is another matter). Firing a guy with opinions you don't like accomplishes no such thing.

Sure it does. It is a way for American businesses to put pressure on the employee to change his policies. Think he won't clam up about his anti-war views at his next job interview? Think others won't hear about this and also clam up? After all, since we are now regarding opinions as "policies" and have no problem pressuring people to change them against their will, what's the problem?

And it really is a bad analogy in any case. An employer undertakes certain responsibilities when he hires someone, and among them is not terminating someone's employment wrongfully. He can even be sued for this if he does wrongfully terminate the employee. The arrangement between employer and employee is an unequal arrangement, with the employer in the superior position. People are held to have certain responsibilities and obligations to their underlings.

You are appealing to labour laws, but this is a question of ethics. Why does a company have an ethical obligation to keep an employee around even if his attitude is contrary to that which the company wishes to promote? What's the difference?

The business relationship between a buyer and a seller is different. It is much more of an equal relationship, with neither one being in a conspicuously higher position than the other, and thus that sense of obligation is not there.

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.

The buyer is always free to go seek another seller if he doesn't like the one he's doing business with. The seller has the absolute right to refuse service and go looking for another buyer if he so chooses.

The company is always free to go seek another employee if he doesn't like the one he's doing business with. The employee has the absolute right to refuse employment and go looking for another company if he so chooses.

And unlike an employee, who's job is usually his sole source of income, a merchant usually has many clients, so losing one effects him far less.

So it's a matter of ratios to you? OK, how about we simply cut back on the employee's salary, benefits, and work hours instead of firing him outright? Now it's ethically A-OK, right?

[Montcalm]

All this is worse than "Big brother" its not an opressive government ,its citizens doing the opression.

[Perinquus]

Sure it does. It is a way for American businesses to put pressure on the employee to change his policies. Think he won't clam up about his anti-war views at his next job interview? Think others won't hear about this and also clam up? After all, since we are now regarding opinions as "policies" and have no problem pressuring people to change them against their will, what's the problem?

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.

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?

You are appealing to labour laws, but this is a question of ethics. Why does a company have an ethical obligation to keep an employee around even if his attitude is contrary to that which the company wishes to promote? What's the difference?

Labor laws were written for the express purpose of preventing behavior that is held to be unethical. Again, an employee has the right to hold any opinion he wishes. 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.

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.

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". 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.

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. 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. 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.

The company is always free to go seek another employee if he doesn't like the one he's doing business with. The employee has the absolute right to refuse employment and go looking for another company if he so chooses.

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.

So it's a matter of ratios to you? OK, how about we simply cut back on the employee's salary, benefits, and work hours instead of firing him outright? Now it's ethically A-OK, right?

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.

[Joe]

I am starting to hear the Canadian biz leaders grumbling as well..

I think they're more worried as to what could happen. In the past, Canadian Soft wood and steel have been slapped with some tariffs. What else are they going to boycot? Jos-Louis snack cakes?

I don't really approve of our tariffs on wood or steel either (or any sort of economic protectionism), but it would be nice if Canada wouldn't subsidize its lumber industry. It's a bit hypocritical to complain about wood tariffs while your own industry is fully on the dole.