The casual dining chain, which is owned by publicly traded Brinker International, professes to believe in “a culture of belonging,” telling job applicants that it welcomes “those of all genders, races, ethnicities, sexual orientations, abilities, religions, age and backgrounds.”
“We celebrate these differences through a culture of belonging where individual strengths and stories are respected and valued,” ChilisJobs.com asserts. “We’re proud to be a community-oriented meeting place and want everyone to feel welcome at Chili’s.”
I don’t understand the utility of proclaiming your company to be a bastion for the people you clearly hate. Why entice them to become employees just to fire them? And in firing them, receive a tidal wave of bad press and probable lawsuits? 🤷
One thing you need to understand about chain restaurants is that they are not all micromanaged by a central corporation. They are franchises. Usually, a franchisee pays for a license and owns one or more stores in a region. They have certain standards they need to meet to fulfill their franchise requirements, but small day-to-day decisions about how to run the store are up to them. Chili’s corporate might espouse all those values they list in their talking points (though I’ve personally seen companies turn their values on a dime when they think it is hurting their bottom-line). But they probably have very limited, if any direct input on hiring/firing decisions at a single restaurant. At most, they might step in and pressure the franchise owner to reverse this decision if they think it hurts the brand image.
It’s a kind of rainbow washing. Under Capitalism, queer money is still money, so they’ll happily take that while pushing us under the bus at every meaningful opportunity.
I don’t understand the utility of proclaiming your company to be a bastion for the people you clearly hate. Why entice them to become employees just to fire them? And in firing them, receive a tidal wave of bad press and probable lawsuits? 🤷
One thing you need to understand about chain restaurants is that they are not all micromanaged by a central corporation. They are franchises. Usually, a franchisee pays for a license and owns one or more stores in a region. They have certain standards they need to meet to fulfill their franchise requirements, but small day-to-day decisions about how to run the store are up to them. Chili’s corporate might espouse all those values they list in their talking points (though I’ve personally seen companies turn their values on a dime when they think it is hurting their bottom-line). But they probably have very limited, if any direct input on hiring/firing decisions at a single restaurant. At most, they might step in and pressure the franchise owner to reverse this decision if they think it hurts the brand image.
It’s a kind of rainbow washing. Under Capitalism, queer money is still money, so they’ll happily take that while pushing us under the bus at every meaningful opportunity.
Maybe there’s more to the story than the article is telling us.