Null



Sign in to follow this  
RunInRed

PayPal bails on North Carolina

Recommended Posts

PayPal cancels $3.6 million investment in N.C. over anti-LGBT law ...

PayPal Withdraws Plan for Charlotte Expansion

Two weeks ago, PayPal announced plans to open a new global operations center in Charlotte and employ over 400 people in skilled jobs. In the short time since then, legislation has been abruptly enacted by the State of North Carolina that invalidates protections of the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender citizens and denies these members of our community equal rights under the law.

The new law perpetuates discrimination and it violates the values and principles that are at the core of PayPal’s mission and culture. As a result, PayPal will not move forward with our planned expansion into Charlotte.

This decision reflects PayPal’s deepest values and our strong belief that every person has the right to be treated equally, and with dignity and respect. These principles of fairness, inclusion and equality are at the heart of everything we seek to achieve and stand for as a company. And they compel us to take action to oppose discrimination.

Our decision is a clear and unambiguous one. But we do regret that we will not have the opportunity to be a part of the Charlotte community and to count as colleagues the skilled and talented people of the region. As a company that is committed to the principle that everyone deserves to live without fear of discrimination simply for being who they are, becoming an employer in North Carolina, where members of our teams will not have equal rights under the law, is simply untenable.

While we will seek an alternative location for our operations center, we remain committed to working with the LGBT community in North Carolina to overturn this discriminatory legislation, alongside all those who are committed to equality.

We will stand firm in our commitment to equality and inclusion and our conviction that we can make a difference by living and acting on our values. It’s the right thing to do for our employees, our customers, and our communities.

Dan Schulman, President and CEO, PayPal

https://www.paypal.c...lotte-expansion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




More ...

North Carolina's "bathroom bill" just cost the state 400 future jobs

PayPal has canceled its plans to open a new global operations center in Charlotte, following passage of a North Carolina law that prevents cities from creating non-discrimination policies based on gender identity.

The measure also mandates that students in state schools use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender when they were born.

On March 23, North Carolina, in an emergency session, passed the controversial Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act.

Critics have blasted the law for excluding gays and transgender people from legal protections.

As a result, PayPal says it will no longer open its facility in Charlotte, which was expected to employ 400 people. PayPal had announced its plans to open the operations center only two weeks ago.

160405121748-paypal-north-carolina-780x439.jpg

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/05/technology/paypal-north-carolina-lgbt/index.html?sr=twCNN040516paypal-north-carolina-lgbt0310PMStoryLink&linkId=23075602

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one that thinks putting the brakes on these laws that give blanket access to anyone claiming to be transgender access to the opposite sex bathroom is a reasonable thing to do? I cannot fathom why anyone would think that just taking someone's word for it should be enough to allow access.

As I've said before, if we're going to do this, then it should be significantly more than just someone's stated feelings and some cross-dressing that gives them the key.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one that thinks putting the brakes on these laws that give blanket access to anyone claiming to be transgender access to the opposite sex bathroom is a reasonable thing to do? I cannot fathom why anyone would think that just taking someone's word for it should be enough to allow access.

As I've said before, if we're going to do this, then it should be significantly more than just someone's stated feelings and some cross-dressing that gives them the key.

Do you know for sure it's otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious how many transgenders Paypal employs.

For what its worth - I think if we stuck to LGB and left off the T it would be easier to take seriously. They shouldn't be given there own bathroom or right to pick which to use...they need mental help. Just because someone calls them self an alien or Jesus doesn't mean I have to treat them as such - and we would probably send them to a mental institute. I fail to see how this is different. Big difference between the LGB crowd and the T crowd. I have zero issue with LGB, I wouldn't march with them, but I wouldn't stand in their way or judge them differently. I hope NC stands strong - but I believe they will cave by the end of the month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one that thinks putting the brakes on these laws that give blanket access to anyone claiming to be transgender access to the opposite sex bathroom is a reasonable thing to do? I cannot fathom why anyone would think that just taking someone's word for it should be enough to allow access.

As I've said before, if we're going to do this, then it should be significantly more than just someone's stated feelings and some cross-dressing that gives them the key.

Do you know for sure it's otherwise?

Yep.

http://www.foxnews.c...rs-protest.html

http://www.charlotte...le61786967.html

There was nothing in that ordinance that specified any restrictions or criteria for being considered transgender. When people say they are concerned about sexual predators posing as transgender in order to gain access to private areas of the opposite sex for voyeuristic purposes or for possible sexual assaults, they aren't really that worried about the ones who've had their male genitalia lopped off. And the so-called research that purports to show little risk of this is of little value on something that is only recently gaining much steam around the country. There isn't nearly enough data to be peddling that conclusion.

I would be more amenable to requiring a unisex restroom than just this blanket permission to use the opposite sex facility even if you're still walking around with a penis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one that thinks putting the brakes on these laws that give blanket access to anyone claiming to be transgender access to the opposite sex bathroom is a reasonable thing to do? I cannot fathom why anyone would think that just taking someone's word for it should be enough to allow access.

As I've said before, if we're going to do this, then it should be significantly more than just someone's stated feelings and some cross-dressing that gives them the key.

Do you know for sure it's otherwise?

Yep.

http://www.foxnews.c...rs-protest.html

http://www.charlotte...le61786967.html

There was nothing in that ordinance that specified any restrictions or criteria for being considered transgender. When people say they are concerned about sexual predators posing as transgender in order to gain access to private areas of the opposite sex for voyeuristic purposes or for possible sexual assaults, they aren't really that worried about the ones who've had their male genitalia lopped off. And the so-called research that purports to show little risk of this is of little value on something that is only recently gaining much steam around the country. There isn't nearly enough data to be peddling that conclusion.

I would be more amenable to requiring a unisex restroom than just this blanket permission to use the opposite sex facility even if you're still walking around with a penis.

I think this is where I stand as well. If we are going down this route then we might as well just have unisex bathrooms with fully enclosed/private stalls and a common sink area. Of course, the costs associated with retrofitting would be astronomical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still hate how corporations have the power to influence political decisions.

Bad juju

Curious, were you equally outraged when Remington left New York for a political climate they liked better in Alabama?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still hate how corporations have the power to influence political decisions.

Bad juju

Curious, were you equally outraged when Remington left New York for a political climate they liked better in Alabama?

Funny how you posted outraged. No where did he say he was outraged over this. Just stated that he didn't like corp. having influence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still hate how corporations have the power to influence political decisions.

Bad juju

Curious, were you equally outraged when Remington left New York for a political climate they liked better in Alabama?

Do you think that PayPal's business is actually affected in the same way Remington's was by stricter gun laws? While both are political stances, it seems that Remington's was also an issue of laws that directly affect their ability to make and sell their product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still hate how corporations have the power to influence political decisions.

Bad juju

Curious, were you equally outraged when Remington left New York for a political climate they liked better in Alabama?

Funny how you posted outraged. No where did he say he was outraged over this. Just stated that he didn't like corp. having influence.

OK, pick a different adjective. You knew the intent of the question and it still stands ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still hate how corporations have the power to influence political decisions.

Bad juju

Curious, were you equally outraged when Remington left New York for a political climate they liked better in Alabama?

Do you think that PayPal's business is actually affected in the same way Remington's was by stricter gun laws? While both are political stances, it seems that Remington's was also an issue of laws that directly affect their ability to make and sell their product.

Well, considering Remington ships its product world-wide, I'm not sure how state-specific gun laws impact ... unless you're suggesting the SAFE act would literally prevent them from making their product there (FTR - I don't know this - haven't done the research ... but a quick Google turned up this gem) ...

Remington announced in February it would open a $110 million production plant on land adjacent to the Huntsville International Airport. The facility will bring 2,000 jobs to the area with production expected to begin next year.

At the time of the announcement, some New York lawmakers criticized their state's gun control laws, saying they were driving the company away from its plant in Illion, NY. During ceremonies in Alabama, Kollitides said while the company opposes the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement, or SAFE Act, it was "not a driving decision" in its move to Alabama.

http://www.al.com/ne...rove_us_to.html

Regardless, the political environment cuts both ways ... and I get where businesses, for whatever their reasons, will make fundamental decisions based on policies, etc.

Also, just to point out, it's not just PayPal, more than 100 companies have come out against the bill. PayPal acted first ... but NC and other states better be careful ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still hate how corporations have the power to influence political decisions.

Bad juju

Curious, were you equally outraged when Remington left New York for a political climate they liked better in Alabama?

In that case, the political decision (the SAFE act) spurred the move of the corporation to Alabama, not vice versa like originally stated in my post. It's not like Remington was forced to move either. Why do you ask?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll also add that PayPal is a services company - that is, they don't really make a tangible product. As such, I'm sure they felt their ability to recruit and keep top talent - literally, the lifeblood of their business - is compromised by doing business in such an environment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still hate how corporations have the power to influence political decisions.

Bad juju

Curious, were you equally outraged when Remington left New York for a political climate they liked better in Alabama?

In that case, the political decision (the SAFE act) spurred the move of the corporation to Alabama, not vice versa like originally stated in my post. It's not like Remington was forced to move either. Why do you ask?

I'm just saying to me, the situations are very analogous. And if you don't like private businesses yielding power, you should fairly protest all instances - not just those that fit particular positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll also add that PayPal is a services company - that is, they don't really make a tangible product. As such, I'm sure they felt their ability to recruit and keep top talent - literally, the lifeblood of their business - is compromised by doing business in such an environment

That's supposition at best. The NC law made no restrictions on what private businesses chose to do (they could allow transgender restrooms all day long if they wanted to).

It's a political statement, nothing more. And they are well within their right to make such a statement. But it really isn't the same thing as the Remington issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still hate how corporations have the power to influence political decisions.

Bad juju

Curious, were you equally outraged when Remington left New York for a political climate they liked better in Alabama?

In that case, the political decision (the SAFE act) spurred the move of the corporation to Alabama, not vice versa like originally stated in my post. It's not like Remington was forced to move either. Why do you ask?

I'm just saying to me, the situations are very analogous. And if you don't like private businesses yielding power, you should fairly protest all instances - not just those that fit particular positions.

It's apples and oranges. It's not analogous.

And I will gladly protest whenever I feel that businesses are encroaching on issues that they shouldn't be involved in. Silicon Valley corporations should not be telling the Georgia people which way to vote or else the companies will be leaving. Not in a democracy anyways. Maybe in an oligarchy..

Edited by aujeff11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll also add that PayPal is a services company - that is, they don't really make a tangible product. As such, I'm sure they felt their ability to recruit and keep top talent - literally, the lifeblood of their business - is compromised by doing business in such an environment

That's supposition at best. The NC law made no restrictions on what private businesses chose to do (they could allow transgender restrooms all day long if they wanted to).

It's a political statement, nothing more. And they are well within their right to make such a statement. But it really isn't the same thing as the Remington issue.

I agree it's a political statement ... a powerful one. Further, I will agree to disagree on the true impact of the law which taken as a stand alone, might support your point of limited impact but when considered in the broader nature of the perception it creates about the state, I could see where some prospective employees may think twice about wanting to move to NC - particularly the best and brightest who likely have offers elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's apples and oranges. It's not analogous

Yes it is ... two private companies making geographic investment decisions on the political climates in respective areas. It's exactly the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's apples and oranges. It's not analogous

Yes it is ... two private companies making geographic investment decisions on the political climates in respective areas. It's exactly the same thing.

When the political climate forbids the selling of AR15's and your company makes them.... I'd be moving too.... Edited by aujeff11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still hate how corporations have the power to influence political decisions.

Bad juju

Curious, were you equally outraged when Remington left New York for a political climate they liked better in Alabama?

In that case, the political decision (the SAFE act) spurred the move of the corporation to Alabama, not vice versa like originally stated in my post. It's not like Remington was forced to move either. Why do you ask?

I'm just saying to me, the situations are very analogous. And if you don't like private businesses yielding power, you should fairly protest all instances - not just those that fit particular positions.

It's apples and oranges. It's not analogous.

And I will gladly protest whenever I feel that businesses are encroaching on issues that they shouldn't be involved in. Silicon Valley corporations should not be telling the Georgia people which way to vote or else the companies will be leaving. Not in a democracy anyways. Maybe in an oligarchy..

Bump for the edit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aujeff - I don't disagree (i.e., "silicon valley" should not be able to dictate local policy) but again, it cuts both ways - those sames localities shouldn't in turn act surprised when said companies choose greener pastures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one that thinks putting the brakes on these laws that give blanket access to anyone claiming to be transgender access to the opposite sex bathroom is a reasonable thing to do? I cannot fathom why anyone would think that just taking someone's word for it should be enough to allow access.

As I've said before, if we're going to do this, then it should be significantly more than just someone's stated feelings and some cross-dressing that gives them the key.

This legislation goes much further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a bold thought: Rather than encourage further government intrusion into our personal affairs or the affairs of a private business, or force an incredibly expensive retrofit on thousands of businesses, how about we let the market decide? If a business owner wants to incur said expense to make their business more welcoming for everyone, don't stop him. If not, don't force him to. Awareness of the issues transgender people face is at its highest levels ever, and is sure to continue to increase- bringing with it societal pressure to operate in a manner that is fair and tenable for all. In the meantime, since transgender people aren't some sort of genetic mutation that popped up a generation or so ago, it's fair to assume that previous generations have dealt with the same issues and learned to cope. I believe in my fellow millenials... call me a dreamer, but I just do. I have faith that they can tough it out and cope with having to use a restroom assigned to a gender they don't identify with just as their forebears did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this