Frontier Airlines CEO says the pandemic made workers 'lazy' and less productive: 'People are still allowing people to work from home, all this silliness, right?'
Frontier Airlines CEO says the pandemic made workers 'lazy' and less productive: 'People are still allowing people to work from home, all this silliness, right?'
Frontier Airlines CEO Barry Biffle blamed higher overhead costs on workers being less productive, calling it a "society-wide" problem.
Frontier Airlines CEO Barry Biffle blamed higher overhead costs on workers being less productive, calling it a "society-wide" problem.
You're viewing a single thread.
In today's episode of “White male cisgender affluent, mentally disconnected from reality, emotionally immature CEO, has an irrational hissy fit in public over someone or something that doesn't let him be cruel and controlling over other humans”…
What does them being white or cisgender have anything to do with it? An idiot is an idiot regardless of the race or gender of the person.
Unnecessary labels for the subject at hand, imo.
Have you noticed that most (almost all) CEOs are white male cis gendered? I'm sure it's a coincidence though, they definitely deserve their wealth beyond imagination, as they are objectively superior human beings, and I'm 100% sure they didn't do anything unethical to amass their incalculable power and affluent life style.
Other countries exist and have CEOs
What does that have to do with the makeup of CEOs in the US? If you look at the demographics of CEOs here vs the demographics of the population here, the CEO demographics aren't even close to that of the population. They usually aren't even close to the demographics of the companies they head. Doesn't that seem kinda odd?
Just a quick search for the CEO's of the biggest companies provides a nice list. https://ceoworld.biz/2023/03/17/the-worlds-most-influential-ceos-and-business-executives-of-2023/
In the top 10, 7 are cis white men, along with these 3:
- Karen Lynch, CVS
- Amin Nasser, Aramco
- Sundar Pachai, Alphabet
Bringing up sexual orientation, gender Identity, and racial identity is what these billionaires want. Plenty of "girl bosses" have shown they are perfectly capable of exploiting labor. Peter Thiel is a perfect example of how you don't have to be straight to oppress people. The CEO of Microsoft isn't white.
UAW just announced a strike against 3 manufacturers today, including GM whose CEO is Mary Teresa Barra.
Then of course there's tons of CEO's and billionaires from Asia, Mexico, and the Middle-East. Calling out Cis White Men does nothing but cause further divisions between members of the working class. There's plenty of CIS straight white men out there laboring and being repressed by a variety of different demographics.
So 7 out of 10 top CEOs are white cis males. But somehow gender and racism has nothing to do with it. Hmm, interesting logic.
Yes I think that's perfectly sound logic.
If 10/10 of the top CEO's were white cis males if say "that's interesting, let's look at a larger sample size". As it stands, it seems there is a statistically significant population of non-white and non-male CEO's. This dataset doesn't include sexual orientation, and even if I cared to look that information up for each individual it's hard to ascertain the accuracy. I would expect most, if not all, CEO's to be cis because... that's the same trend as all of humanity. Approximately 1% of the US population is transgender, and a good portion of those are young people. CEO's tend to be older as the job (in theory) requires experience, so I wouldn't expect to see significant trans representation there for a few more decades.
What are you hoping to accomplish by calling out gender and racism though? Because the only thing you're actually accomplishing is further dividing the working class against each other and playing right into the hands of these people.
As I see it, while not all CEOs are white cisgender. For some strange reason, which I'm completely sure it's totally a coincidence, all the ones spouting this antiwork bile, are always white cis male. I wonder why that might be…
Just because you're focusing on hating a specific race and gender doesn't mean that others aren't alsp spouting the same anti-work bile.
Let's see what Mary Barra has to say about today's strike announcement. https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/15/business/mary-barra-gm-ceo-uaw-strike-interview/index.html
In the US as of 2020 data, there were about 8.5 million black people below the poverty line compared to 15.9 million white people. An individual below the poverty line is almkst twice as likely to be white than black.
That does not mean that systemic racism does not exist: that 8.5 million black people below the poverty line is a much higher percentage of the total number of black Americans than that 15.9 million is of the total number of white Americans. However, there's still 15.9 million white Americans below the poverty line. They don't care how many CEO's in the top 10 are white. They have far more in common with the 8.5 million black people below the poverty line than any of those CEOs.
Stirring racial tensions is an age-old tactic used by the owning class to distract the working class. And you still haven't answered my question: what are you hoping to accomplish by calling out cis white CEO's other than trying to alienate cis white male working class people?
Adding to this, even if they aren’t publicly spreading anti-work bile, that doesn’t mean they aren’t part of the problem either.
Marvin Ellison, the current CEO of Lowe’s, is black - but a glance at some posts from the Lowes subreddit show that people say the same sort of things you can expect from a CEO who underpays their employees, works them to the bone, and apparently runs companies into the ground. Can’t find him saying anything publicly, but it sounds like he’s not helping towards a solution either.
So, I will also ask the same question this guy posed: what was the fucking point of mentioning the CEO being cisgender?
Adding to this, even if they aren’t publicly spreading anti-work bile, that doesn’t mean they aren’t part of the problem either.
Marvin Ellison, the current CEO of Lowe’s, is black - but a glance at some posts from the Lowes subreddit show that people say the same sort of things you can expect from a CEO who underpays their employees, works them to the bone, and apparently runs companies into the ground. Can’t find him saying anything publicly, but it sounds like he’s not helping towards a solution either.
So, I will also ask the same question this guy posed: what was the fucking point of mentioning the CEO being cisgender?
Adding to @paultimate14, even if they aren’t publicly spreading anti-work bile, that doesn’t mean they aren’t part of the problem either.
Marvin Ellison, the current CEO of Lowe’s, is black - but a glance at some posts from the Lowes subreddit show that people say the same sort of things you can expect from a CEO who underpays their employees, works them to the bone, and apparently runs companies into the ground. Can’t find him saying anything publicly, but it sounds like he’s not helping towards a solution either.
So, I will also ask the same question this guy posed: what was the fucking point of mentioning the CEO being cisgender?
You are a bigot.
So if he were a non-white trans CEO, does that suddenly make it ok to do stuff like this?
Being a shitty CEO - nay, a shitty human being - is not mutually exclusive to white people.
No it doesn't, where in my comment did I imply that?
Believe it or not, it can be implied with your original comment. You’re saying “of course it’s a white male cisgender CEO” - but if it were, for example, a black trans person, would you suddenly go “of course it’s a black trans CEO”? By labelling something, you’re suddenly saying that everything that you didn’t explicitly label is somehow different - somehow, a non-white, non-male, non-cis CEO is different than a white male cis CEO.
As another user said, it’s an unnecessary label for the context at hand that serves, at best, to make people go “ok, the labels are unnecessary but go for it”, and at worst it divides people because people are stupid and will get hung up on culture and identity in contexts where neither are needed.
EDIT: Should clarify, I understand you were stereotyping the old rich white man, but adding the “cisgender” bit was unnecessary for that purpose. Most people will get that regardless and it’s ultimately a semantics thing, but it can be dangerous rhetoric if you throw it around willy-nilly. Like I said - everything you didn’t explicitly label is somehow different, even if you just said “old rich white guy”.
Just call a spade a spade, they're a bigot.
Oh my God, give it a rest. If you think white men are the devil just say so.