Bernie Sanders speaks from an ice cream podium and Twitter erupts

[FDRsGhost]

This is hilarious.

Yesterday Bernie Sanders gave a speech about energy policy at a Ben & Jerry's ice cream plan in VT and twitter fell in love. The jokes came fast and furious!

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

And as a chaser; when a Bernie supporter owns a Trumpster.

Link to tweet

[chia]

1. Show me what a large hand looks like! This is what a large hand looks like!

[Barack_America]

2. I totally scream for progressive social reform.

Frequently on this very site.

[Lone Star]

3. Can't hardly turn down a huge employer of the state!

[OxQQme]

4. A fact aimed at negative spin?

Hmm. Interesting..............
Why would you post that in a 'meant as humor' topic?

[beam me up scottie]

13. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

It's not like he's at a podium for a big pharmaceutical company, Trump hotels or Goldman Sachs.

Ben and Jerry's treats it employees better than the vast majority of corporations, they pay more than double the minimum wage, offer excellent benefits and remain committed to progressive causes. Why wouldn't they support Bernie and why wouldn't he support one of Vermont's most progressive companies?

How Ben & Jerry’s Got Bought Out Without Selling Out

When people hear the name “Ben and Jerry’s,” they think of three things: First, the high-quality ice cream, heavy on the mix-ins and the butterfat; secondSachs, the pun-riddled names of flavors such as Cherry Garcia, Karamel Sutra or Americone Dream; and third, the company’s longstanding social, environmental and corporate justice missions.

But when co-founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield agreed to sell the business in 2000 to Unilever, a multinational food giant, plenty of people expected that those missions wouldn’t survive. To a remarkable degree, they were mistaken.

In a recent interview with Katherine Klein, vice dean of the Wharton Social Impact Initiative, current Ben & Jerry’s CEO Jostein Solheim talked about how the ice cream company has managed to hold onto its original social missions, despite its absorption by Unilever.


An edited transcript of the conversation appears below.

Katherine Klein: We’re here to talk about the social mission of the company and how you have maintained it even as Ben & Jerry’s has become part of Unilever.

Jostein Solheim: Ben & Jerry’s is now 36 years old as a mission-led company. I think the key thing in the whole transition to one shareholder from multiple shareholders was a governance structure that was put in place. Unilever was very visionary in recognizing that it says “Ben & Jerry” on the packaging. If Ben and Jerry go out and say, “Well, this is all not really true anymore and (social justice is) not a mission of the company anymore,” that would really undermine the value of the acquisition.

Klein: So Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry’s in 2000, and this was a company where the social mission was baked into the brand.

Solheim: That is integral to how we do business.

Klein: And Unilever saw this and its investors saw this from the beginning, and saw value?

Solheim: Yes. That’s why they and the then-sitting board together agreed to set up an independent board of directors that acts basically like our benefit corporation director. They are responsible for the social mission, for the integrity of the Ben & Jerry’s brand, our policies. They even get involved in basic things like wage-setting in the factories, where we have a livable wage policy that is overseen by the board of directors. And the directors are self-selecting. Unilever appoints just two seats out of 11 board members.

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/ben-jerrys-got-bought-without-selling/

The right loves to claim Ben and Jerry's "sold out" and constantly uses them as an example of so-called 'liberal hypocrisy' when its founders speak out about progressive causes like social justice, climate change and corporate greed.

But I don't know any liberals who actually agree with them.

[Iggo]

15. They can't help themselves.

[Lone Star]

80. What negative spin?

[sl8]

96. "Huge employer", maybe?

They employ ~ 735 people. Do you really think that characterizing them as a "huge employer" is accurate?

[bettyellen]

5. The irony hit me too.

[QC]

14. Yeah, why can't he hang around with those nice folks from Goldman Sachs?

Or maybe some of Howard Dean's lobbying clients from the drug and insurance rackets?

[bettyellen]

16. Unilever and F-16s are funny enough without bringing Trumps cabinet into it...

[beam me up scottie]

18. Except the podium doesn't say Unilever or Lockheed Martin. It says Ben and Jerry's.

Which as everyone knows is a progressive company despised by the right for its commitment to social causes, the environment and its employees. Frankly I'm surprised to see them compared to the military industrial complex on a liberal website.

Our Metrics

Ben & Jerry’s has been issuing public reports on our social and environmental activities since our 1988 annual report. 2015 is the sixth year we are using our QoR framework to measure our performance in key areas.

The primary purpose of the QoR is to give Ben & Jerry’s management, Ben & Jerry’s Board of Directors, Unilever management and you a clear scorecard by which to evaluate the Company’s social and environmental performance.

Major Areas of Focus in 2015

Our Three-Part Mission Statement is at Our Core.

Ben & Jerry’s operates on a three-part mission that aims to create prosperity for everyone that’s connected to our business: suppliers, employees, farmers, franchisees, customers, and neighbors alike.

You can read the whole Ben & Jerry’s Mission Statement at www.benjerry.com/values.

A Sustainable Model of Linked Prosperity

Our linked prosperity model is cast inside our Mission Statement, which was written in 1988. Numerous academics and progressive business visionaries have advocated for similar models in recent years, which is a good affirmation, but we’ve been working on strengthening the model ever since. And that’s the point -- we’re still working on it. We always will be. We totally understand that you never really get there. The work is never done.

What we envision with our linked prosperity model is that as the company prospers, all those touched by the company must also prosper, including employees, suppliers, linked-prosperity-loop-2015.pngcustomers, and communities. A simple idea, but it takes a lot of work by a lot of people to make it happen.

Some of the more well-known, long-standing examples of linked prosperity include:

* Our livable wage policy.

* Our ongoing support for family dairy farms.

* Our commitment to supporting small-holder agricultural producers by purchasing Fairtrade-certified ingredients.

* Our investment in values-led sourcing partnerships such as with the Greyston Bakery in Yonkers, NY, where they hire people with barriers to employment and empower them with skills training, a renewed sense of dignity and a paycheck at the end of the week.

http://www.benjerry.com/about-us/sear-reports/2015-sear-report

Those MONSTERS!!! Delicious ice cream AND progressive causes? Why those things are EXACTLY like the F-16!

Ben and Jerry should be ashamed! And Bernie too!

[pangaia]

82. Fight the good fight, scottie..

[beam me up scottie]

91. Thank you, pangaia!

[George II]

163. Ben and Jerry's, owned by global conglomerate Unilever.

[JCanete]

19. come on, Ben And Jerry's? You have to admit that's pretty ridiculous to see irony there. And they

are very progressive for a company.

[bettyellen]

20. They were bought by a multinational conglomerate, so....

It's kind of funny everyone assumes it's a homespun thing and not connected- god forbid!- to a corporation!

So...some corporations should have free speech but not others? And this coming from people who quote Orwell all day, ha ha.

[beam me up scottie]

25. "everyone assumes it's a homespun thing and not connected- god forbid!- to a corporation!"

That sounds like a straw man.

Do you have evidence that "everyone" assumes that? Or even one person? You do realize that it is possible to be a progressive company and also be part of a corporation, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

So...some corporations should have free speech but not others? And this coming from people who quote Orwell all day, ha ha.

Did anyone say that some corporations shouldn't have free speech? And what does Orwell have to do with this? Are you comparing corporations to people? That sounds like an argument for Citizen's United.

[JCanete]

27. Yeah, that happens. Ben and Jerry's has obviously maintained their voice and personality. And

Michael Moore used production companies to make his anti-corporation docs, Jon Stewart and Colbert were on the Comedy Central's Daily Show owned by a massive corporation, Maher and Oliver on HBO.. etc. etc.

Corporations aren't evil. They are typically amoral, but Ben and Jerry's champion's progressive causes. He's not holding hands with the devil here. He's not out there saying don't buy from corporations, or that we need to do away with corporations either. This is some strange straw-manning of what he's been saying. He's saying that we can't trust corporations to do the right thing. We must regulate them. We must not simply ask them to let us regulate them. He's also saying that when corporations support the campaigns of public servants with money, that is a problem.

There may be exceptions, which I'm sure he would note, but typically corporations have a bottom line and that drives their decision-making.

I have no fucking clue what you're talking about regarding free speech. Who is curtailing it for who? Who is saying that corporations shouldn't champion causes? When a company is on the right side of something, I have no qualms about giving that company props.

What I have, is a problem with corporate money going to Washington. That isn't free speech. That is something altogether different.

[beam me up scottie]

34. Exactly. Ben and Jerry took plenty of heat from the right for their criticism of Citizen's United.

How Our Democracy Got Sold: Citizens United and the Effect of Big Money on Campaign Spending

Coming soon to a movie theatre near you: The next major election cycle. Now that’s a film you might not want to see. But when election cycle spending is expected to top $5 billion, why not just bill it as a Hollywood blockbuster?

A recent Demos report shows that the winning 2014 Senate candidates had to raise $3,300, on average, every day for six years. And when getting a seat in the Senate comes with a price tag of over $7 million, candidates are pressured to focus on the interests of donors with deeper pockets.

How did we get to this point, where the price of politics has soared so high, and the voice of the average voter can be drowned out by the influence of big money? Here’s the breakdown on how our democracy got sold:

The Citizens United Effect: Political Spending as a First Amendment Right

Before the January 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court case, laws prevented corporations and unions from buying media that promoted (or criticized) any candidate in the run up to elections. After the Citizens United ruling, that ban was tossed aside, allowing corporations and unions unlimited spending on ads an other political tools used to influence election outcomes.

But the biggest thing to come out of Citizens United was the court’s decision that political spending amounted to a First Amendment right. Using that precedent, a separate 2010 Speechnow.org v. FEC case ruled that spending limits on contributions to campaign advocacy groups was unconstitutional— unleashing Super PACS powered by unlimited donations, provided they don’t directly coordinate with candidates.

http://www.benjerry.com/whats-new/2015/democracy-citizens-united

Ben and Jerry were called hypocrites by the right because they champion and contribute to political causes. Republican pundits also claimed that because they belong to a corporation they have no right to criticize Citizens United.

[George II]

129. Are you referring to the corporatists Ben and Jerry?

Wonder how much they got for selling to Europe based Unilever?

[beam me up scottie]

131. LMAO! Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield are now corporatists?

?31cc10


THOSE MONSTERS!!! DELICIOUS ICE CREAM AND SOCIAL JUSTICE??? HOW EVIL AND CORPORATE OF THEM!

[George II]

132. Ben & Jerry's To Unilever, With Attitude

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/13/business/ben-jerry-s-to-unilever-with-attitude.html

"Ending a four-month process that had some twists and turns, Ben & Jerry's Homemade, the quirky ice cream company that made social consciousness central to its strategy, said yesterday that it had agreed to be acquired by Unilever, the global giant that owns the Breyer's and Good Humor brands, for about $326 million in cash, or $43.60 a share."

[beam me up scottie]

134. Sold up but not sold out, Ben and Jerry are still the poster boys for fair trade:

Sold up but not sold out, Ben and Jerry are still the poster boys for fair trade
Vermont's finest double discuss American pie, greenwash and giving Unilever some sticky moments
Ben & Jerry's


Ben Cohen, one half of Ben & Jerry's, is recalling the time he got in trouble with the bosses at Unilever, which bought the ice-cream maker in 2000.

Coca-Cola had just taken a stake in Innocent drinks, a small British maker of smoothies with a reputation for being a socially responsible business. A British reporter called to get Cohen's opinion. He, after all, had a similar experience. Ben & Jerry's, which had been founded in the liberal US state of Vermont in the 1970s, was the prototype hippy business-with-a-conscience, promoting liberal causes on the lids of its tubs, giving a percentage of its profits to charity and having a rule that no executive would earn more than five times the lowest-paid worker. Unilever, by contrast, could be a synonym for the faceless multinational, bestriding the globe, selling detergents and cleaning products.


"So the BBC called me up and said 'you have been in a somewhat similar situation; you were a socially responsible little business, you got bought by some big giant, you know, what do you think?'" he recalls.

"I said, 'you know, it doesn't sound good to me' … I think that if you get bought by a company that doesn't really share the same values, it is hard to have your values continue and then I suggested …" he says, starting to laugh, "that it would be good for Unilever to abide by their agreements – and they didn't like that." The laughs get louder.

"You know," adds Jerry Greenfield, his co-founder in the business, "we have these annual franchise meetings every year, so it's a gathering in January, we have all the franchise shops of Ben & Jerry's around the world and the head of the franchise department always tries to sit down with Ben and me before the meeting, to find out what Ben is going to talk about. And he never tells him, because he doesn't know till like 10 minutes before anyway, but their people are always a little nervous, always a little on edge about what Ben is going to talk about."

The pair, raised on Long Island, New York, and both 59, were in London to promote the announcement that Ben & Jerry's planned to take all the ingredients in its ice cream from Fairtrade sources by 2013. Walking into the room to meet them, they bellow their names in turn "Ben", "Jerry", and offer a firm handshake, as though they long ago dispensed with the need of a surname.


Both wear their liberal views on their sleeves. But on the evidence of an hour-long meeting, Greenfield is the more emollient; Cohen, the sharper-edged, less predictable of the two, swallowing half-sneers and chuckles of disbelief as he touches on subjects ranging from the US military budget to Wal-Mart and the relationship with Unilever, which he describes as a "forced marriage".

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/apr/04/ben-jerrys-fairtrade-ethical-business

And from your own link:

Did Ben & Jerry's sell out, or is the Ben & Jerry's culture invading the corporate world? A scoop of each, perhaps.

Ending a four-month process that had some twists and turns, Ben & Jerry's Homemade, the quirky ice cream company that made social consciousness central to its strategy, said yesterday that it had agreed to be acquired by Unilever, the global giant that owns the Breyer's and Good Humor brands, for about $326 million in cash, or $43.60 a share.

The deal seems to pave the way for Ben & Jerry's to continue its maverick ways. The company will be a wholly owned subsidiary of Unilever, with a separate board that will include Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, the founders of Ben & Jerry's.

''Shareholders will be rewarded,'' Ben & Jerry's said in a statement. ''Ben & Jerry's employees will be protected; the current social mission of Ben & Jerry's will be encouraged and well-funded, which will lead to improved performance in this area, and an opportunity has been offered for Ben & Jerry's to contribute to Unilever's social practices worldwide.''

Oops! Did you leave that part out by accident?

[beam me up scottie]

144. Here's the definition of corporatism:

corporatism:

the control of a state or organization by large interest groups

That would mean that a corporatist supports corporatism and it's obvious to anyone who's been paying attention that Ben and Jerry don't fit that definition. But don't take my word for it, let's hear from Ben Cohen himself:

Join Our Co-Founder, Ben Cohen, and Help Get The Dough Out of Politics
March 10, 2015
By Ben Cohen

I remember reading Abe Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address in my high school civics class. We were taught that we had a representative democracy, in which elected officials went to Washington to work for the people back home, and our representatives transcended their self-interest and worked together for the common-good. As Lincoln described it, “A government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

But the system is broken; or fixed, depending on how you look at it. No matter which issue you care most about—the environment, education, healthcare, poverty, Wall Street banks, student debt—it’s unlikely that our representatives will listen to you unless you have a million dollars to spend on advertising, campaign contributions and high-priced lobbyists.

That’s because in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court ruled that money is free speech. They then went even further in Citizens United v FEC, saying that corporations are people and therefore can spend unlimited amounts of money to influence laws and elections. In other words, the Supreme Court perfected a system of pay-to-play politics in which corporations and billionaires spend big bucks on elections, and lobbyists and are awarded with cushy government contracts. According to a new study by the Sunlight Foundation, between 2007-2012, the nation’s 200 most politically active corporations received $760 for every $1 they donated to influence politics.

http://www.benjerry.com/whats-new/2015/citizens-united-ben-cohen

Words mean things, George. Calling Ben and Jerry corporatists is an alternative fact. It has no basis in reality.

[R B Garr]

166. At least you admit that words mean things. Like Bernie's moral war on corporations.

Good vs. Evil. That's what a moral war is.

What has no basis in reality is you redefining Bernie's words for false self-congratulations on a message board.

In Bernie's moral war against corporations, I bet he doesn't think corporations are on the good side.

e·vil
[ˈēvəl]
ADJECTIVE
profoundly immoral and malevolent:
"his evil deeds" · [more]
synonyms: wicked · bad · wrong · immoral · sinful · foul · vile · dishonorable · [more]
NOUN
profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, especially when regarded as a supernatural force:
"the world is stalked by relentless evil" · [more]
synonyms: wickedness · bad · badness · wrongdoing · sin · ill · immorality · vice · [more]

[betsuni]

29. Yeah, we've been hearing for years that if you take corporate money from or pal around with

corporations you have to do everything the corporations tell you to do forever and be, like, a corporatist. I guess that only works sometimes.

[JCanete]

138. that is not what you've been hearing for years, unless you're talking about your own echo-chamber

of misinterpretation. Many of us would rather the world be different. We appreciate it for what it is and don't automatically assume anybody is an evil corporatist for selling their company to a big corporation.

The issue always, ALWAYS...in-spite of you trying to make it something else, is can you govern if you rely on the money of corporations to then police them. That is a conflict of interest that makes money problematic. When a politician takes money and the rhetoric reflects a softness on that very same industry, it doesn't mean the person is bought, but it does mean the corporations like that person for a fucking reason.

You are welcome to pat one another on the back after mischaracterizing Sander's whole position, but what is really in it for you doing so?

[betsuni]

141. The Echo-chamber of Misinterpretation.

That is not what you've been hearing for years
Your own echo-chamber of misinterpretation
Many of us would rather the world be different
We appreciate it for what it is
In spite of you trying to make it something else
The echo-chamber of misinterpretation
Can you govern
If you rely on the money of corporations
And the rhetoric reflects a softness
It doesn't mean the person is bought
The corporations like that person
For a fucking reason
You are welcome to pat one another on the back
But what is really in it for you
The echo-chamber of misinterpretation

[JCanete]

142. okay, so you never were interested in backing up your assertion. Just throw shit out there then.

The level of justification you or other posters have for somehow making this a case of hypocrisy is as vapid as someone saying "it snowed today, so much for global warming." The two have nothing to do with each other. Either make a fucking case or cop to being silly.

[karynnj]

51. They still have free cone day i

In Burlington that mears a line down the block and fun.

[beam me up scottie]

53. Yep! Do they still let employees bring home free pints?

[George II]

133. Ben and Jerry are no longer a "company", they're a division of a European conglomerate.

[beam me up scottie]

135. Unless they've redefined the word 'company' Ben and Jerry's still fits the definition.

company:

a commercial business

From Wikipedia:

Ben & Jerry's Homemade Holdings Inc, trading and commonly known as Ben & Jerry's, is an American company that manufactures ice cream, frozen yogurt, and sorbet. It was founded in 1978 in Burlington, Vermont, and operates globally as a subsidiary of the Anglo-Dutch conglomerate Unilever.

Please explain why they're no longer considered a company.

[Blue_Warrior]

152. Look! Another Bernie-can-do-no-righter.

Shocking.

[FDRsGhost]

7. Who openly backed him in the primary

and even had a flavor named after him. But that's bad isn't it?

[LWolf]

6. Sanders AND Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream...

an irresistible combination.

That last flavor is pretty fucking funny, even if I don't know that I could keep it down.

[BainsBane]

8. Ben and Jerry's is owned by Univlever

which is a massive global conglomerate.

[DesertRat]

9. Wow, I had no idea that they'd sold out

[BainsBane]

10. Years ago

It wasn't recent.

[pangaia]

83. They didn't 'sell out." Maybe check the facts about the sale.

[onecent]

11. He can do whatever he wants to do....He is at least trying.....

the only person in the congress that knows we are selling our soul. (trump is selling our souls)

[beam me up scottie]

12. Before the 'Ben and Jerry's sold out to an EVIL corporation' talking points start flying:

Reasons To Love Ben & Jerry’s That Have Nothing To Do With Ice Cream
By Catherine Taibi

1. Their starting salary is double the minimum wage.

An entry-level Ben & Jerry’s worker earns $15.97 per hour, a company spokeswoman told The Huffington Post in an email. That’s roughly double the federal minimum wage. According to a statement on the company’s website, their starting salary is based on the actual cost of living in Vermont.

We’re speechless.

2. They help put the unemployed to work.

All of the brownies that are used to make Ben & Jerry’s Chocolate Fudge Brownie and Half Baked ice creams are baked at Greyston Bakery, a New York enterprise dedicated to providing jobs for the unemployed, a Ben & Jerry’s spokeswoman told HuffPost.

3. Community service is a part of the company’s mission statement.

“Our community-conscious commitment isn’t an add-on: it’s built right into our Company Mission,” Ben & Jerry’s states on its website, and they aren’t kidding. Doing everything from cleaning up rivers and beaches, to helping the homeless, giving grants to grassroots organizations, raising money for homeless animals, and volunteering at St. Judes Children’s Ranch, it seems the company does just as much work in the community as it does in the ice cream factory.

More:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3726083

Sold up but not sold out, Ben and Jerry are still the poster boys for fair trade
Vermont's finest double discuss American pie, greenwash and giving Unilever some sticky moments

Ben Cohen, one half of Ben & Jerry's, is recalling the time he got in trouble with the bosses at Unilever, which bought the ice-cream maker in 2000.

Coca-Cola had just taken a stake in Innocent drinks, a small British maker of smoothies with a reputation for being a socially responsible business. A British reporter called to get Cohen's opinion. He, after all, had a similar experience. Ben & Jerry's, which had been founded in the liberal US state of Vermont in the 1970s, was the prototype hippy business-with-a-conscience, promoting liberal causes on the lids of its tubs, giving a percentage of its profits to charity and having a rule that no executive would earn more than five times the lowest-paid worker. Unilever, by contrast, could be a synonym for the faceless multinational, bestriding the globe, selling detergents and cleaning products.


"So the BBC called me up and said 'you have been in a somewhat similar situation; you were a socially responsible little business, you got bought by some big giant, you know, what do you think?'" he recalls.

"I said, 'you know, it doesn't sound good to me' … I think that if you get bought by a company that doesn't really share the same values, it is hard to have your values continue and then I suggested …" he says, starting to laugh, "that it would be good for Unilever to abide by their agreements – and they didn't like that." The laughs get louder.

"You know," adds Jerry Greenfield, his co-founder in the business, "we have these annual franchise meetings every year, so it's a gathering in January, we have all the franchise shops of Ben & Jerry's around the world and the head of the franchise department always tries to sit down with Ben and me before the meeting, to find out what Ben is going to talk about. And he never tells him, because he doesn't know till like 10 minutes before anyway, but their people are always a little nervous, always a little on edge about what Ben is going to talk about."

The pair, raised on Long Island, New York, and both 59, were in London to promote the announcement that Ben & Jerry's planned to take all the ingredients in its ice cream from Fairtrade sources by 2013. Walking into the room to meet them, they bellow their names in turn "Ben", "Jerry", and offer a firm handshake, as though they long ago dispensed with the need of a surname.


Both wear their liberal views on their sleeves. But on the evidence of an hour-long meeting, Greenfield is the more emollient; Cohen, the sharper-edged, less predictable of the two, swallowing half-sneers and chuckles of disbelief as he touches on subjects ranging from the US military budget to Wal-Mart and the relationship with Unilever, which he describes as a "forced marriage".


***

Even so, Cohen says he is more convinced than ever that business can be a force for good. "If there is any hope for our countries and society in general, it is through business. Business has risen to this level of the most powerful force in society. I mean it used to be that the most powerful forces in society were religion and then nation states and the purpose of those two entities was to support the common good, and maybe they didn't do everything exactly right, but now those two are subservient to business."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/apr/04/ben-jerrys-fairtrade-ethical-business

Ben and Jerry's is NOT Unilever, it's a progressive company that hasn't forgotten its roots or its commitment to progressive causes. If they had 'sold out' they would pay their workers minimum wage, scrap their mission statement and put profit over people.

The right loves to point to Ben and Jerry's as an example of 'liberal hypocrisy' and squawk about how they 'sold out' but then again they also bashed Al Gore for having a big house and constantly vilify other liberals who don't live like paupers. According to them if we're not true socialists we have no right to criticize greedy corporations.

To hell with them, Vermont is proud of Ben and Jerry's and rightly so.

So kudos to Vermont treasures Ben, Jerry and Bernie!

[bettyellen]

21. Well thank god theyre not "establishment" like Planned Parenthood or Naral, LOL

[beam me up scottie]

23. Well Ben and Jerry's certainly isn't in the same league as Goldman Sachs.

Thank goodness for that.

[bettyellen]

24. So some corporations should have "free speech" and some non profits should STFU- got it!

[beam me up scottie]

28. Did someone actually say that or did you make it up? What does the 1st amendment have to do with it?

Poor Goldman Sachs, they get such a bad rap.

[R B Garr]

30. LOL, following the strict throw-away lines, I see.

Bernie seZ Goldman Sachs, so everything is Goldman Sachs. Except Ben & Jerrys. And F-16s.

[beam me up scottie]

33. Are we defending Goldman Sachs now?

I thought we were against the influence of big money in politics and pay to play since Trump was elected and snuggled up to Goldman Sachs. Has that changed?

Ben and Jerry's is the exact opposite of Wall Street and the military industrial complex, they remain committed to progressive causes despite being bought out by Unilever.

Like I said, the only people I know who claim progressive companies like Ben and Jerry's are examples of 'liberal hypocrisy' are members of the right wing. They often whine about companies who champion social causes and decry big money in politics - their 'reasoning' is that such efforts make liberals hypocrites.

But we all know that's bullshit. We resented it when they used the same talking points to portray Al Gore as a hypocrite because he speaks about climate change yet he has a big house and flies around on jets. This is no different - Ben and Jerry's is just another target for this right wing propaganda. If you do a search you'll find it goes like this: How DARE Ben and Jerry speak out about money in politics when they contribute to political causes??? How DARE they criticize Wall Street when they're owned by a huge corporation??? Why, the NERVE of those liberal hypocrites!!!

Silly right wingers and their talking points.

[R B Garr]

35. No, this was about meaningless throw-away lines.

Like mentioning Goldman Sachs as a crutch to excuse attacking people. Those kind of phony well-worn, meaningless red herrings.

[beam me up scottie]

36. Meaningless throw away lines like anti-liberal talking points about progressive companies.

Those kind of phony well-worn, meaningless red herrings

Red herrings? You mean like bringing up F-16s when discussing Ben and Jerry's? Why yes, that's an excellent example of a logical fallacy.

Very good!



I agree, attacking progressive companies and comparing them to Goldman Sachs and the military industrial complex is phony. Absolutely. I hate it when the right does that.

So glad we're all on the same page here.

Let's all hear it for Ben and Jerry and Bernie!

[R B Garr]

37. Wrong again. When you hide behind Goldman Sachs

for everything, you expose the phoniness, hypocrisy and vapidness of the anti/corporation mumbo jumbo.

[bettyellen]

38. I've been told again and again that taking ANY corporate money is corrupting the candidate....

And I always thought that was strange because it would leave you pretty much no one to vote for in 90% of races.
And WHO would want that?

[R B Garr]

56. That's what I remember, too. Corporations are evil.

I guess that's why there's all this scrambling to pretend that Ben & Jerry's isn't really a part of that. It turns out that some reasonable thought must be applied when evaluating Ben & Jerry's, but not any other corporation. Strange.

And yeah, the whole arc of talking points is rather strange when you evaluate it realistically, especially from a life-long elected politician, who... better not say...

[beam me up scottie]

39. When discussing corporate influence in politics I think Goldman Sachs is relevant.

Of course not everyone agrees that Wall Street has too much influence. Some claim Goldman Sachs is just a liberal boogeyman while many of us think they're representative of everything that's wrong with politics.

No one has to agree with Bernie Sanders, Ben Cohen, Jerry Greenfield, Elizabeth Warren and other progressives - it's a big tent after all.

[R B Garr]

57. Not buying it, sorry. Looks like you threw out Goldman Sachs to browbeat people.

Goldman Sachs is like the new gateway drug or something. It just leads to other far more serious abuses of logic.

[betsuni]

58. Heh

[beam me up scottie]

60. Yes I can see why you want to think facts about Goldman Sachs are irrelevant.

And the only abuse of logic here is the false equivalence fallacy.

False Equivalence:

Describing a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially the order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.

http://trulyfallacious.com/logic/logical-fallacies/presumption/false-equivalence

Pretending that Ben and Jerry's is an evil corporation just like Goldman Sachs and Lockheed Martin and that any progressive who supports them is a hypocrite is faulty reasoning.

But you keep on beating the 'Ben and Jerry's is an EVIL corporation drum'. I'm going to have some ice cream and mock Goldman Sachs.

[R B Garr]

98. You are clearly the own with false equivalency. Bordering on desperation, actually.

You threw in Goldman Sachs to obfuscate. And it was Bernie who said corporations were evil. Ben & Jerry's is a corporation.

[beam me up scottie]

99. Actually I used Goldman Sachs as an example of a corporation that buys influence.

And it does.

Elizabeth Warren Politely Asks Goldman Sachs to Confess Its Crimes:

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/02/elizabeth-warren-goldman-sachs

And it was Bernie who said corporations were evil.

Bernie never said all corporations are evil. What a silly thing to say. That sounds like a right wing talking point about socialism. Where did you read such a thing?

[R B Garr]

101. No. You used Goldman Sachs to obfuscate the obvious hypocrisy of

making ridiculous statements about corporations. All except those corporations that your hero lies. It's all so phony, but at least it's not taken seriously.

And now you keep trying to insinuate that anyone not buying into the obvious silly word games is a RW'er. LOL, at least we had a break from this for a while...

[beam me up scottie]

102. What are you talking about now?

making ridiculous statements about corporations.

Ridiculous statements like comparing Ben and Jerry's to F-16's and claiming they're the same thing as Unilever?

Because those are the only ridiculous statements about corporations I've seen.

All except those corporations that your hero lies.

Who is my hero? And what do they lie about?

All I've done is correct the record about Ben and Jerry's and how it's not hypocritical for progressives to support them.

First the other poster starts going on about penises and now we're off on a tangent about heroes.

This is getting curiouser and curiouser.

[R B Garr]

105. You are contradicting Bernie. Corporations are evil. Ben & Jerry's is a corporation.

You aren't correcting the record at all. And your sidebar here is phony. Just read my first post here. It still stands.

Quote from Bernie:
"I know there is profound anger at the greed on Wall Street and corporate America."

[beam me up scottie]

106. Where is the link to Bernie saying that corporations are evil?

You do realize that repeating a claim isn't evidence that it's factual, right?

You wouldn't make up something like that, would you? You must have read it somewhere. How about a link?

[R B Garr]

107. We've listened to it since 2015.

LOL, more obfuscation.

[beam me up scottie]

108. And yet you can't provide a link to him saying all corporations are evil?

Let's review your claims:

And it was Bernie who said corporations were evil.

You are contradicting Bernie. Corporations are evil

Such a specific claim. I've been following Bernie since the 80's, why haven't I ever heard him say that?

Why not just link to the article, video or transcript? Seems like it would be easy enough if he's been saying it for years.

[R B Garr]

115. LOL, I knew this part was coming. The part where words have to appear exactly

as demanded or all meaning is lost.



Soon corporations will be not be greedy. I'm waiting for that....

[beam me up scottie]

119. So Bernie never said corporations are evil? Well that makes your point moot, doesn't it?

And it was Bernie who said corporations were evil.

If Bernie never said that then it's not hypocritical for him to support Ben and Jerry's.

You are contradicting Bernie. Corporations are evil

If he never said that then I'm not contradicting him.

That was easy. Thanks for admitting he never actually said those things. Honesty is always appreciated.

[R B Garr]

124. No. You make his point moot. Now he never spoke of corporations.

Corporate greed! Never happened!

[beam me up scottie]

126. Did I say Bernie "never spoke of corporations"? Can you post a link or the text?

Let's review my post again:

"So Bernie never said corporations are evil? Well that makes your point moot, doesn't it?"

And it was Bernie who said corporations were evil.

If Bernie never said that then it's not hypocritical for him to support Ben and Jerry's.

You are contradicting Bernie. Corporations are evil

If he never said that then I'm not contradicting him.

***

Nope, nothing in there about:

Now he never spoke of corporations.
Corporate greed! Never happened!

How strange. Are you sure you're reading my posts and not someone else's?

[R B Garr]

136. lol, I wonder what holes you will dig if I said Bernie demonized corporations.

Because he did. You can look up the word demonize and go from there. Hint, it doesn't actually mean that you turn someone into a demon, because then you would have to describe how that would happen, which is sort of impossible. But it is possible to use the word demonized in a sentence.

P.S., you can look at the Post-Mortem forum for all kinds of talk about Bernie and corporations, corporate candidates, all kinds of talk about evil greedy corporations. Right here on this site. I bet you've seen it.

[beam me up scottie]

137. No - you didn't, you claimed Bernie said "corporations are evil". Twice.

Here are those claims again:

And it was Bernie who said corporations were evil.

You are contradicting Bernie. Corporations are evil

You didn't use the word demonize until just now. That's called moving the goalposts.

Moving the goalposts is an informal logical fallacy in which previously agreed upon standards for deciding an argument are arbitrarily changed once they have been met. This is usually done by the "losing" side of an argument in a desperate bid to save face. If the goalposts are moved far enough, then the standards can eventually evolve[1] into something that cannot be met no matter what (or anything will meet said standard if the losing side is trying to meet the standard using this tactic). Usually such a tactic is spotted quickly. Often, moving the goalposts is an exercise in slothful induction.

The fallacy is an ad hoc fallacy and an informal fallacy.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

I asked for proof of your claim that he called corporations evil and you haven't provided any. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim so it's not unreasonable to expect you to show where you read those quotes.

[R B Garr]

139. Right, because Bernie never talked about evil

corporations. According to your new logic.

I told you Goldman Sachs was just a gateway to more serious logic abuse.

Okay, this is way too silly now. Time to finish the movie here.

[beam me up scottie]

140. Moving the goalposts again. You claimed he said "corporations are evil".

Trying to amend your previous claim is a logical fallacy:

Moving the goalposts is an informal logical fallacy in which previously agreed upon standards for deciding an argument are arbitrarily changed once they have been met. This is usually done by the "losing" side of an argument in a desperate bid to save face. If the goalposts are moved far enough, then the standards can eventually evolve[1] into something that cannot be met no matter what (or anything will meet said standard if the losing side is trying to meet the standard using this tactic). Usually such a tactic is spotted quickly. Often, moving the goalposts is an exercise in slothful induction.

The fallacy is an ad hoc fallacy and an informal fallacy.

I'm not the one abusing logic here.

You didn't say:

Bernie never talked about evil corporations.

Your exact words were:

it was Bernie who said corporations were evil.

You are contradicting Bernie. Corporations are evil

Can you prove your original claim or not? It's a simple yes or no question. I will assume that further attempts to move the goalposts and an inability to post proof is an admission that the answer is no.

[R B Garr]

164. LOL, you spent all night moving the goalposts.

That's hilarious.

Explain what Bernie meant by a moral war on corporations.

Explain what two opposing forces are involved in a moral war.

[betsuni]

109. This is hysterical!

Corporations are nice now.

[beam me up scottie]

110. Did someone actually say that? Why that IS hysterical!

I thought people were saying some corporations are progressive and that it's not hypocritical for liberals to support them.

But yeah, saying "corporations are nice" is pretty naive. I'm glad I didn't say that.

[betsuni]

112. Glad you agree with me!

[beam me up scottie]

114. I do! Can you show me the post where someone said that? I want to laugh too!

"Corporations are nice."

Hilarious!

[R B Garr]

117. Yes, it is hilarious! You just have to laugh at it.

I'm also waiting for the part about corporations not being greedy and evil. People angry! Or something...

[bettyellen]

40. Don't forget progressive nonprofits like Planned Parenthood....

Anyone who's been in "the system" and taken "corporate money" like Unilevers must be corrupt. So I've been told thousands of times.

[beam me up scottie]

42. Isn't that the argument you're making here by claiming the photo is ironic?

Make up your mind, either supporting progressive companies and organizations is a good thing or it's not. It can't just be a bad thing when Bernie does it.

And why do you keep confusing Ben and Jerry's with Unilever, you do realize that they're not the same thing, right? Unilever doesn't pay all of its employees a living wage and doesn't oppose Citizens United - Ben and Jerry's does. That's as silly as claiming Ben and Jerry's is no different than Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs.

[bettyellen]

43. It's ONLY okay for some people to hide taxes and work with corporations...

how's that work again?

[beam me up scottie]

45. Why are you talking about penises now?

It appears a person need only sign the excuse slip with their penis.

This conversation has gotten increasingly bizarre. First it was guess the logical fallacy and now we're switching to male genitalia as if that's at all relevant.

You don't really believe that only men are concerned with money in politics, do you? I think Elizabeth Warren would have something to say about that.

Let's leave penises out of it.

Again either supporting progressive companies and organizations is a good thing or it's not. It can't just be a bad thing when Bernie does it.

[bettyellen]

48. It appears to be a more reliable predictor of when exceptions to "the rules" suddenly appear.

funny how this shit works out.

[beam me up scottie]

49. Apparently in this case that's true.

It appears to be a more reliable predictor of when exceptions to "the rules" suddenly appear

Yes, either supporting progressive companies and organizations is a good thing or it's not. It can't just be a bad thing when Bernie does it and an exception to the rule because he's a man.

[bettyellen]

50. It's not supporting the company- its receiving support from huge corporations....

So strange you'd reverse that, but it's been THE standard for corruption for so many maybe you forgotten got confused?

[beam me up scottie]

52. How is speaking from a Ben and Jerry's podium 'receiving support from a huge corporation'?

Not only is Ben and Jerry's a progressive company they're quite small - they only employ a few hundred people.

I'm old enough to remember when DU applauded Ben and Jerry's efforts on behalf of social causes.

Can you explain how this little progressive company suddenly became a symbol of corruption and why we should shun them like we shun the military industrial complex and Goldman Sachs? Because you're quite right - that is confusing.

[DanTex]

59. Actually, Unilever is worth almost twice as much as Goldman.

Unilver is worth $154B, Goldman is worth $88B.

So you're right, they aren't in the same league. Unless Goldman doubles it's market cap.

[beam me up scottie]

61. Except we're discussing Ben and Jerry's, not Unilever. They're not the same thing.

[opiate69]

62. lol.. Right?

[beam me up scottie]

63. This whole thing is hilarious. When did Ben and Jerry's become evil?

Is it April Fools day again?

[klook]

103. When Bernie Sanders became associated with them.

MUST...HATE...BERNIE....

[beam me up scottie]

104. DAMN YOU KHAN!!! I MEAN BERNIE SANDERS!!!

*Disclaimer: this is satire. Captain Kirk never damned Bernie Sanders.

[Warren DeMontague]

147. I heard he had Susan Sarandon in that ice cream tub with 'im.

A Sanders-Sarandon Swirl! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[beam me up scottie]

149. DEAR VULCAN! SAY IT AIN'T SO!

[DanTex]

64. Which is owned by Unilever. Surprised you didn't know that.

[beam me up scottie]

65. Actually I did since I mentioned it several times. But they're still not the same thing.

I'm surprised you didn't know that.

Well, now you do so it's all good - this was a teaching moment.

[DanTex]

66. Of course I knew it was owned by Unilever. That's why I commented on the blatant

hypocrisy of people defending Unilever while attacking Goldman. But hypocrites are going to by hypocrites.

[beam me up scottie]

67. Except - again - NO ONE is defending Unilever. We're discussing Ben and Jerry's.

A small and very progressive company that's being attacked and compared to Goldman Sachs and the military industrial complex.

Which is absurd, it's the same argument used by the right wing against Ben and Jerry's and other progressive companies. We're told that they're examples of liberal hypocrisy and that anyone who supports Ben and Jerry's but criticizes the influence of large corporations is a hypocrite.

What nonsense.

One more time: Ben and Jerry's =/= Unilever

[bettyellen]

69. LOL Unilever is an exceptionally responsible corporation, its hilarious to watch people acting like

It's a mortal sin to be a fully owned subsidiary of it. HA!
This is amazing.

[beam me up scottie]

71. Again - no one actually said that, right? What's with all these straw men?

I don't know how to make this any simpler but I'll try:

1) Ben and Jerry's is a progressive company.

2) Ben and Jerry's is not Unilever.

3) Support of Ben and Jerry's is not an example of liberal hypocrisy

Now how about you address what I actually posted instead of misrepresenting my words?

[DanTex]

70. Defending B&J is, obviously, defending Unilever. This is hilarious.

What you are doing is like trying to defend Goldman's mortgage bond division without defending Goldman Sachs as a whole.

LOL. No, it's not really Goldman Sachs, it's the Goldman Sachs Mortgage Group! It's only like 100 people and they all eat organic and do yoga!

[beam me up scottie]

72. No, actually it isn't. One is a small progressive company in Vermont, the other isn't.

One is a large multinational corporation and the other only employs a few hundred people.

Seriously it's a fairly simple concept and one that's been demonstrated by the articles posted in this thread. Ben and Jerry's was bought by Unilever but they retained their commitment to progressive causes and have their own board of directors.

Our Metrics

Ben & Jerry’s has been issuing public reports on our social and environmental activities since our 1988 annual report. 2015 is the sixth year we are using our QoR framework to measure our performance in key areas.

The primary purpose of the QoR is to give Ben & Jerry’s management, Ben & Jerry’s Board of Directors, Unilever management and you a clear scorecard by which to evaluate the Company’s social and environmental performance.

Major Areas of Focus in 2015

Our Three-Part Mission Statement is at Our Core.

Ben & Jerry’s operates on a three-part mission that aims to create prosperity for everyone that’s connected to our business: suppliers, employees, farmers, franchisees, customers, and neighbors alike.

You can read the whole Ben & Jerry’s Mission Statement at www.benjerry.com/values.

A Sustainable Model of Linked Prosperity

Our linked prosperity model is cast inside our Mission Statement, which was written in 1988. Numerous academics and progressive business visionaries have advocated for similar models in recent years, which is a good affirmation, but we’ve been working on strengthening the model ever since. And that’s the point -- we’re still working on it. We always will be. We totally understand that you never really get there. The work is never done.

What we envision with our linked prosperity model is that as the company prospers, all those touched by the company must also prosper, including employees, suppliers, linked-prosperity-loop-2015.pngcustomers, and communities. A simple idea, but it takes a lot of work by a lot of people to make it happen.

Some of the more well-known, long-standing examples of linked prosperity include:

* Our livable wage policy.

* Our ongoing support for family dairy farms.

* Our commitment to supporting small-holder agricultural producers by purchasing Fairtrade-certified ingredients.

* Our investment in values-led sourcing partnerships such as with the Greyston Bakery in Yonkers, NY, where they hire people with barriers to employment and empower them with skills training, a renewed sense of dignity and a paycheck at the end of the week.

http://www.benjerry.com/about-us/sear-reports/2015-sear-report

How Ben & Jerry’s Got Bought Out Without Selling Out

When people hear the name “Ben and Jerry’s,” they think of three things: First, the high-quality ice cream, heavy on the mix-ins and the butterfat; secondSachs, the pun-riddled names of flavors such as Cherry Garcia, Karamel Sutra or Americone Dream; and third, the company’s longstanding social, environmental and corporate justice missions.

But when co-founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield agreed to sell the business in 2000 to Unilever, a multinational food giant, plenty of people expected that those missions wouldn’t survive. To a remarkable degree, they were mistaken.

In a recent interview with Katherine Klein, vice dean of the Wharton Social Impact Initiative, current Ben & Jerry’s CEO Jostein Solheim talked about how the ice cream company has managed to hold onto its original social missions, despite its absorption by Unilever.


An edited transcript of the conversation appears below.

Katherine Klein: We’re here to talk about the social mission of the company and how you have maintained it even as Ben & Jerry’s has become part of Unilever.

Jostein Solheim: Ben & Jerry’s is now 36 years old as a mission-led company. I think the key thing in the whole transition to one shareholder from multiple shareholders was a governance structure that was put in place. Unilever was very visionary in recognizing that it says “Ben & Jerry” on the packaging. If Ben and Jerry go out and say, “Well, this is all not really true anymore and (social justice is) not a mission of the company anymore,” that would really undermine the value of the acquisition.

Klein: So Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry’s in 2000, and this was a company where the social mission was baked into the brand.

Solheim: That is integral to how we do business.

Klein: And Unilever saw this and its investors saw this from the beginning, and saw value?

Solheim: Yes. That’s why they and the then-sitting board together agreed to set up an independent board of directors that acts basically like our benefit corporation director. They are responsible for the social mission, for the integrity of the Ben & Jerry’s brand, our policies. They even get involved in basic things like wage-setting in the factories, where we have a livable wage policy that is overseen by the board of directors. And the directors are self-selecting. Unilever appoints just two seats out of 11 board members.

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/ben-jerrys-got-bought-without-selling/

Does that help clear up any confusion?

A might be part of B but A does not equal B.

Math isn't all that difficult.

[DanTex]

73. Yes, actually it is. Are you familiar with the concept of ownership?

It helps navigate this modern capitalist world. I suggest you read up on it.

[beam me up scottie]

75. You don't actually expect anyone to believe it's that simple, do you?

Seriously, anyone can see that Ben and Jerry's isn't Unilever. Their mission statement is different, their policies are different and they have a separate board of directors.

I've never heard anyone make the claim that a company and the corporation that bought them are the exact same thing. It's really bizarre.

You should probably stop digging.

[opiate69]

76. I'm thinking...

you might have to break out the drawing tablet and jot down a picture or two for that one.

[beam me up scottie]

78. Right? It's simple algebra.

A + B = C

According to Dan that means A = C

[DanTex]

77. Certainly not people who don't understand corporate ownership, like you.

But, yeah, other than people who are willfully blind, people indeed understand that Ben and Jerry's is fully owned by Unilever, and everything they do is at the behest of Unilever, and if Unilever disapproves of any of their actions, they can change the way B&J does business.

This isn't even controversial, it's a plain fact. I guess you're not familiar with how the business world works. Sorry if this busts some of your illusions.

[beam me up scottie]

79. Actually Unilever disagrees with you. Do they understand corporate ownership?

How the Social Mission of Ben & Jerry’s Survived Being Gobbled Up

Big food companies have an endless appetite for smaller brands that make local, organic and socially responsible products. Over the years, Danone acquired Stonyfield Farm yogurt, General Mills bought Annie’s Homegrown and Campbell Soup swallowed up Plum Organics.

Each time such a deal is announced, fans of the target company ask whether its cherished products will be safe under the new owner, or if the integrity will disappear in the belly of the beast.

There is reason for concern. Starbucks acquired La Boulange, a San Francisco bakery chain that made healthful organic breads, in 2012. This year Starbucks announced it was shutting down the bakeries but keeping the brand name alive.

And before it became a case study on how such marriages can succeed, Unilever’s takeover of Ben & Jerry’s got off to a rocky start.

***

Ben & Jerry’s went to great lengths to fulfill its mission, according to Antony Page and Robert Katz, Indiana University law professors who wrote a paper on the Unilever acquisition. The company sourced from regional organic dairy farms. It used only milk that did not contain artificial growth hormones. It went to court for the right to label its ice cream hormone-free. It developed chemical-free containers. It made fair-trade and organic ingredients priorities. And it reduced its garbage output.

When Unilever, the Anglo-Dutch consumer goods conglomerate, offered to buy the company in 2000 for a rich 25 percent premium, neither Mr. Cohen nor Mr. Greenfield wanted to sell. They worried that Unilever would abandon the progressive aspects of the business and run it as a soulless subsidiary.

But as a public corporation, Ben & Jerry’s had a fiduciary duty to its shareholders. After much hand-wringing, it agreed to a deal with Unilever for $326 million. And despite handsome paydays — Mr. Cohen’s stake was reportedly worth about $40 million, while Mr. Greenfield’s was worth about $10 million — the founders said in a statement that they would have preferred to remain independent.

Very quickly, some of their worst fears were realized.

Ben & Jerry’s had almost never fired an employee, but Unilever, the world’s largest ice cream maker, had manufacturing and supply-chain acumen and wanted synergies. A production plant and a distribution center were shuttered, workers at the two sites were laid off, and sales representatives at headquarters were fired.

***

Kevin Havelock, president of refreshments at Unilever, likened the takeover to a new marriage. “There was a lot of learning that had to take place,” he said. “Where there have been challenges, we’ve talked them through.”

But today, 15 years after the deal, Mr. Michalak said Ben & Jerry’s remained as mission-driven as ever, and was having a bigger impact than before because of its increased size. (Since the acquisition, Unilever has nearly tripled Ben & Jerry’s revenue and added hundreds of jobs.) And instead of watching Ben & Jerry’s simply disappear into Unilever, Mr. Michalak and his colleagues have pushed their new parent company to become a more progressive multinational.

The recipe for this amicable partnership was written into the acquisition agreement. Unilever, not wanting to squander its purchase, chose to operate Ben & Jerry’s with more autonomy than any of its other subsidiaries. To ensure middle managers did not contaminate the unique culture, Unilever established an “external board” charged with overseeing Ben & Jerry’s culture and social mission.

That board, initially comprising five longtime Ben & Jerry’s supporters, including Mr. Cohen and Mr. Greenfield, has the authority to set aggressive new social impact targets and to push back against Unilever.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/business/how-ben-jerrys-social-mission-survived-being-gobbled-up.html

Let's re-read that last part again:

Unilever, not wanting to squander its purchase, chose to operate Ben & Jerry’s with more autonomy than any of its other subsidiaries. To ensure middle managers did not contaminate the unique culture, Unilever established an “external board” charged with overseeing Ben & Jerry’s culture and social mission.

I hope that clears things up for you.

A subsidiary is not the parent corporation.

Unilever bought Ben and Jerry's but Ben and Jerry's is not the same thing as Unilever. Only someone who doesn't understand corporate ownership and the difference between corporations and subsidiaries would believe that.

[DanTex]

81. Oh, you are so credulous of an international conglomerate, it's adorable.

If you liked that press release, you're going to love the one where Goldman says that it's mortgage division was acting independently of upper management. A work of art. LOL.

[beam me up scottie]

85. You still don't understand the difference between a subsidiary and its parent company?

That's a shame. Fortunately Unilever and Ben and Jerry's don't seem to have the same difficulty.

Maybe this helpful tutorial can be of assistance:

A subsidiary functions as a separate legal entity rather than as a division of the parent company. A subsidiary company is sometimes referred to as a daughter company. A subsidiary company is also capable of having controlling interest in its own set of subsidiary companies.

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/031915/what-difference-between-subsidiary-and-sister-company.asp#ixzz4eTBUE1qd

Again let's repost the relevant part:

A subsidiary functions as a separate legal entity rather than as a division of the parent company.

Gee, I'm no expert when it comes to corporations but it appears that they're saying that subsidiaries are different from their parent companies.

Perhaps you can explain what they got wrong?

[DanTex]

87. Of course I do! Like Goldman's mortgage division versus Goldman Sachs!

Totally different. I mean, different worlds entirely. For reals, yo!

I'm sure that, based your extensive experience working in international business, you understand this too. LOL.

[beam me up scottie]

90. You mean like how they don't know the difference between a subsidiary and its parent company?

Yeah, that is pretty clueless. Although I don't think it's funny, I kinda feel bad for them. But there's hope for them yet.

[DanTex]

92. Yes, you don't. And you don't know a thing about corporate governance.

Probably because you demonize anyone who has ever worked for a large corporation. Part of the problem.

[beam me up scottie]

97. I do what what now? Can you provide an example of where I said that?

I've worked for several large corporations - why would I demonize myself?



Silly Dan.

I thought we were talking about people who don't understand the difference between subsidiaries and corporations. You know, those poor folks who see things in black and white and assume Ben and Jerry's is an evil corporation because it's owned by Unilever.

[Warren DeMontague]

150. And I suspect that the bright folks in the Unilever boardroom understand

that when they bought Ben and Jerry's, they weren't just buying some tasty ice cream and some flavors and some cool logos and the excellent Rick Griffin lettering Ripple font they used to use on "Cherry Garcia" before SOMEONE decided to fuck it up, BEN....



They also were buying a brand identity and a set of values and a certain compact or understanding between the company and the customers, and I suspect they understand they should respect that.

NOT out of the hippie-dippie-double chocolate phish phood swirly goodness of their hearts, oh no, but because it is A BIG PART OF THE VALUE OF THE COMPANY THAT THEY PAID FOR.

[LanternWaste]

159. Those distinctions lacking a relevant difference are sacred cows.

Those distinctions lacking a relevant difference are sacred cows.

[pangaia]

84. LOL God, you have more patience than I do....

[beam me up scottie]

86. LOL! Thanks, I work with animals, you need to have a lot of patience.

Of course I don't think I could be a teacher, those guys are saints. I prefer animals to kids.

[LanternWaste]

158. I'm bemused with the twisting and creative rationalizations you force.

I'm bemused with the twisting and creative rationalizations you force.

[Nanjeanne]

68. I love how you fight the good fight but you know nothing matters because

Bernie Sanders.

'Nuff said.

😁

[beam me up scottie]

74. Thank you! It's amazing, isn't it?

The mental gymnastics being performed here are SPECTACULAR!

[DinahMoeHum]

94. +1000s

n/t

[scheming daemons]

17. Ice Cream Socialism

[milestogo]

22. We need a national ice cream plan.

Yesterday I went out for ice cream with a friend. One small hot fudge sundae and a waffle cone with one scoop cost over $10. I thought it was ridiculous.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

26. Someone stick a bottle of maple syrup and an autumn leaf in his hand.

Then you'll end up with the most Vermont thing ever.

[cwydro]

31. Lol.

Reminds me of Dukakis in the tank.

[Voltaire2]

32. Great post. Bernie is amazing. I don't understand all the

negative posts though, what's up with that?

[romanic]

41. A smear job against Bernie supporters.

Basically were no better than Trumpers in their eyes. smh

[QC]

44. A way to refight the primary without getting a hide.

It's a very popular pastime here.

[beam me up scottie]

47. +1

[demmiblue]

46. Fuck the Conrads of all stripes!

[Warren DeMontague]

93. What's a Conrad?

Is that like, two and a half Chads minus a Tricia?

[Doreen]

54. That actually sounds good.

I would be proud to walk around the park full of people in my very red county eating a nice container of Impeachmint ice cream. Of course with my pink pussy hat on to boot.

[bekkilyn]

55. I'm loving this about as much as I did the birdie! Too funny! (nt)

[Warren DeMontague]

95. Hooray For Bernie Sanders! Hooray for Ice Cream!

EVERYONE LOVES ICE CREAM AND EVERYONE LOVES BERNIE SANDERS!

[beam me up scottie]

100. EXCEPT FOR FASCISTS!!! AND COMMIES!! AND VEGANS!

[George II]

111. Corporatists Ben and Jerry sold out to foreign owner Unilever 16 years ago.

[beam me up scottie]

113. LMAO!!!

Oh my dog, I thought you were serious for a minute there.

The only people who say that are right wingers and far left radicals.

Corporatists Ben and Jerry sold out to foreign owner Unilever 16 years ago.

[beam me up scottie]

116. Wow. I did a search for that statement and the first link is to Breitbart.

[George II]

121. So, scottie, you're claiming that Ben and Jerry did NOT sell out to Unilever?

You missed this in your search:

https://www.unileverusa.com/brands/our-brands/ben-and-jerrys.html

[beam me up scottie]

123. No I'm laughing at the characterization of Ben and Jerry as "corporatists" who sold out.

When I did a search for your claim all that came up were links to right wing and far left websites. I've never actually seen a liberal call them corporatists. The idea is hilarious.

You missed this in your search:

https://www.unileverusa.com/brands/our-brands/ben-and-jerrys.html

How could I have missed that when I posted several articles about the purchase? Did you read any of the posts in this thread?

Here's just two of the articles posted:

Reasons To Love Ben & Jerry’s That Have Nothing To Do With Ice Cream
By Catherine Taibi

1. Their starting salary is double the minimum wage.

An entry-level Ben & Jerry’s worker earns $15.97 per hour, a company spokeswoman told The Huffington Post in an email. That’s roughly double the federal minimum wage. According to a statement on the company’s website, their starting salary is based on the actual cost of living in Vermont.

We’re speechless.

2. They help put the unemployed to work.

All of the brownies that are used to make Ben & Jerry’s Chocolate Fudge Brownie and Half Baked ice creams are baked at Greyston Bakery, a New York enterprise dedicated to providing jobs for the unemployed, a Ben & Jerry’s spokeswoman told HuffPost.

3. Community service is a part of the company’s mission statement.

“Our community-conscious commitment isn’t an add-on: it’s built right into our Company Mission,” Ben & Jerry’s states on its website, and they aren’t kidding. Doing everything from cleaning up rivers and beaches, to helping the homeless, giving grants to grassroots organizations, raising money for homeless animals, and volunteering at St. Judes Children’s Ranch, it seems the company does just as much work in the community as it does in the ice cream factory.

More:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3726083

Sold up but not sold out, Ben and Jerry are still the poster boys for fair trade
Vermont's finest double discuss American pie, greenwash and giving Unilever some sticky moments

Ben Cohen, one half of Ben & Jerry's, is recalling the time he got in trouble with the bosses at Unilever, which bought the ice-cream maker in 2000.

Coca-Cola had just taken a stake in Innocent drinks, a small British maker of smoothies with a reputation for being a socially responsible business. A British reporter called to get Cohen's opinion. He, after all, had a similar experience. Ben & Jerry's, which had been founded in the liberal US state of Vermont in the 1970s, was the prototype hippy business-with-a-conscience, promoting liberal causes on the lids of its tubs, giving a percentage of its profits to charity and having a rule that no executive would earn more than five times the lowest-paid worker. Unilever, by contrast, could be a synonym for the faceless multinational, bestriding the globe, selling detergents and cleaning products.


"So the BBC called me up and said 'you have been in a somewhat similar situation; you were a socially responsible little business, you got bought by some big giant, you know, what do you think?'" he recalls.

"I said, 'you know, it doesn't sound good to me' … I think that if you get bought by a company that doesn't really share the same values, it is hard to have your values continue and then I suggested …" he says, starting to laugh, "that it would be good for Unilever to abide by their agreements – and they didn't like that." The laughs get louder.

"You know," adds Jerry Greenfield, his co-founder in the business, "we have these annual franchise meetings every year, so it's a gathering in January, we have all the franchise shops of Ben & Jerry's around the world and the head of the franchise department always tries to sit down with Ben and me before the meeting, to find out what Ben is going to talk about. And he never tells him, because he doesn't know till like 10 minutes before anyway, but their people are always a little nervous, always a little on edge about what Ben is going to talk about."

The pair, raised on Long Island, New York, and both 59, were in London to promote the announcement that Ben & Jerry's planned to take all the ingredients in its ice cream from Fairtrade sources by 2013. Walking into the room to meet them, they bellow their names in turn "Ben", "Jerry", and offer a firm handshake, as though they long ago dispensed with the need of a surname.


Both wear their liberal views on their sleeves. But on the evidence of an hour-long meeting, Greenfield is the more emollient; Cohen, the sharper-edged, less predictable of the two, swallowing half-sneers and chuckles of disbelief as he touches on subjects ranging from the US military budget to Wal-Mart and the relationship with Unilever, which he describes as a "forced marriage".


***

Even so, Cohen says he is more convinced than ever that business can be a force for good. "If there is any hope for our countries and society in general, it is through business. Business has risen to this level of the most powerful force in society. I mean it used to be that the most powerful forces in society were religion and then nation states and the purpose of those two entities was to support the common good, and maybe they didn't do everything exactly right, but now those two are subservient to business."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/apr/04/ben-jerrys-fairtrade-ethical-business

Ben and Jerry's is NOT Unilever, it's a progressive company that hasn't forgotten its roots or its commitment to progressive causes. If they had 'sold out' they would pay their workers minimum wage, scrap their mission statement and put profit over people. If Ben and Jerry were corporatist sellouts they wouldn't have created a separate board of directors or be involved with the direction of the company.

The right loves to point to Ben and Jerry's as an example of 'liberal hypocrisy' and squawk about how they 'sold out' but then again they also bashed Al Gore for having a big house and constantly vilify other liberals who don't live like paupers. According to the right and the far left if we're not true socialists we have no right to criticize greedy corporations.

I've never heard that here before so I thought you were joking.

[beam me up scottie]

148. You're actually claiming that anyone who owns a corporation and sells it is a corporatist?

I posted this up thread but it's worth repeating:

corporatism:

the control of a state or organization by large interest groups

That would mean that a corporatist supports corporatism and it's obvious to anyone who's been paying attention that Ben and Jerry don't fit that definition. But don't take my word for it, let's hear from Ben Cohen himself:

Join Our Co-Founder, Ben Cohen, and Help Get The Dough Out of Politics
March 10, 2015
By Ben Cohen

I remember reading Abe Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address in my high school civics class. We were taught that we had a representative democracy, in which elected officials went to Washington to work for the people back home, and our representatives transcended their self-interest and worked together for the common-good. As Lincoln described it, “A government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

But the system is broken; or fixed, depending on how you look at it. No matter which issue you care most about—the environment, education, healthcare, poverty, Wall Street banks, student debt—it’s unlikely that our representatives will listen to you unless you have a million dollars to spend on advertising, campaign contributions and high-priced lobbyists.

That’s because in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court ruled that money is free speech. They then went even further in Citizens United v FEC, saying that corporations are people and therefore can spend unlimited amounts of money to influence laws and elections. In other words, the Supreme Court perfected a system of pay-to-play politics in which corporations and billionaires spend big bucks on elections, and lobbyists and are awarded with cushy government contracts. According to a new study by the Sunlight Foundation, between 2007-2012, the nation’s 200 most politically active corporations received $760 for every $1 they donated to influence politics.

http://www.benjerry.com/whats-new/2015/citizens-united-ben-cohen

Words mean things, George. Calling Ben and Jerry corporatists is an alternative fact. It has no basis in reality.

[George II]

162. Yes they are. And they're waaaay up toward the top of that 1%, too.

[betsuni]

118. Oh, but in this thread we are assured that giant multinational corporations like Unilever can be

very nice. I guess all that "corporatist" stuff was just a joke. Next thing you know it'll turn out that not every single trade deal is bad!

[beam me up scottie]

120. Really? Can you link to those posts? I just reread this thread and I don't see them.

Oh, but in this thread we are assured that giant multinational corporations like Unilever can be
very nice

That sounds like a straw man.

straw man:

an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

[George II]

122. I'm sure you can find it, just google "Ben and Jerry's Unilever".

[beam me up scottie]

125. In this thread? I just did a page search and nothing came up.

Can you show me where someone said this?:

Oh, but in this thread we are assured that giant multinational corporations like Unilever can be
very nice

[George II]

127. I'm sure you can find it.

[beam me up scottie]

128. Nope. Just searched again. Can you point it out? Should be easy enough to do.

Just post the link or if that makes you uncomfortable the exact text. Once I have the exact phrase it should be easy to find in the thread.

Surely if someone said "giant multinational corporations like Unilever can be
very nice" there should be a record of it.

[betsuni]

165. By the way, it's very nice that you display a version of the Japanese corporation Sanrio's

character Hello Kitty in every post. I love Hello Kitty! Corporations like Sanrio that manufacture a large variety of cute character goods for sale can be very nice!

[betsuni]

145. "Again, just pulling shit out of your ass"

When the sweet showers of April have pierced
The drought of March, and pierced it to the root,
And every vein is bathed in that moisture
Whose quickening force will engender the flower
And when the west wind too with its sweet breath
Has given life in every wood and field
To tender shoots, and when the sun
Has run his half-course in Aries, the Ram
And when small birds are making melodies
That sleep all the night long with open eyes
(Nature so prompts them, and encourages);
Then I long to pull shit out of my ass

[Warren DeMontague]

146. okay...

now that's funny.

[JCanete]

151. hehe, I guess spring is here. nt

[betsuni]

160. Spring is the time to turn over a new leaf. It wasn't very nice to accuse me of pulling

you-know-what out of my you-know-where. No need for that.

[ornotna]

130. It seems DU got twisted up in knots about it too

Bad Bernie, bad!

[ProfessorGAC]

153. If This Thread Had Been Alerted. . .

. . .and i was on the jury, i would have voted to hide the whole thing. What a clusterfuck.

[FDRsGhost]

154. All over an ice cream podium no less

[demmiblue]

161. Unhinged is the only word to describe it.

[NCTraveler]

155. Linguistically smoothe and creamy!!!

[FDRsGhost]

157. ROFL!!!!! I am sooooo not even going there lol