> to be clear: I also find policies such as separating families and detaining children wrong and contrary to the best interests of our country. "I simply have all the ability and none of the desire to do anything about it"
[deleted]
Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE
31–40 of 126 posts
Re: Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're suggesting that nobody should every take a stand for what they feel is right and good because their actions are too insignificant anyway? Grim.
No, the above poster is pointing out the dishonesty in claiming that Chef has the ability to stop family separation and detainment.
I don't see anyone claiming that
Re: Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE
#33Good. Businesses passing judgment on their customers due to public pressure from vocal activists is not a good precedent.
Re: Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE
#34[deleted]
Re: Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can see where he's coming from: if he refuses to do business with ICE because he disagrees with something they're doing (whether he or they are actually wrong), he's implicitly endorsing every aspect of every customer he does choose to do business with.
Also committing to scrutinize the internal business practices of every future partner. It's easy enough to point at ICE and say that they're actions don't align with your values. But you're setting a precedent for your company - one that will be very hard to live up to down the road.
You don't see the divide between those who operate concentration camps, and those who do not?
Re: Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE
#36Re: Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am sure if chef withrdrew their services then suddenly the entire DHS would become sane and kind.
You're suggesting that nobody should every take a stand for what they feel is right and good because their actions are too insignificant anyway? Grim.
People should definitely take a stand against something that they were previously okay with when another administration was in power.
Re: Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
What ability does Chef have to change family separation and detainment? These things would still be happening if ICE had to go back to whatever they were using before Chef.
but they might be harder. Which is the point. Private people can resist abhorrent policies by putting up roadblocks or at least not making it easier
Harder how? Explain how making ICEs deployment pipeline slower will make ICE release migrants or stop family separation.
If you want to claim that Chef should cease business with ICE explicitly on the moral grounds that no company should have any business with the agency, that is a valid claim. But to say that Chef had any influence, let alone "all the ability" as the root commenter wrote, to affect ICE's conduct is not a statement I find to be honest.
Re: Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE
#39For the record (if it matters) I am very pro-immigration and pro-immigrant rights, but I don't think denying chef services to ICE will actually do anything - let me explain. Lets look at this from another perspective (couldn't hurt, right?). I am a company that sells paper. Some companies might use this paper for very bad things (printing out patents?). Do I comb through all my clients and determine what they are usi…
They don't have to look at the moral behavior of every person they work with, they just need to listen to their employees. The likelihood of employees being able to actually abuse that privilege is pretty low since it requires a lot of collaboration. Also this is not about "doing anything" in the sense of stopping ICE. This is about an individuals right to choose who they want to support and work with. Would you really expect an immigrant to feel good about working with an organization like ICE and facilitating their bad behavior?
Re: Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE
#40This is actually a tough thing to deal with for executives. I can see some black and white issues like providing software to the Chinese government or some other authoritarian regime like that. In the US where the government only lasts for 4 years would it be prudent to sever ties like that? Software and services contracts are meant to last longer than (hopefully). So the slot once gone is gone. Also, the same people who are with ICE procurement will be there after Trump leaves. Will they be willing to talk to them later on? Even if the government's agenda changed, chances are the personal agendas of the employees in ICE have not. So how should that impact the decision making? Would it not be better to provide funding to causes you (or the employees) believe in rather than severing ties with organizations when its within the US?