Follow-Up: More about Adam Smith’s Purposeful Day — and why the woman he berated (yes, a woman: initial news reports had that detail wrong. Does this make his actions just a bit more repulsive?) wants to meet him again.
Previously: Adam Smith was so proud of what he did last week, he filmed it and posted it on YouTube:
To demonstrate his disapproval of Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy’s denunciation of gay marriage, he went to the take-out window of his local Chick-fil-A and berated the minimum-wage employee working there, telling her “Chick-fil-A is a hateful company” and “I don’t know how you stand it. This is a horrible company with horrible values.” The employee is seen on the video continuing to treat him politely, in the end wishing him a good day. “I will,” Smith told her. “I just did something really good. I feel purposeful.”
Smith was the chief financial officer and treasurer of a medical equipment manufacturer in Tucson, Arizona, but was fired after the video went viral.
I’ve made no secret of the fact that I didn’t think police officer John Parrault should have been fired for calling ballplayer Carl Crawford a “Monday” while off-duty (though I think I would have been okay with Perrault, Crawford and Mayor Mazzarella all losing their jobs, because there were no heroes in that story) — but Smith not only used terrible judgment, but demonstrated a level of misdirected cruelty — okay, let’s call it “hateful” — that made him, at the very least, an embarrassment to his company (though at least he didn’t call the employee a Sunday).
No word yet whether Smith will be suing for wrongful termination (or whether he’s figured out yet that he’s done anything wrong; presumably not, though, since as of Friday the video was still online on one of his YouTube pages).
The last time we wrote about Chick-fil-A: The “Eat More Kale” lawsuit
© 2012 by Bill Bickel unless otherwise noted.
He has posted another video on YouTube called Apologies and Clarifications. He seems sincerely regretful of his actions. Enough to get his job back? Doubtful.
I’m not sure I would say “misdirected”, since Chik-Fil-A does fund organizations opposed to gay marriage and therefore anybody working for them is indirectly funding this opposition. Anybody who works there realizing this is therefore responsible. (I must say, though, that such an argument would carry more weight in a better economy where it’d be easier to change jobs. Not to mention that many fast food employees don’t like working there no matter what the company president says or what organizations the company is funding.)
I’m not saying his actions were justified and I’m definitely not saying he shouldn’t have been fired. I’m just saying, yeah, anybody working for Chik-Fil-A does have a hand in it, however small.
“Misdirected” sounds right to me. It’s true that anyone who works for Chick-Fil-A can be said in some very, very small way to be contributing to opposition to gay marriage, but that contribution is so infintesimal, and the chance that yelling at some random minimum wage employee will somehow get the Chick-Fil-A president to change his actions, that I would say that yelling is “misdirected.” Everyone takes actions every day that have small indirect effects that they don’t necessarily intend, but can’t easily avoid — if you yell at everyone about all of these, you’ll be very busy indeed.
I disagree. Employees, particularly minimum wage employees, don’t support the top boss’ values. Maybe if you’re talking about, say, a car dealership, and talking about employees such as the service techs and the salesmen. The people supporting the boss’ values are the people who eat there.
Did this guy just drive through to berate the wage slave, or did he actually buy something? If he bought something, he’s doing more for the company and the boss than the employee has done.
For all we know, the employee is working there just to mess with the food of anyone who would eat in an establishment owned by this boss.
Smith ordered only a (free) cup of water, and remarked to the poor guy in the window that he hoped that by doing so he was taking money away from hate groups.
Is it just me, or does Smith seem to have the emotional make-up of a 12-year-old?
furrykef-
Are you saying that employees need to know exactly which charities their employers or corporate headquarters support and quit working if any money goes to a cause they don’t support?
It’s not the sort of thing most people know about their employers, true. But that could hardly be said for Chik-Fil-A at this point.
1. Berating a minimum wage employee who has no control over company policy whatsoever is just bullying.
2. But he’s doing it on his own time, so I don’t see that he should have been fired for that by his company.
In general I’d agree with your second point (see “Monday”): but I think it’s valid not to want to entrust your company’s finances to a man who shows this level of judgment and character issues.
On the other hand, firing this guy can suggest that maybe the boss of the medical equipment manufacturer is also against gay marriage.
I’d like to think that people in favor of gay marriage tend not to be the sort of morons who leap to conclusions like that.
I’m guessing Mr. Smith was fired for being demonstrably stupid. Not normally considered an asset in one’s chief financial officer.
This. Along with Bill’s comments about judgement and character issues. They may wrap it in terms of reflecting badly on the company, but they are essentially throwing a loose cannon overboard before it does some real damage.
“On the internet, no one know if you are a dog. Everyone knows if you are an @$$hole!”
The company I work for has posted social media guidelines for associates. Basically it’s don’t give any details about business plans, etc. and don’t do anything stupid that would reflect badly on the company.
A low level, unknown employee might get away with posting a video like that, but someone who’s known as a high level part of the company?
No Way.
Unless Smith is well-known in whatever the relevant community is for being associated with his employer, it seems to me that justifying his firing by saying that he’s bringing ill-repute upon said employer is a bit of a stretch. But I agree with Bill that he shows the emotional maturity of a 12-year-old.
(A couple of only-quasi-related things: 1: Back around the time of the “Eat More Kale” suit, my son and I were standing in a long line for something at the mall, and two representatives of the Chick-Fil-A came up to hand out free samples of chicken to the folks in line, which I thought was a clever exploitation of a somewhat-captive audience. One of said employees was someone in a cow suit, wearing an “Eat Mor Chikin” sign, and was clearly not allowed to speak while in costume. I explained to my son about Chick-Fil-A suing the “Eat More Kale” guy, and that I was boycotting Chick-Fil-A because of this, and I got a couple of big thumbs-up gestures from the person in the cow costume, who clearly didn’t feel that working in a probably-minimum-wage job for Chick-Fil-A meant agreeing with all of the company policies.
and 2: when Chick-Fil-A sued Bo Muller-Moore, I tried to buy an Eat More Kale t-shirt, but his web site and my then-current browser didn’t play well together. After Dan Cathy’s pronouncement, I finally got around to buying a t-shirt, so Chick-Fil-A has inadvertently been good for the “Eat More Kale” movement. I wore the shirt on Aug. 1, Tim Pawlenty’s proposed Chick-Fil-A support day, and had thought of going up to the mall to buy something from a neighboring food vendor, but didn’t get around to it.)
Oh, yes, I entirely agree that companies should fire executives who try to make life harder for other people they don’t employ or even know, no matter how justified they may consider themselves using their private moral scales.
That’s why I think Chic-fil-A should fire their awful CEO who made the comments which started this whole brouhaha.
Now, what were you saying about someone abusing a clerk?
What comments should he be fired for? Homosexuality and same sex marriage were never even mentioned in the interview. The media just decided to interpret his words how they saw fit. The part in question, I guess, was when he talked about his support for the traditional family. He made a comment that he is still married to his first wife. If anything, he bashed the idea of divorce.
Actually, those of us who have paid attention to Chic-fil-A in the past know that this guy is notoriously anti-gay. He gives money to anti-gay-marriage causes. He is rabidly right-wing. He’s been doing this nonsense for years; this was just the first time it became a big story in the broader media.
Sure, it’s possible that somehow, in the midst of all this, the guy is so colossally unaware of current
dog whistlesright-wing rhetorical terms that he used the term without knowing. It’s also possible that Adam Smith actually thought the clerk at his local Chic-fil-A was the CEO. Realistically speaking, neither idea is actually plausible.For starters, Chick-fil-A is privately held, and my guess is he is CEO because he owns the most stock. Actually, I’m beginning to think he is a marketing genius. He has roused the faithful to come out and spend money. There was an interesting op-ed piece in the LA Times yesterday. Dan Cathy knows his market.
The difference between John Parrault and Adam Smith is like the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder. My guess is that Parrault shouted his bit in the heat of the moment, while Smith acted with malice and aforethought. Smith planned AND videotaped it. He’s an idiot. I wouldn’t want him anywhere near my finances. I wouldn’t want him in any position where he had to have any contact with customers, suppliers, employees or passersby.