Discuss Detroit Archives - Beginning January 2006 Ford Ordered to Include Anti-Gay Proposal Previous Next
Top of pageBottom of page

Spidergirl
Member
Username: Spidergirl

Post Number: 167
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 63.77.247.130
Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 10:32 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has told Ford Motor Co. it must include an anti-gay proposal In its annual meeting proxy, Automotive
News reports.

Ford had asked the SEC for permission to exclude a proposal from stockholder Robert Hurley, an Illinois doctor who wants the company to remove sexual orientation from its anti-discrimination policy, AN says.

The SEC says the issue must be presented for a
shareholder vote. Ford says its statement of opposition will argue that the proposed change would hurt recruiting efforts and sales of its vehicles.

http://www.autonews.com/apps/p bcs.dll/article?AID=/20060320/ SUB/60315020
Top of pageBottom of page

Crew
Member
Username: Crew

Post Number: 873
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 146.9.52.50
Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 10:45 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The is the kind of attack on civil rights for gays and lesbians that make me question the values this country has. The United States is not as free as most people believe.
Top of pageBottom of page

Spaceboykelly
Member
Username: Spaceboykelly

Post Number: 132
Registered: 04-2005
Posted From: 69.246.30.248
Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 10:57 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The vast majority of Fortune 500 companies have anti-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation. Also, the majority of major [and smaller cities] have similar policies.

The SEC is forcing a company to be less progresssive. There is an obvious political agenda here.

It seems like every single thing that Washington and the Bush Admin have done in the past few years has been harmful to Michigan, Detroit, and the Big Three.
Top of pageBottom of page

Spidergirl
Member
Username: Spidergirl

Post Number: 168
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 63.77.247.130
Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 11:14 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I am surprised to see this is coming from the SEC, but why Ford, and what's the motivation?
Top of pageBottom of page

Gogo
Member
Username: Gogo

Post Number: 1340
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 198.208.251.21
Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 11:28 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Introduction
The mission of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation.

http://www.sec.gov/about/whatw edo.shtml




Its a good thing they are going after Ford for having policies that try to eliminate discrimination. We wouldn't want the SEC to be bothered with issues that created the Enron and other scandals that left investors SOL. The real threat to investors is anti-discrimination policies.
Top of pageBottom of page

Track75
Member
Username: Track75

Post Number: 2256
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 12.75.21.182
Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 11:37 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Y'all are obviously missing the point here.

It's not about the SEC's view of anti-discrimination policies. It's about a shareholder's right to place a proposal on the proxy.

If you've every read a proxy statement for the annual meeting of a major corporation there are always proposals from some fringe shareholders or agitators that seem kinda stupid but are required to be voted on by the shareholders at large. Usually they come from left-of-center, this one comes from the right.

The SEC's action serves to uphold shareholder rights, which is one of their primary functions. Sexual orientation corporate policy initiatives are not within their purvue.
Top of pageBottom of page

Spidergirl
Member
Username: Spidergirl

Post Number: 169
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 63.77.247.130
Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 11:40 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Track - good point. Thanks for the insight!
Top of pageBottom of page

Rustic
Member
Username: Rustic

Post Number: 2233
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 130.132.177.245
Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 11:44 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Guys, guys investors have a right to make proposals (with or without merit). One of the strengths of our public stock system is that individual investors have a representative voice among their fellow shareholders. One of the SEC's jobs is to make sure this happens (unless this proposal is somehow illegal (which it may be I don't know) or there are some specifics with F and their stock structure (which there might be, I dunno)).

Consider shareholder driven movements to force comanies to divest from certain countries or from certain businesses, or how about the recent HP rebellion over gross mismanagement or (maybe ... time will tell ...) Kerkorian/York forcing GM's hand -- shareholders voicing their concerns are a good thing, even if you disagree with this specific proposal.
Top of pageBottom of page

Crew
Member
Username: Crew

Post Number: 874
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 146.9.52.50
Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 11:45 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Track, I understand the SEC's position. My position is that this country doesn't offer the same civil rights to individuals based on sexual orientation as it does for other groups. The SEC would be able to back Ford if it blocked a shareholder's proposal to ban a certain race or religious group from the campany's workforce.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rustic
Member
Username: Rustic

Post Number: 2234
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 130.132.177.245
Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 11:46 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

oops track75 said what I said while I was posting it ... Yay Capitalism*!

*with the appropriate (democratically elected) gvt. oversight and controls to maintain fair trade and equitable market conditions

(Message edited by rustic on March 21, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Track75
Member
Username: Track75

Post Number: 2257
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 12.75.21.182
Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 12:07 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

rustic, good points! LOL Yay Capitalism indeed.

Crew, I've got no argument with your post #874.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jiminnm
Member
Username: Jiminnm

Post Number: 353
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 68.35.85.184
Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 12:56 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Track, as EdMcMahon used to say, "you are correct." This has nothing at all to do with the content of the proposal, merely with the process of getting it on the proxy.

Crew, whether or not the SEC supported Ford on such a request would entirely depend on its wording. If the policy would contravene a federal law or a recognized constitutional right, then Ford would likely prevail because it couldn't legally implement such a policy. With this specific change, I'm not sure how Ford can fully implement the policy for its employees in states that include sexual orientation in its anti-discrimination laws.
Top of pageBottom of page

Arc312
Member
Username: Arc312

Post Number: 11
Registered: 01-2006
Posted From: 35.11.161.238
Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 1:29 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The article that was refered to in the link was very brief, so I'm not aware of what exactly the motive if the shareholder was. (Is this dude a rightist or leftist?)

Some gay activists, back when the first parts of 2oth century movement was forming (post-WWII) didn't want gays to be considered a minority group, while some did (American Communisits supported 'self determiniation' of gays, in the same way they did for blacks).

The motive for some not supporting gays as a minority was because they thought that it would attract more harm than help from the general public by further painting gays and lesbians as different.

"Should gays be considered their own group, with gay cities, language, culture, etc?" or "Should gays keep in touch with the same gender roles of post-WWII America, with one minor difference?"

Think GL involvment in WWII and the arguments Franklin Kameny, and Harry Hay.

Many old timers want the GLBT community to refrain from becoming too distinct.

Oops..too late.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.