[ad_1]
Israeli companies themselves stumbled on Thursday by issuing press releases announcing that they would let their employees participate in Sunday's strike, called to protest against the exclusion of homobaduals from the new law on surrogate mothers. He started with advertising agencies and public relations agencies, then expanded to high tech companies and then to the rest of the business and to the unions.
It seemed that almost no one stayed away from what became a badge of merit for the "social" references of a company, with a show of force by the good, progressive Israel, because it was a strike.
>> Apple backs campaign against Israeli anti-LGBT legislation
One of the basic equipment in a reporter's toolbox is suspicion, doubt and even cynicism, usually a bitter experience. So, I can not help but ask some uncomfortable questions.
Did these companies, some of which were identified as bad guys in the 2011 social justice protests, now find a cause that the public likes? Could it be that they think that there is a generalized public anger and prefer that it be channeled behind something like LGBT rights rather than against them?
Did they support the strike because they think that the minimal loss for business would be nothing compared to the positive public relations that they would receive? After all, the strike was on the fast day of Tisha B & B when much of the economy is moving to low gear.
Companies are traditionally on the other side of the picket line, trying to end a strike instead of supporting it. And then there is the question of why the issue of LGBT rights, or more specifically the right of men to get the same state maternity services as everyone else, is a cause that unites so many people. 39; businesses. The Israeli business world has never shown a deep interest in LGBT rights. Is Sunday's strike simply a smart public relations exercise?
Or could it reflect the economic and media power of the LGBT community of Israel?
Regardless, what we saw on Sunday was an unusual and surprising case of supporting a street protest. There was already a sign of change, at least in the high-tech sector, when Barak Eilam announced last month that his company would no longer travel to El Al because the airline was giving in to the pressure of not welcome men haredi. ] What El Al controversies and surrogacy have in common is that they are evidence of the power of Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox on the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Nor are they isolated incidents: they follow the Haredi bill, the Shabbat battles at Ashdod and the railroads, and the continued monopoly on the kashrut rabbinate. They signal to large sections of the Israeli population that they are strangled – not just the secular left.
Add to that the corruption of the current government and the struggle for power between the new and old elites, and you see all the ingredients coming together to create mbad anxiety that even affects the business sector.
Yet, Israeli business leaders hesitated. Their media advisers urged them to join them, claiming that the LGBT problem transcended the normal left-right divisions of Israeli society. Despite this, many leaders would have asked if, once they declared themselves in favor of a cause of social justice, would they not have to declare it for others?
They are right to be worried. While Sunday's protests focused on the surrogacy law, there is every reason to believe that it will lead to broader protests over other issues. The 2011 protests began on the costs of housing and multiplied into a widespread demand for social justice. You can not know where the energy generated by the demonstrations will go.
As a rule, business avoids politics. This can only hurt companies that have to deal with politicians and regulations and who is forced to alienate one category of consumers or another.
The question now is whether we are now at the dawn of a new era of corporate responsibility. Today, corporate responsibility means making charitable donations and sending employees from time to time to volunteer.
But supporting LGBT rights or resisting religious coercion is another matter: it risks putting business in conflict with politicians and with segments of society, which requires a lot of courage. This could explain why Nice, a high-tech company, was pioneering. It does not do any business on the local market and does not care what orthodox or ultra-orthodox consumers think.
Many advertising and public relations agencies are already planning other events that will encompbad issues such as the growing influence of religion on public life. The demonstration of a single company last month and the tens of Sunday may be the beginning of something much bigger.
[ad_2]
Source link
