Exxon Mobil shareholders defeat resolution to ban anti-gay discrimination

  • metta

    Posts: 39104

    May 29, 2013 4:48 PM GMT
    Exxon Mobil shareholders defeat resolution to ban anti-gay discrimination

    http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/05/exxon-mobil-shareholders-to-vote-on-gay-discrimination-ban/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2013 12:14 AM GMT
    So I guess I still won't be getting gas there. It's one of those easy boycotts because I am cheap and Exxon and Mobil are usually a few cents more than whatever station is across the street.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2013 1:52 AM GMT
    BP and Chevron/Texaco apparently have gay-friendly policies. I'd opt for Texaco because of the BP oil disaster.

    http://queercents.com/2010/05/04/gasoline-purchases-gay-friendly/

    Note: I had a friend who worked at Exxon before they merged with Mobile and subsequently ended their same-sex partner benefits.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2013 2:02 AM GMT
    I guess I expected this to be way worse that what I actually read. Based solely on what was written in the article, this seems pretty ok to me.
    1. ExxonMobile has an anti-discrimination policy against all discrimination.
    2. Seeing that someone is any type of "activist" is somewhat of a red flag when hiring, especially in an industry that is already considered controversial. I help people write their resumes for a living and the first thing you do is keep,your private life private to minimize anything that may distract from your qualifications. I've even seen people remove their sorority/fraternity, religious and political affiliations from their resumes. And believe me, hiring managers do ask about and notice those groups.

    Curious to hear other perspectives on this. Maybe there is more than meets the eye.
  • Whipmagic

    Posts: 1481

    May 30, 2013 2:20 AM GMT
    Myol saidI guess I expected this to be way worse that what I actually read. Based solely on what was written in the article, this seems pretty ok to me.
    1. ExxonMobile has an anti-discrimination policy against all discrimination.
    2. Seeing that someone is any type of "activist" is somewhat of a red flag when hiring, especially in an industry that is already considered controversial. I help people write their resumes for a living and the first thing you do is keep,your private life private to minimize anything that may distract from your qualifications. I've even seen people remove their sorority/fraternity, religious and political affiliations from their resumes. And believe me, hiring managers do ask about and notice those groups.

    Curious to hear other perspectives on this. Maybe there is more than meets the eye.


    Depends on what you call activist. If it's professionally experience, like an internship with the Human Rights Campaign, it ought to be included, and you should get credit for the experience. Perhaps a good comparison would be an HRC internship with one with the Daughters of the Confederacy. If the latter is chosen, despite otherwise inferior qualifications, it's pretty obvious what's going on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2013 3:57 AM GMT
    Myol saidI guess I expected this to be way worse that what I actually read. Based solely on what was written in the article, this seems pretty ok to me.
    1. ExxonMobile has an anti-discrimination policy against all discrimination.
    2. Seeing that someone is any type of "activist" is somewhat of a red flag when hiring, especially in an industry that is already considered controversial. I help people write their resumes for a living and the first thing you do is keep,your private life private to minimize anything that may distract from your qualifications. I've even seen people remove their sorority/fraternity, religious and political affiliations from their resumes. And believe me, hiring managers do ask about and notice those groups.

    Curious to hear other perspectives on this. Maybe there is more than meets the eye.

    While their claim is they have an anti-discrimination policy, they do not really have a record of equality. HRC rates the largest companies in the U.S., hundreds of them, and we are now to the point where 89% of these companies offer domestic partner benefits like they do for heterosexual married couples. ExxonMobil is one of the 11% that do not and is the largest company in the U.S. to not offer domestic partner benefits. They do not even offer "soft" benefits to same-sex partners of employees such as bereavement leave or employee discounts. It's 2013 and most companies today at least get somewhat of a minimum score for at least offering something to gay employees and their families that they offer to heterosexual employees. I mean, today even Wal-Mart , not exactly known for being a leader on gay equality, can manage to get a score of 60 out of a 100. ExxonMobil gets a score of -25. They offer absolutely nothing and HRC deducts 25 points if they have an official or public anti-gay blemish on their record. ExxonMobil's blemish comes from dropping the wording of banning lgbt discrimination that was already in existence at Mobil when the two companies merged. If it is really that they ban all discrimination, then why list any groups at all in their anti-discrimination policy? Their claim of anti-discrimination against all is nothing but a lot of talk.
  • metta

    Posts: 39104

    May 30, 2013 5:11 AM GMT
    I have not been to Exxon Mobil since the merged. When they merged, they took away the benefits that Mobil used to give their employees that were in same sex relationships.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2013 5:53 AM GMT
    Iceblink said
    Myol saidI guess I expected this to be way worse that what I actually read. Based solely on what was written in the article, this seems pretty ok to me.
    1. ExxonMobile has an anti-discrimination policy against all discrimination.
    2. Seeing that someone is any type of "activist" is somewhat of a red flag when hiring, especially in an industry that is already considered controversial. I help people write their resumes for a living and the first thing you do is keep,your private life private to minimize anything that may distract from your qualifications. I've even seen people remove their sorority/fraternity, religious and political affiliations from their resumes. And believe me, hiring managers do ask about and notice those groups.

    Curious to hear other perspectives on this. Maybe there is more than meets the eye.

    While their claim is they have an anti-discrimination policy, they do not really have a record of equality. HRC rates the largest companies in the U.S., hundreds of them, and we are now to the point where 89% of these companies offer domestic partner benefits like they do for heterosexual married couples. ExxonMobil is one of the 11% that do not and is the largest company in the U.S. to not offer domestic partner benefits. They do not even offer "soft" benefits to same-sex partners of employees such as bereavement leave or employee discounts. It's 2013 and most companies today at least get somewhat of a minimum score for at least offering something to gay employees and their families that they offer to heterosexual employees. I mean, today even Wal-Mart , not exactly known for being a leader on gay equality, can manage to get a score of 60 out of a 100. ExxonMobil gets a score of -25. They offer absolutely nothing and HRC deducts 25 points if they have an official or public anti-gay blemish on their record. ExxonMobil's blemish comes from dropping the wording of banning lgbt discrimination that was already in existence at Mobil when the two companies merged. If it is really that they ban all discrimination, then why list any groups at all in their anti-discrimination policy? Their claim of anti-discrimination against all is nothing but a lot of talk.


    Great info. I did not know this and that info certainly makes a big difference. We should buy shares so that we can vote.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2013 6:18 AM GMT
    When I need fuel I buy it, and I don't care who it is from, so long as they have the premium fuel I need for my VW; but then I'm not cheap either, and a few cents makes little difference to me.

    Oh but they liberals here who like to cry injustice, and feel someone not giving them their way is cores enough to hate and abuse; and still delusion-ally see themselves as the good guys, and fail to see the damage they have done.

    Sometimes with all the hate I see come from the liberals here at RJ, I fail to see how gay marriage is always about liberty with them, but more about oppression, hate and abuse, and how I have been the brunt of so much of it, because marriage is not an issue for me, and Nor would I ever vote for Kevin Rudd, just because he has changed his mind on gay marriage in an election year; no I put country before self.

    Look at the case of the so called Adrian Smith amendment. Adrian Smith was the official at Trafford Housing Trust England, whom was demoted at work, and given a 40% pay cut, because he wrote on his private facebook site that he opposed gay marriage. Thus the marriage Bill in the UK was not about Liberty and equity but about oppression and state orthodoxy about soviet style persecution in the work place for an opinion given in private.

    But the liberal haters here at RJ will not be able to see the injustice of that, or care. Yet they promote they fight for injustice, when really it's their own personal wants.

    I'm pleased I am not one of them, and that albeit I've been in a relationship for 25 years, our hearts are not full of hate and contempt for anyone who does not want us to have a Big Fat Gay Wedding, as we embrace our blessings in life, that we have been able to live together for so long freely and safely, and if we never had the right to marry we would always have the right to love, and be loved.
  • FitGwynedd

    Posts: 1468

    May 30, 2013 9:37 AM GMT
    Myol saidI guess I expected this to be way worse that what I actually read. Based solely on what was written in the article, this seems pretty ok to me.
    1. ExxonMobile has an anti-discrimination policy against all discrimination.
    2. Seeing that someone is any type of "activist" is somewhat of a red flag when hiring, especially in an industry that is already considered controversial. I help people write their resumes for a living and the first thing you do is keep,your private life private to minimize anything that may distract from your qualifications. I've even seen people remove their sorority/fraternity, religious and political affiliations from their resumes. And believe me, hiring managers do ask about and notice those groups.

    Curious to hear other perspectives on this. Maybe there is more than meets the eye.


    Trusting a corporate anti-discrimination policy is like using a wolf as a sheep dog.

    Secondly, not really anti-discrimination if same-sex couples can't get the same benefits as straight ones.