Ford considering amending employment policy's sexual orientation clauses
Ford’s shareholders are to reportedly consider changing the company’s equal employment policy language to exclude any mention of sexual orientation. The move is expected after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rejected the automaker’s bid to keep the matter from its proxy statement. As of right now, the Blue Oval’s policy includes clauses that specifically outline the company’s pledge not to discriminate based upon sexual orientation, but a request by shareholder Robert Hurley has submitted the proposal for consideration.
Ford has apparently been petitioning the government agency to exclude the issue, arguing that its inclusion will hurt the automaker’s chances of wooing potential employees at certain universities (that require sexual orientation to be included in recruiting companies’ policies), also fearing that backlash stemming from such a changeover could hurt sales to GLBT supporters.
The proxy statement goes out this Friday, at which point shareholders will vote on the issue. The result is expected to be made public on May 11 at Ford’s annual meeting.
[Source: Associated Press via Detroit News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
emulous1974 11:42AM (4/05/2006)
Just to note, from my understanding. It is not Ford as a company that wants to remove sexual orientation from it's non-discrimination charges, but a Shareholder, named Robert Hurley.
"The company had fought the motion, submitted by shareholder Robert Hurley of Alton, Ill, but when Alton took the issue to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission the commission said the automaker must put the resolution to a vote at Ford's annual meeting May 11."
Hmm...did someone from AFA finally buy some shares?
"The possibility of ending LGBT protections to workers delighted the American Family Association which is boycotting Ford over the company's advertising in the gay media.
"I find Ford's logic in asking the SEC to omit the resolution interesting," AFA Chairman Don Wildmon said in a statement.
"In essence Ford is saying they are concerned that a boycott by homosexual groups would financially hurt the company, but the boycott by the pro-family groups will not.""
source: www.365gay.com
Reply
Paul Wilson 12:09PM (4/05/2006)
That is without a doubt the most fitting image to put with this story. Kudos!
Reply
mj10990 12:27PM (4/05/2006)
I find the image attached to this story to be offensive.
Paul Wilson is a jerk.
Chris Paukert should apologize to autoblog readers.
Reply
Glenn 12:52PM (4/05/2006)
My Pastor bought a Mercury last year. I told him about what was going on with Ford and he may well not buy another Ford, and why should he?
For decades, no self-respecting Jew would buy Fords because Henry Ford the original was an anti-semite.
Ford thinks it's good business to offend a good portion of 85% of Americans to snuggle up to 2%?
Makes good business sense to them, I guess.
Reply
chairman 1:20PM (4/05/2006)
I find the image of mj10990 to be offensive.
mj10990 is a jerk.
mj10990 should apologize to autoblog readers.
:)
Reply
Michael 1:26PM (4/05/2006)
How is Ford 'offending' 85% of the population?
Reply
Paul Wilson 1:27PM (4/05/2006)
mj10990's sarcasm meter is broken, apparently.
Reply
Michael 1:27PM (4/05/2006)
How is Ford 'offending' 85% of the population?
Reply
James O 1:39PM (4/05/2006)
So basically, to avoid "offending" some people, Ford needs to start discriminating against its employees. And a supposedly Christian group is the party that wants to see this discrimination enacted? How very Christ-like.
How about this for size: Ford should stop hiring black people, it offends me. I won't buy a Ford as long as its made by non-white hands.
That wouldn't be acceptable, although that sort of thing is exactly what the AFA wants Ford to do to gay employees.
Cheers to Ford for defending human liberty and dignity, and for standing up to those who are in favor of oppression and discrimination.
Reply
Chris Paukert 1:56PM (4/05/2006)
MJ - The custom-paint F-150 image was used in a previous post on a similar topic without negative feedback, despite bringing a ton of comments (and was taken from an explicitly gay-friendly source to boot). That said, we're not in the business of offending people, so please consider this an apology. The image has been changed.
CP
Reply
Ryan 2:02PM (4/05/2006)
I just can't believe that someone is so *focused* on this. The majority of Americans do *not* believe in being able to be fired for simply being gay.
I'm really just, wow, don't know what to think of this person, he really wants it pulled because he think you should be able to fire gay people, how would they even know anyway if you never say anything?
Also, even if it is removed from company policy, they still have to follow state policy. I know even here in good ol' Nevada you can't fire someone for being just gay.
Reply
klaatu 2:15PM (4/05/2006)
How ignorant to ask "how is this offending 85%" when "up to 85" was written? 85% of Americans claim Christianity. Admittedly, many people who believe they are Christians are NOT, like those who extol unrepentant sin (churches who say "awww, God didn't REALLY mean it when he said don't commit adultery, or be a practising homsexual, or steal - do as YOU want and it's fine..." that is what is termed apostacy).
But, haven't you any concept of Judeo-Christian tradition? The fact that most Americans claim to be Christian? Even though maybe only 20% are? Still, 20% outnumber 2%, right? Isn't it "numbers, numbers" or is that only when it comes to "liberal" causes?
The fact that Christianity indicates that this secular "idea" of "my way is just as good as anyone else's way and I'll do as I DAMN well please" is no newer than the fall in Eden, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah or the majority of humans before the flood?
You can "choose" to "think" that walking off a cliff at Grand Canyon will result in your flying or faling with no more harm than that which befalls Wile E Coyote in cartoons. But you'll be just as DEAD when you hit the canyon floor. You can believe it. Until you "splat" into the fact that there is one reality. Not "what I want reality to be." See this for a reality check, folks.
http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/issues/articleid.19040/article_detail.asp
Reply
klaatu 2:24PM (4/05/2006)
Who said anything about firing people because they're gay?
The question is: Do unmarried men living together get special rights not given to others just because the have homosexual sex together, where another two men who are simply roomates, do not? If so, why?
And; if I don't believe in sending my money to an organization because they stand for and assist beliefs against mine, isn't that my right, or it that only the right of leftists when they don't shop at Wal-Mart or whatever? Hypocrites.
Reply
Elliott 2:49PM (4/05/2006)
klaatu,
I don't think people asking to be treated fairly during the application process and at work once hired is asking for special treatment. I think you totally misunderstand the issue at hand. If you're thinking healthcare, you're wrong. The outcome of this vote will have ZERO effect on Ford's healtchcare policies.
Ryan,
In the sate of Michigan, home to Ford's HQ, it is perfectly legal to fire someone based on their sexuality. Hang a picture of you holding your partner's hand in your office cube or invite your boyfriend to the company Christmas party and you could be fired, IF you were to work for a company without a policy such as Ford's.
Reply
klaatu 3:11PM (4/05/2006)
It's not right to fire people because of their sinful nature. Or, is it, but only in certain circumstances?
We're all sinful, fallen humans, Elliott. It's just that some of us are forgiven and attempt to live a Christ-like life and eschew sin. We are taught - do not hate the sinners (we are also one) but hate the sin.
Again; should there be times when we are not "required" to retain or hire certain people for certain jobs?
For example, were you to have a beloved daughter, would you like a convicted paedophile to be her teacher in gym or sex-ed? Well, would you?
If you hire people for movement of large amounts of money, would it be a "good plan" to be able to "discriminate" against any ex-bank robbers now out of prison, as hirees? Yeah, well, MAYBE YES.
But sexual orientation? If what you are saying is true, Elliott, we need some common sense answers in Lansing. BUT we likewise don't want to have the state "demand" that Christian churhes be required to hire Satanists, either.
There has to be some kind of balance, here. And common sense which is normally very lacking in all state and our Federal capital.
In other words, we don't want any situations such as last year where a German woman on unemployement who had been working as a waitress, was told that she MUST take a job as a (legal) prostitute, since it was a "similar line of work" - or else the German government would pull her unemployment income completely.
Here's a novel idea.
How about employees are allowed to hire as they please and people are allowed to take or not take jobs as they see fit? Wow, what a novel idea.
Nah. Too "1776" for modern life, right? Right?
Gosh, how did the folks manage before nanny state started "looking after us all"? And taking 1/3 of our money to do it?
Reply
Richard Warren 3:12PM (4/05/2006)
This is a perfect example of how Mom was right, you don't talk Politcs, Religion or Sex in public.
It's time to stop worrying about what other folks do and how they live.
It far past the time, when I need to know if someone is gay, not gay, bisexual, homosexual, transsexual,transgender, whatever. I really don't care, so long as they are a good employee or a good customer and are genuine people.
We are way to eager to label people and things we don't or don't want to understand or see in a certain way.
Think about it, if Christ came back today, long hair, flowing robes, put together a group of 12 men, men only, started talking peace and love, care to guess what they be labeled? GAYS Or because of their coloring, terrorists from "over there" Or a group of druggies.
You know it's sort of like the story earlier that GM (1 company) was overtaken by a group of Japanese companies.
Approx 33% of the world follows Christian teachings and that group can't even get along with each other very well.
21% is Islam
14% is Hindu
Jewish .22%
Buddhism 6%
Chinese traditional 6%
Non Religious hmmmmm 16%
Primal Religions 6%
So the majority of the world does not follow Christianity and that is comprised of a splinter group of about 12+ "followings"
So who has any right to say how someone should live, what is written and what is lived by individuals is a truly individual choice and each in the end may have it's consequences. If you beleieve that we were given "free will" then we all need to basically mind our own business regarding some issues.
Yep,
Mom was right, you don't talk Politcs, Religion or Sex in public.
Y
Reply
Richard Warren 3:18PM (4/05/2006)
Hey klaatu, it's Gort,
And taking 1/3 of our money to do it?
It's much more than that, think about all the TAX on TAX items, and additional items like the 911 surcharge on your phone bill, that is then taxed. Or our after tax dollars that pay sales, road use tax, etc:
Reply
Duke 3:24PM (4/05/2006)
Klaatu, you're a bigot.
And you don't desrve that name.
Now slink away and think of more ways to repress women.
Reply
Glenn 3:28PM (4/05/2006)
Nobody's getting hurt, here, Richard.
Sex and politics? Life.
We can't talk "life" on a car site? Only "stuff" (cars?)
Reply
klaatu 3:55PM (4/05/2006)
Duke, you're a complete moron.
You want to talk suppressing women?
Try Islam, not Christianity. Dumbass.
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_12289.shtml
Reply