Monday, January 31, 2011
Chick-fil-A
Should a business have any objectives other than making as much money as possible? Two recent articles address this issue. The first takes on the issue much like our taking sides issue #1 does. (H/T Zhao) The second speaks specifically about the Chick-fil-A fast food chain. They have a reputation of being very Christian. I can think of two cases in which this may go against the profit maximizing objective. They close on Sundays and their stances on controversial issues may bring bad publicity. Over time either these practices will diminish, or competition will drive them out. (Their sandwiches are very good)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nicholas Camaioni
ReplyDeleteMWF 9 AM - 10 AM
Today's earlier discussion on profits and moral/social responsibility was certainly an interesting one and enlightened me upon how people view the corporations that drive our economy. In the first case which reinforces our Taking Sides Issue #1, I still believe that corporations do not have the right to act outside the law simply in order to maximize their profits. Corporations acting without fear of punishment have lead this economy towards a collapse that may take generations to recover from. This is why companies need to take into consideration how their actions affect the consumers they are serving. At the same time, we need to make sure our governments don't gain control over our industries, or the idea of Capitalism will be washed away in the tide of Socialism.
On the topic of Chick-Fil-A, they do have awesome sandwiches, and I hate the fact that I can't get one on Sundays before football and baseball games. On a more serious note, I feel that if their revenues begin to go into the negative, I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to start opening their stores on Sundays. I personally know plenty of people who would love to have access to their foods on that day, especially for tailgates and parties. On the other hand, one can respect a company that tries to take a stance on something instead of not having a stance at all.
Megan Matuzak
ReplyDeleteMWF 10-10:50
In class today when we were dealing with Taking Sides issue #1, I tend to be swayed by Friedmens argument. In our free market economony, corporations exist to make money with a loose sense of social responsibility. However, Chick-Fil-A flips this ideal on its backside, which is honorable to say the least. This food chain of delicious chicken sandwiches would be swayed by Almeders argument. With a Christian outlook on business, "Jesus Chicken" interprets and accepts their personal responsibility to the customers.
This is where the second link and article comes in. Although they may believe that they are operating under the fairest conditions, it is simply interpreted by that party and may not be fair or just in another corporations perspective. This explains the negative attention they received when taking sides on a sexual preference within the community. Due to the viewpoints they express they now suffer. I agree with Nick, it will be incredibly hard to continue this practice and still have a sustainable business or in this case a chain of conservative Christian chicken sandwiches.
Katelyn Frueh, MWF 10-10:50
ReplyDelete"My pleasure" - even in its simplicity has set Chick-Fil-A a part from any other fast food chain (if you even want to call it a fast food chain). But the fact that they have been able to uphold their policies and excellent ratings up until now would truly stun any economist.
I know there has been the debate on whether they should consider opening on Sundays, but I had not heard of the conflicts with the gay communities. As soon as I read it, I immediately thought the same response as what the the company's president said: "communicate from the heart that we serve and value all people and treat everyone with honor, dignity and respect." Until they start to refuse service to gays, I can't help but think this uproar is rather trivial. I applaud Chick-Fil-A for sticking to their morals (I know growing up, my Mom always supported it as we hold the same morals...she could always be rest assured that the Kid's Meal toy would be appropriate and encouraging). But at the same time, I would caution business to try to follow the same pursuit. Unless a new firm can fully establish a code of moral ethics from the beginning (backed by history as Chick-Fil-A also has), I don't think this type of business model would work for every situation. Nonetheless, I commend Chick-Fil-A and continue to eat their sandwiches at any opportunity I can get!
As we discussed in class today, supply and demand go hand in hand for a thriving economy. As in taking sides, one author is in favor that businesses do not have morals people do, and that businesses are all for making money. There is no reason why Chik-Fil-A should be examined based on their business practices. Afterall they are closed on Sundays because it is a Christian run business. As seen in the PPF graphs we did today in class maximizing a products appearance on the market by sacrificing a little bit of something else is worth it. And chik-fil-A sandwiches are good!
ReplyDeleteGreg Fuguet
ReplyDeleteMWF 10-10:50
First, I have to say that I love Chik-Fil-A sandwiches and I have also found myself cursing in my car in an empty Chick-Fil-A parking lot on Sunday, several times.
But more seriously, I think Christina Macey had it right. These types of actions wouldn't really appall people if it was from individuals of the same faith system. It seems that most of the shock is that you can buy sandwiches from these people all across the country and in thousands of stores. Their actions are very bold (though I'd definitely say blown out or proportion) and I don't think that they're necessarily afraid of the repercussions. If they ran their business in that way, they would open on Sundays. I'm also not sure that they would label themselves as anti-gay, or at the very least making the distinction between disagreeing with a lifestyle and "loathing" a person. I would hope that they subscribe to Jesus' teachings of love for one another above all other things. It seems that they have built their business on this strong moral foundation. They've gained my loyalty just for being friendly and giving me free food nearly every time I go in.
All that basically to say that it's totally an individuals choice to give them your business or not. I think they know that and run their business the way they do in spite of it. Lastly, I've always been treated with more respect there than any other fast food chain and they have no knowledge of my religious beliefs or sexual orientation.
Ryan McDonald
ReplyDeleteMWF 9-9:50
In regards to the Taking Sides Issue #1, unfortunately Friedman had the better argument. Businesses are businesses and their goal is to make as much profit without breaking the law. They do not have "social" or "moral" responsibilities. If an employee wants to, they can have one but not big business. And, why should they? I personally feel it's wrong that some companies knowingly and willfully pollute the earth. But in Almeder's example of tobacco companies willingly selling harmful products to its customers, what's illegal there? Sure the products are harmful, but that's why there is a Surgeon General's Warning on the box. It's just like people who recently sued McDonald's(no relation)for making them obese. You made the decision to smoke the tobacco and eat the unhealthy food, the companies just happen to make money off of it.
As for Chick-Fil-A and the idea that it will soon perhaps go out of business, that will never happen. Chick-Fil-A and Sonic are exactly alike. Both are geared toward specific sections of the country, sometimes popping up in other cities and states, and cater to those citizens beliefs. The article points out that down South the majority of people are religious, so why have something on Sunday? It seems to work considering they are still in business. Plus, they have killer advertisements.
Michelle Zei
ReplyDeleteMWF 10-10:50 am
Friedman's aruguement that businesses can not have morals is challenged by Chick-Fil-A's business practices. By closing on Sunday's and alligning with Christian conservative political views, the business is stepping outside of the mere object of making a profit and exercising its beliefs through the operation of the company. In terms of whether this is a wise practice, I think that if people only consume products based on their moral beliefs they may lose some customers. However, they main gain some customers as well- especially in the Bible belt.
Kristopher Cramer
ReplyDeleteMWF 9-950
In regards to the CFA issue, I am actually an employee at a Chick-Fil-A. I have been working there for 2 years now. As far as treating customers, hiring new personel, and training videoes CFA is not just a "Christian" organization. Obviously, they serve food to anyone and they will not hire someone based on race/color/religious beliefs/gay marriage etc. Yes it is a Christian organization, but the beliefs are not rules or guidelines for how we must be to work there. For instance, a few of my coworkers are athiest and do not even attend church. The article says something about someone getting fired for not praying, but at my stores and other ones that my co-workers have worked at have done no such thing. Maybe praying at work is a southern thing, but in the stores around this zipcode we do not do that. The training videoes teach things like "2nd Mile Service" which is a Christian belief yes, but it is ultimately a better way to work if you think about it. The goal is to make money as a fast food business and as the most class fast food restaruant around it is a good belief. A lot of people continue to come back to CFA because we are kind, friendly, smile, and attempt to actually care about the service one gets at a fast food place.
As far as not being open Sundays, the business does not lose a lot of money (a lot depends on location). The store I work at makes between 8k-10k a day and that is not bad for our store's location either.
As a corporation in general, they are allowed to make donations to anti-gay marriage foundations. They are after all a Christian organization and are allowed to make donations to whoever they wish. Just because the heads of the company feel someway does not mean everyone in the company does.
Madeline Barry
ReplyDeleteMWF 10-1050
This may not be completely related to the question, but something related to it popped into my head. In my politcal science class last semester, we were discussing how crucial yet controversial the first amendment is for our country. A girl in my class has a relative who started his own Physical Therapy business and it became very successful within a few years. He decided to hire a secretary and after a few interviews, chose a qualified Muslim woman. A few weeks went by and she began wearing a burqa to work, completely hiding her face except for her eyes. This bothered the owner in the sense that his customers could not see the person with whom they were making appointments. He asked her not to wear the burqa countless times, but she refused. Eventually he fired her for being uncooporative and in turn, she sued him for discrimination of race and culture and he lost his entire business. This relates to the question in the sense that the man would rather have offended a woman for her appearance than risk the uncomfortable vibe some of his customers may obtain from her attire. Since it was his own business, it is very unnecessary and unfortunate that he lost it all. But at the same time, it's upsetting how crucial a person's appearance has become in the business world.
Bruce Chubb MWF 10:00-10:50
ReplyDeleteChick-fil-A should be a model for how modest business operates, first of all they will never diminish or loose their clientele just becuase of their Christan basis. I find it refreshing to know that a company is willing to sacrifice profit to uphold values. From experience, I know that Chick-fil-A offers a premium good with quality service that makes customers want to come back for more.
Chick-fil-A offers a wholesome and sometimes healthy alternative to other fast food chains. I would rather spend a few extra dollars at Chick-fil-A then get a fatty, sub-par cheeseburger from McDonald's. Chick-fil-A is one of a kind. The overall work enviroment that Chick-fil-A offers it's employees is uncomparable, it truly seems that they care for their workers first instead of production and profit.
Andrew Kearney
ReplyDeleteMWF 10-1050
The fact that Chick-Fil-A conducts their business this way is both surprising and impressive at the same time. It's away from societal "norm" to value faith and morals over profit in all respects.
This is surprising because very few companies could ever dream of doing such a thing in their business. Additionally, it's impressive that they stick to their beliefs in such a way.
Back in the day, many businesses were closed on Sundays. But with the way of the money-driven world, places started to open their doors on Sundays and select holidays, even Christmas.
As an American business, they have the privilege to freely choose how to operate their business. In many ways as a Christian, this is an admirable decision. Not many people will go as far as to put personal gain over their faith.
Jessie Fox
ReplyDeleteMWF 9-9:50
I think it is important for a business to have other objectives rather than just making money. Personally, I rather give my money to a business that has morals and believes in giving the costumer the best they can. It is harder for me to trust businesses that are all about making money, I feel like their marketing isn't always the truth. For some reason, Walmart is one of the first businesses that popped into my head. "Walmart serves customers and members more than 200 million times per week at more than 8,838 retail units under 55 different banners in 15 countries. With fiscal year 2010 sales of $405 billion, Walmart employs 2.1 million associates worldwide"(Walmartstores.com). I don't think that Walmart is good for any community. They get their stuff as cheap as they could only to sell it and make a huge profit.
I also found the Chick-fil-a article to be a little funny. I don't really see anything wrong with their business, and if people aren't happy with it, then they shouldn't eat there. When a business sticks to what they believe in, I think it is more respectful and it would put me at better ease to buy something there, rather than, let's say, Walmart. Also, it is harder today to find places that actually believe in true costumer value. If places like Chick-fil-a are still popular and provide food (kind of healthy) food, then I hope they always continue to do what they do and are proud for doing so.
Kyree Lewis
ReplyDelete9:00am- 9:50 MWF
I think that business sole objective is to gain a profit. That is the purpose of the business it is not to help influence the social structure of society. These companies should not care about those issues unless they will decrease in their profits
Anthony Fratto
ReplyDelete9am MWF
Let me start by saying, once again, that their sandwiches are very good. Anyway, Chick fil A is a private enterprise, therefore, there is no reason that they can't run their business they way that they choose. Service is not denied to anyone, they just do not open a specific day. What's the big deal? There is a bakery/deli near me that is not open on Mondays. I forgot about that one time and went there to get something to eat and they were closed and then I remembered. I wasn't mad or demand that they be closed or boycott them. I ate at home and went there another time. Some folks are really blowing this issue out of propotion.
A headline discussed that one is anti-gay if one eats Chik-fil-A. That's crap. If a person truly believes that, he can go to Wendys.
The mere fact that a private company is coming under fire for choosing to run their business, which appears to be doing well quality-wise and financially, the way they want is sad. I say let them be; if you don't like it go somewhere else and don't make goofy connections between a person's preference in food/restuarants and their stance on gays.
Nicholas Poiron
ReplyDeleteMWF 10-10:50
The first article was very reminiscent of the taking sides issue and the two opposing arguments, and I think that they both are missing a fundamental point; The choice about whether or not to support a company or organization with our money is ours alone. If people are that concerned about how their money is being spent by companies, and the practices that the company partakes in, then boycott the company. Don't spend your money in places that you do not support. There is no company/organization that produces a good that you cannot do without buying. If there are no company policies that you agree with, make/produce all of your own goods, and if enough people agree with your views, the company will fail, its that simple. The second article about Chik Fil A came closer to this issue, and although I agree with what some said about making hard decisions when it comes to how we spend our money, I don't think its that hard to forgo a chicken sandwich. I mean they are good, but not that good.
Samantha Anderson
ReplyDeleteMWF 9-9:50
It is rather expected in today's age for companies to do whatever they can to maximize their profits. Whether that means paying employees less or advertising in certain outlets (perhaps adult agazines). The fact that Chik Fil A actually has morals and closes on Sundays is shocking to me. I remember eating there for the first time and my friend explaining the company's beliefs. The Christian focus of the chain is wonderful as well as the fact that the creator's sons are still in charge today.
I agree with Nicholas about the similarities between these articles and the taking sides pages we were assigned to read. People do have the right to choose where they want to by their food. It is really that simple. If people are so upset about who Chik Fil A supports then DO NOT BUY THEIR FOOD!!!!! It is really that simple. No need for controversy or wordy articles.
Abdullah Allen
ReplyDeleteMWF 9-950am
When a person goes out and decides to start a business, I believe their first purpose is to make money. If not, then they would become a non profit organization. With that said, a business has to be created on some type of foundation and a set of values and morals in order for it to be successful. Without a steady foundation, the companies mission would be lost. There is a fine line there where a companies morals will start to effect business because of today's day and age.
One great example of an organization that has adapted to the change in times is the United States. In the constitution there can be amendments the adapt since things do change. Although this country was built on christian values, it has adapted to other cultures and religions in this country.
I think that since first and foremost Chick-fil-A is a business that it should still have its values but adapt so that they can still gain money or if not, become a non profit organization.
Laisa Turano
ReplyDeleteMWF 9-9:50
I think that companies are built for the sole reason that they are to grow and make more money. However, some companies shouldn't be making money off of something that is hurting an individual, such as the tobacco companies. Therefore, I am in the middle for this topic.
On the Chick-fil-a topic, I'm very happy to know that a company is closed on sundays because of their religious background. Not many companies in the United States do this. It is nice to know that a company doesn't need to be open 365 days a year and 24 hours a day. The United States would be a much calmer place if everyone would just step back and relax for one day.