If This Chase Survey Is Real, Here Is How Employees Are Ethically Obligated To Respond To It…

Did an intern snap???

Did an intern snap???

I was going to shut down the blog for today, but I’m alone in a hotel room in Lincoln Nebraska, and I just saw this, to which I must respond..

Over at Mirror of Justice, Robert George posts a report which he says is from a close friend:

I’ve worked at Chase for the past 11 years. Yearly (sometimes skipping a year though) the bank will send out an Employee Survey to gauge how the employees feel about the bank and the management team they report up to. Every year that’s all the questions ever related to: the bank in general and management. But this year there was a question that had many of us scratching our heads.

This is a company wide survey. All lines of business have the same survey. There was a question where it said to check the boxes that were applicable to you. You could select one, more than one, or none. Here it is:

Are you: 1) A person with disabilities; 2) A person with children with disabilities; 3) A person with a spouse/domestic partner with disabilities; 4) A member of the LGBT community.

I thought 4 was a little oddly placed, but oh well. It was the next option that pulled the needle off the record:

5) An ally of the LGBT community, but not personally identifying as LGBT.

What?! What kind of question was that? An “ally” of that community? What’s the
alternative if you don’t select that option? You’re not a ally of the LGBT
community?

This survey wasn’t anonymous. You had to enter your employee ID. With the way things are going and the fact that LGBT rights are being viewed as pretty much tantamount to the civil rights movement of the mid 50s to late 60s, not selecting that option is essentially saying “I’m not an ally of civil rights”; which is a vague way to say “I’m a bigot.” The worry among many of us is that those who didn’t select that poorly placed, irrelevant option will be placed on the “you can fire these people first” list.

I have a hard time believing this. First of all, the survey is almost certainly illegal. Second, it is incredibly heavy-handed and stupid. Third, even the dimmest executive would know that this would be like bloody meat in the water for the news media. If it is real, I would expect a follow-up story soon about how some renegade intern went berserk and distributed this on his own.

Assuming this really occurred, however, I disagree with George, who comments, “The message to all employees is perfectly clear: You are expected to fall into line with the approved and required thinking. Nothing short of assent is acceptable. Silent dissent will no longer be permitted.”

No, the message is that a lunatic or lunatics are unethically asking questions they have no right to ask, obligating every single employee, including members of the LGBT community or its “allies” to 1) complain to HR, 2) contact the General Counsel 3) get legal counsel of their own, and 4) absolutely refuse to fill out the survey.

This is an intrusion on privacy and personal beliefs, as well as intimidation. It has to be fought and condemned, by everyone.

I still can’t believe it’s real.

36 thoughts on “If This Chase Survey Is Real, Here Is How Employees Are Ethically Obligated To Respond To It…

  1. Jack,
    I am aware of a similar survey that asked the first three questions but had no reference to the issue of being LBGT or an ally.

    I interpreted the questionnaire to assess the corporation’s need to meet its “reasonable accommodations” demands by staff. The individual that asked me about this was quite concerned that the employee could become a target for future layoffs. I think such concerns are quite valid and questions like these put people off and are demotivating. Nonetheless, I suggested that failure to complete the form honestly could preclude any future “reasonable accommodation” for current disabilities if any existed.
    Had the form included items 4 and 5 my response would have been to seek legal counsel.

  2. It is not clear to me that questions 4 and 5 are meant to out bigots. Maybe it is to out supporters.

    Either way, if real, the questions are ridiculous.

            • Okay, then let me clarify. First, if you see a large number of people who disagree with you on an issue, and the only reason you can imagine for their disagreement is hatred, you’re probably a bigot. You can’t exercise enough imaginative empathy to even attempt to understand their point of view. I disagree with the LGBTQXFRMZ crowd, but I understand, in their minds, their goal is simply fairness. I think there are a lot of other things they fail to take into account, and their goals are ultimately destructive, but I understand how they feel.

              Can Leftist Dan and his friends say the same?

              Second, the idea that Chase putting this survey out is *against* LGBTQXFRMZ is so silly as to be laughable. Name the major publicly-held companies on the conservative side of this issue. I guarantee you the list is much, much shorter than the leftist side. So Leftist Dan wants to imagine that the *evil, greedy* conservatives are persecuting his friends. That’s fine. It’s just so totally out of line with the facts that, well, it sounds like angry bigotry.

                • I don’t wish it either way.

                  Still, they are not questions that are relevant to employment (with the exception of if you are going to be working for advocacy groups on either side of the equality for people who are LGBT issue). And that is the most important point. Silly questions.

  3. It’s not illegal. Such things are not a protected class of nondiscrimination in federal law. Age, religion, pregnancy status and others are protected, not this.

  4. Here are the protected classes;

    Under Federal law, employers generally cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of:

    Race[1]
    Sex[1][2]
    Pregnancy[3]
    Religion[1]
    National origin[1]
    Disability (physical or mental, including HIV status)[4][5]
    Age (for workers over 40)[6]
    Military service or affiliation[7]
    Bankruptcy or bad debts[8]
    Genetic information[9]
    Citizenship status (for citizens, permanent residents, temporary residents, refugees, and asylees)[10]

  5. It is not clear to me that questions 4 and 5 are meant to out bigots. Maybe it is to out supporters.
    **********
    That’s the worse part of it, these employees have no idea what the company is fishing for.
    Are they pro or con?
    Do they want their employees to be pro or con?
    Plus, in this time of information, their answers to the questions could come back and cause more problems at another job, etc.
    Ridiculous!

  6. I see this as written by someone low on the totem pole and wanting to give people a chance to say, Hey, I’m NOT LGBT and/or disabled, but I’m a nice guy and an ally. I don’t think the original question-designer probably read it the way you do- that you’re with or against. I see both ways. But I’m also an ally. And an optimist… Still doesn’t exactly excuse it, because it’s thought policing. But I am not postive there was intent.

      • What’s that, guilt by association? What happened to Eich was unconscionable, and un-American. Mozilla disgraced itself. What does that have to do with bexhrob’s comment? An ally of LGBT rights isn’t bound to be an ally of LBGT bullies.

        • “An ally of LGBT rights isn’t bound to be an ally of LBGT bullies.”

          In theory, no. But when the tactics of the movement are consistently this kind of totalitarianism or hoaxed “hate-crimes”, you practically speaking are so bound.

          • Who says? That’s a “you’re with us or against us” argument. I don’t agree or endorse that. When LGTB bullies abridge free speech and thought principles, I’m no ally.

            • Here’s my problem: These vicious, anti-free-speech tactics are so common on their side that it’s hard to separate the cause from their tactics. Have you heard of the Benham brothers?

              • What “anti-free speech” tactics? The freedom to speak does not grant people protection from criticism or consequences.

                • Oh, would you say what was done to Brendan Eich is an example of how “free speech” should work? If I can get a large enough group together to get you fired for saying things I don’t like, is that fine? Yes, it’s legal. It has nothing to do with the First Amendment, but is it right?

                  • Why wouldn’t I when it so often is Conservatives who cry “what about free speech” when their speech is criticized.

                    And if liberals cry the same thing when their speech is criticized I will say the same thing.

                • It is literally illegal in Canada and large sections of Europe to say anything negative about homosexuality. Would you deny this is anti-free-speech?

        • By the way, Mr. Marshall, you might want to read more carefully. That was a question. I wanted to understand what bexhrob thought before I proceeded with my argument. This was a simple, honest question, not a “When did you stop beating your wife?” trap.

          • I read fine, thanks. “How very nice” was obvious sarcasm, and was meant to imply less than sterling motives to Becky. You’re backtracking. It would have been a simple, honest question if you didn’t pre-bias it.

            It’s Jack, by the way. Or “Your Excellency”…

  7. The survey certainly comports with their ATM machine screens that advertise their support of the gay, etc., community. I’m closing my accounts because I find it bizarre that a company cares who people have sex with.

  8. Jack, I must apologize for coming out of the gate with an unsubstantiated insult. I suspect you and I disagree on several important issues, but it is becoming obvious you are much more fair and honest than many with whom I so disagree.

    I will note, regarding my first comment to Dan, that, although not addressing me directly, he insulted first, and he has never substantiated his accusation, as I have.

    Yes, so-called liberals have, in many cases become enemies of free speech, free thought, freedom to run a business, freedom to . . . you name it. That’s why, following Dennis Prager, I have ceased to call them liberals. Words have meaning, and to use that word thus would be to abuse both it and my own mind.

    Have you heard, by the way, about the intimidation and attacks on those who supported Proposition 8 in California? This is not how Americans are supposed to do politics. That is . . . bordering on third world. I am deeply frightened for the future of our country.

    • I not only heard about the attacks, like the attempted boycott of Utah, but condemned them here. I don’t disagree with you or your passion on this issue. I just want to make sure that all comments advance the discussion.

  9. According to me, such concerns are quite valid and questions like these put people off and are demotivating. Nonetheless, I suggested that failure to complete the form honestly could preclude any future “reasonable accommodation” for current disabilities if any existed.

Leave a Reply to george Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.