By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Teeqoz on 20 February 2018
Edit Thread

Maybe I should remind you that it was you who first replied to my comment. I'm not changing the subject at all - everything I've written here has been connected to what I originally started discussing with Mummelman, which you joined in on when you replied to me. If the only thing you wanted to say is that there will be fewer grid girl jobs now than before, then we don't need to have this discussion. We agree. There absolutely will be fewer grid girl positions as a result if this. What I view as the essence of this discussion is if that is a problem or not.

Aura7541 said:
Teeqoz said:

Your argument is that it's a net loss of grid girl jobs, and my argument is that I don't care, because the owners of F1 made the call that those positions weren't worth keeping on to. They are entirely within their rights to do so, as long as they follow any laws and regulations that apply to them.

If your argument is simply I don't care, then that's a poor argument altogether. In addition, the owners of F1 vaguely explained that grid girls do not resonate with their 'brand values', but never elaborated further than that. And again, you're pivoting to another topic with the talk about legality. Nowhere in my comments did I mention about the owners' rights to their decisions until you did.

Could you explain how it's a poor argument?

Not everything I write is a direct response to something you've said. Surely that's understandable. When I say "as long as the follow laws and regulations", I do that to cover all bases. Because a company isn't always in their right to fire someone. I try to be precise in my wording, so I included that, if not, the statement would be incomplete. It was never meant as an implication that you meant otherwise. And it has nothing to do with pivoting the argument to something else.

Aura7541 said: 

How on earth could I prove that keeping grid girls would lead to a net loss in profits? That's a hypothetical that no one could prove. And that's not even what I'm saying - I'm saying that the owners seem to think it was more likely that keeping grid girls would result in a net loss in profits than the opposite. If not, why would they have removed them?
No, but you attempted to compared this situation with the telegraphist vs the telephone. I pointed out that this was a false equivalence since the technological advances made the telegraphist profession obsolete and therefore, a waste of money. So if you want to make that comparison, then you must look at both situations from an economical standpoint. Otherwise, you're comparing apples to oranges.
Obviously, your comparison does not work because grid girls are not being rendered obsolete by technological advances. It's because of the reason of "not resonating with 'brand values' " of which they were never specified.

I didn't equate grid girls to telegraphists. I did however draw a comparison because some sides are similar (ie. neither job is "banned", just that companies evaluate that the position isn't worth it for whatever reason. In the telegraphist case, that reason was technological advancement, in F1's case, it appears to be an assessment of societal norms and what the public likes and dislikes. I already explained this).

Aura7541 said: 

The owners of F1 might be mistaken, maybe it would have paid of to keep grid girls, but that's another thing entirely - they made the judgement that removing grid girls was more likely to pay off than keeping them.
But that was not the point of my original argument. My point was that the removal of the positions from F1 could lead to a net loss for the grid girls unless Formula E opens more positions. Please address my points directly rather than beating around the bush.

Oh, it absoluely will lead to fewer positions for grid girls. But I don't see the problem with that. Demand for any job can go up and down. So? I'm not beating around the bush. What's with the passive-agressiveness?

Aura7541 said: 

The telegraphist example was arbitrary - the point is that no one has made any decision to ban grid girls, the F1 owners just made the call that employing them isn't in their financial interest, much like telegraphists. There is more concrete evidence for why employing telegraphists doesn't make sense for phone companies, but ultimately, both decisions are based on what the respective companies judge as being in their best interests.
And I showed how that comparison isn't exactly sound and you haven't exactly refuted my specific points either. In addition, citation needed on that it isn't in their financial interest. On their official announcement, they said that grid girls do not resonate with their 'brand values' and are at odds with 'modern societal norms'. What do they mean by that? How do you know that those reasons are directly connected to their financial interests? What are your sources for your conclusions?

Every for-profit business ultimately makes every decision based on what they evaluate as being in their best interest (maybe with the exception of some privately owned businesses where the owner(s) attempt to use their business as a vehicle for change. SpaceX probably belongs in that category, or at least did belong there. If Formula 1 belongs in that category, then this becomes a different discussion, because then F1 wasn't pressured by outside groups to do this.)

This includes F1. Of course they might be mistaken in their evaluation, as obviously no company makes only flawless decisions. So there absolutely is a possibility that this will end up hurting F1 financially, but the F1 owners wouldn't make this decision unless they thought it would benefit them.

It sucks that people who certainly enjoyed their job lost opportunities to do so, but it's fair for F1 to make that decision.
You don't have to make this point ad nauseaum for the third time. Once is good enough.
Do you know what is also fair? Me criticizing F1's decisions.

Yup, it is totally fair for you to disagree and criticize F1's decision. I haven't said otherwise. Even though I don't agree with said criticism, you are free to do criticize as much as you want, and if enough people share your sentiment, F1 might have to reconsider their decision.

Last edited by Teeqoz - on 20 February 2018