You may need to adopt an Amish lifestyle then. Business is not always able to meet everyone's views on ethicality. Or wait until allegations are proven.
When the 2007 matter was settled, the EEOC said, "We commend B & H for working cooperatively with us to resolve this matter without protracted litigation, said EEOC New York Trial Attorney Lou Graziano. We encourage other employers to follow B & Hs example of resolving discrimination cases expeditiously and in good faith.
The other two suits were dismissed I believe.
I personally do not care one iota if they keep their workers in chains and poke them with pointy sticks. B&H sells what I need/want, they have good prices, and they have fast cheap shipping. I will continue to buy what I can't buy locally from them until such a time comes as I no longer need these products or they go out of business. It is none of my business or concern how they treat their employees.
B and H has always operated ethically with me. So I would give they operated similarly with their employees, vendors, etc. How you operate as a business is a mind set that isn't compartmentalized.
There's an element of society that's always ready to boycott (i.e., guilty until proven innocent). In the US there are rules of law that mandate the opposite. Just wait until ALL the facts are known, folks, before condemning.
There are no such rules and never have been. Anyone in this country can boycott any entity for any reason at any time. US law concerning criminal guilt has no bearing on the matter.There's an element of society that's always ready to boycott (i.e., guilty until proven innocent). In the US there are rules of law that mandate the opposite...
I wasn't going to post in this thread but having lost my self-control I'll just state this: I reserve the right to form an opinion regarding who's in the right and who's in the wrong at B and H. From my experience, this is seldom fully one-sided with both sides have some participation in wrong-doing. There are cases in which one side is 90 percent or more in the right or wrong but I think those situations are unusual. I refuse to condemn either party until all the facts are presented and the case is closed.
People are always going to believe what they want to believe, and their stated views are of course allowed by the laws of free speech. But their resulting decisions have no weight, as it's the decisions of the court that really matter.
There's an element of society that's always ready to boycott (i.e., guilty until proven innocent). In the US there are rules of law that mandate the opposite...
There are no such rules and never have been. Anyone in this country can boycott any entity for any reason at any time. US law concerning criminal guilt has no bearing on the matter.
Whether such boycotts are reasonable, justified or good ideas is another discussion entirely. But let's not confuse what applies to those charged with crimes and the freedom to patronize a particular merchant or not patronize that merchant.
Your link clarifies nothing. It relates to criminal charges/trials. The presumption of innocence isn't a "rule," it's law with respect to criminal charges/trials....allow me to clarify:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Innocent+until+proven+guilty
and note the ending statement "The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocencea presumption of guiltas being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society." So if this isn't a rule, then I don't know what is...
It's neither civil nor criminal. It's a labor relations matter. The only thing that's happened is attempted union organizing accompanied by a public relations effort. No reports indicate that charges or a civil action have been filed....Incidentally, I haven't noticed any indication so far that this subject will be handled as a civil vs criminal matter...
Your link clarifies nothing. It relates to criminal charges/trials. The presumption of innocence isn't a "rule," it's law with respect to criminal charges/trials.
...
It's important, however, especially for an international audience reading APUG, to be clear that the US has no "rule" against anyone reaching any conclusions they wish and boycotting any firm they see fit to.
It's important, however, especially for an international audience reading APUG, to be clear that the US has no "rule" against anyone reaching any conclusions they wish and boycotting any firm they see fit to.
...It's important, however, especially for an international audience reading APUG, to be clear that the US has no "rule" against anyone reaching any conclusions they wish and boycotting any firm they see fit to.
Yes, but the opposite is what's implied in the posts I was responding to.The opposite would be pretty strange...
Courtesy, like sense, is, unfortunately, not at all common....it is also a common courtesy that folks should provide to one another.
Would that it were so. Unfortunately, for a substantial percentage of the public, it's not. Thus, boycotts based on allegations happen. And it is necessary to select jurors (for criminal cases, not the subject of this thread) from those candidates who haven't been exposed to prior reporting of what allegedly transpired....While it may not be a legislated "rule" it seems, to me, that the majority feel this is the way it should be, regardless of whether we're talking about criminal/civil/any other actions that might be taken to resolve the issue...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?