Religion
Related: About this forum7 CEOs with notably devout religious beliefs
http://fortune.com/2014/11/11/7-ceos-with-notably-devout-religious-beliefs/by Holly Lebowitz Rossi @FortuneMagazine NOVEMBER 11, 2014, 6:00 AM EST
These prominent CEOs of public companies say there is something more almighty than the dollar.
When Apple AAPL 0.20% CEO Tim Cook recently announced he is gay, he wrote, I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me. Cook is not forthcoming beyond that statement about his religious beliefs, probably because people have strong opinions about how appropriate it is for executives to discuss their personal beliefs.
Most CEOs, in fact, keep their faith squarely out of the workplace, according to Andrew Wicks, a professor of business administration at the University of Virginias Darden School of Business. They specifically hide their religious faith, precisely because they fear people making a big deal out of their religious views, said Wicks, who teaches a course called Faith, Religion, and Responsible Decision Making.
But Wicks says being open about faith is actually important because it is a powerful aspect of how business leaders define themselves.
These 7 executives dont all share the same religious convictions but they all say they are informed and inspired by faith and spirituality, both inside and outside the boardroom.
more at link
longship
(40,416 posts)I don't give a damn what they believe.
I find Tyson putting chaplains on their factory floor to be excessive and entirely inappropriate for any commercial endeavor. Basically, it utterly sucks to use ones management position to coerce employees with ones personal religious beliefs.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)But it might be an important part of who they are personally, which is why I found this interesting.
I totally agree with you about the chaplains on the factory floor.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)They have protestant, catholic and muslim chaplains. They state that they can provide services to anyone, irregardless of their beliefs, but say nothing about nonbelievers.
It seems like it would be very intimidating for a non-believer to work there, but I could be wrong. As far as I can tell, there have been no formal complaints or lawsuits.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Hestia
(3,818 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)That's a really good way to lose your job. That's the primary reason why such a thing is coercive and should be illegal. If CEOs have religion, they need to keep it to themselves and leave others at work alone. Nobody should have to work under such abject oppression.
Just my opinion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)frequently. Often they have quit because they were really uncomfortable, but not always.
I was so surprised that there had been no complaints/lawsuits that I did more research. And, lo and behold, there have been, but not for the religious issues.
They've been sued for racial discrimination because as recently as 2005 they had a whites only bathroom at one of their facilities. They've been sued for discrimination against an employee with a disability.
They have been found guilty and fined multiple times for air and water pollution issues.
They have been found guilty of smuggling undocumented people into the country to work in their factories.
They also have a history of being seriously anti-union and treating their employees badly.
But I can't find anything about the religion issues.
Whatever this CEO is religiously, he seems to personally be a creep of the highest order.
I agree with you. I think the presence of chaplains is a huge problem.
longship
(40,416 posts)I know. A little levity. Very little.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and will never buy their products again.
Sometimes you have to cross the road to get the egg
or something.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)corporate America and are real problems facing workers day in day out but chaplains walking through a plant saying hello is a huge problem. This is not even on the radar for most workers today they have real problems to confront everyday.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I do not dismiss all the other problems.
I do think chaplains are a huge problem. What if you are Jewish? Pagan? An atheist?
It may not be high on their priority list, but it's wrong all the same.
They even hand out prayer booklets during meal breaks.
Sorry, but that can create a hostile environment for some of the workers. They are already working in what may be a very difficult situation. This seems completely unnecessary.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)You aren't forced to interact with them. If you try and find exclusion hard enough you'll find it, it sometimes takes a lot of effort but if you want confrontation you can get it if you work for it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It's about there being a potentially uncomfortable work environment.
Imagine this. You work in a slaughterhouse. The boss, a very outspoken atheist, has hired members of Atheists United to hang around and offer a shoulder or an ear when it might be needed. He claims that these people are there for everyone, but they wear their AU tee shirts at work.
And during your lunch break, they distribute selected reading from Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris, some of which may be somewhat negative about your belief system.
Honestly, would that be ok?
It's not trying to find exclusion. It's about being excluded.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)would ask for it. If I asked to not be bothered I would expect it to be respected. If I was however harassed I would complain about it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I would object if it were religious people, atheists or those of a particular political persuasion.
They don't have any place there, imo. If he wants to provide religious counseling for his employees, he can arrange for that off-site.
And based on the other information about him, I think this is all about proselytizing. He doesn't seem to really give a shit about his employees in the areas where it really counts.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)I have no objection to what people feel and believe whatever it may be. I don't have to like it or agree with it. I might fight against it and try to persuade others that my worldview is better but until I find it damaging and hurtful or oppressive and threatening I believe in letting others chose and follow their path.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)with you in this group, and in those interactions you have not always exhibited a high degree of tolerance.
I also have no objection to what people believe or don't believe, but I don't think it should be injected into my workplace unless my workplace is a religious organization.
It's about the boss making it clear that what he believes in will be incorporated into the working environment. It's like Hobby Lobby or Chick Fil-A.
He can choose his own path all he wants, but if his path includes making those that aren't like him uncomfortable, then he has crossed the line.
I suspect that anyone that fights against his worldview at work is not going to last long.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)They're not the same thing you know. Asking hard or probing questions is not intolerance. Believing I'm right is not intolerance, demanding you to conform or agree is. It is possible to be firm in your beliefs without condemning other for theirs. Just being a weathervane is not tolerance, it's cowardice of the worst kind, it's a betrayal of self and others as well. Patience is something most of the world lacks in good measure and I make no claim of difference and sometimes I have less a measure than I should.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And there are grey areas which become even more murky on the internet, where so many cues are unavailable.
We shall agree to disagree on this topic, ok?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)People who think it's just so easy to complain or sue are clueless.
Retaliation comes in many forms, most bosses and their minions aren't going to risk a lawsuit by firing or openly discriminating against you. But they'll find a million other ways to make your work experience a living hell.
If you're the only openly non-religious employee, you're certainly not going to complain about daily prayer meetings, even "anonymously".
It is more than a little intimidating when you're so vastly outnumbered by believers.
Spot on, longship.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)That's intimidating and if you don't succeed, well I've got a nice emergency fund and COBRA helps .
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)After all, "you aren't forced to interact with them. If you try and find exclusion hard enough you'll find it, it sometimes takes a lot of effort but if you want confrontation you can get it if you work for it."
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Almost as good as invoking the NSDAP .
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That loud whooshing sound you just heard over your head was how I just pointed out that you consider some discrimination in the workplace perfectly acceptable.
Not surprising really; your hatred of atheists has completely coloured your perception.
ALL forms of discrimination are illiberal.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Your ability to discern hatred is quite limited and juvenile. I would suggest that if your fellow workers dislike you it's more than likely not because you're an atheist.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I would suggest that since I'm not the only one who finds your comments illiberal, it's more than likely you're the one with a problem.
And my coworkers love me, btw.
tsk tsk, so hateful.
Have a cookie and some warm milk.
DreamGypsy
(2,252 posts)...from Wikipedia (emphasis mine):
During the past decade, Tyson has been involved in several lawsuits related to air and water pollution. In June 2003, the company admitted to illegally dumping untreated wastewater from its poultry processing plant near Sedalia, Missouri, pleading guilty to 20 felony violations of the federal Clean Water Act. As part of the plea agreement, the company agreed to pay $7.5 million in fines, hire an outside consultant to perform an environmental audit, and institute an "enhanced environmental management system" at the Sedalia plant. At the same time, Tyson also settled a case filed by the Missouri attorney general's office related to the same illegal dumping.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency began the investigation into the discharges in 1997, and federal officials served two criminal search warrants at the plant in 1999. According to EPA and U.S. Department of Justice officials, Tyson continued to illegally dump wastewater after the search warrants were executed, prompting an EPA senior trial attorney to remark that: "Having done this work for nearly 20 years, I don't recall any case where violations continued after the execution of two search warrants. That's stunning." Under the federal and state plea agreements, Tyson agreed to pay $5.5 million to the federal government, $1 million to the Pettis County School Fund and $1 million to the Missouri Natural Resources Protection Fund to help remedy the damage.[18]
In 2002, three residents of Western Kentucky, together with the Sierra Club, filed a lawsuit concerning the discharge of dangerous quantities of ammonia from Tyson's Western Kentucky factories. Tyson settled the suit in January 2005, agreeing to spend $500,000 to mitigate and monitor the ammonia levels.[19]
In 2004, Tyson was one of six poultry companies to pay a $7.3 million settlement fee to the city of Tulsa, Oklahoma, to settle charges that the use of chicken waste as fertilizer had created phosphorus pollution in Tulsa's main drinking water sources.[20]
Employment of undocumented immigrants
In 2001, Tyson was charged with conspiracy to smuggle undocumented workers to work on its production lines. Tyson plant managers arranged for delivery of illegal workers with undercover immigration officials. Prosecutors alleged that the conspiracy to import workers dates back to 1994 when plant managers began to find it difficult to fill positions with "cheap legal help". Of the six managers who were indicted, two accepted plea bargain deals, and one committed suicide one month after being charged. In March 2003, a federal jury acquitted Tyson of having knowingly hired illegal immigrants.[21][22]
In May 2006, Tyson suspended operations at nine plants during a nationwide day of immigration demonstrations citing expected lack of workers.[23]
In October 2006, a federal judge granted class-action status to a lawsuit brought by Tyson employees who allege that Tyson's practice of hiring illegal immigrants depresses wages 1030%. The suit further contends that the company violated federal racketeering laws by conspiring with National Council of La Raza and League of United Latin American Countries not to question the employment applications of anyone with a Hispanic surname.[24][25][26]
Price Manipulation
In 2004 a federal jury found that Tyson Fresh Meats had used captive supply agreements to artificially lower fed cattle prices in violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act. Damages were found to be $1.28 billion. A U.S. Court of Appeals voided the verdict because it determined Tyson had a legitimate business justification to artificially lower cattle prices.[27]
Use of slaughtering methods
From December 2004 through February 2005, an undercover investigator for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals claimed to have worked on the slaughter line of a Tyson Foods chicken processing plant in Heflin, Alabama. Using a hidden camera, he allegedly documented the treatment of the more than 100,000 chickens killed every day in the plant. PETA alleges that workers were instructed to rip the heads off of birds who missed the throat-cutting machines. He claims he saw birds scalded alive in the feather removal tank, and he said that managers said that it was acceptable to scald 40 birds alive per shift. Interestingly the job the investigator was hired to do was to prevent the alleged abuses he videotaped: preventing birds from going into the scald tank alive. The investigator claims plant employees were also seen throwing around dead birds just for fun. PETA has asked Tyson to implement controlled atmosphere killing (CAK). For this reason, PETA is boycotting businesses that use Tyson as a supplier, such as KFC and distribution channels such as Sunset Strips. The video, taken by the investigator of the killings, was posted on YouTube.[28]
In 2006, Tyson completed a study to determine whether CAK, which uses gas to render chickens unconscious before slaughter, could be a more humane practice than conventional electrical stunning. According to Bill Lovette, Tyson's senior group vice president of poultry and prepared foods, the study found no difference between the humaneness of the two methods. The company plans to ask scientists at the University of Arkansas to initiate a similar study to test these initial results. The research will be led by the newly created Chair in Food Animal Wellbeing at the Dale Bumpers College of Agricultural, Food and Life Sciences of the University of Arkansas. Tyson has committed $1.5 million to help establish the Chair, which will be involved in overseeing research and classes focused on the humane management and treatment of food animals.[29]
Undisclosed use of antibiotics
In 2007, Tyson began labeling and advertising its chicken products as "Raised without Antibiotics." After being advised by the USDA that Tysons use of protozoa-killing ionophores in unhatched eggs constituted antibiotic use, Tyson and the USDA compromised on rewording Tysons slogan as "raised without antibiotics that impact antibiotic resistance in humans." Tyson competitors Perdue Farms and Sanderson Farms sued claiming that Tysons claim violated truth-in-advertising/labeling standards. In May 2008, a federal judge ordered Tyson to stop using the label.
In June 2008, USDA inspectors discovered that Tyson had also been using gentamicin, an antibiotic, in eggs. USDA Undersecretary for Food Safety Richard Raymond claimed that the company hid the use of this antibiotic from federal inspectors claiming that the use of this chemical is standard industry practice. Tyson agreed to voluntarily remove its raised without antibiotics label in future packaging and advertising.[30]
Praise the Lord, and pass the antibiotics!
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Lets see, mega corporations are colluding to wreck the planet for the greedy needs of the few, and some are run by devoutly religious people. I don't think that was the point that Fortune, a magazine dedicated to fawning over capitalism and the fabulously wealthy, or the person who posted this nonsense were trying to make.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)(And yes, I did just call someone's deeply-held religious beliefs nonsense. This time I know I won't get in trouble though, as they are beliefs that the Civility Brigade doesn't like either.)
There are plenty of people who really do believe that if they are making money, it's because their god approves of what they are doing. And as a prominent moralizer has said to many people right here in this group, if we can't prove them wrong then we have no right to say they are!
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Bad Thoughts
(2,524 posts)The other three are just supporters of religiously/ethnic themed causes and organizations.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Bad Thoughts
(2,524 posts)The Buddhist and the Jew on the list seem to support political and social causes related to their religions. The Hindu keeps symbols close by and draws inspiration from them. All of that is minor in comparison to the Protestants and Catholics on the list.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)There is clearly a range.
I think the point is that these are people who acknowledge that their religious beliefs are important and play a role in the boardroom.
The extreme appears to be the Tyson guy, and not in a good way.
In contrast, the christian aflac guy seems to be a really good person and his religion seems to guide him in really positive ways.
The Hindu woman describes herself as devout and follows the rules concerning alcohol and food. She also attributes her strength during hard times to her religious beliefs.
It is not surprising that the Buddhist is quiet and acts his faith in positive ways.
The Jewish guy is really active in Jewish causes and organizations.
The Marriot guy is really surprising. The LDS church has owned and operated this chain for a long time. Letting a Lutheran run it is a big change. He also seems like the least religious in the group.
The Catholic has introduced his religion into the company in a way that makes me uncomfortable. He's not as bad as the Tyson guy, but still
.
So, I don't really agree with your analysis, but I do see that there is a range.