Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Does anyone else find this disturbing?Follow

#1 Oct 31 2008 at 5:35 PM Rating: Good
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-30-gun-ceo-ousted_N.htm

Quote:
WASHINGTON — Montana gunsmith Dan Cooper has been ousted as chief executive of the rifle company that bears his name after pressure from gun owners who are angry that he is supporting Democrat Barack Obama.


I suppose a company needs to do what it can to stay in business, but it seems a little extreme that a man should loose his job and his company because of who he voted for. I guess he is in the business that attracts some of the more rabid conservatives.
#2 Oct 31 2008 at 5:39 PM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Wint wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-30-gun-ceo-ousted_N.htm

Quote:
WASHINGTON — Montana gunsmith Dan Cooper has been ousted as chief executive of the rifle company that bears his name after pressure from gun owners who are angry that he is supporting Democrat Barack Obama.


I suppose a company needs to do what it can to stay in business, but it seems a little extreme that a man should loose his job and his company because of who he voted for. I guess he is in the business that attracts some of the more rabid conservatives.


Well, the CEO is an elected position right, don't Board members vote them in?

So if the Board members don't believe that his personal view points will lead to the most profit for the company, I can see the Board choosing the remove him.

(Obviously limiting gun ownership and sales would lead to less sales, and less money.)
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#3 Oct 31 2008 at 5:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Wint wrote:
I suppose a company needs to do what it can to stay in business, but it seems a little extreme that a man should loose his job and his company because of who he voted for. I guess he is in the business that attracts some of the more rabid conservatives.


To be fair, it's not that he voted for (or intends to vote for) Obama, but that he said so in an article in a major US periodical. If he wants to vote for Obama, that's his business. But when he's giving an interview for an article as the CEO of a company, what he says reflects on the company. The customers have an absolute right to threaten boycott in this case, and the board of directors can take action on that if they wish.


Would you be surprised at all if the head of a Union gave an interview in which he said he supported a candidate widely believed to be anti-union and the union demanded he resign? It's the same thing. Free speech does not mean "speech free of consequences". A choice to boycott is also an expression of free speech...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4 Oct 31 2008 at 5:51 PM Rating: Good
I know nothing was technically done wrong, but even if he didn't announce it to the world, and somehow it got out, the same thing would happen (I would guess anyway). The board voted him out, but it's because of the consumers that they did so. I'm sure the board themselves could care less who he voted for or supports, they're just caving to the mob.

That being said, it sounds like they cater to a smaller crowd, and so need to bend to their wishes. I've known a few outdoorsmen in my time and none of them would pony up $1600 for a rifle.
#5 Oct 31 2008 at 5:59 PM Rating: Good
****
4,901 posts
Well, I tell you what, I'll never buy a Cooper rifle now! That'll show 'em! And maybe I'll go buy a few Winchesters instead just to spite them. And then I'll go down the Cooper offices and wave them around to taunt them. I'll say things like "Oooh I bought a Winchester because your rifles are stinky!"
____________________________
Love,
PunkFloyd
#6 Oct 31 2008 at 6:00 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,453 posts
Wint wrote:
That being said, it sounds like they cater to a smaller crowd, and so need to bend to their wishes. I've known a few outdoorsmen in my time and none of them would pony up $1600 for a rifle.


My gun-nut buddy happily dropped 5 grand for one of those .50 cal sniper rifles when they first became available. I'd estimate he easily has $80,000 worth of weapons. To be fair, he is a federally licensed firearms instructor, avid hunter and competitive shooter, but still... that's an expensive hobby.
#7 Oct 31 2008 at 6:04 PM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Deathwysh wrote:
Wint wrote:
That being said, it sounds like they cater to a smaller crowd, and so need to bend to their wishes. I've known a few outdoorsmen in my time and none of them would pony up $1600 for a rifle.


My gun-nut buddy happily dropped 5 grand for one of those .50 cal sniper rifles when they first became available. I'd estimate he easily has $80,000 worth of weapons. To be fair, he is a federally licensed firearms instructor, avid hunter and competitive shooter, but still... that's an expensive hobby.


I've got a Mexican uncle who is none of those, yet still has a **** ton of weapons in his den. Of course he has a locked, fire proof, firearms safe. And they are all registered and such. He has even taken them across the boarder with no issues.

He just likes guns.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#8 Oct 31 2008 at 6:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Wint wrote:
I know nothing was technically done wrong, but even if he didn't announce it to the world, and somehow it got out, the same thing would happen (I would guess anyway).


Remember though. It wasn't his vote (who would know?). He also donated 3k to the Obama campaign. That's certainly his right, and if he hadn't said so in the interview, no one would have noticed or likely cared.

The problem was made worse when the company responded to angry questions about this by saying that he only did it to help defeat Clinton in the primaries, and that he'd also donated to McCain and the RNC. But then it turned out he hadn't. Oops!


Quote:
The board voted him out, but it's because of the consumers that they did so. I'm sure the board themselves could care less who he voted for or supports, they're just caving to the mob.


Of course. But that's the boards job, right? You call it "caving to the mob", but all businesses have to respond to their customers wishes. There's nothing wrong with this at all.


I guess my point is that I don't find it disturbing at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#9 Oct 31 2008 at 7:12 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,784 posts
Please stop posting tripe, that make Gbaji sound like a genius.

This will only encourage him to strangle a prostitute at some random Truckstop somewhere in Califorinia tonight, please try harder.
#10 Oct 31 2008 at 11:28 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
I think Gbaji's first post in this thread brings up some good points, but I think Wint's OP brings up good points too. As in, that this happened is disturbing to me, but in the end this is all allowable in a robust democracy and private market. I think however that it's worthwhile examining from a lot of angles to see if everything that's going on in the chain of events is alright.

In most cases I don't think someone should ever lose their jobs because of how they vote. People should be able to be totally free to vote solely based on their own good moral conscience, or on their own perceived interest. In this case I can see arguments for why this person should in the end lose their job.

I also believe in the right for people to use their consumer power in consumer boycotts for political purposes. I believe in the right for boards to sack their CEO for harming the company's interests, as long as they are not wanting the CEO to act illegally or obviously immorally.


I think it's worthwhile for people to examine and have a think about how our laws and our social mores permit or encourage our large private companies to act. Their actions can have far-reaching consequences, and I personally believe they need to give a little moral thought about their actions as well as taking all their rights within the law. It's no more and no less than I expect from myself and other individuals, and in this case I think they have a little more duty of care because of their wide reach.
#11 Nov 01 2008 at 5:39 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,909 posts
I think it's a stupid thing to fire someone for, but not exactly something you can stop them from doing. It may be stupid if a radio show host announces his torrid man-lust for Hitler but we can't stop him from expressing an opinion.

Besides, you can vote for or be a member of a party without supporting their agenda 100%. I've met gay Republicans before. Just because the extreme right of their party leadership says they're a sin against God doesn't mean they have to suppress their opinions regarding tax cuts and a free market. He can agree with the Democrat position on the war and the economy without supporting their position on gun registration.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 212 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (212)