Nonetheless, I will never again grace the doors of a Starbucks. Not that I ever have. The only Starbucks coffee I've had was one cup seven years ago. On my last day at the bank I worked for, one of my coworkers who knew I had never gone to a Starbucks bought me one of their cups of coffee. Eh. I wasn't impressed, though the gesture was nice. For me, coffee is coffee. As far as I'm concerned the most impressive part of a can of coffee is a cheap price tag.
In any event, Starbucks has gone beyond simply throwing its support for abortion rights, which I expect from most of corporate America today. Nope. Starbucks has said it will pay actual money for its employees to travel to different states to get an abortion if Roe is overturned.
Again, I get why Corporate America long ago threw the Christian element of our heritage out the window. A faith based on 'Blessed are the Poor' is anathema to the bottom line. Plus, sexed up, drugged up godless narcissists with nothing but animal pleasures in this world are a marketing department's dream come true.
Nonetheless, I have my limits. When a company doesn't just endorse, but actively helps, grave and intrinsic evils, then by golly they'll never sell me my second cup of coffee if I have anything to say about it.
IMO, state corporation law should maintain a strict distinction between business, professional, and philanthropic corporations.
ReplyDeleteIn re philanthropic corporations, they might be one of a dozen or so distinct types. The activities of each type would have to be limited to those specified in their charter. The degree to which they could have interlocking directorates with other philanthropies would be regulated. The franchise to give grants of cash, vouchers, insurance, or comestibles to individual persons and households would be limited to those classified as 'charitable' or 'religious'. The franchise to make grants to other philanthropic corporations would be limited to political parties, contribution bundlers, and foundations. The first two could give grants only to campaign committees and to no one else. The latter could give grants to any sort of body other than a corporation classified as a political organization (i.e. a political party, contribution bundler, campaign committee, or lobbying and advocacy group). By law, philanthropic bodies could begin with a self-regenerating board but would, after a period of time, have to incrementally replace their self-regenerators with a board elected by legally-defined stakeholders in a postal ballot supervised by the state board of elections. Religious corporations and their affiliates could be granted a special dispensation to allow for episcopal governance. Contribution bundlers, campaign committees, and foundations would be evanescent by law, forced to liquidate within a term of years (say, 12 years, 4 years, and 60 years).
Proprietorships, partnerships, business corporations, and professional corporations would be debarred by law from making donations to any party and philanthropic bodies would be debarred by law from accepting donations from any such parties. If the owners of these entities want to make donations out of their personal resources, they can do that without raiding business accounts.
Business and professional concerns have some free-speech protections. It might be possible to require by law that promotional expenditures for purposes other than marketing the goods and services of the business be drawn from a 'public services budget' approved at the annual shareholders meeting.
Corporate philanthropy is pernicious.
I'm not sure that would even be a bump in the road for Starbucks' "benefit" to its employees. Even a ban on giving the employees cash specifically to obtain abortions could be circumvented easily enough -- they would perhaps give a "pregnancy benefit" sufficient for travel to the nearest abortion clinic, with no restriction on whether that was used for prenatal care or abortion. Or something else to the same effect. Remember, you're talking about the experts in finding loopholes in and creative interpretations of contracts, laws, and regulations.
DeleteBut as long as we're dreaming, I'd like to see laws that would do something more to align the interests of corporate officers with those of the business. The CEO of any of the major corporations we might discuss -- Starbucks, Disney, General Motors, Apple, whatever -- have likely already made enough money for several lifetimes by the time they reach that job, so they should be able to afford to ruin a company and get fired just to prove a point to their friends at the next cocktail party. There's not much that can be done about that, I'm afraid, but perhaps their compensation could be linked much more strongly to the company's performance, and not just its performance over the short term. Even that cannot guarantee moral outcomes, of course, since there is a market for companies that cater to immoral outcomes; Starbucks presumably made the "abortion travel benefit" public because they think it will gain them more customers than it loses them.
I expect the bean counters at Starbucks will get rid of this malicious perk in a few years. I'm talking about a different problem
DeleteSo was I, at least for the 1st part of the 2nd paragraph. It's always nice to somehow tie in to the original post, though.
DeleteAs for getting rid of the "perk", you're right -- as long as they can do it without drawing attention. Posturing without following through is much more cost-effective.
DeleteI seldom put much stock in the moral advocacy of vast corporations. But I do pay attention when they go out of their way to sanction or aid evil.
DeleteI'm sorry but more governmental intrusion into corporations is not the answer to anything. It is the beginning of more and more restrictions and control over the private sector. Companies will rise and fall according to the markets they cater to. We(consumers)already have the freedom to either buy their products or not. A government edict will not change anything except as I said more governmental control. Let corporations suffer or die on their own merit or lack thereof. Twitter, Disney and CNN have shown us how it's done. Without government help.
ReplyDeleteYou're not wrong.
DeleteBut have you heard of larry fink and the ESG?
I would love it if there was a massive run on accounts and Blackrock suddenly found its accounts drained as people pulled out to put into smaller firms.
If you have reflexive responses to everything, you're not helping the problem, you're part of it.
DeleteI don't know about governmental interference or not. I didn't really bring that up. I merely said that no matter how effective vast boycotts are or aren't, I can personally do my best not to help a corporation that has gone beyond sanctioning evil tto actively aiding it.
DeleteI don't buy a cup of Joe very often when I'm out and about, but I'll never go to Starbucks, for the following reasons. Their coffee is ridiculously high priced. They're bigoted against policemen. And now, they're offering the help their employees to get abortions. If you want to get a decent cuppa Joe at a reasonable price, go to Dunkin' Donuts or a local coffee house that keeps its mouth shut about it political stands.
ReplyDeleteI know I'm not the only one who gets his coffee at gas stations while on long trips.
DeleteYep. As I said, I didn't go there to begin with. But I would happily drink nothing but water for the rest of my life if my only other choice was a Starbucks cup of Joe.
DeleteThe reason for boycotts is to avoid cooperating with evil, not changing a company's ways. If you can change their practices that's a nice bonus.
ReplyDeleteNow in many cases it is necessary to do business with companies engaged in evil practices and the mere act of buying something from most companies is so remote of cooperation that it usually isn't sinful. But there are some times where a company has made the fact that they hate you and hate God so clear, and their products are so easy to avoid, that it really does make yourself a worse person to continue buying from them. Starbucks is one such case, Netflix is another. Amazon would be a case where their hate is clear enough, but it is difficult to avoid using them completely (though it is certainly possible to reduce the amount you rely on them.)
I fear if we followed the money it would be almost impossible to cut ties with any corporation that peddles in sins and evil. But I agree that when a company goes out of its way to not only endorse, but actively work to engage in, intrinsic evils that's when I can kick the dust off.
DeleteI'm not a Starbucks customer (I've been inside once, and that was years ago). I wish I was, just so I could stop being one.
ReplyDeleteHeh. That's my only regret. I wish I was a faithful customer. As it is, I'll have to settle for never again drinking the highly overpriced coffee.
DeleteA faith based on 'Blessed are the Poor' is anathema to the bottom line.
ReplyDeleteOn a technical sense... not really. By the obvious observation that the poor greatly outnumber the rich, there is incentive to push the costs of things down to the point the poor can afford them because you expand your customer base. It's how nowadays like 99% of America's "poor" can afford refrigerators and TVs and other items that were beyond the dreams of some of our great-grandparents. (Heck I have an aunt that remembers when running water was finally installed at the house she grew up in.)
Still there's a LOT of factors affecting businesses right now. I don't want to just flood your comment section with a long rant, but if you REALLY want to start digging into it, read about stuff like... payment processors.
https://archive.ph/fvlKw
Too many Christians (even those who would otherwise be totally orthodox, like many Dorathy Day fans) buy into the idea that all capitalists are equivalent to the Ferengi. I like Star Trek as much as the next guy but Star Trek isn't real life. They mistakenly think that anybody that disagrees with they're methods of helping the poor must simply not care. Helping the poor is great but if it comes at the expense of good business decisions, all you've done is created more poor people due to needing to lay workers off, not to mention your business is now weaker and thus you will be helping fewer poor folks in the long term. It's true that Capitalism has many flaws, but so does every other system. Capitalism just seems to be the least flawed system. Not that I expect Dorathy Day fans to understand nuance.
DeleteMaybe it would help if you defined what YOU mean by capitalism, and when you think it came into being.
DeleteI say that because many people seem to think in binary terms, with "Capitalism" and "Communism" being the only two alternatives. In this scheme, "Capitalism" is characterized by private property, and since private property has been around apparently since Cain and Abel, so has "Capitalism".
DeleteSadly, this idea of "Capitalism" is usually accompanied by the idea that the moral justification of a business is that it makes money, and the making of money is a sacrament that washes away all sins. Many of the same people who condemn those who have decided that God didn't really mean what it sounds like when He condemned popular sexual sins have themselves decided that Jesus did not mean what it sounds like when He said, "Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Indeed, it is not hard to find people who think the love of money is the root of all good, not only giving us our nearly perfect society in America but also being the key to all the good ideas we wish to export to China.
On the other hand, I was taught that there are a variety of economic systems, including Feudalism and Mercantilism. Capitalism developed out of Mercantilism when people -- the powerful people, of course -- decided that it was now a good thing if "money made money". Much of this "money making money" idea fell under what earlier generations had called usury. This was a "discovery" on par with slavery. In the case of slavery, no one had ever doubted that one could make more money by forcing people to work for no pay, and it sort of worked; likewise, no one every doubted money could be made by usury, and that also sort of works.
To wrap up, in either case Capitalism has somewhat questionable moral foundations, though to be fair, so does everything humans have ever made. In spite of this, it probably works well enough as long as it is not made into a religion.
Capitalism developed out of Mercantilism when people -- the powerful people, of course -- decided that it was now a good thing if "money made money"
DeleteUh, no.
Much of this "money making money" idea fell under what earlier generations had called usury. This was a "discovery" on par with slavery. In the case of slavery, no one had ever doubted that one could make more money by forcing people to work for no pay, and it sort of worked; likewise, no one every doubted money could be made by usury, and that also sort of works.
Interest is the price of credit. Credit allows an economic actor to distribute investment and consumption between time periods.
Nate, I'm sure there are many factors buzzing about in the business world, as there always are. But something happened where Madison Avenue suddenly realized it was beneficial for the bottom line to not just cozy to the Left, but to outright embrace the Left's drive to abolish the residue heritage of the Christian Western democracies once and for all. I think things like what Starbucks is doing somehow fits with that. I don't want to come off as some crazy conspiracy theorist, but I can't muster the credulity needed to think it's all just a bunch of random factors and businesses doing things that appear to point in the same direciton.
DeleteI wonder if they pay pregnant women who want to keep their babies for travel that isn't covered by their insurance. If not, I smell a Pregnancy Discrimination Act lawsuit in the offing.
ReplyDeleteIt would serve them right. But like so many corporations, I think they see the value in a godless, hedonistic generation of narcissists, and will funnel funds accordingly.
Delete