Human Rights Campaign Corporate Equity Index (2004–2006, 2008, 2010)
AT&T was named to this list based on its treatment of LGBT employees. Every year since 2004, the company has also received a perfect 100 percent score on the HRC's Corporate Equality Index for its fair treatment, including protection against discrimination, parity of health care benefits for domestic partners and other criteria.
(Ignoring their role on the board of the Tennessee chamber of commerce and it's anti-gay lobbying.)
Here's my email I sent. Getting as bad and worthless as HRC.
Your corporate pandering to the interests of AT&T are reprehensible. GLAAD will get no donation money for me nor will AT&T get my business anytime soon. GLADD has absolutely no business involving itself in the business of cellphone mergers. Neither your nor GLAAD speak for the gay community, at least not the gay community I am a member of. Please resign your position and let someone who is not bought and paid for by corporate interests run GLAAD.
Nah, the list is way too long. Suffice it to say that if this merger goes through, every T-Mobile and AT&T customer is going to end up being even more butt-fucked than they already are. And that's saying a lot.
I am a gay man who has been a customer of AT&T for 30 years (yes, I'm that old). When the 4G iphone comes out in October: Buh-bye AT&T. "Rethink possible".
For several years the HRC has reigned as the biggest waste of gay $$$, raising millions of dollars and getting almost nothing of any value in return. Worst lobbying organization in DC.
But it appears GLAAD is vying for first place for the most useless gay organization. I've sometimes disagreed with some of the fights they pick with the media, but I've always been willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Some things that offend me, don't offend others, and vice versa. But this is inexcusably craven.
@16, Sure, plenty: PFLAG, ACLU (not strictly gay, but they argue a lot of cases for gay rights), The Trevor Project, GLSEN, Lambda Legal, the Matthew Shepard Foundation, the Service Members Legal Defense Network… there are lots. None are 100% perfect, I'm sure, but all far more worthy of my donations than HRC or GLAAD.
And that's just national orgs. There are loads of worthwhile local orgs that do good work too. I'm not completely cynical. There are good organizations out there doing great things, and spending their donation money wisely. But HRC is hands-down the worst bang for the buck, and GLAAD seems to be close on their heals.
My understanding has always been that GLAAD is an organization with a
very narrow and noble mission: To support and protect the GLBT
community during its mighty crawl towards global acceptance. For GLAAD
to take a stance on a telcom merger, of all things, it better have a
pretty damn good explanation for how that is in any way relevant to
GLAAD's mission. Do GLBT people use phones disproportionately more
than others? I fail to see even a shred of a valid connection. Maybe I
should just assume that the simplest explanation is the right one -
that this is happening because of the money GLAAD has received from
AT&T, and because of Troup Coronado.
If GLAAD loses the rest of its credibility and political capital, how
much money will you have to ask AT&T for to make it worthwhile?
I sent my mail and within an hour got the form letter back from Mr. Barrios. They must have had it all well prepared in advance. How forward thinking of them...
Here's my email. Note that since Jarrett Barrio is the author of the letter (as well as GLAAD's president), she has little interest in paying any attention to any emails to her. I also coped three of the four officers on GLAAD's Board of Directors. Addresses below. I couldn't find an email address for the fourth.
Ms. Barrios,
As a gay man, I'm sickened by your letter to the FCC supporting the proposed AT&T merger. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with LGBT issues, "the sting of discrimination," or "social justice," much less "wireless healthcare," "the arts" or "the overall economy." No amount of window-dressing in your letter can turn a business dispute about the costs-benefits of a corporate merger into an issue about "LGBT equality." Your letter is completely nonsensical and absurd on its face, and does real damage to the credibility that GLAAD has fought so hard to achieve. It is a transparent act of corporate pandering.
This letter is particularly damning in light of AT&T's betrayal of our community just one week ago in Tennessee. Your letter is sending a message that it is fine for our corporate "friends" to actively support repeal of LGBT rights, and we will turn around and support them nonetheless. Your letter is not merely frivolous and harmful to GLAAD, but outright harmful and dangerous to our community. The only message that you are sending is that GLAAD knows which side its bread is buttered on, and that it will support its corporate donors no matter how ridiculous and irrelevant the issue may be.
I hope that you will take appropriate action to withdraw your letter, fix this mess, and resign. If you cannot, I hope that your board will exercise appropriate corporate leadership.
NB: Please forward this email to the other members of your board of directors. Their email addresses inexplicably are not published on your website. This is an issue that demands the full and immediate attention of your board of directors.
Sent to:
barrios@glaad.org
roxanne.jones@espnmag.com
scott@scottmillerexecutivesearch.com
mikeschaefer_2000@yahoo.com
For what it's worth, the HRC was instrumental in the marriage-equality fight in Massachusetts (eight years ago!), which got the ball rolling for you other slowpoke 49.
I'm not sure if they've done anything consequential since.
Why does John at Americablog have AT&T's service? As consumers, we vote with our dollars. It's important to pay attention to who you are giving your money to when you buy stuff.
There are alternatives to buying into dispicable corporations. Check out Credo for cell phone service (I am not affiliated with them).
@27: AT&Ts Tennessee actions were pretty recent, and before that AT&T were kinda good on GLBT issues (see #4). Buying out your contract gives AT&T money without them having to give you service, so I'd be reluctant to buy out a contract with a company I'm trying to punish.
The question is who does John go with when it's time to renew his contract.
This letter is FULL of inconsistencies. They say they represent a diverse LGBT community, yet in the SAME BREATH they come out in favor of one side over the other. What?!
Why aren't they demanding that the FCC take a CLOSE look at whether the needs of rural communities will actually be met by AT&T, and WHO are THEY to say what the "facts" do or do not show? HOW are THEY qualified to do a measure of who does and does not have access to broadband--no, WIRELESS MOBILE BROADBAND service?
The merger approval needs to be based on the needs of the consumer. Not on any previous pandering or donations. We really need to push back on this type of "endorsement" because it really does waste capital.
Damn, I thought this had to be a hoax for sure, as a telecom merger has no direct impact on LGBTQetc. rights or public perception/defamation as far as I can tell. I'm also not sure I particularly care: is T-Mobile's service any better than AT&T's craptacular offerings? If not, it may actually be to our benefit to concentrate all of the shitty wireless providers into a single conglomerate that can be dismissed, instead of having to sort through multiple shitty providers when deciding about mobile phone/internet service providers. Or: more cell towers without the necessity for cross-licensing usage agreements may actually be better than the status quo of price-fixing collusion, as you won't wind up roaming as much. Then again, I'm in favor of nationalizing all of them and establishing a (net-neutral) public telecom system, so whatever. Let's rearrange the deck chairs so we can hear the band better while we're sinking, eh?
(Ignoring their role on the board of the Tennessee chamber of commerce and it's anti-gay lobbying.)
Too bad for us, if there's nothing in it for anyone else, gay and/or consumers.
Your corporate pandering to the interests of AT&T are reprehensible. GLAAD will get no donation money for me nor will AT&T get my business anytime soon. GLADD has absolutely no business involving itself in the business of cellphone mergers. Neither your nor GLAAD speak for the gay community, at least not the gay community I am a member of. Please resign your position and let someone who is not bought and paid for by corporate interests run GLAAD.
Nah, the list is way too long. Suffice it to say that if this merger goes through, every T-Mobile and AT&T customer is going to end up being even more butt-fucked than they already are. And that's saying a lot.
just tell me that media conglomerates that want to sell us your shite.
Quite the opposite.
For several years the HRC has reigned as the biggest waste of gay $$$, raising millions of dollars and getting almost nothing of any value in return. Worst lobbying organization in DC.
But it appears GLAAD is vying for first place for the most useless gay organization. I've sometimes disagreed with some of the fights they pick with the media, but I've always been willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Some things that offend me, don't offend others, and vice versa. But this is inexcusably craven.
I've had three SOS (loss of signal) icons.
Download speeds have averaged between 3 and 24 kbps.
I've had 10 error messages that "the Internet is not available."
And I've had four error messages saying "the server is overloaded."
And, once AT&T is a virtual monopoly, it's going to get worse.
And that's just national orgs. There are loads of worthwhile local orgs that do good work too. I'm not completely cynical. There are good organizations out there doing great things, and spending their donation money wisely. But HRC is hands-down the worst bang for the buck, and GLAAD seems to be close on their heals.
My understanding has always been that GLAAD is an organization with a
very narrow and noble mission: To support and protect the GLBT
community during its mighty crawl towards global acceptance. For GLAAD
to take a stance on a telcom merger, of all things, it better have a
pretty damn good explanation for how that is in any way relevant to
GLAAD's mission. Do GLBT people use phones disproportionately more
than others? I fail to see even a shred of a valid connection. Maybe I
should just assume that the simplest explanation is the right one -
that this is happening because of the money GLAAD has received from
AT&T, and because of Troup Coronado.
If GLAAD loses the rest of its credibility and political capital, how
much money will you have to ask AT&T for to make it worthwhile?
Ms. Barrios,
As a gay man, I'm sickened by your letter to the FCC supporting the proposed AT&T merger. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with LGBT issues, "the sting of discrimination," or "social justice," much less "wireless healthcare," "the arts" or "the overall economy." No amount of window-dressing in your letter can turn a business dispute about the costs-benefits of a corporate merger into an issue about "LGBT equality." Your letter is completely nonsensical and absurd on its face, and does real damage to the credibility that GLAAD has fought so hard to achieve. It is a transparent act of corporate pandering.
This letter is particularly damning in light of AT&T's betrayal of our community just one week ago in Tennessee. Your letter is sending a message that it is fine for our corporate "friends" to actively support repeal of LGBT rights, and we will turn around and support them nonetheless. Your letter is not merely frivolous and harmful to GLAAD, but outright harmful and dangerous to our community. The only message that you are sending is that GLAAD knows which side its bread is buttered on, and that it will support its corporate donors no matter how ridiculous and irrelevant the issue may be.
http://gay.americablog.com/2011/06/glaad…
I hope that you will take appropriate action to withdraw your letter, fix this mess, and resign. If you cannot, I hope that your board will exercise appropriate corporate leadership.
NB: Please forward this email to the other members of your board of directors. Their email addresses inexplicably are not published on your website. This is an issue that demands the full and immediate attention of your board of directors.
Sent to:
barrios@glaad.org
roxanne.jones@espnmag.com
scott@scottmillerexecutivesearch.com
mikeschaefer_2000@yahoo.com
I'm not sure if they've done anything consequential since.
There are alternatives to buying into dispicable corporations. Check out Credo for cell phone service (I am not affiliated with them).
The question is who does John go with when it's time to renew his contract.
Why aren't they demanding that the FCC take a CLOSE look at whether the needs of rural communities will actually be met by AT&T, and WHO are THEY to say what the "facts" do or do not show? HOW are THEY qualified to do a measure of who does and does not have access to broadband--no, WIRELESS MOBILE BROADBAND service?
Wow, I don't even know where to begin. Meh.
(I've graduated from supporting GLAAD to being silent about it to now speaking against it, *arrrgh*)