Target a target?

[Kevin Hendrick]

Hellooo Mishter Denny!


Well ... It's really Dennehy
And this is going back a ways.

Yes, Frank-ly, it is (but some of us remember) ...

[Rick Denney]

My only real involvement is this whole "Tarjay" thing is this: I volunteer with a Vets group and Target used to donate blankets, toiletries, a few misc food items, and a small amount of cash to help out some very elderly and forgotten-by-their-families-and-country veterans.

Then why defend the whole notion that the board is French-controlled and influenced by homosexuals? Can't we just say that as a corporation, Target has become more rather than less stingy, and vow to use the money we save there to be generous as individuals?

And who benefits from money given as a result of coercion? Remember that God commands us to be generous, and we should obey for the simple purpose that doing so is the key to being happy on this earth. Coercion does not result in generosity, it results in extortion. I don't see any Godly result from that mechanism.

Most corporations give loudly for the purpose of receiving praise. That is also not a Godly purpose.

And you can replace "corporations" in the above with "government" if you like.

Rick "who thinks generosity is an individual rather than corporate responsibility" Denney

[Rick Denney]

I'm not defending it at all. In fact, it was someone else that even mentioned the homosexual aspect of this "problem". Once people like you got going, I just responded to your posts. I've repeatedly stated that the only interest I have is as follows:...

...The only time I mentioned the "French" issue is my very first post on this in another thread.

In this thread, you drew the distinction between board control and stock ownership, after it was disproven that the French owned a majority of stock. Why would you do that if you weren't defending the notion that Target Corporation was controlled by the French? You further suggested that non-French sounding names didn't mean the people in question weren't French, which could only be seen as a commitment to the belief that the French controlled the Target board. And you may have only defended the French aspect, but it seemed pretty easy for me to dispose of the homosexual issue at the same time (is the Chairman of Xerox, for example, likely to be a gay activist?). That you didn't explicitly defend the assumption of homosexual control doesn't mean you weren't associated with the notion that the board was controlled by people evilly opposed to the welfare of veterans or Christians.

...That came from Target employees, so if you'd like to crucify me for believing a company employee (you know, one of those worker bees to upper management), go right ahead.

Point 1: Why would you assume that the employee to whom you talked didn't have an axe to grind? Before I would publicly announce a connection like the one you have defended, I'd want to do just the sort of fact checking I did to refute it (it took me five minutes). Given that you have been in upper management, surely you knew that a publicly traded corporation must publicly disclose its governance, and nowadays most do it on their website. Repeating what a low-level employee said without that little bit of checking is to report hearsay, and that is the gossip I oppose so strongly.

Point 2: The fact that you use the word "crucifying" to describe the debate against you is demonstration of how these things gather steam. People often let their rhetoric get the better of them (I know; I'm as likely to be guilty of it as anyone and have been called down on it many times). I didn't crucify you even in the figurative sense. My response to you was a statement of fact and a few obvious conclusions from those facts. How can we have civilized debate if any debate at all is interpreted as being "crucified"?

Rick "whose corporation does not give to veterans groups" Denney

[Rick Denney]

And because you didn't criticize pedophiles must mean that you are associated with endorsing them (Silly, yes, but I hope you see my point.). You're trying make me responsilbe for the comments of others here...

Not at all. The argument didn't hinge on whether the source of evil was French or homosexual, but that there was malicious intent on the Target board. That seems an unreasonable assumption based on either cause, even if the lower-down employees don't agree with the policy.

The information you are accepting as fact (as is your right) seems to me to be contrary to what I have heard from people with whom I have had good working relationships. This is what makes me skeptical. Each of us only has our own experiences to draw from. Mine make me suspicious of the corporate spin presented for general consumption. Web pages are not legal documents and are subject to "error".

You aren't suggesting that the SEC filings are faked or that the list of board members in the Corporate Governance portion of Target's website are fraudulent, are you? That's what it sounds like, or are you playing Devil's Advocate again?

The problem with gossip is that those who are spreading can be completely honest and moral, which is what makes rumors sound true even without any basis in fact. It is an insidious temptation, because it seems harmless. All of us have done it, and rumors spread in companies (especially companies with morale problems) like widlfire--the more negative the faster. But truth and plausibility aren't the same thing by any means.

See, I knew you were evil... Just kidding.

Yes, that's me! Let them starve!

Actually, my point throughout all of this is that publicly traded corporations are generous only when it suits their publicity plan or the egos of their leaders. When we place the expectation of generosity on corporations (I'm talking about external giving here, not how they treat their employees and customers), we are treating them like people instead of companies, and that gives them more moral standing than they deserve. I would rather give to those who with my beliefs and values I feel need what I have to give, not have that decision taken away from me by paying higher prices so those who I buy from can make those decisions for me. Many corporations try to aggrandize their CEO's and boards by being generous with whoever they want to be generous with, and often that's someone I oppose (these are the companies that call themselves "socially responsible"--responsible to whom?). Let them do it with their own money, then they can toot their own horn all they want, though then the praise they seek is all they will get. I don't even mind if they vigorously recommend their favored charities to their employees and customers.

If society is ungenerous, it is the fault of the people in that society, not the commercial companies. Only people can be generous, either singly or collectively. Corporations will not survive to eternity, but as a Christian I believe people will. Thus, the responsibility of charity lies with people as moral beings. This makes sense: The point of a corporation is to create an entity that has a legal presence that survives any one individual. The individuals are anonymous before corporations (in Italy and other latin-language countries, the abbreviation is SA, or Societe Anonyme, instead of Inc.), but uniquely responsible to God.

This was not the point you were debating, but it is a logical outgrowth of vilifying a corporation like Target for being ungenerous. Again, the conservative political position, as well as the Christian position, is to do these things as individuals, so I thought it ironic that this one went the way it did in the media.

Rick "who has summed up and will now let it be" Denney

[ThomasDodd]

OF COURSE they SHOULD follow the law, and gently remind you to review the last three to four years of corporate malfeasance in the United States. I invite you to consider that the only thing limited is your view.

I invite you to examine the thousands of public companies and 10's of thousands of private companies during the last 3 to 4 years. That you would paint all those companies with the same brush is dissapointing. Imagine if the entie collective of tuba players were judged based on the ranting of a few members of this board? Say t4s or even me?

[ThomasDodd]

As to the hint from another person that corporate malfeasance is common just because of a few recent high-profile cases, I would say that even if it was true (and I don't think it was), it isn't any more. Sarbannes-Oxley has made it quite difficult to cook the books in any big way. I guarantee you that having to sign that personal certification has put the fear of God into CEO's (my own CEO, who has never cooked books that I can tell, took the new requirements VERY seriously). The consequences are severe enough to get their attention. Incompetence, perhaps, though that is certainly not the exclusive domain of corporations.

Sarbannes-Oxley is one of the worst pieces of legislation written/passed in the last 100 years. CEO's and and the rest of the company officers are forced to spend time and money to insure compliance that would better be spent running the company. The Board of Directors will spend most of their time covering compliance, and pounding the company officers on it instead of fullfilling their rolls is an even bigger waste.

As the CEO of you company how much time/money he spends on S-O compliance, and how much time in the board meetings is taken up with S-O issues. He may not voluenteer it, but I suspect, if you ask, he'll be happy to let you know just what S-O is costing the company.

My CEO is rather right leaning, and anti-government. He also has no problem letting the entire company know how he feels about any issue.

S-O is a hysterical reaction to the poor managemnt of a few companies. It is punishing all companies for the bad actions of a few. My company (and your's I suspect) are still run the same way. S-O has changed nothing in that regard. It has only wasted people's time, and the company's profit (and thus the shareholders).

[ThomasDodd]

Point 1: Why would you assume that the employee to whom you talked didn't have an axe to grind? Before I would publicly announce a connection like the one you have defended, I'd want to do just the sort of fact checking I did to refute it (it took me five minutes). Given that you have been in upper management, surely you knew that a publicly traded corporation must publicly disclose its governance, and nowadays most do it on their website. Repeating what a low-level employee said without that little bit of checking is to report hearsay, and that is the gossip I oppose so strongly.

Of couse histor show that whistleblowers tend to be the middle level people with and axe to grind. Those higher up tow the line, and spin the company line. Those lower down, don't know enough to blow any whistles.

This is true in corporations, small companies, and government.