As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

CEOs and political donations

NecoNeco Worthless GarbageRegistered User regular
So this is a thing that happened:

http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/marvel-trump-ike-perlmutter-donation-1201692438/

So big time Marvel exec donates to Trump, shitatorm ensues. The argument has now been brought up (again) on the ethics of ramifications for moves such as this. Some want to keep personal and privet lives separate and so argue that there should be no ramifications for someone donating money to a political cause/figure. Others, however, view the position of the donor as an image on the company itself, especially when the numbers are in the seven+ figure range.

What is an acceptable response to something like this?

«134567

Posts

  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    If it upsets you enough don't buy the guy's product. That's about it.

  • Options
    Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    edited January 2016
    Seeing as in [chat] I've been entirely on one side of this debate, I want to make clear: I don't think there should be no ramifications. Boycotts are fine.

    I see the idea as firing someone because of what they do with their own money (Assuming it isn't illegal) as wrong. Companies aren't supposed to be able to enforce their morals on their employees through the threat of ruination. We shouldn't be telling bigots that we'll starve their children if they don't conform.

    I know the starvation thing doesn't apply to someone making millions, but I'm also a true believer in the all persons are created equal mantra and so if firing a CEO for their personal beliefs is okay, then firing a waged employee for their personal beliefs should also be okay.

    Nova_C on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Seeing as in [chat] I've been entirely on one side of this debate, I want to make clear: I don't think there should be no ramifications. Boycotts are fine.

    I see the idea as firing someone because of what they do with their own money (Assuming it isn't illegal) as wrong. Companies aren't supposed to be able to enforce their morals on their employees through the threat of ruination. We shouldn't be telling bigots that we'll starve their children if they don't conform.

    I know the starvation thing doesn't apply to someone making millions, but I'm also a true believer in the all persons are created equal mantra and so if firing a CEO for their personal beliefs is okay, then firing a waged employee for their personal beliefs should also be okay.

    No one is suggesting a person suffer any ramifications simply for their beliefs. It's the actions that upset people.

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    I'm amazed that people can predict what this donation will actually do in the future

    Will it help trump? Will it help veterans? Will it help republicans? Will it hurt democrats? Will it hurt america? I don't know the answer to any of these questions

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Seeing as in [chat] I've been entirely on one side of this debate, I want to make clear: I don't think there should be no ramifications. Boycotts are fine.

    I see the idea as firing someone because of what they do with their own money (Assuming it isn't illegal) as wrong. Companies aren't supposed to be able to enforce their morals on their employees through the threat of ruination. We shouldn't be telling bigots that we'll starve their children if they don't conform.

    I know the starvation thing doesn't apply to someone making millions, but I'm also a true believer in the all persons are created equal mantra and so if firing a CEO for their personal beliefs is okay, then firing a waged employee for their personal beliefs should also be okay.

    No one is suggesting a person suffer any ramifications simply for their beliefs. It's the actions that upset people.

    Again, if it's not illegal, I'm not sure it's any of the company's business.

    Considering the position of pro-life people and how they see abortion as murder, would you consider it wrong to fire someone for receiving an abortion?

  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Seeing as in [chat] I've been entirely on one side of this debate, I want to make clear: I don't think there should be no ramifications. Boycotts are fine.

    I see the idea as firing someone because of what they do with their own money (Assuming it isn't illegal) as wrong. Companies aren't supposed to be able to enforce their morals on their employees through the threat of ruination. We shouldn't be telling bigots that we'll starve their children if they don't conform.

    I know the starvation thing doesn't apply to someone making millions, but I'm also a true believer in the all persons are created equal mantra and so if firing a CEO for their personal beliefs is okay, then firing a waged employee for their personal beliefs should also be okay.

    No one is suggesting a person suffer any ramifications simply for their beliefs. It's the actions that upset people.

    Again, if it's not illegal, I'm not sure it's any of the company's business.

    Considering the position of pro-life people and how they see abortion as murder, would you consider it wrong to fire someone for receiving an abortion?

    Stop this. No one, at any point, said a company should fire anyone.

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    I dunno, chat thread moves pretty fast

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    It doesn't matter what the response is because it won't actually affect any real change. CEOs will continue to be CEOs (most get picked up by somebody before their golden parachutes hit the ground)

    donators will continue to donate

    people at the company in question might have their lives disrupted a little (no matter how they personally feel about it, remember this is one dude out of hundreds or thousands)

    it's silly to conflate the personal lives of anyone and the companies they work for. I'm looking at you too, Hobby Lobby

    fuck gendered marketing
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Elldren wrote: »
    It doesn't matter what the response is because it won't actually affect any real change. CEOs will continue to be CEOs (most get picked up by somebody before their golden parachutes hit the ground)

    donators will continue to donate

    people at the company in question might have their lives disrupted a little (no matter how they personally feel about it, remember this is one dude out of hundreds or thousands)

    it's silly to conflate the personal lives of anyone and the companies they work for. I'm looking at you too, Hobby Lobby

    I disagree that boycott and social interaction never brings about change.

  • Options
    Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    Firing as penalty was brought up a few times in [chat] thread.

    Like I said, that's the part that I object to. I guess I'm confused as to why you keep quoting me when the only part I've ever objected to is the firing.

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    If we still lived in a capitalist paradise boycott would totally bring about change

    But I still need to eat and read/watch something while I eat

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Firing as penalty was brought up a few times in [chat] thread.

    Like I said, that's the part that I object to. I guess I'm confused as to why you keep quoting me when the only part I've ever objected to is the firing.

    Because it wasn't originally firing. It was boycotting which would eventually probably result in firing.

  • Options
    ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    It doesn't matter what the response is because it won't actually affect any real change. CEOs will continue to be CEOs (most get picked up by somebody before their golden parachutes hit the ground)

    donators will continue to donate

    people at the company in question might have their lives disrupted a little (no matter how they personally feel about it, remember this is one dude out of hundreds or thousands)

    it's silly to conflate the personal lives of anyone and the companies they work for. I'm looking at you too, Hobby Lobby

    I disagree that boycott and social interaction never brings about change.

    The shallow level of action that internets typically do won't accomplish change on a deep structural level.

    Sure stuff will change on a superficial level, as things constantly do, but nothing really major

    It ain't going to tear down the sociopolitical and economic systems such that CEOs no longer donate money to things

    fuck gendered marketing
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Elldren wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    It doesn't matter what the response is because it won't actually affect any real change. CEOs will continue to be CEOs (most get picked up by somebody before their golden parachutes hit the ground)

    donators will continue to donate

    people at the company in question might have their lives disrupted a little (no matter how they personally feel about it, remember this is one dude out of hundreds or thousands)

    it's silly to conflate the personal lives of anyone and the companies they work for. I'm looking at you too, Hobby Lobby

    I disagree that boycott and social interaction never brings about change.

    The shallow level of action that internets typically do won't accomplish change on a deep structural level.

    Sure stuff will change on a superficial level, as things constantly do, but nothing really major

    It ain't going to tear down the sociopolitical and economic systems such that CEOs no longer donate money to things

    I agree it won't fix everything forever. Small buy good change is still good change.

  • Options
    DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Firing as penalty was brought up a few times in [chat] thread.

    Like I said, that's the part that I object to. I guess I'm confused as to why you keep quoting me when the only part I've ever objected to is the firing.

    Because it wasn't originally firing. It was boycotting which would eventually probably result in firing.

    There isn't a meaningful difference between calling for the firing of a person and boycotting the company they work for until they resign.

  • Options
    chocoboliciouschocobolicious Registered User regular
    Such a big upheaval could hurt the people at the bottom, of course.

    You'd end up boycotting and the series most effected would probably be the more progressive and less shitty ones.

    So when push comes to shove they can just cut niche comic X because why would anything negative happen to bigtitty heroine x since it's still selling just as well.

    I dunno. Boycotts are interesting but they rarely seem to change anything at the top. Even if someone 'steps down' if you just check the board and advisor list like three months later you'll find em.

    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Firing as penalty was brought up a few times in [chat] thread.

    Like I said, that's the part that I object to. I guess I'm confused as to why you keep quoting me when the only part I've ever objected to is the firing.

    Because it wasn't originally firing. It was boycotting which would eventually probably result in firing.

    There isn't a meaningful difference between calling for the firing of a person and boycotting the company they work for until they resign.

    The bolded isn't a requirement. You're just assuming it is.

  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited January 2016
    The approach that the internet rage machine takes, that of singling out individual "bad people" and ruining them and then moving on will never affect positive social change. It merely ruins individuals.

    It is quite similar to the approach that the RIAA takes in singling out a vanishingly small number of people downloading music and destroying them financially. It has no real effect on the amount of people pirating music. The individuals who are selected to be made examples of are, of course, severely impacted, but the larger issue of piracy isn't touched.

    It's an absolutely venomous approach to social change. Toxic and worthless.

    Regina Fong on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited January 2016
    The approach that the internet rage machine takes, that of singling out individual "bad people" and ruining them and then moving on will never affect positive social change. It merely ruins individuals.

    Constantly addressing anyone and everyone on the internet that makes even the slightest attempt to affect society as "the internet rage machine" has gotten really annoying.

    No one in this thread or the forum is suggesting death threats or whatever be sent.

    Quid on
  • Options
    redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    I guess I care little about the plight of CEOs, when companies are allowed to fire people in high profile roles for legal public speech.

    I think that's probably a bad thing. But, as I understand it, it is pretty common for all sorts of employees. That being the case, and I feel it really probably should not be, I don't really care if it happens to someone who makes tons of money and is performing speech I disagree with, and who will likely suffer little.

    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Such a big upheaval could hurt the people at the bottom, of course.

    You'd end up boycotting and the series most effected would probably be the more progressive and less shitty ones.

    So when push comes to shove they can just cut niche comic X because why would anything negative happen to bigtitty heroine x since it's still selling just as well.

    I dunno. Boycotts are interesting but they rarely seem to change anything at the top. Even if someone 'steps down' if you just check the board and advisor list like three months later you'll find em.

    I agree it ain't perfect.

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Boycotting gets a lot of pushback because people on the internet are all nihilists

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited January 2016
    Quid wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Firing as penalty was brought up a few times in [chat] thread.

    Like I said, that's the part that I object to. I guess I'm confused as to why you keep quoting me when the only part I've ever objected to is the firing.

    Because it wasn't originally firing. It was boycotting which would eventually probably result in firing.

    There isn't a meaningful difference between calling for the firing of a person and boycotting the company they work for until they resign.

    The bolded isn't a requirement. You're just assuming it is.

    It would be a whole lot easier to have a discussion if you would speak plainly.

    Do you agree that it's shitty for the internet to boycott Marvel because of this donation to charity?
    If no, do you think that marvel should continue employing this person that most of us have never heard of until this morning because of this donation?

    Are you boycotting Marvel over this? If you are not, how do you reconcile this with the below statement?
    If a person gives money to a bigot, they support bigotry, and I probably won't associate with that person or spend money on their product.

    If y, on what conditions would you end your boycott of Marvel?

    Deebaser on
  • Options
    ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Such a big upheaval could hurt the people at the bottom, of course.

    You'd end up boycotting and the series most effected would probably be the more progressive and less shitty ones.

    So when push comes to shove they can just cut niche comic X because why would anything negative happen to bigtitty heroine x since it's still selling just as well.

    I dunno. Boycotts are interesting but they rarely seem to change anything at the top. Even if someone 'steps down' if you just check the board and advisor list like three months later you'll find em.

    I agree it ain't perfect.

    It's worse than not perfect

    It's unhelping

    boycotts don't actually send a coherent message

    fuck gendered marketing
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    The approach that the internet rage machine takes, that of singling out individual "bad people" and ruining them and then moving on will never affect positive social change. It merely ruins individuals.

    Constantly addressing anyone and everyone on the internet that makes even the slightest attempt to affect society as "the internet rage machine" has gotten really annoying.

    No one in this thread or the forum is suggesting death threats or whatever be sent.

    I see you here trying to set a particular bar for what constitutes the internet rage machine.

    So it seems we do not agree on the bar, but we agree that the machine exists.

  • Options
    MvrckMvrck Dwarven MountainhomeRegistered User regular
    This is the way I see it:

    If money is speech, the usual caveats apply. You're beliefs and right to express them are protected, but you aren't protected from non-governmental consequences of your actions. So if he is fired because his views do not match with what the Marvel board of directors wants their company to be viewed as, then his ass is out.

    In the case of firing for abortion, that's a medical procedure and in a perfect world that didn't have "Right to Work" states, that would be legally protected from retaliation.

  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited January 2016
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Firing as penalty was brought up a few times in [chat] thread.

    Like I said, that's the part that I object to. I guess I'm confused as to why you keep quoting me when the only part I've ever objected to is the firing.

    Because it wasn't originally firing. It was boycotting which would eventually probably result in firing.

    There isn't a meaningful difference between calling for the firing of a person and boycotting the company they work for until they resign.

    The bolded isn't a requirement. You're just assuming it is.

    It would be a whole lot easier to have a discussion if you would speak plainly.

    Do you agree that it's shitty for the internet to boycott Marvel because of this donation to charity?
    If no, do you think that marvel should continue employing this person that most of us have never heard of until this morning because of this donation?

    I think it's perfectly okay for persons to avoid buying products from a person who willingly supports open bigots.

    I know you want this thread to be about the internet hate machine but it's not.
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Are you boycotting Marvel over this? If you are not, how do you reconcile this with the below statement?

    Can't boycott comics what I wasn't buying. And Perlmutter's influence was removed from Marvel Studios some time ago by Disney.

    Quid on
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    I will never watch another marvel movie again, try and stop me

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited January 2016
    Quid wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Firing as penalty was brought up a few times in [chat] thread.

    Like I said, that's the part that I object to. I guess I'm confused as to why you keep quoting me when the only part I've ever objected to is the firing.

    Because it wasn't originally firing. It was boycotting which would eventually probably result in firing.

    There isn't a meaningful difference between calling for the firing of a person and boycotting the company they work for until they resign.

    The bolded isn't a requirement. You're just assuming it is.

    It would be a whole lot easier to have a discussion if you would speak plainly.

    Do you agree that it's shitty for the internet to boycott Marvel because of this donation to charity?
    If no, do you think that marvel should continue employing this person that most of us have never heard of until this morning because of this donation?

    I think it's perfectly okay for persons to avoid buying products from a person who willingly supports open bigots.

    I know you want this thread to be about the internet hate machine but it's not.


    do you think that marvel should continue employing this person that most of us have never heard of until this morning because of this donation?

    Are you boycotting Marvel over this? If you are not, how do you reconcile this with the below statement?
    If a person gives money to a bigot, they support bigotry, and I probably won't associate with that person or spend money on their product.

    If y, on what conditions would you end your boycott of Marvel?

    Deebaser on
  • Options
    override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited January 2016
    I'm okay with companies firing CEOs for large public political donations if that company doesn't support that position, it's not like a regular employee, the position is to be the face of the company - any action a CEO takes is reflected as being a decision the company endorses (and CEO's aren't so much fired as they are given the keys to a semi full of cash on their way out)

    Not that I'm calling for this guy to get fired, he donated a million to Trump great whatever, Trump has billions so this does nothing other than make him look like an assclown
    redx wrote: »
    I guess I care little about the plight of CEOs, when companies are allowed to fire people in high profile roles for legal public speech.

    I think that's probably a bad thing. But, as I understand it, it is pretty common for all sorts of employees. That being the case, and I feel it really probably should not be, I don't really care if it happens to someone who makes tons of money and is performing speech I disagree with, and who will likely suffer little.

    well it's shit to fire a regular employee for political speech, but one of the reasons you pay a CEO the big bucks is because the position is political as much as it is about doing things, and of people getting fired for outspoken politics I'd have the least sympathy for CEOs and military officers in uniform

    override367 on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Deebaser wrote: »
    do you think that marvel should continue employing this person that most of us have never heard of until this morning because of this donation?

    I think Perlmutter's performance as CEO and his effects on the company's profits should decide whether or not he continues there.

  • Options
    redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    I will never watch another marvel movie again, try and stop me

    But they are frequently good.

    This isn't DC we are talking about.

    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • Options
    DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited January 2016
    Quid wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    do you think that marvel should no longer continue employing this person that most of us have never heard of until this morning because of this donation?

    I think Perlmutter's performance as CEO and his effects on the company's profits should decide whether or not he continues there.


    edited question for clarity. Is that a yes or a no? please speak plainly.
    To further clarify: I am directly asking in a y/n whether or not you believe this man should be fired for making a charitable donation. I want to remove any ambiguity.

    Deebaser on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    do you think that marvel should no longer continue employing this person that most of us have never heard of until this morning because of this donation?

    I think Perlmutter's performance as CEO and his effects on the company's profits should decide whether or not he continues there.


    edited question for clarity. Is that a yes or a no? please speak plainly.

    And I'd give the same answer. That you want there to be a simple yes or no answer doesn't change anything.

  • Options
    override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited January 2016
    Quid wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    do you think that marvel should no longer continue employing this person that most of us have never heard of until this morning because of this donation?

    I think Perlmutter's performance as CEO and his effects on the company's profits should decide whether or not he continues there.


    edited question for clarity. Is that a yes or a no? please speak plainly.

    And I'd give the same answer. That you want there to be a simple yes or no answer doesn't change anything.

    So that's a no

    edit: which I agree with by the way (but if they want to hey, it's their business and I'd understand it)

    override367 on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Elldren wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Such a big upheaval could hurt the people at the bottom, of course.

    You'd end up boycotting and the series most effected would probably be the more progressive and less shitty ones.

    So when push comes to shove they can just cut niche comic X because why would anything negative happen to bigtitty heroine x since it's still selling just as well.

    I dunno. Boycotts are interesting but they rarely seem to change anything at the top. Even if someone 'steps down' if you just check the board and advisor list like three months later you'll find em.

    I agree it ain't perfect.

    It's worse than not perfect

    It's unhelping

    boycotts don't actually send a coherent message

    Sure they do. "You're supporting bigotry so we're not buying your stuff." Bam. Message sent.

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited January 2016
    redx wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I will never watch another marvel movie again, try and stop me

    But they are frequently good.

    This isn't DC we are talking about.

    To tell you the truth I don't watch a bunch of movies nowadays. I haven't since Iron man. I go to movie spoiler and read em up after the hype dies down and save like 8 bucks every 3 or so months

    Edit: also all the best scenes are on youtube

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited January 2016
    For something as big as a marvel movie there's going to be a ton of shitty people involved

    if you're going to take a moral stand and boycott marvel because the CEO is shitty well

    I'd say your best bet is to move into the woods and live off the land, there are thousands and thousands of people who make money off each movie and I'm sure something like half of them have shitty beliefs, same with the company that made your cell phone for that matter

    override367 on
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    For something as big as a marvel movie there's going to be a ton of shitty people involved

    if you're going to take a moral stand and boycott marvel because the CEO is shitty well

    I'd say your best bet is to move into the woods and live off the land, there are thousands and thousands of people who make money off each movie and I'm sure something like half of them have shitty beliefs

    Hey I read my side of the mountain bring it

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    do you think that marvel should no longer continue employing this person that most of us have never heard of until this morning because of this donation?

    I think Perlmutter's performance as CEO and his effects on the company's profits should decide whether or not he continues there.


    edited question for clarity. Is that a yes or a no? please speak plainly.

    And I'd give the same answer. That you want there to be a simple yes or no answer doesn't change anything.

    So that's a no

    edit: which I agree with by the way (but if they want to hey, it's their business and I'd understand it)

    I don't want to just say no since quite a few companies have various expectations of people that work there. Sometimes those expectations are fine and sometimes they're clearly overreaching.

Sign In or Register to comment.