Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

1320Fastback t1_ixos0jv wrote

Uh oh the shoe police coming after you

962

Shingaion t1_ixotgig wrote

A probe that will likely go nowhere, as per usual.

3

mrm00r3 t1_ixovmzr wrote

If he had friends he’d know that PC was empty.

−6

rustynailsu t1_ixow0k8 wrote

Replying to No_Tie3538 (#660,712)

There is probably a Morales clause and they want to use it to avoid having to pay out to close the contract. It seems to me the probe is so that they can claim they gave Mr. West due process.

89

Grins111 t1_ixoy281 wrote

Now that he can’t make them money they will go after him.

80

dino_74 t1_ixoy8sy wrote

Hey Adidas, how about launching a probe into Qatar Human right abuses while you're at it?

518

weareallgonnadye t1_ixp0ewk wrote

So nobody knew about this before, the company and CEO’s had no idea what was happening until now?

338

rustynailsu t1_ixp0nse wrote

Replying to RipeCreeling (#661,118)

Well, for for a start, accusing Adidas of theft could be seen to damage it's good name and reputation. That is certainly the type of speech could be proscribed by a morals clause.

14

zambonihouse t1_ixp11nz wrote

I've definitely heard that he loves to show porn to people especially the Kim tape before they got together.

14

Akaonisama t1_ixp1i7c wrote

Everything about this title is dystopian

35

rustynailsu t1_ixp34fv wrote

Replying to Lerianis001 (#661,675)

That would defend a defamation claim. This is different. You can certainly sign your rights away to say things, even if they are true. Just look at the contracts Mr. Weinstein had women sign.

4

RipeCreeling t1_ixp47qi wrote

Replying to rustynailsu (#661,465)

I agree it would probably violate the morals clause. But the issue is that if the contract allows them to terminate it for his breach of the morals clause, they have to know about the breach before they terminate the contract. It's possible there is language in the contract that could allow Adidas to terminate it retroactively to the date of the breach if they find out after the fact, but I think that would be unusual.

9

rustynailsu t1_ixp661o wrote

Replying to RipeCreeling (#661,864)

Interesting stuff. I reviewed the timeline. Though the partnership was under review previously, the theft accusation happened on Oct. 6. The contract was not terminated until Oct 22. Would this make any difference, do you think, or did the review somehow contaminate the termination?

1

Wompawompa1 t1_ixp8dk6 wrote

Replying to weareallgonnadye (#661,439)

Weird how that always happens. Nobody knew a thing until the moment he wasn’t bringing in the moola. Same goes for those pieces of shit who never said a word about his hitler rants until they could use it for benefit.

43

Caymonki t1_ixp964b wrote

Replying to weareallgonnadye (#661,439)

PR, it’s all about looking like they give a shit, while not actually giving any shits.

If they can find loopholes in the contract to gain more revenue while looking like they give a shit?! Oof, big win for them.

294

RipeCreeling t1_ixpagd0 wrote

Replying to rustynailsu (#662,107)

When they terminated the contract Adidas issued a statement saying the company does not tolerate anti Semitism and that his comments were unacceptable and violated company values. I think they had sufficient basis to terminate because of his comments. The theft accusation certainly disparages the company and in that way may violate the agreement, but the review I was talking about was this recent review of his behavior based on the accusations from the employees he worked with, which wasn't known at the time of the termination.

7

CharToll t1_ixpahng wrote

Classless. Apparently Kanye is showing porn between himself and Kim Kardashian to some of the Adidas development reps when he was pitching his shoe designs and trying to get them to understand just what it would feel like to put your feet in them.

−17

HotBananaSlurpee t1_ixpc0za wrote

But.. why? Are they going to double down on scrapping the contract with him? While it’s fucked up what Kanye is being accused of doing, this is equivalent to trying to reprimand an employee after they’ve been fired.

−2

ageofthoughts t1_ixpemjy wrote

Replying to TrailofCheers (#661,916)

Passing the buck saying “not my problem” is why hundreds died building these fucking stadiums. Stop watching the world cup and hold sponsors responsible for funding it. But we as consumers are too spineless to do so.

Someone post the MW boycott image.

2

zestypurplecatalyst t1_ixpfjf8 wrote

So Reuters isn’t saying the posts were antisemitic. Just that some users on social media said the posts were antisemitic. WTF Reuters!

> His Twitter and Instagram accounts were restricted, with the social media platforms removing some of his posts that users condemned [emphasis added] as antisemitic.

−17

BadRehypothecation t1_ixphtzp wrote

Replying to zestypurplecatalyst (#663,209)

That's journalism though. For instance, I don't follow Twitter and don't follow Kanye West. I have no idea what is up with that dude, aside from a music video in 06-ish.

Now I'm no journalist, but if I were:

Should I claim things as fact that I don't know for sure or have witnessed first hand and can provide proof beyond reasonable doubt?

Or should I just report it how it is, and make it clear I myself have just heard from others?

That's not saying it isn't so, it's just the proper way to express 2nd hand information.

11

yasfan t1_ixpi3kb wrote

Replying to dino_74 (#661,143)

And a probe into their close involvement with FIFA and Sep Blatter. They might have been one of the prime financiers of shenanigans within FIFA ever since they scored exclusive sports goods sponsorship.

4

_ChipWhitley_ t1_ixpls1f wrote

Replying to 1320Fastback (#660,350)

He’s receiving advice from Roger Stone, I bet. These bottom feeders thrive on the limelight, no matter the story, so they’re not forgotten. That’s how Trump was able to rise. Stone is the one who brags that the only thing worse than people talking badly about you is not talking about you at all.

35

GBendu t1_ixpmy2d wrote

Yo real talk the him forcing employees and staff to watch porn as an intimidation tactic that’s sexual harassment right

138

Stalked_Like_Corn t1_ixpnfrn wrote

Replying to weareallgonnadye (#661,439)

Yeah. What's the point of this? There are two options here:

A.) You didn't know this was going on the whole time which means you are WAY out of touch and have no clue what is going on in your own house

B.) You knew about this the whole time and did nothing about it

Choose one but neither looks good for Adidas.

19

Wdrussell1 t1_ixpuy7u wrote

I mean its clear they are looking for ways to get their money out of Kanye. There is no other reason to do this. Personally I am fine with this. They could be doing it just to waste his time. I am fine with that too. He is a worthless piece of shit so it works for me.

2

CincyCivilRightsAct t1_ixpvk1m wrote

Replying to Stalked_Like_Corn (#664,085)

If you do something about it and lose the deal with Kanye, you lose hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue - which means you need to fire a bunch of people because their jobs aren't sustainable anymore. If you aren't selling the shoes, you don't needs as many people in the company that makes the shoes and does the marketing.

Try firing people, and let me know if you want to make that trade-off.

−6

acvg t1_ixq28v7 wrote

Replying to UncrustabIes (#664,505)

He definitely made them popular but it's not like most people are buying them because of him. More people have bought his shoes than his albums. It's just a very popular shoe right now.

2

UncrustabIes t1_ixq2cc5 wrote

Replying to acvg (#665,403)

Yea because they are Yeezy brand, no one looks at Yeezys and goes “man those adidas are sick”. Kanye’s has a cult following, yeah people will still buy the shoes, but not as many as you guys think

10

Bitter_Director1231 t1_ixq54pd wrote

Hurry up, he's running for president in 2024. Got to wrap that investigation soon. /s

13

mark_lenders t1_ixq57o9 wrote

i'm confused. didn't they ditch him already?

8

Stumpy-the-dog t1_ixq7ly6 wrote

run run as fast as you can Ye,

As long as it's NOT in Adidas.

−1

Lucky-Development-15 t1_ixq9wpp wrote

Only because he's gone...maybe you should have investigated when the complaints were made. You looked the other way until it stopped suiting your company...

9

natphotog t1_ixqay3x wrote

Replying to Caymonki (#662,480)

Remember folks, HR is there to protect the company, not you. They do not purposefully act in your best interest. They act in their own best interest, which is typically whatever’s best for their bottom line.

32

Wrinklestiltskin t1_ixqbaan wrote

Replying to UncrustabIes (#664,505)

I feel like the sales will surely drop without his attachment to the brand/the hype he'd always bring. They're such absolutely hideous shoes when you take off the hype goggles. Looks like a project a middle-schooler would do in shop class, recycling a burlap potato sack into the uppers. Obviously just my opinion, but damn are they ugly shoes...

2

aces_high_2_midnight t1_ixqbnxi wrote

As far as "why they're investigating" now (since they terminated the deal anyway)... this could end up bad for Adidas. People are suggesting morality clauses and such but those things usually address behavior outside of the relationship between the individual and the company (like the individual posting dumb <anti-something/some group> shit on social media.) This on the other hand is internal. Adidas is a German company and all western countries have laws that against this kind of behavior in the workplace. One common theme in these laws is that employers are required investigate all allegations of this type of behavior when they are made aware of it. If Adidas was found guilty of sweeping this under the rug heavy fines could be levied as well as civil suits filed by individuals affected.

So Adidas is in damage control mode now, hoping they can identify who the individuals are and pay them off before some sort of class action is launched. Maybe some middle managers get thrown under the bus (bad press now to avoid worse press later). Then they'll hope their "internal probe" satisfies regulators or reduces the fines they could get.

4

RabidGuineaPig007 t1_ixqcn65 wrote

Replying to weareallgonnadye (#661,439)

Not as long as shoe$ was coming in. WTF America, you see some idiot musician wear a pair of shoes and rush out and buy billions of dollars worth.

Adidas and Nike are sitting on a shit ton of unsold stock right now, the 20-21 show bubble has popped.

Now, it's about Adidas the morally conscious company to resonate on GenZ social media.

1

somecallme_doc t1_ixqe67o wrote

Investigating. They fucking know exactly how shitty he treated the designers.

0

CobraCornelius t1_ixql5w1 wrote

Adidas was founded by nazi party members and now they have come full circle.

4

ScienceLivesInsideMe t1_ixqrq4w wrote

Replying to CincyCivilRightsAct (#664,760)

And this is why corporations are broken. You are perfectly ok with abuse because it's making you money and people would lose their job if not for so much money. Monkey brain.

First of all bullshit. That fucking company has so much money it could get rid of kanye and give all their workers a 20% raise and still be crushing it. But they don't because crony capitalism. Unions would be a start to fixing these insane workplaces but Republicans wouldn't go for that.

If people do lose their job because a compamy did an ethical thing like taking action against a whatever kanye is due to sexual abuse or whatever it is...ok there are other jobs, isn't that how this is supposed to work? The whole capitalism thing?

9

OneBitScience t1_ixqz69e wrote

Seems like this is probably related to the legal machinations going on. Kanye’s people must be threatening to sue for breach of contract or some such thing. Adidas then launches investigation to get some leverage in those negotiations.

2

Rooks4567 t1_ixr1csy wrote

Come with me son, I'm the shoe policeman.

1

Caymonki t1_ixr26sm wrote

Replying to natphotog (#666,353)

HR are my favorite people. They feign so much interest for employees while telling management exactly what is coming down the pipe.

Fix it and make people like it here? [_] Fuck them over because we can [X]

Easiest decision of the day.

Hey, there’s a worker shortage and no one wants to work here?!?!

7

Cetun t1_ixrzp3g wrote

Replying to natphotog (#666,353)

Not necessarily true. I've seen cases where HR purposefully fucks up things that can be resolved fairly easily. HRs job is to create small fires and then put them out, justifying their importance in the company and maintaining steady employment.

1

masshole4life t1_ixse448 wrote

Replying to RonstoppableRon (#666,833)

for all the kiddos young enough to have upvoted this misdirected dis, the song is "sound of da police" by krs-one, and the parent comment was kinda funny.

i get that it's an old song and obscure to many, but it's message is as important today as it was back then. people should know it.

6

Skeletore-full-power t1_ixsg0fq wrote

Replying to rustynailsu (#660,862)

>Morales clause

On a hip hop rapper. Seems kind of hypocritical that this would be the thing they get him on. Dudes said some pretty questionable stuff in rap lyrics.

Edit: dude has a song called black skinhead. That by itself might fuck up their whole investigation

1

largish t1_ixsri31 wrote

Shoes for industry, shoes for crime fighting! At Georgie Tirebiter's Detective Agency

1

cishet-camel-fucker t1_ixsu3uo wrote

>The investigation follows a report by Rolling Stone magazine that detailed alleged incidents of inappropriate behavior by Ye toward staff and prospective employees.

Deja Vu.

3

Jedwardvincent t1_ixugjys wrote

Replying to weareallgonnadye (#661,439)

HR acts as a barrier to the CEOs and upper management to provide opportunities for plausible deniability, the same way upper management and c-level provide buffers to each other and ultimately the CEO. Anything unbecoming of the company gets trickled down the chain of command to provide protection to the CEO because, "I had heard something about something maybe happening, but I'm not involved in the day to day."

While this is ultimately true, it leads to awful situations where people are being put in compromising positions where they're a mid-level HR person and are having to navigate what to do about Kanye showing porn to their staff. In the same way as with Weinstein, it's more likely that you'll be fired for bringing it up since Kanye is brining the company $8B a year and you're costing the company $75k a year to act as a patsy. Even if you do your job and ring the alarm, they'll acknowledge it and then brush it over, then pin it to you when it surfaces – there's no winning.

All the while, the CEO and c-levels are having dinners with Kanye and probably are fully aware of his behavior since he's likely doing the same at dinner with them - showing inappropriate photos and such – but it's good for business so they laugh it off.

The corporate systems of "accountability" are engineered to protect those at the top by removing them from the typical functions and adding buffers to ensure that they're not immediately responsible for anything and can point a finger anytime something doesn't go well.

1

jenshahscellmate t1_ixv3jjm wrote

Only because Rolling Stone magazine called them out!

1