Comments on: ExxonMobil Shareholders Vote Down Anti-Discrimination Policy http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/05/30/45120 News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric Sat, 18 May 2013 21:32:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: TonyJazz http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/05/30/45120/comment-page-1#comment-124914 TonyJazz Fri, 01 Jun 2012 07:04:23 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=45120#comment-124914 I avoid both Exxon and Mobil gas stations as much as possible. How odd that this company remains so far out of touch with the times.... I suspect they would also be opposed to racial equality as well......(if it weren't as unfashionable as it is)... I avoid both Exxon and Mobil gas stations as much as possible.

How odd that this company remains so far out of touch with the times…. I suspect they would also be opposed to racial equality as well……(if it weren’t as unfashionable as it is)…

]]> By: Mark F. http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/05/30/45120/comment-page-1#comment-124773 Mark F. Thu, 31 May 2012 00:41:44 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=45120#comment-124773 ExxonMobil is likely to lose some good employees because of this policy, and may find that many gay people will start to buy their gasoline elsewhere. Losing market share will not make these bigots happy, I can be sure. Most large companies see that gay friendly policies are just good business. I suggest writing to the CEO of the company and telling him you won't be buying his gas until the company changes their policy. ExxonMobil is likely to lose some good employees because of this policy, and may find that many gay people will start to buy their gasoline elsewhere. Losing market share will not make these bigots happy, I can be sure. Most large companies see that gay friendly policies are just good business.

I suggest writing to the CEO of the company and telling him you won’t be buying his gas until the company changes their policy.

]]> By: Mark F. http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/05/30/45120/comment-page-1#comment-124772 Mark F. Thu, 31 May 2012 00:35:31 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=45120#comment-124772 It's false to say that offering domestic partner benefits will cost a company any significant amount of money. You can have your employees pay for the entire cost of the spouse/domestic partner benefits. Your shareholders don't have to pay. It’s false to say that offering domestic partner benefits will cost a company any significant amount of money. You can have your employees pay for the entire cost of the spouse/domestic partner benefits. Your shareholders don’t have to pay.

]]> By: Mark F. http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/05/30/45120/comment-page-1#comment-124769 Mark F. Thu, 31 May 2012 00:32:03 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=45120#comment-124769 Perhaps someone needs to come up with a list of the companies we don't want to do business with. Is there such a thing? Perhaps someone needs to come up with a list of the companies we don’t want to do business with. Is there such a thing?

]]> By: boatboy_srq http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/05/30/45120/comment-page-1#comment-124767 boatboy_srq Thu, 31 May 2012 00:16:51 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=45120#comment-124767 Aside from the fact that there's a cost associated with extending benefits, and ExxonMobil is nothing if not greed incarnate, there's the makeup of the major stakeholders. Figure that every single major individual shareholder voted against it, plus Vanguard, Northern Trust, Black Rock, Spartan, State Street and FMR. BofA is a tossup: the old (SFO-based) BofA would have voted FOR it, but the post-NationsBank thing that BofA has become seems likely to screw anyone it can, so against seems a fair bet (add in the HQ in Charlotte and against seems more likely). Figure also that the largest bloc vote FOR probably came from CalPERS. That's a lot of companies and individuals we don't need to support. See http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=xom+Major+Holders for the breakdown of major shareholders and do your own math. Aside from the fact that there’s a cost associated with extending benefits, and ExxonMobil is nothing if not greed incarnate, there’s the makeup of the major stakeholders.

Figure that every single major individual shareholder voted against it, plus Vanguard, Northern Trust, Black Rock, Spartan, State Street and FMR. BofA is a tossup: the old (SFO-based) BofA would have voted FOR it, but the post-NationsBank thing that BofA has become seems likely to screw anyone it can, so against seems a fair bet (add in the HQ in Charlotte and against seems more likely). Figure also that the largest bloc vote FOR probably came from CalPERS.

That’s a lot of companies and individuals we don’t need to support.

See http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=xom+Major+Holders for the breakdown of major shareholders and do your own math.

]]> By: Hyhybt http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/05/30/45120/comment-page-1#comment-124760 Hyhybt Wed, 30 May 2012 22:39:42 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=45120#comment-124760 Any idea *why* it was so strongly rejected, or for that matter why the company didn't even want it up for consideration? Any idea *why* it was so strongly rejected, or for that matter why the company didn’t even want it up for consideration?

]]>