Chase Bank intimates staff to support immoral homosexual agenda
This is the smoking gun. NOM has obtained new evidence that shows Chase bank not only violated its employees' privacy with invasive and inappropriate questions on an employee survey aimed at pushing an LGBT agenda, but that the company has lied to consumers and its own employees about the now infamous questions.
The news about this survey has already been reported far and wide. But after NOM called on our members to contact Chase and demand answers about the invasive question to employees about whether they were "allies of the LGBT community"—and answers about how this information was to be used—the bank's leadership went on defense.
Several of you forwarded me responses received from Patricia A. Wexler, a Chase spokesperson, who said that, "The news report is not correct. These surveys are anonymous and voluntary." Another Chase spokesperson, Jaclyn D'Aversa, reiterated to the Heritage Foundation's Daily Signal that the survey was "completely voluntary and anonymous."
That the survey was administered, and contained the offensive question, is simply beyond doubt. This screenshot, published Friday by Breitbart News, has finally laid all such questions to rest—even though, as the Breitbart piece notes, several liberal media elites had been claiming that the survey didn't even exist :
The mere fact of the survey and this kind of inappropriate question is troubling enough. But, in the face of Chase's denials and obfuscations, we must ask anyway: Was it, as Chase spokespersons have claimed, "completely voluntary and anonymous"?
Well, NOM has obtained evidence that lays this question to rest as well.
Anonymous?
On March 18, 2014, Chase CEO Jamie Dimon sent an email announcing the annual survey to all employees (figure 1). Here Dimon says that "the survey takes 10 minutes to complete and individual responses are confidential; only aggregated results at the group level will be reported" [emphasis added].
This email was provided by a Chase employee. We also have a screenshot of another internal employee communication, the "Daily Bulletin" of March 30, 2014 (see figure 2). Here, we see all employees being urged to "log in and complete the 10-minute survey" [emphasis added].
A Chase employee confirms that this 'log in' means exactly what one would think: "employees were required to identify themselves with their employee Standard ID Number prior to taking the survey" [emphasis added].
This is not "anonymous." Even Jamie Dimon, in announcing the survey to employees, did not choose that word, but said results would be treated confidentially—which is a very different thing. The fact is that the data from each respondent was tied to his or her unique Employee ID number, and Chase was simply asking its employees to trust that that information would not be misused. Given the track record of bullying and intimidation we've seen in the pushing of the LGBT agenda, it is understandable that employees would be uneasy with this line of questioning.
Another internal message to Chase staff, this time from Pablo Sanchez, JPMorgan Chase's National Director of Consumer Banking, is important for two reasons. In the email—dated April 8, 2014 (figure 3)—Sanches urges participation in the survey, and dedicates a one line paragraph to claiming: "[Y]es, your individual responses are anonymous. I stake my reputation on that" [emphasis added].
This shows us two things. First of all, it shows between late March and early April, there seems to have been some blowback and concern within the Chase community about the offensive question about being "an ally of the LGBT community" and about the answers being tied to the employees' unique ID numbers. Sanchez is the first to claim that the answers are "anonymous"—a lie that has now been repeated by spokespersons for the company after the fact. But he obviously knew this was a hard line to sell, adding dramatically that he 'staked his reputation' on it. But Sanchez's assurance simply does not line up with the facts. He knew that there is a way to gather data anonymously—and that tying data to each individual's unique identification number is not within the normal definition of "anonymity."
Voluntary?
Here is the second thing Sanchez's email tells us: thesurvey was hardly "voluntary." And this gets back to what Chase spokespeople have claimed in the face of protests: they also claimed that, in addition to being anonymous, the survey was "completely voluntary."
Anyone who has worked in a corporate structure knows how that line goes: how many "mandatory voluntary" exercises comprise a corporate employee's life at work?
The Sanchez email here represents the second high-ranking official "urging" participation in the survey—and this doesn't count the "Daily Bulletin" from March 30th. Furthermore, these are just the emails to which NOM has gained access. How much more "urging" was done at Chase to "encourage participation" in this "completely voluntary" exercise?
One Chase employee's anecdotal account sheds some useful light on this question, as well. The employee writes:
There was a big push to make sure that all employees completed the survey. About a week before the survey all employees received an email from CEO Jamie Dimon stressing the importance of completing the survey. Then, all employees in my department received an email from the head of our department emphasizing the importance of 100% participation in the survey....This was followed up by my immediate supervisor confirming with me and all my co-workers to make sure that we took the survey. So, no, this was not voluntary... [emphases added].
Time to Make a Withdrawal
Paul, the facts are clear:
- Chase pressured its employees to participate in a survey that asked offensively invasive questions pushing an LGBT agenda, and it doubtful whether they felt it to be truly "voluntary."
- Individual responses were tied to each employee's unique identification number, which was required as part of the survey, so it can hardly be called "anonymous".
- Chase has subsequently lied and obfuscated by means of corporate double-speak and euphemism, insulting and misleading consumers and employees alike.
And as a first gesture in this protest, I am moving my own mortgage—currently held by Chase—to another bank. This situation is unacceptable and deplorable, and a clear message must be sent that it simply will not be tolerated.
Visit www.VoidChase.com right away to sign up. But, Paul, I need to ask one more thing of you today.
We must spread this story far and wide. Many of you have been following this story, but many more still need to know about it so that they can join in action with others from around the globe in this historic protest.
JP Morgan Chase is the largest bank in America, with assets over $2.4 trillion — they should be busy with the business of banking, not thought-policing and harassing their employees and lying to the public. They must be held accountable.
And share this story with co-workers, friends and family using the buttons below so that they have all the facts to counter Chase's misinformation, and so that they will join in our movement as well.
Together, we'll continue to chase down the truth of this matter and ensure that justice is demanded.
