Friday, August 11, 2017

Should I Care About This Corporate Culture Any Differently Than an SJW Corporate Culture?

The New York Post reports:
Seven owners and managers of American Funding Group, Corporate Bailout and related companies ran their office like a frat house on steroids, rewarding female workers who played along — sometimes in the middle of the office — with bonuses, gifts and access to the corporate credit card, according to the suit filed Thursday.

The papers said the Tinton Falls [New Jersey] office was “so sexually aggressive, morally repulsive, and unlawfully hostile that it is rivaled only by the businesses portrayed in the films ‘Boiler Room’ and ‘The Wolf of Wall Street.’”

In one raunchy example of the alleged debauchery, owner Mark Mancino and manager Michael Hamill were described as regularly summoning a female sales representative to a private office by shouting out, “Wendy — get your tits in here.”

Once she was inside the office, Hamill and Mancino could be heard taking turns “motorboating” her breasts, the Middlesex County lawsuit said.

In a footnote, the court papers describe the lewd act as: “placing one’s face in the area between a woman’s breasts and blowing onto her skin while rapidly shaking one’s head, thereby creating a sound similar to that of an outboard boat motor.”

Hamill “regularly and repeatedly” commented on the woman’s breasts with comments like, “Wendy, bring your tits back over here” and “who hasn’t seen Wendy’s tits?” according to the suit.

Reached at the office Thursday, the worker, Wendy, who’s last name is being withheld by The Post, declined to comment before telling a reporter to leave the offices “immediately.”...

Employees who complained or refused to play along were “ostracized or terminated,” said the former human resources director and two canned customer service reps who filed the state court suit.

Mancino was also accused of hiring a 22-year-old woman he met at his gym for a $60,000 job and “unlimited access” to the corporate credit card. In exchange for the job and other lavish gifts — including a car and $4,000 Gucci purse — the worker “wore provocative outfits in the office and, during meetings, intentionally bent over so Defendant Mancino could gawk at her body and rub her inner thigh,” the lawsuit alleges....

Meanwhile, female workers were encouraged to wear provocative office clothes — including crop tops, backless dresses and short skirts, the lawsuit said.

”Defendants intentionally hire young ‘attractive’ female employees for the specific purpose of having quid pro quo sexual relationships,” the suit claims. “Older male managers obsessively pursue and engage in sexual relationships with younger female employees, and they use their money and power to coerce female employees into …sexually promiscuous conduct in the workplace.”

And the company wasn’t shy about its frat-boy antics when it came to new employees, the suit said.

Male managers would often bring inflatable sex dolls with exposed breasts into the interviews with the prospects, the suit said.

“This is how we do business here,” the potential hires were allegedly told. “Have you ever been to an interview with a sex doll?
Should I care about this activity? I don't. It is just a wacko culture that I don't want to have anything to do with---to me, ni different than a wacko SJW culture. If an employee at this firm wrote a memo discussing how the culture should change and how hiring practices should change, I would say get over it. Leave if you don't like it. And I wouldn't be outraged if an employee was fired for not getting with the program and I certainly don't think a fired employee had a "right" to sue the firm.

That said, there is a difference between the behavior at this firm and that of SJWs. The management at the firm didn't want to impose their views on all of society, using the coercion of the state and a general busybody attitude, the way SJWs do. So we are at war with SJWs because of their alliance with the state and their busybody attitudes, not because they have a wacky culture employed at a given firm. If they just want to do wacky culture at a given firm where the firm is in favor of it, they should be left alone. The problem is that SJWs don't want to leave the rest of us alone.



  1. Why is "live and let live" such a hard concept for people to grasp? Why does everything have to be a crusade to force strangers to act the way you want them to?

    So depressing.

  2. All I can think of after reading this is:
    "You motorboatin' son of a bitch, you old sailor you!"

  3. Yes, I think the most important point here is that the SJW types have the coercion of the state on their side. Anti-harassment laws existed before the term SJW came onto the scene. The state was already requiring companies to censor and manage employees behavior before we had 'SJW culture', and HR departments were a frequent target of articles on libertarian sites (though I haven't seen many in the past couple years).

  4. The effect of a minority making a firm after firm SJW is a white male has no chance of employment and in an election a libertarian candidate has less chance.

    1. Bad thesis, the market will just punish the companies that don't hire the best talent, regardless of color, which I'm sure you know.

  5. I think we’re mixing apples and oranges. Along with butterscotch.

    For a libertarian, the question isn’t whether you care about what goes on in that office. The issue is that there is no initiation of violence against either the employees or you. Further, there does not appear to be any fraud in the hiring process. People who are appalled can boycott and encourage others to boycott. The ladies can just quit.

    With Google, Twitter and Youtube, their basic contractual offer is that the public can use their online businesses facilities to communicate with others. If those businesses want to say up front that they are a hard left outfit that refuses to accept any content to the right of Noam Chomsky and will delete it on sight, that is their right. But to allow for years serious political debate on these platforms and then suddenly decide that most libertarian or conservative content is “hate speech” and they then go about deleting it without notice is a breach of the “implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing” which ought to be part of every contractual arrangement. The same goes for the people who are employed by these companies. The agreements with these companies should say explicitly that they retain the right to act like complete left wing idiots and that you really cannot ever trust them to act in good faith if they get a whiff that you are not a hard core lefty. They have the right to insist upon such agreements but let’s make things clear up front.

    I’m a plain language in contracts guy. And a no lying in contracts guy.

    I note that Vox Day is constantly advocating creating new platforms which bypass these companies.

    Finally, it should always be the position of libertarians to announce that the left (and Neocon right) acts this way because THEY KNOW they cannot win a fair debate with us. They are afraid of us. Go give them a nervous breakdown. Tell it to them.

    1. @Bob Roddis

      How are those platforms making a "contractual offer?" They're free to use so there's no quid pro quo.

  6. Google created an official approved of channel where discussion of ideas was supposed to be safe. Now we all know such things are not, but it's not a question of understanding it's a lie but calling google out on it. That is what makes the google incident different.

  7. Reminds me of Charlie Wilson; "You can teach them to type, but you can't teach them to grow tits,"