Quote:
Originally Posted by Catlady
I want to go back and address this earlier comment.
I absolutely do not see any moral equivalence between some powerless breadwinner choosing to stay silent so as not to jeopardize his job and his family, and a thriving company blithely continuing to endanger the health and well-being of its workers to maximize profits. No.
|
Well said. The relationship of forces here is wildly different and the actions and their effects can not be compared.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
I did wonder if everyone was going to let me get away with that uncontested  |
No chance that was going to happen!
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
So the people that are acting to protect the corporation are not necessarily acting for evil or selfish purposes, many are attempting to do the best they can for the company because that best for the employees and customers and shareholders.
None of this is arguing that the company should not be held responsible for their actions, but it is useful to keep in mind that there are real people behind the corporate mask that will pay the actual costs.
|
Sorry, not good enough. The company that can't do business without torturing and maiming its employees, shouldn't be doing business. And if it fails, those shareholders will pay the risk side of the equation, as they should. There is a tendency (can you say "too big to fail") to think we should somehow protect the company and its shareholders. Wrong. The company is an at risk business and the shareholders took that risk when they bought shares. The
employees, however, have
not taken on risk when they hired on, in fact the opposite. They don't control their working conditions and have only a single option to protect themselves -- withdrawing their labour. But if they're repeatedly told that there is no risk and they're perfectly safe, how are they to make an informed decision?