When will companies learn people first, profits last.

[JockoJohnson]

Why is it that every time someone mentions incorporating a little ethics into business that suddenly it's compared to the ways of the U.S.S.R?

Who in hear suggested "a little ethics"? DCAL mentioned that profits should be the least important thing in running a company. That's not injecting a little ethics, that's complete and full-on retardation. I am all for ethics in companies. Profits and ethics are not mutually exclusive. Reality and DCAL430 are mutually exclusive.

 

[p0nd]

The funny thing is that putting profits first helps the employee, shareholder, the supplier, and the consumer.

Just look at Wallmart. It is win/win/win/win for the employee, shareholder, supplier, and consumer.

You can't be serious.

Walmarts low prices are passed on to the suppliers who in turn make less money. The turnover rate of its employees is extremely high, though i can't recall the number. The pay is so low that many Walmart employees are forced to rely on public assistance, which means they are being subsidized by taxpayers. Back in the 90's Walmart took out life insurance policies against its own workers and this kinda blew up and became a big deal and they only stopped because the government closed the tax deduction. Walmart is currently undergoing a huge class action lawsuit regarding discrimination against its female employees who claim they make less and are promoted less. Why do you think there have been such a ridiculous amount of lawsuits against the corporation?

There's so much more one can say about the practices of Walmart... win for the consumer and shareholder? yes. even then the benefit to the consumer is arguable given that walmart can and has shut down competition in an area, forcing the consumer to rely only on walmart for goods. win for the employee, supplier, and business down the road? hardly

 

[werepossum]

Who in hear suggested "a little ethics"? DCAL mentioned that profits should be the least important thing in running a company. That's not injecting a little ethics, that's complete and full-on retardation. I am all for ethics in companies. Profits and ethics are not mutually exclusive. Reality and DCAL430 are mutually exclusive.

This, completely.

I also agree with Patranus about Walmart, with one exception. Government needs to set up our system of taxes, tariffs, and regulations so that domestic manufacturers are favored or at least not at a disadvantage compared to third-world and other low wage and/or heavily subsidized nations. Otherwise we'll inevitably lose jobs to those nations with very low wages, few occupational safety and health laws, and little environmental protection.

Instead, we've seen government actually subsidize a company's costs in off-shoring production.

 

[BoberFett]

Why is it that every time someone mentions incorporating a little ethics into business that suddenly it's compared to the ways of the U.S.S.R?

Why is it that morons like the OP think profit is evil?

 

[wuliheron]

Why is it that morons like the OP think profit is evil?

Lets see now... maybe its the slave trade? Or maybe the drug trade? Or maybe pollution? I don't know. The list of reasons to associate profit with Satan and Hell is just too long to take a reasonable guess.

 

[dawp]

at&t is one of the most hated companies in the country and everything they do is based on how the stock price is doing. customer satisfaction is way down on the list and upper management can't understand why they are loathed.

 

[Cogman]

Lets see now... maybe its the slave trade? Or maybe the drug trade? Or maybe pollution? I don't know. The list of reasons to associate profit with Satan and Hell is just too long to take a reasonable guess.

Do you know why we had slaves? Because people wanted cheap cotton and didn't care that slaves were used to pick it. Do you know why we have drug trade? Because people want drugs and don't care about any of the consequence associated with them at whatever price they are offered. Do you know why corporations pollute? Because most people don't care about a little pollution. BTW, it is funny that you mentioned pollution, the large greedy companies are generally the best at producing products while producing the smallest amount of pollution by volume.

The reason profit does its "satanic" thing is because the public, in general, wants them to.

Oh, and btw. Many people trade in these things and think they are being perfectly moral and good. So yes, they could have had "Human and employee values" above profit and they could STILL have rationalized having slaves "Oh, we are treating our slaves better than any other plantation. Aren't we great!"

 

[IndyColtsFan]

at&t is one of the most hated companies in the country and everything they do is based on how the stock price is doing. customer satisfaction is way down on the list and upper management can't understand why they are loathed.

This. I actually pay extra money to avoid using AT&T's services and products.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

This, completely.

I also agree with Patranus about Walmart, with one exception. Government needs to set up our system of taxes, tariffs, and regulations so that domestic manufacturers are favored or at least not at a disadvantage compared to third-world and other low wage and/or heavily subsidized nations. Otherwise we'll inevitably lose jobs to those nations with very low wages, few occupational safety and health laws, and little environmental protection.

Instead, we've seen government actually subsidize a company's costs in off-shoring production.

:thumbsup:

 

[BoberFett]

Lets see now... maybe its the slave trade? Or maybe the drug trade? Or maybe pollution? I don't know. The list of reasons to associate profit with Satan and Hell is just too long to take a reasonable guess.

LOL, is that the best you've got?

When you bring home a paycheck, you have profited. Are you evil?

 

[PrinceofWands]

The funny thing is that putting profits first helps the employee, shareholder, the supplier, and the consumer.

Just look at Wallmart. It is win/win/win/win for the employee, shareholder, supplier, and consumer.

Had to do three of em, cause I'm REALLY not sure.

 

[xj0hnx]

Also, on the note about Google - yes, they are wonderful. Because the vision is still there. Once they realize they can save 40% by moving to a formula-like business model, they will.

Right, because no one at the company now has thought of that

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

There's nothing wrong with businesses putting profits first and people last. The problem is when government adopts that same attitude.

 

[Bateluer]

That is why we had Enron, WorldCom, and Madoff. Because people put profits before humanity and society.

I disagree with your entire post, and hope you take a basic economics course before you're old enough to vote. But, I wanted to point out something here to you. Enron and WorldCom are bankrupt. A good corporation knows that their customers are their source of profits and aims to keep them happy, for better or worse.

And Madoff was a person, who was repeated audited by the SEC, who turned up nothing on his ponzi scheme.

 

[werepossum]

There's nothing wrong with businesses putting profits first and people last. The problem is when government adopts that same attitude.

This is true. A company that puts profits first, at a reasonable level, will do what it takes to keep its employees AND its customers happy, as long as it is not granted an effective monopoly protected by government. A company that puts profits first, at an unreasonable level, will drive itself out of business and be replaced with a smarter company. Government however should be concerned with policies establishing and promoting a prosperous middle class as large as possible, not with the absolute maximum corporate profit possible.