Hmmmm which companies have gotten special government treatments? Innumerable but a few come to mind. Google, Twitter, Tesla, Amazon, Facebook.
Imagine the hubris of being wealthy enough to buy a rebate subsidized $100k Tesla, and get a grant or rebate for your home charger and, even better, getting to charge it for free at a convenience store which is close enough to your $2M waterfront home to make it convenient.
This war began years ago, with episodes like the IRS being unleashed against the Tea Party orgs, the Canadian truckers having their bank accounts frozen, and other such partisan targeting.
We don't get to a universal agreement not to weaponize gov't by laying down and taking it.
We get there by punching back twice as hard and going scorched-earth on the tyranny and perversion crowd until they mend their ways, cry uncle, and stop using the levers of power against us.
‘However, there is still a worrying trend here of government specifically cracking down against entities that oppose them.’
Well on the other hand, if you march into the political arena, political rules apply and the consequences that brings. It is no place for a business.
It is not the function of a business to oppose Governments on purely political matters, that’s supposed to be the job of Opposition Parties. Companies are supposed to be run in the interests of its owners/shareholders, not the interests of management or employees.
What we are seeing with so-called ‘go woke, go broke’, is a shocking failure of corporate governance. Managers have a fiduciary duty to shareholders, their failure is actionable in law. Shareholders need to re-establish control.
it's high time that disney had it's tax concessions rescinded. where i live it's boeing that gets a free ride with the excuse that it's providing jobs. heck, i owned a NY company that provided jobs and still had to pay my taxes. disney can afford it.
it's a pretty terrible company. we made costumes for their big cruise ship. they rehearsed the performers on an island to avoid USA labor protections and had to fly them up for fittings. they sent me a contract- several years after the fact, i might add- that was so onerous that i would never sign it. after a month, they sent me another copy in case the first one had gotten lost in the mail, i called them with a string of expletives like they had never heard. they sent some emissaries to check on my labor conditions. my employees joked about buying plastic manacles and "chaining" themselves to their sewing machines.
the contract actually said that they had a right to review my books, interview my employees not in my presence and that i had to promise not to use any prison, child or indentured labor. this from a company that has it's branded pjs made in haiti by virtual slaves!
it also said that any technology we used for them would be theirs and we couldn't use it for any other costumes. seriously? like fabric? like 18th century boned bodices? like hooded capes and full sweeping skirts?
i never did sign a contract and i guess they accepted it because our work was so good and the designer wanted us.
they could never manage to pay their bills on time. i had many phone calls with the overly pleasant but completely ineffectual women in the accounting department. once, when they finally did pay, they screwed up and paid double! you can imagine how i handled that! i figured they owned me for the aggravation.
a friend of mine was offered a job managing the costume shop in florida. he was handed a 30+ page booklet of rules, how he had to wear his hair, the type of shoes that were acceptable, etc. he didn't take the job. he's an adult and didn't need big brother measuring his side burns.
when we were there for fittings, i did a bit of sewing. the machines were all totally stripped. you had to go to the supply closet to ask the sewing nazi for the kit that went with your machine. you were given a plastic tool box of needles, pressure feet, a scissors, a seam ripper. everything was inventoried and when you were done, you had to pack it all up and return it, standing there while the stock clerk checked the contents like god forbid, you might "steal" a bobbin or something.
the machines were all facing the wrong direction. it's a technical thing that won't make sense unless you've ever sewn on an industrial machine but one side needs to be away from the wall and in the disney shop, all the machines were backwards which would make it very difficult to handle a large amount of fabric. i realized that they were positioned that way because the tourist train track ran through a tunnel in the building and the visitors could see into the shop through a long window. so the machines faced in the direction that inconvenienced the workers but made a nice fishbowl display for the tourists!
people who go into theatrical costuming are generally independent, creative and free spirited. why anyone with any actual talent would work there is beyond me!
when we did costumes for them on Broadway (Aladdin), the contract reached the height of hubristic absurdity; they wanted consent to use my likeness and that of my employees in the "known or unknown universe" in perpetuity in "any technology that currently exists or may exist in the future." can you imagine?
i called all the other costume shop owners who all said "yeah, we signed it." really?
i sent disney an e-mail accusing them of cyber slavery and reminding them that my involvement with them was simple- we make costumes; you pay us- end of story, you do not own me or my employees for all eternity and isn't it a bit presumptuous to talk about the known and unknown universe when humanity will be lucky to have another 50 years before extinction thanks to the corporate greed of companies like disney!
they sent my email to the legal department- i can only imagine!- and drafted a new straightforward contract just for me and we made the costumes.
i recently read about a young woman who got a job in the theme park. her contract said they owned her thoughts.
so yes, my company made wonderful costumes for the designers who worked for disney but ugh, what a wretched organization. they deserve whatever florida can do to them. they seem to have lost sight of their founder's vision which i believe had something to do with making magic for children.
I understand your concern here, Commander. But this is more about undoing the position of a powerful corporation as above the law. Disney's self governance privileges were unjust (just like when college campuses do it except the size of Luxembourg). They got those privileges a half century ago through lobbying and payola.
This is exactly like Big Tech becoming butt buddies with the intelligence apparatus and being granted largely self-determination over the entire public digital landscape.
Now this corporation has the same freedoms to do business as all other corporations. They got special government favors before because they paid off prior politicians. When you want government favors, you gotta dance to the governments tune. Maybe they'll move their parks to new York. Pedophiles are more popular here.
But so are snowflakes (no, not the SJW kind, the ice freezing kind - but I needed a cute term to confuse the two). Too cold for outdoor rides in New York.
But then, AOC would have stickers made up that said "I did that!" for being placed near any "Disney" label.
The constitutionality of the self-governing status is questionable, what they have done is to create a city-state outside of the jurisdiction of the state of Florida, which is not allowed unless Congress allows it, and that never has occurred... so they could set up a separate system of laws under which, say, pedophilia is allowed, and not be subject to any sort of interference - and as we've found out in the case of Disney, that's a dangerous precedent. Suppose Hollywood, with its numerous child sex scandals, had been granted similar status? You'd have a lot of people with free rein to do harms without restraint.
Moreover, corporations are business forms *created by government* and may be regulated by government. They are given an important privilege, that of limiting liability so that owners and shareholders aren't liable for the bad acts of the corporation, except in very special circumstances, where a judge may choose to "pierce the corporate veil". And it is explicitly within the powers of the state to regulate that which the states have created.
"When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:
Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow." https://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/
Corporations do not arise through the course of nature, they are the creation of governments, and as such they may be regulated or taken out of existence by the governments which created them.
No government, regardless of its size or origin, can infringe upon the rights of its citizens (in theory). Even the literal cartoon courts of Disney. :)
I think Desantis made his position very clear when he stated that those special provisions/privileges should never been granted to any business entity in the first place.
"We can’t fight the weaponization of government with more weaponization of government." That is a great summary. Just as we cannot fight racism with more racism, or sexism with sexism. A great deal is made of the "fairness" of things. When did fair stop meaning treating everyone equally?
I can agree that the incentives Florida made to acquire the business ought not to be revoked just because. We can argue if the incentives are ever appropriate, a bribe if you will. OTOH, businesses ought to be careful not to offend customers in general. As noted, the businesses that have done that should suffer it's errors without government's help.
Disney hasn't run afoul of the government, they (like some school boards) have run afoul of the overwhelming majority of people who aren't deviant perverts; who don't want kids indoctrinated with the notion that they should aspire to and celebrate such lifestyles.
I like your nuanced take. It's kind of a catch-22. Government shouldn't target businesses based on politics, but more and more businesses are sticking their noses in politics.
I’m right there with you, I haven’t been a fan of any part of this saga, frankly. Like you said, the bill is essentially a nothing burger, and the mainstream recontextualizing has been ridiculous, but it’s not unexpected. DeSantis and the gang know what they’re doing and they’re as complicit in overstating what the bill does, to pander to their own base. This is just politics as usual.
And yeah, it’s good that Disney gets taken down a peg, but it is definitely a slippery slope. In more ways than one, beyond what you noted, personally I am not a fan of any central government setting widespread edicts on curriculum… these topics are best dealt with at the district level, it’s the only way to assure that parents get their actual voice heard. This entire situation reeks of a monkey’s paw… and in general, I’m not in favor of further legislation ever. Didn’t that used to be a conservative/Republican position? Everything is so muddled these days.
Great post. "Parents need to butt out of their kids' education" is not a winning stance. You'll note that the only people who seem to be reconsidering their stances (be they covid or whatever) are those who are actually suffering from the consequences of those stances. Hard to be a 'badass activist' when you just got thrown off the school board.
Hmmmm which companies have gotten special government treatments? Innumerable but a few come to mind. Google, Twitter, Tesla, Amazon, Facebook.
Imagine the hubris of being wealthy enough to buy a rebate subsidized $100k Tesla, and get a grant or rebate for your home charger and, even better, getting to charge it for free at a convenience store which is close enough to your $2M waterfront home to make it convenient.
This war began years ago, with episodes like the IRS being unleashed against the Tea Party orgs, the Canadian truckers having their bank accounts frozen, and other such partisan targeting.
We don't get to a universal agreement not to weaponize gov't by laying down and taking it.
We get there by punching back twice as hard and going scorched-earth on the tyranny and perversion crowd until they mend their ways, cry uncle, and stop using the levers of power against us.
Dubious assertion.
‘However, there is still a worrying trend here of government specifically cracking down against entities that oppose them.’
Well on the other hand, if you march into the political arena, political rules apply and the consequences that brings. It is no place for a business.
It is not the function of a business to oppose Governments on purely political matters, that’s supposed to be the job of Opposition Parties. Companies are supposed to be run in the interests of its owners/shareholders, not the interests of management or employees.
What we are seeing with so-called ‘go woke, go broke’, is a shocking failure of corporate governance. Managers have a fiduciary duty to shareholders, their failure is actionable in law. Shareholders need to re-establish control.
But this is actually the de-weaponization of government, the actual weaponization was granting them special breaks in the first place.
it's high time that disney had it's tax concessions rescinded. where i live it's boeing that gets a free ride with the excuse that it's providing jobs. heck, i owned a NY company that provided jobs and still had to pay my taxes. disney can afford it.
it's a pretty terrible company. we made costumes for their big cruise ship. they rehearsed the performers on an island to avoid USA labor protections and had to fly them up for fittings. they sent me a contract- several years after the fact, i might add- that was so onerous that i would never sign it. after a month, they sent me another copy in case the first one had gotten lost in the mail, i called them with a string of expletives like they had never heard. they sent some emissaries to check on my labor conditions. my employees joked about buying plastic manacles and "chaining" themselves to their sewing machines.
the contract actually said that they had a right to review my books, interview my employees not in my presence and that i had to promise not to use any prison, child or indentured labor. this from a company that has it's branded pjs made in haiti by virtual slaves!
it also said that any technology we used for them would be theirs and we couldn't use it for any other costumes. seriously? like fabric? like 18th century boned bodices? like hooded capes and full sweeping skirts?
i never did sign a contract and i guess they accepted it because our work was so good and the designer wanted us.
they could never manage to pay their bills on time. i had many phone calls with the overly pleasant but completely ineffectual women in the accounting department. once, when they finally did pay, they screwed up and paid double! you can imagine how i handled that! i figured they owned me for the aggravation.
a friend of mine was offered a job managing the costume shop in florida. he was handed a 30+ page booklet of rules, how he had to wear his hair, the type of shoes that were acceptable, etc. he didn't take the job. he's an adult and didn't need big brother measuring his side burns.
when we were there for fittings, i did a bit of sewing. the machines were all totally stripped. you had to go to the supply closet to ask the sewing nazi for the kit that went with your machine. you were given a plastic tool box of needles, pressure feet, a scissors, a seam ripper. everything was inventoried and when you were done, you had to pack it all up and return it, standing there while the stock clerk checked the contents like god forbid, you might "steal" a bobbin or something.
the machines were all facing the wrong direction. it's a technical thing that won't make sense unless you've ever sewn on an industrial machine but one side needs to be away from the wall and in the disney shop, all the machines were backwards which would make it very difficult to handle a large amount of fabric. i realized that they were positioned that way because the tourist train track ran through a tunnel in the building and the visitors could see into the shop through a long window. so the machines faced in the direction that inconvenienced the workers but made a nice fishbowl display for the tourists!
people who go into theatrical costuming are generally independent, creative and free spirited. why anyone with any actual talent would work there is beyond me!
when we did costumes for them on Broadway (Aladdin), the contract reached the height of hubristic absurdity; they wanted consent to use my likeness and that of my employees in the "known or unknown universe" in perpetuity in "any technology that currently exists or may exist in the future." can you imagine?
i called all the other costume shop owners who all said "yeah, we signed it." really?
i sent disney an e-mail accusing them of cyber slavery and reminding them that my involvement with them was simple- we make costumes; you pay us- end of story, you do not own me or my employees for all eternity and isn't it a bit presumptuous to talk about the known and unknown universe when humanity will be lucky to have another 50 years before extinction thanks to the corporate greed of companies like disney!
they sent my email to the legal department- i can only imagine!- and drafted a new straightforward contract just for me and we made the costumes.
i recently read about a young woman who got a job in the theme park. her contract said they owned her thoughts.
so yes, my company made wonderful costumes for the designers who worked for disney but ugh, what a wretched organization. they deserve whatever florida can do to them. they seem to have lost sight of their founder's vision which i believe had something to do with making magic for children.
I understand your concern here, Commander. But this is more about undoing the position of a powerful corporation as above the law. Disney's self governance privileges were unjust (just like when college campuses do it except the size of Luxembourg). They got those privileges a half century ago through lobbying and payola.
This is exactly like Big Tech becoming butt buddies with the intelligence apparatus and being granted largely self-determination over the entire public digital landscape.
In both cases: fucking enough already.
Completely understandable, but it would have also been better had it not come only when it was politically advantageous.
It would have been much better. It always would be.
Is righteousness the opposite of pragmatism? An interesting thought exercise.
Now this corporation has the same freedoms to do business as all other corporations. They got special government favors before because they paid off prior politicians. When you want government favors, you gotta dance to the governments tune. Maybe they'll move their parks to new York. Pedophiles are more popular here.
But so are snowflakes (no, not the SJW kind, the ice freezing kind - but I needed a cute term to confuse the two). Too cold for outdoor rides in New York.
But then, AOC would have stickers made up that said "I did that!" for being placed near any "Disney" label.
The constitutionality of the self-governing status is questionable, what they have done is to create a city-state outside of the jurisdiction of the state of Florida, which is not allowed unless Congress allows it, and that never has occurred... so they could set up a separate system of laws under which, say, pedophilia is allowed, and not be subject to any sort of interference - and as we've found out in the case of Disney, that's a dangerous precedent. Suppose Hollywood, with its numerous child sex scandals, had been granted similar status? You'd have a lot of people with free rein to do harms without restraint.
Moreover, corporations are business forms *created by government* and may be regulated by government. They are given an important privilege, that of limiting liability so that owners and shareholders aren't liable for the bad acts of the corporation, except in very special circumstances, where a judge may choose to "pierce the corporate veil". And it is explicitly within the powers of the state to regulate that which the states have created.
"When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:
Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow." https://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/
Corporations do not arise through the course of nature, they are the creation of governments, and as such they may be regulated or taken out of existence by the governments which created them.
No government, regardless of its size or origin, can infringe upon the rights of its citizens (in theory). Even the literal cartoon courts of Disney. :)
I think Desantis made his position very clear when he stated that those special provisions/privileges should never been granted to any business entity in the first place.
I would have believed him a lot more 3 or 4 years ago, is all.
Well, he's still a politician, hon. If you pander in the forest and no one sees it, does it give you ratings?
"We can’t fight the weaponization of government with more weaponization of government." That is a great summary. Just as we cannot fight racism with more racism, or sexism with sexism. A great deal is made of the "fairness" of things. When did fair stop meaning treating everyone equally?
When some were more equal than others? (this thought courtesy of George Orwell's "Animal Farm")
I can agree that the incentives Florida made to acquire the business ought not to be revoked just because. We can argue if the incentives are ever appropriate, a bribe if you will. OTOH, businesses ought to be careful not to offend customers in general. As noted, the businesses that have done that should suffer it's errors without government's help.
Disney hasn't run afoul of the government, they (like some school boards) have run afoul of the overwhelming majority of people who aren't deviant perverts; who don't want kids indoctrinated with the notion that they should aspire to and celebrate such lifestyles.
Disney specifically said they would spend millions of dollars to overturn this specific bill.
As to the rest, it's the people who will punish Disney for their actions.
I agree with your sentiment but the governor is ending a special privilege not granted to the other businesses in Florida.
Ending a piece of corporate welfare it should not have had in the first place.
I like your nuanced take. It's kind of a catch-22. Government shouldn't target businesses based on politics, but more and more businesses are sticking their noses in politics.
Guess they should have called it “Don’t make us pay taxes bill”……
I’ll see myself out
I’m right there with you, I haven’t been a fan of any part of this saga, frankly. Like you said, the bill is essentially a nothing burger, and the mainstream recontextualizing has been ridiculous, but it’s not unexpected. DeSantis and the gang know what they’re doing and they’re as complicit in overstating what the bill does, to pander to their own base. This is just politics as usual.
And yeah, it’s good that Disney gets taken down a peg, but it is definitely a slippery slope. In more ways than one, beyond what you noted, personally I am not a fan of any central government setting widespread edicts on curriculum… these topics are best dealt with at the district level, it’s the only way to assure that parents get their actual voice heard. This entire situation reeks of a monkey’s paw… and in general, I’m not in favor of further legislation ever. Didn’t that used to be a conservative/Republican position? Everything is so muddled these days.
Dealing with child pornography at the district level got parents labeled domestic terrorists.
Great post. "Parents need to butt out of their kids' education" is not a winning stance. You'll note that the only people who seem to be reconsidering their stances (be they covid or whatever) are those who are actually suffering from the consequences of those stances. Hard to be a 'badass activist' when you just got thrown off the school board.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/594492-3-san-francisco-school-board-members-ousted-after-priorities-questioned/