GSO/Guilford Pols

July 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

« Fact-checking N&R letters | Main | Worth saving »

Apr 01, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cc33e53ef0163038e360c970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Banning domestic partnerships and civil unions in North Carolina:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

justcorbly

As I understand it, one of the things that allowed the Research Triangle to get off to a good start was the ability of IBM to persuade its employees to move down here. Now, 50 years on, a state that doesn't recognize any union other than a pair of heterosexuals working on having kids is going to have trouble making the same kind of pitch.

In other words, some people in NC would rather attract straight couples making their careers in serving burgers than gay couples making their careers in launching tech and health startups. California thanks you, Mr. Stam.

sittinginthemiddle

"As I understand it, one of the things that allowed the Research Triangle to get off to a good start was the ability of IBM to persuade its employees to move down here. Now, 50 years on, a state that doesn't recognize any union other than a pair of heterosexuals working on having kids is going to have trouble making the same kind of pitch."-just


How does IBM moving here have anything to do with the thread? You think the majority of IBM employees were gay and accepting of moving to NC? I think it probably had a lot more to do with logistics, available labor pool and cost of that labor pool, as well as infrastructure and over all expense. The two percent of the work force that is gay has absolutely zero to do with these kinds of decisions. To beleive that is assinine to say the least.

Lex

Actually, sittinginthemiddle, larger organizations considering a relocation frequently do consider quite a number of factors in addition to the amount of money being thrown at them, not all of them economic -- particularly if they want to encourage current employees to make the move rather than staying where they are and going to work elsewhere. The extent to which it is a factor varies with the company and the move, but to suggest it is utterly irrelevant betrays a fundamental ignorance of economic recruitment.

The burden of proof is on anyone who wants to argue that we ought to hand our competitors an advantage, however small, for free.

HRH

Twenty six years ago my husband's employer asked him if he wanted to move from FL to NC. I had reservations. I did not want to move to a state represented by the likes of Jesse Helms. Short story - we moved. Now I see NC as a state where Jesse Helms is an anachronism, (at least I hope so), and I'm not so sure about FL anymore. I can vouch for the fact that the political climate does factor into whether companies and individuals choose to relocate. Also a major consideration for employees with children considering corporate transfers -
the public education system and support.

Peter John

Does it mean that I have to divorce by wife of forty years since she can no longer bear children.

Ed's mom

I have been semi-amused by the procreation requirement, too. As a 59-year-old widow I married a widower who wasn't even an American. I guess that was double trouble.

Billy Jones

Peter John wrote: "Does it mean that I have to divorce by wife of forty years since she can no longer bear children."

No, it just means you can't have sex with your wife anymore.

Ed's Mom, Now we know why Ed is such a troublemaker.

sittinginthemiddle

"Twenty six years ago my husband's employer asked him if he wanted to move from FL to NC. I had reservations. I did not want to move to a state represented by the likes of Jesse Helms. Short story - we moved."


Bottom line, you moved because it was in your financial interest to do so. You needed a job to support your family and that job was relocated to NC. To infer that companies will not relocate here if their gay emoployees are against the move is beyond assinine.

sittinginthemiddle

"Does it mean that I have to divorce by wife of forty years since she can no longer bear children."


No, it just means the newly married gentlemen next door will be more interested in watching you mow the grass instead of your wife.

Patrick

There you go, straight men. Vote for the amendment so your wives can be ogled by your neighbors instead of you.

scharrison

Not that I want to feed your "a gay on every corner" scare tactic, but what's to stop said gentleman from buying the house and watching him mow right now?

Spag

"Domestic partnerships or civil unions, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, would not be valid or recognized here."

Again, they aren't valid or recognized now. So....

Jim Langer

Would the amendment dissolve sets of contracts designed to mimic the rights of "civil unions"? Could a court find that gay partners who have named one another custodians, for example, invalidate those agreements of they were packaged alongside other legal end-runs to grant certain domestic sharing of economic and personal rights?

Lex

It's "imply," not "infer," and it's not all that asinine (1 "s"), either, inasmuch as having to replace a lot of valuable key employees who don't want to move to N.C. is an economic consideration just like property taxes. And in small to midsize knowledge-based companies -- which we like because well-run ones generate a lot of corporate income-tax revenue without making a lot of demands on infrastructure -- it takes on an importance that it wouldn't in some other cases.

Again, every company is different and every move is different. But it's not hard to imagine a scenario in which this amendment, if adopted, could cost the state some attractive employers. Questions about the sanctity of marriage aside, that's bad business, plain and simple. And I ask again: In a tough economy, why would you hand states with which you are competing for jobs a hammer with which to hit you over the head? That's not a rhetorical question; I'd really like an answer.

bubba

"Questions about the sanctity of marriage aside, that's bad business, plain and simple."

How would you know?

Have you ever managed a group of people in a corporate environment for a business that had many locations in multiple states, who regularly made acquisitions or conducted start ups in new areas that required migration/placement/recruitment of talent?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Help a Brother Out