Posted on 05/30/2005 7:37:19 PM PDT by murphE
Both the state and the city have been pressuring national corporations to follow their sexual orientation policies.
New York City and the State of New York are getting in the business of pushing social change in the nation's corporations. On May 19, Delta shareholders voted down a proposal aimed at stopping what some call "gender-identified discrimination." The proposal was backed by five pension funds operated by New York City and additional funds with the state of New York.
This isn't the first time New York City has urged companies to change policies on sexual orientation and gender identity. In fact, 30 companies have amended or agreed to amend their policies, according to New York City Comptroller William C. Thompson, Jr. The most recent was Toys "R" Us.
The Delta board of directors issued a response to the latest proposal saying it is opposed to such a change because the company has already adopted an inclusive policy.
"That's hocus-pocus," said Grant Lukenbill, managing director of the Equality Project and author of the "10 Principles of Equality" which are outlined in the comptrollers' proposal. "They have to walk the walk."
ExxonMobil knows what it means when New York City comes to a shareholders meeting. For seven years the company has faced the same proposal on its proxy.
ExxonMobil claims the proposal itself is problematic. In a response to shareholders, corporate officials wrote, "This proposal suggests that ExxonMobil condones discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is false. ExxonMobil has a zero-tolerance discrimination and harassment policy."
But that's apparently not enough for homosexual activists, who continue demanding more.
What about the claims that such harassment is increasing? The U.S. General Accounting Office studied states that have same-sex orientation included their discrimination laws. The findings were not what homosexuals have been parading in front of media.
"We found that, in those states with a law making it illegal to discriminate in employment on the basis of sexual orientation, relatively few complaints of such discrimination have been made," the report reads. "The statistics do not show any trend in the number of complaints over time."
But a dearth of discrimination complaints have not placed the issue low on the comptrollers' list of priorities. Instead they continue to seek special rights for homosexuals. And groups such as the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce continue to echo the refrain.
"If they won't discriminate, why not put it in the policy?" asked Lukenbill.
A better question said Glenn Stanton, senior analyst for marriage and sexuality at Focus on the Family, is to ask for the definition of sexual orientation.
"There is no academically-accepted definition of sexual orientation," he noted. "It could be almost anything."
The obvious problem appeared at the Delta shareholders meeting.
Dave McNeil, a Delta shareholder, asked, "What exactly are you using for a definition of sexual orientation? I mean, we're going to vote on something, shouldn't we all be on the same page as to exactly what it means? I think it would be helpful if she'd define that."
Lyn Connelly on behalf of the New York City pension funds, a group that owns more than 668,000 shares of Delta stock, said, "Gender Identity is the identity by which the individual describes themselves which may not be apparent to the person with whom they're speaking."
"And sexual orientation?" McNeil asked.
"Sexual orientation," Connelly answered, "is whether or not you are same-sex or . . . heterosexual or homosexual."
"So whatever an individual finds sexually desirable?" McNeil confirmed. "OK, So that definition could also include pedophiles and necrophiliacs? Doesn't that fall within the definition?"
"I don't believe that falls within the legal definition, no," Connelly answered.
The issue makes itself quickly apparent when defining the terms. That is where most pro-family groups have problems with same-sex orientation policies.
"Let's just say that if you are part of the class of human beings, you should not be discriminated against," Stanton said. "Everyone is for that, but why single out one category over another?"
He said human resources departments are going to be tied in bureaucratic knots by giving categorical rights to workers. Imagine the different categories that could be added to a company's official handbook: smokers, left-handed workers, people who vacation at the lake and workers who eat fatty foods in the cafeteria. The list could get truly bizarre.
Fortunately, ExxonMobil and Delta are standing firm: No worker should face discrimination.
CALL TO ACTION If you'd like to tell the city of New York and the State of New York comptrollers' offices to keep their hands out of social engineering, you can e-mail the city and state offices at these addresses:
New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi: ahevesi@osc.state.ny.us
New York City Comptroller William C. Thompson: action@comptroller.nyc.gov
Keep a list of the cowards who cave in so I can spend my money elsewhere.
Who is the governor of New york and mayor of New York City?
has to be RAAATS
ping to self for later pingout.
I MUST ping my lists tomorrow or hang my head in shame.
The shareholder role that government is playing must be via the pension funds. If that is so, could this be considered a conflict of interest to use the status of shareholder as a means of legislating the corporations' business practices (much like the courts "legislating" from the bench)?
There wa a time during the Clinton administration (1998?) when there was talk about taking the Social Security surplus and investing it in the market. In this case it would have been the government deciding where it would have been invested, not you or I (it was a Clinton Administration plan, and the Clintons are of course so much smarter than us.). This did not go forward, thank G*d, it would have been a disaster.
The proposal was backed by five pension funds operated by New York City and additional funds with the state of New York.
I agree with you 100% about the role of governments in these companies. On a more positive note, there is a mounting concern over the solvency of many of these pension funds, so the day may come when we see a bankruptcy case in one of them (New Jersey or California may set the stage for this). If and when that happens -- coupled with the collapse of pension funds in the steel and airline industries -- then the whole notion of a pension fund is going to fall apart and this won't even be an issue anymore.
The list is too big. When you leaving? You need to let me know ;-)
Upstate NY needs to secede and form a new state.
My view on pension funds is that managing them within the same corporation may constitute a "conflict of interest". Here's why:
1. The same corporation can loot the pension fund to prop up a failing stock.
2. Some Human Resources Zampolit using the pension fund as leverage to force a pet cause (as described in this article).
My view of pension funds is that they should be managed by a "disinterested third party".
The pension funds are controlled by the respective comptrollers, both of whom are dims.
George Pataki And Michael Bloomberg, both "Republicans".
Upstate is economically dependent on NYC.
Not true, Buffalo (I think its still the largest city up state), and Erie County maybe. But for the most part upstate does pretty well for itself..
Very little industry left. State colleges along with private schools, like Cornell/Colgate, and prisons are the economic backbone of many upstate communities.
Don't forget the goldne rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.
Erie County is the worst Niagara is pretty sad as well but Overall 90% of upstate (in terms of area) and probably more than 70% of up state (in terms of population) is not as bad as you make it sound..
I was thinking older companies like Crouse Hinds (sp?) etc. There was a time when there was a lot of heavy industry up there. On my infrequent trips upstate I see a lot of displaced blue collar personnel, but the weirdest thing is what's happening in the Poconos -- Real estate scams. No money down homes. You just know that's not going to end well.
They are not majority shareholders, so it is still a Jesse Jackson type shakedown.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.