Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjectRE: You're missing the point
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=25270&mesg_id=25326
25326, RE: You're missing the point
Posted by alek, Thu Apr-12-01 10:10 PM
I must be.

>Until you see how the corporate
>machine works on the inside,
>and start considering issues dealing
>with investor confidence, sales growth,
>increases in earnings from one
>year to the next, trying
>to find a way to
>boost the bottom line (again
>relating to investors and capital),
>so that the markets don't
>react adversely.....you can't get an
>accurate picture of how companies
>work and the issues they
>face.......and the things I mentioned
>are the tip of the

Fine. I've been trying to learn this for a long time. As I said, I've done a fairly extensive amount of study involving corporate policy, practice, etc. I honestly think that you're misinterpreting my lack of concern for lack of knowledge.

I'm not so concerned right now with finding a way to boost the bottom line, nor am I concerned with beating out foreign competition or pretty much anything else you listed. I know what you're talking about, and I understand it, but I've made WORKER'S RIGHTS and HUMAN RIGHTS my priority in this discussion (and, incidentally, my life). You obviously haven't, so the things you think are important don't line up with the things I think are important. It's an ideological difference.

>Perhaps I was wrong by calling
>it "The Real World" perhaps
>I should call it the
>"Real Business World".

I'd call it the Semi-Real Business World.

>Being aware of poor people, people
>without health care, people struggling
>to get by...does not give
>on sufficient insight into the
>corporate machine...

No shit. Other than how the corporate machine routinely screws people.

>particularly since you want
>to change it.

Like I said, I feel that I understand the corporate machine well enough to try to change it, especially given the fact that I'm advocating a different set of priorities, so it's not vital that I first sympathize and fully comprehend existing priorities (even though I still make an effort to).

>I've yet
>to see see people who
>call for same things you
>do, that have first hand
>knowledge of corporations from the

Once again, no shit. Someone who cares deeply about worker rights is probably not going to involve himself in an institution which suppresses those rights.

>Because if you had
>first hand knowledge, you'd realize
>that some of the things
>you want are unrealistic.

Which? What did I propose that was unrealistic? That's a pretty huge generalization, especially given the fact that I simply mentioned a laundry list of different concerns, and no particular demands. I know that giving workers a 500% wage increase is unrealistic. I know that, for some companies, fully subsidizing health care is unrealistic (while partial subsidy wouldn't be).

>Layoffs, downsizing, job cuts, mergers, shifting
>work to foreign countries....are all
>sad parts of the corporate

This is not set in stone.

>It's unfortunate, but they're
>neccessary for the long term
>health of the corporation.

See above. You're acting like this is a law of nature, but it isn't. It's just one theory (which happens to dominate corporate America at the moment) among many.

>don't want to believe that
>because of the people it
>hurts, or because it would
>be better for people towards
>the bottom of the economic
>ladder. But it's still neccessary.


>Corporations are not social welfare organziations,
>they were started for the
>purpose of making a profit.

You can't define what corporations are. They can be anything. Techically, or theoretically, they're whatever their stock-holders want them to be.

>No one starts a company
>thinking about the people they
>could employ.

....and you're wrong. Sorry, but you are. This is the basis of much liberal reform in the past century (especially during/after the depression and in Johnson's era). The same held for the early 19th century.

>I'm not against the idea of
>Unions, I'm against the practice.

And now it comes out. Couldn't hang on to that neutral stance any longer, huh?

>In my mind Unions should
>merely represent the workers and
>make sure they get paid
>fairly, they get the proper
>benefits and that they have
>safe work environments.

If you get laid off, do you consider that "getting paid properly?" What's the difference between a large-scale pay cut and a string of layoffs? --->>Do answer this, because it seems to me that it's pretty much the same from the angle of the company.

>BUT, Unions
>want to dictate how the
>company is run, what materials
>are used, where areas the
>company can do business, if
>the company can let lay
>people off if they no
>longer need them, heck if
>the Union had their way..the
>people they represent would get
>paid more then the people
>that actually run the company!

Once again, you know nothing about union contract negotiations. Ditto with your perception of who's really important to the functioning of the company. Are you saying that the workers represent literally NO PART of the company's composition? If the issue here is democracy within an institution, and workers are constituents in that institution, then why WOULDN'T they have a say in most company decisions?

By the way, nearly every contract sets out what are acceptable and unacceptible bargaining points.

>If you ask me, Unions should
>stop at work enviroments, benefits
>and wages...and let the company
>run itself.

At which point it would proceed to ruin the work environment and cut pay and benefits. See?

>If they are
>layoffs, you have a severence
>package that is part of
>the deal and leave it
>alone..you accept that layoffs are
>part of business.

This is the first time you've ever mentioned severance. You kept maintaining that it was just the breaks of the game, and kept asking "Why should the company feel at all responsible for firing someone? It's the worker's problem." Now it seems like you're saying that the worker IS owed some kind of job security.

>Currently there isn't a consultants Union,
>(although I hear rumblings of
>people trying to create one
>:( )

There are probably consultants who are union members (freelance writers/analysts can join unions).

>Quite frankly, I
>hope it stays that way.

Shock me.

>It would only get in
>the way of progres and
>I think it would hurt
>us in the long run.

I think that at this point you should just stop pretending that you care about worker rights at all. You clearly don't.

>Anyway, I've said my piece.

Indeed. Me too.


"Say some shit that suprise me...
My face don't change."