Yes, the story about the Rabbi fired by his Mormon bosses (let's say it again kids, MORMON, because goodness knows the story repeats it about once a paragraph...) has me a little skeptical. I know I'm supposed to go "Oh, those bad mormons," but my event planner soul has me asking questions like:
"If this generated more calls than anything else the station had ever done, what other station resources was it using?" (At least plenty of airtime, no doubt)
"Did his gathering have all the proper insurance and paperwork? If not, could the station have been liable if something had happened?"
"Would it really have been all that much trouble for this guy to call the guys upstairs and tell them what he was planning?"
I realize that on its face, this situation sounds like the evil Mormons mistreating this guy, but I know that if I started planning a charity event on company time and using company resources without approval from my bosses, I, too, could probably get fired. And I don't really think that is unreasonable.
CC
4 comments:
Clearly you are an evil Mormon. EEEEEVVVVVIIIIILLLLLLL! Get thee behind me, Latter-day Saint!
I know Mormons are pretty peculiar about some things (do they really wear sacred underwear?), but ... DEVILS?
Way harsh. I mean, really. Any people that can produce a Marie Osmond isn't completely separated from divinity. (Maybe there really is something sacred in that underwear.)
How about something less judgmental, like Made-Up Religionist's Advocate? Reformed Polygamist's Advocate? Deseret Busybee's Advocate?
((( Any people that can produce a Marie Osmond isn't completely separated from divinity.)))
When CC was a child, she once confidently told the ChaliceMom that when she grew up she wanted to look like Marie Osmond.
Don't know why I had that ambition, and it didn't exactly work out, but I really confused my mother with it.
CC
I completely agree with CC on this one. The issue is not the worthiness of the cause, it's that he didn't ask permission and get approval first. Radio hosts generally DON'T have signature authority. I don't know about the big names - maybe some of them have some sort of purchasing authority or show production slush fund. I do know that most hosts have to get approval for anything that costs the station money.
Clear Channel would have canned him just as quick, for exactly the same reason. Maybe their PR department would have done it in a more sensitive way, given how he's been able to spin this, but I don't see them keeping someone who goes and runs unauthorized events around. MAYBE if they were a Big Name host or something.
I really don't see the station owner's religion playing into this at all. This was a completely corporate, completely secular sort of decision. It even has that clumsy corporate feel to it.
What more deeply bothers me is the mindset that one should not be punished for breaking an unjust rule. I see this frequently - someone will argue that it's not fair that they're being punished for doing "the right thing". Nevermind that what they believe is "the right thing" is illegal or against a clearly stated policy.
It's Civil Disobedience Lite - all the self-righteous smugness, without any of those pesky consequences. And there seems to be a related idea that it's okay to violate the rights of others to do "the right thing", and that it's THEIR problem if they don't like you doing it.
Now, I am a 'tax, then spend' liberal - I support extensive social and infrastructure programs, along with sufficient taxation to fully cover the expenses of those programs. And I am fine with taking someone's money for those programs through taxation, because we have a political process that makes doing so a decision made by society in general. (While imperfect, it's reasonably close - unlike vigilante takings of any sort.)
What I am NOT okay with is the idea that one can, say, use their company's resources to run a charity event and then act like it's the company's fault for not being happy you did so.
Post a Comment