Are corporations evil, and if so why?

Great Debates
101

Right. That is what I thought at the begining. I fear that you are making some assumptions about what is right or moral behavior for corporations that may not bear scrutiny. :wink:

Primarily it is kept secret, or at least not advertised, because there is a tendency for individuals to keep such things private. Why, for instance, do we not walk around with a name tag displaying our private information? Is it because we have something to hide? Isn’t it true that some people lie about thier own financial means to further their own ends?

The market is not as monolithic as you seem to imply with this. I knew a manager who encouraged people working for him to continually look for work elsewhere. He offered them time off to go on interviews once or twice a year. He believed that it kept them aware of what sorts of jobs were actually available, and how much they were really worth.

Many listings do make this available. I usually try and avoid those listing which do not contain this information. I have no idea what the nationwide rate is, however. The fact is, however, that the absence of such information has nothing to do with a lack of honesty or a desire to offer fair salaries. It is simply a negotiation technique to make the other guy tell you his requirements before you tell him what you are willing to pay. There is noting dishonest or unfair about it.

Well, I’m not sure you’ve made a case that publishing salaries would necessarily be any better. Go back and read msmith537’s point about workaholics setting the bar. The simple fact of the matter is that envy is very corosive in a work setting. Differences in salaries would (or could) lead to unreasonable distrust amongst employees. I have heard that such information could be used in “harrasment” suits also. That is, publishing a persons salary without his knowledge is considered dispensing personal information.

102

Oh, I was just taking your lead with “what the market will bear”… :slight_smile:

Excellent! This is a perfect mechanism to keep employees informed, and build a relationship between the employee and employer. Do you suppose there are any others that can maintain private information without building mistrust, or hiding any particular unfairness?

103

Only inasfar as they cannot send the work south of the border, pay workers pennies an hour in workplaces uncomplicated by health and safety laws, pollution controls, or basic labor rights.

Yeah. How ethically sound. :rolleyes:

If corporations weren’t given the status of “legal persons” then no one would be applying psycholocigal comparisons to them.

Originally, corporations had to demonstrate that they benefited society to some degree. But as they accumulated more wealth, and more power, they have systematically eliminated all laws and regulations that stand in the way of maximizing profits, and those they haven’t eliminated, they’ve emasculated, or just ignored. And now they’re beginning to successfully sponsor legislation and executive action that directly support and protect their business models, whether it’s the RIAA, Glaxo-SmithKline, ConAgra, or Halliburton.

In future centuries, we’re going to look back and see two critical errors. You see, we were on the right track towards a progressive, democratic, egalitarian society. Then we made two grave errors. First, we granted to fictional legal entities motivated only by profit the rights reserved for citizens, and then we equated money with free speech.

Gee… do the math, A + B = C. The only question is how long until these fictional profit-motivated entities dominate all speech and therefore the entire political process. Or – wait— was that the point all along?

Nahh… couldn’t happen here. Now where’s my Bud Light and which channel was the Man Show on again?

104

Of course. I think most companies make their payrolls available in an anonymous fashion to reporting institutions. The government compiles all kinds of statistics about how much various jobs are paying out there in the market place. I think this sort of thing is quite useful.

I think most companies maintain private information without fostering an atmosphere of mistrust. Obviously some don’t. But I don’t think there is anything inherent in the structure of a corporation which necessiatates any such distrust.

105

It was useful to me. I used it to get a raise that made sure my salary corresponded to my experience and location. Of course, I should have been getting that salary already…

Well, I don’t think there is a need for active distrust of most institutions. But there’s plenty of room between distrust and trust. We can be investigative without necessarily suspecting any wrongdoing. If we are not vigilant, then who will be? The corporations themselves?

106

I have heard this argument countless times, and yet I have never heard of a corporation casting a vote in an election.

107

I on the other hand have never gotten such a raise. I’ve worked in mostly small companies and they don’t give salary adjustments as often.

I agree entirely. Discussion on the institution of corporations is entirely appropriate. Laws concerning some aspects of corporate behavior are also entirely appropriate. For instance, I think there are still some laws on the books which essentially allow corporations to get away with activities which we would never allow individuals commit. I’m thinking of pollution and property devaluing sort of things. At the same time, however, the ability of small investors to purchase a stock and have only that amount of money at risk is an extremely powerful incentive to build an economy.

My main complaint is that we have gone much too far in the corporate hating culture in this country. Businesses are hampered with a maze of local, state and federal regulations. While I agree that the profit motive has not been entirely eliminated, as the Genie said, “You’d be surprised what you can survive.” :wink:

108

The issue isn’t about keeping up with the Joneses. The issue is about setting boundaries between work and home life. It’s about changing a system where the employer incurs no additional cost from having service employees work overtime or weekends. If an employee has vacation time, they should not be afraid to use it for fear of making a bad impression. It’s about not being subject to the whims of an employer who can simply terminate your employment because he didn’t like the taste of the potato salad you brought to the company picnic.

One of the most demoralizing things I can think of in an organization is knowing how much everyone makes. Not only can it breed resentment, but I certainly wouldn’t want to know that if I bust my ass for 10 years, I might be able to make only an extra 10k a year like my boss.

What’s “fair”? $20,000? $60,000? $150,000? Everyone has there own idea of what they should be paid. And you can’t have it both ways. Companies paying significantly above market wage can’t to afford to hire as many employees.

People criticize Walmart for paying low wages but the money that people save thanks to their low low prices can be used to purchase other products that create additional jobs.

109

This is actually an easy one. In nonconsensual power relationships, the people who have power over others generally DON’T want open discussion of the power relationship. Relative rakings of importance via money are an obvious invitation to questioning power relationships. It’s one thing to know Asshole A has the title of Vice President of Corporate Jujube and outranks you by two levels. It’s another to KNOW he makes ten times as much money as you do (when you also know he’s an embarassment to the company, not an asset).

110

Ok, but this sounds like an assertion which cannot be proven. I think I may be able to demonstrate that a corporation which divulges things like salary to unauthorized people could get into trouble. Can you demonstrate that any corporations keep such things secret for the reason you described?

111

[QUOTE=msmith537]
The issue isn’t about keeping up with the Joneses. The issue is about setting boundaries between work and home life. It’s about changing a system where the employer incurs no additional cost from having service employees work overtime or weekends. If an employee has vacation time, they should not be afraid to use it for fear of making a bad impression. It’s about not being subject to the whims of an employer who can simply terminate your employment because he didn’t like the taste of the potato salad you brought to the company picnic.

[QUOTE]
But your complaint was about workaholics “setting the bar” too high. I understand the problem of dividing work and home life. The old addage about no one putting on their tomb stone “I wish I spent more time at work”, and all that. Perhaps I was thrown off by the mention of workaholics.

What corporation incurs no costs for employes which work overtime? I assume you mean salaried employees? There are other costs associated with hiring someone on as salaried. In addition, there are other benifits to working as a salaried employee. The only sort of employee that I can think of which works overtime for no extra pay is the sort which works in the jobs we all want. Managers, Engineers, and others of extra responsibility.

As to being subject to the whims of an employer, I understand this. I worked for a very odd man once. It was the only job I ever quit. (The other small companies I worked for went under, except the one which liquidated the department I was in).

Well, this depends on the organization. I do know of companies which not only advertise the salaries of everyone, they actually open the books of the company. Every employee can go over all of the expenses and reciepts of the company almost at any time. If I recall correctly, the CEO suggested that he wanted his employees to learn how to run a business as well as do their jobs.

112

Hard work and attention to detail is a good thing, however it can be taken to the extreme. If the system rewards those who sacrifice everything by promoting them to positions of power, it creates pressure on everyone to keep up with their pace, whether they want to or not. If you have a boss who has no personal life, they often expect that their underlings should adher to their schedule. I tell you, there’s nothing more agrivating than a boss or coworker calling me at home or over the weekend for some inane thing that can easily wait until Monday or calling me at midnight before a deadline about some last minute change as if I am up waiting for the call.

These aren’t job’s of “extra” responsibility. They are typical jobs requiring a college degree. Engineers, accountants, lawyers, bankers, high-tech, and so on. The typical business model for tracking the productivity of salaried service employees is “billable hours”. The costs are fixed so the employees have to generate revenue by billing more and more hours. Granted these positions are not 9-5. Because tasks tend to be project based, it is dificult to track productivity of service professionals like you would track widget output in manufacturing. But with no incentive to manage work-life balance, projects typically require employees to work ridiculous hours to complete unreasonible (and often arbitrary) deadlines.
Evil Captor - I would rather work for a VP making 10x my salary than one making 2x my salary. You don’t become a millionare by working for someone making $100,000 a year.

113

[QUOTE=msmith537]
What’s “fair”? $20,000? $60,000? $150,000?[/qoute]It is not “what the market will bear” because that is a totally elusive beast. I though I explained it in my quote. It is a living wage. That is a not a strict dollar value but changes from area to area.

Small comfort to the person who can barely afford to live on a full-time job. Like, non-existent.

114

Of course, and the agricultural program and on, and on. One of the problems with people in general, me included and not just government people, is the reluctance to question the status quo. We can’t spend all of our time questioning things but we don’t do enough of it.

My particular bete noir is churches. Not religion as an idea or the belief in a supernatural power per se but the organized churches. Many of them are operated by those who closely resemble mountebanks but to question them is a no-no in may quarters.

115

What part is “small comfort”? The fact that those other jobs are created or that they can take advantage of the low low prices that Walmart offers? The way you enable people to live on a full time job is either a) pay them more at their job or b) reduce the price of stuff they buy so they can afford more with less.

I guess what it basically comes down to is - is it wrong for a small number of people to suffer economically for the greater benefit to a larger group? In a perfect world, no one would ever lose their jobs or work for crap wages, but the world isn’t perfect. I think where the “corporations are evil” perception comes into play is when it is perceived that the greater good is suffering to make a few individuals wealthy. Unfortunately it is not always clear what the benefit is. Folks in a small town who do not have access to Gartner Group research or HBR case studies may percieve the big superstore coming in and driving the mom & pops out of business, bringing all kinds of traffic and changing the face of the town. That doesn’t appear to keep them out of the stores though.

That’s the problem in a competitive system. Everyone wants their jobs and business protected when they aren’t the competitive ones. I was at a client a few weeks ago and there were union reps passing out flyers about how the company was anti-union and drove them out. What they didn’t say was that the company had decided to go with a diferent union because that union was a better deal. It’s human nature that we all want a competitive price as long as it’s our price.

116

No the world isn’t perfect but all too often that catch phrase is used as a justification for inaction. It seems to me that one of our most important functions is to do the best job possible of making it “more perfect.” And perfection in society or economics is an ever receding target because human wants are virtually unlimited. Witness the CEO who makes $10 million a year but wants a raise in pay and perqs.

So the job of making things more perfect will never end until the sun blows up or greed destroys all. At least the effort gives us something to occupy our time.

117

Its not so much that corporations are evil, but that they permit abstraction from evil. The aforementioned case of examining the legal costs of producing an unsafe product (Ford and the Pinto) on a spreadsheet next to the costs of retooling is a near-perfect example.

Very few of us would sell something to our neighbor if we knew there was a pretty good chance we were selling him a crematorium on wheels. If we saw him loading his kids into it, we would run out and stop him.

But how many people sold their shares in Ford the instant they heard about this? How many protested in shareholder meetings, or, perhaps more to the point, how many are permitted any such meaningful voice in the decisions such a corporation makes?

When we can abstract ourselves from evil, we can rationalize away our responsibility, we can call it “they” rather than “us”, or worse, “me”. But if the shareholders insist on morally responsible management and demand accountability, then corporations can assume largely benign aspects.

If the people lead, the leaders will follow.

118

Some civil rights are granted to corporations, and it’s a damn good idea. Consider a corporation like, ohhhhh, say, the Chicago Reader, incorporated. If the corporation had no first amendment protection (I’ll use the American standard, even though corporations have pretty much the same rights in any liberal democracy), then they could be prosecuted for whatever they published. A government agent could claim “Well, although individuals have the right to free speech, the corporation does not.” As a result, published opinion would be limited to:[ul][li]Individuals handing out leaflets (or these days, internet opinions)[/li][li]The very rich individuals who can afford their own printing presses, delivery trucks and distrubtion systems to disseminate newspapers and magazines[/ul][/li]
Without second-amendment protection, I suppose an incorporated gun manufacturer or store could have its inventory seized at any time, on the basis that no individual’s right is being infringed.

Without third amendment protection, corporate buildings could simply be taken for use by the military or other government agents, for the same reason.

Without fourth amendment protection, a corporate building can be repeatedly searched and property seized, for the same reason.

Without fifth amendment protection, a corporation can be tried in court for the same offense repeatedly, until convicted or bankrupted by legal fees, for the same reason. A corporation could also have its property seized without due process of law, for the same reason.

And so forth. All a corporation really is, is property owned collectively by investors and used for a goal they select. Without legal protections, a goverment could simply seize that property if it was put to a purpose the government didn’t like. You need only look at the many pictures of padlocked newspaper buildings to see the end result, and picture the Chicago Reader (as well as one of its projects: the Straight Dope) shut down on some flimsy basis thought up by a beaurocrat.

I’m not sure when or how the idea that “corporation = evil” came about. It displays a certain fundamental ignorance about corporations and what they do.

119

Well, you conveniently took my statement out of context.

The right to free speech and the ruling equating money with speech gives the corporation, a single entity, far more power to influence elections and legislation than any single voter does.

That’s the problem.

Imagine any citizen with normal rights and privileges and how much they would have been able to influence electoral outcomes and policy decision and tell me there’s not an imbalance here. What kind of access does an average citizen have to a member of congress, let alone a president? Nearly zero, unless he represents a large business interest.

A damn good idea for whom? Why, the corporations of course.

With only the exception of the 1st amendment example you give, the rest of those rights benefit only the corporation. They are permitted to benefit from those rights at the expense of true citizens.

How about this: Make those legal protections privileges, contingent on the corporation demonstrating some wholesome, valid benefit to society. And if a corporation abuses those privileges, it loses them.

And when they abuse those rights/privileges, what is their risk? A fine that they can just write off as a cost of doing business? Tell me, when was the last time a corporation was really, severely affected by a fine as a result of misconduct to the point where it actually hurt?

Whereas real people can be thrown in jail or even executed for a crime, and have thier voting rights taken away, a corporation doesn’t. When was the last time a corporation lost its rights as a result of gross misconduct?

Now tell me there’s not an imbalance.

Evil, schmevil. The word is too emotionally loaded. How about abusive of their rights and privileges?

120

I agree with your overall assessment. I probably disagree with you on the subject of how often this sort of abstraction happens, and how big a problem it is, but I agree whole heartedly that bureaucracies create exactly this sort of “abstraction”.

Imagine how much worse it would be if the bureaucracy in question were permitted to carry out its edicts with guns and we were not allowed to influence them at all except once every couple years. :wink: