Hacker News Reader

Comment by ctack | Hacker News Reader

How so?

The company culture derives from the founder's Southern Baptist background so sometimes they take unpopular political stances like opposing same-sex marriage. Some consider this as a moral failing rather than the other side of diversity.

If it wasn't "tainted" by its religious inception, mandatory Sunday closures would make Chick-fil-A the most progressive large service industry company in the United States from a labor welfare perspective. From a utilitarian perspective the human benefit, not to mention the unique example it sets, is incomparable to the company's [largely historical] anti-marriage equality political lobbying, especially considering that the company does not discriminate in its operations or hiring practices. (And AFAIK no credible accusation has ever been made in contradiction of that crucial fact.) It's sadly typical for social issue advocates across the spectrum to cut off their nose to spite their face in this manner.

I mean you take the good with the bad, and it's on a chicken franchise to determine how interesting they think it is to have their progressive Sunday policy framed next to their stance that gay people shouldn't be able to marry.

Has CF ever directly prevented a gay couple from getting married? Has any organization they have donated to ever directly prevented a gay couple from getting married?

Just because an individual or a company is perceived as disagreeing with your personal beliefs doesn't make it 'bad'.

CF happily sells its delicious chicken to everyone irrespective of their sexual orientation.

I have no idea how mandatory Sunday closures are a progressive measure, guaranteed that employees have the same amount of free days.

A lot of (most?) hourly work has employees permanently on call for shifts the next day or even same day.

Knowing which day you’re off lets you plan.

If you have a significant other and/or kids, it significantly raises the chance that all have a free day at the same day.

A static day off in an otherwise rotating schedule increases the quality of life for a retail worker considerably. It also happens to be a day off that many of your friends and family are also likely to have off, rather than often having random days off during the work week. A retail worker might actually be able to maintain a normal social life with a recurring Sunday off.

I fail to see how Sunday closures are progressive at all. If the total amount of time off isn't greater then it doesn't benefit workers more to have Sunday off as opposed to Friday or any other day of the week. From a utilitarian perspective having a restaurant close on the one day that most of their customers have free time to visit is highly inefficient.

If you work shift work then having Tues & Weds off while technically the same as Sat & Sun off (2 days off in a row) it is a tangibly worse "weekend".

You may have 2 days off but your friends and family are likely working during the days and in "nothing too exciting" mode in the evenings.

The benefit of everyone having Sunday off means that (for the most part) the rest of the world also has Sunday off and you get to enjoy time off with your friends and family.

I've worked shift work with only Fridays off before. It was not tangibly worst than having only Sunday off. In fact I would say it was better because dealing with certain government bureaucracies that close down on Sundays was significantly easier. You can't expect the entirety of society to shut down on Sundays so there's always going to be somebody who has to work during that day.

Doing something that doesn't benefit the customers but does benefit your workers (because not all days off are equal) is pretty progressive. It's not necessarily their intent as an organization, but it is the effect.

"If it wasn't "tainted" by its religious inception, mandatory Sunday closures would make Chick-fil-A the most progressive large service industry company in the United States from a labor welfare perspective. "

To imply something is 'tainted' by its religious inception is a kind of bigotry, moreover, it misses the point entirely: it's the very reason the company is ethical, or communitarian in many ways. Of course, even the very nation, or more broadly 'The West' is fundamentally Christian (or better described as mostly 'secular Christian'). Everyone has healthcare in Canada due to the 'Agrarian Left' which is essentially a brand of Christian Democracy. The same goes for the vast majority of Western institutions that were created more than a generation ago, including most Universities etc.. Consider that there might be more complexity concerning social issues in this world such that anyone with a voice mightn't be always playing favour specifically to you or your version of the 'morality'.

I think the previous poster agrees with you, hence the quotes around the word tainted.

>other side of diversity

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

And yet despite that, they still treat people with respect: https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_2564379

The last thing I'd expect a moral stand to be is popular.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com