Originally Posted by Robert_Nashville

-----------------------------
As one who has been laid-off (or "right-sized" as my former company like to call it) at the age of 42 and after 11 years with the same company, I at least have an inkling of what your friend Tommy had to go through (and I hope he immediately sued for age discrimination and won a couple of million$). However, I don't see how your story negates what I said above.
Tommy had to sign a waiver promising no lawsuits or litigation in order to get his severance package that consisted of 2-weeks pay for every year of service. He took the package and found a job working 2nd shift at a local machine shop for $15/hr. He's working to reach 62 then he's done. I still talk with him.

First of all, any manager who would make such a decision is an a** hole and secondly, based on your story, not making a good business decision for the company either. However, you can't extrapolate that situation into saying all companies/all management acts that way and any company that does routinely act that way will likely not stay in business for the long term.
But you have to admit, it is not a "secluded" occasion. This type of thing happens alot these days.

It’s been my observation that the majority of the “nicest” and most ethical/moral people I know and have known are the leaders of our society…that was true during my 8 years in the Navy with the captains and admirals and it’s been true in all the years since in my business life…the people I’ve know don’t generally set out to hurt the people who work for them and they understand that even the best product in the world won’t help them if they don’t have good employees to actually make things happen.
I am fortunate enough right now to have the best boss I have ever had. He gives me a job and resources, then wants to know when I'm done. He is the type of person you spoke of above - ethical, nice, etc. I will do anything for the guy - hence some of my rediculous hours in the field and away from family.
BUT - I have had MANY bosses that were not this way. They will sell me or my position to the lowest bidder with no conscience whatsoever - been there, done it. For the 1 good boss I have now, I have waded through 10 or more sorry ones.

That said (and whether it’s a “foreign” or “domestic” company), it’s simply not realistic to expect a “company” to act like a person or to ascribe human morality and emotions to it…a company is an inanimate organization that will always seek to do what’s best for the company because that’s the only way it will continue to exist. Usually what is best for the company is also what’s best for its employees but when those two outcomes can’t be achieved, it isn’t reasonable to expect the company to choose to do what’s best for an individual or group of employees if that decision is ultimately bad for the company.
I agree, but somewhat disagree too. I do know of companies employing 100-300 workers, that have personal relationships with each one. One company we use to make tooling employs about 150, and the owner knows every one. They have Thanksgiving and Christmas meals on the clock, he gives them gifts, etc, and he goes out of his way to keep them employed. The owner talks with me about the families that are relying on him for food and homes - he is consciencious about the effect of his company on the workers he employs, and he feels responsibility to the worker and family. Eric makes business decisions that may not maximise HIS interest, but will result in some better good for all those involved instead. I give this guy all the business I can for just these reasons.

Then there is always the case of Harley-Davidson too. AMF did what was best for the company - they looted the HD division for maximum short-term profit and planned to ditch the remains for yet more income to AMF shareholders. But when the EMPLOYEES bought the company instead of some corporate asset raider... well, just look at it today.
There is a company run by the people, for the people, and it is a blinding success.

We all tend to think of prior generations as more moral or less greedy, etc. but I think history has taught us otherwise…The writings of Dickens’ in A Christmas Carol” and other works, although fiction, were based on his observations in the England of his day (early-mid 1800s)…likewise, the robber-barons in our country of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s were as greedy as they come and precisely what precipitated the rise of unions…history has taught us that we need to regulate companies to ensure workers safety and equal/fair treatment but history has also taught us that we need to withhold regulation when not needed so that the free market can operate. We should not abandon one in favor of the other or we’ll have neither and we’ll all be moving to Mexico and India to look for work.
Oh I agree 100% - given human nature there will always be the greedy ones, the power-hungry, the corporate corrupt. Governments have even been so. But you have to admit that the caliber of the average person just isn't what it used to be. People of the first half of the 1900's were just more giving of themselves and concerned about others in general. Today, we are internet chatters and cell-phone junkies that don't make time to stop at the neighbor's house to visit or check on the old lady down the street in a snow storm - we don't have time for it. We tend to maximize everything in our lives to our own benefit... time, work, recreation, finances, etc. which is OK except that we lose sight of the other important things around us that are taken for granted like freedom, liberty, free speach, and our neighbors and fellow men.

I seriously deplore anyone who tries to legislate morality - it cannot be done IMO. But that does not mean that imorality should be applauded or endorsed either. Sometimes, silence can say alot.

Originally Posted by ProudPony

Robert, I can only say that IMO corporations do not take their employees interest at heart any more so than is absolutely necessary. I have seen too many loyal workers (union or not) work 30+ years in a plant, only to be let go when times permit. I had a machine builder working for me that had 32 years of service, not only with the same company, but in the same plant and tha same department! He missed the early retirement package by 6 weeks (birthday), and they laid him off 2 weeks later. I actually heard the conversation - the managers were told to cut 30% out of engineering and the decision on who was up to the dept manager. Tommy was cut because of his salary (to help the engineering dept budget). $22/hour was saved. Nevermind that he was the most experienced guy there, built most of the machines in the plant, could fix anything, was punctual, always there, and prided himself in his work. We kept the new kid making $14 and didn't know squat yet. Everybody else became less efficient because we were pulled off our jobs to help the new kid "train" and see things get fixed.

Originally Posted by ProudPony

Bottom line for me, the decision-makers could care less about the individual employee (unless it is a family business of 10 or so). In todays environment, the only thing they care about is MONEY, period.
In the name of shareholders no less... who are the shareholders but the employees themselves? I just don't like the greediness of this generation running big indusrty right now. I long for the days of the Can-Do Generation that made us strong on morals and ethical performance.

Originally Posted by redzed

In any case, your employer obviously doesn't practice the sort of "first in, first out" layoff policy that would be common in a heavily-unionized production facility in a more labor-friendly state.
That place was just bursting at the seams to get the union in there for just this sort of thing.
BTW - I no longer work there, at "the largest manufacturer of electronic interconnect components in the world". I was "lured away" by another company that offered more pay, responsibility, and opportunity to make a difference.


I hate to break it to you, but small family businesses are probably more abusive towards employees than the big impersonal corporations.

Originally Posted by redzed

What you're describing may (or may not) be "age discrimination" and that machine builder with 32 years of service could take the issue to a federal court.

In any case, your employer obviously doesn't practice the sort of "first in, first out" layoff policy that would be common in a heavily-unionized production facility in a more labor-friendly state.




I hate to break it to you, but small family businesses are probably more abusive towards employees than the big impersonal corporations.

Originally Posted by Chris 96 WS6

All laws legislate morality. Its inescapable.

Originally Posted by ProudPony

MmmHmm... sometimes it seems that way, that's for sure!

Originally Posted by 90rocz

The problem lies on "who" is interpreting what is "fair or not", and by "what measuring tool" they use...
The majority of Buisness' Ethics are questionable at best...
..

Originally Posted by Chris 96 WS6

But ALL LAWS DO LEGISLATE MORALITY. There's no one law you can come up with that doesn't have its roots in some societal sense of right vs. wrong.
Just for the sake of argument... why is it against the law for me to catch and retain more than 20 White Perch in High Rock Lake, but I can go .5 mile downstream below the dam to Baden Lake and catch and keep all I want? There is a $250 fine plus a penalty for each fish above a creel limit in North Carolina - so it DOES get attention?!?!
I fail to see the morality in that one, but according to the game and fish commission they are regulating size and population. Thing is, I can go fishing, catch 20, go home and empty the cooler (or go to the truck and empty the livewell), go back and catch 20 more... all day long. So what's the point?
Now I know that's a retarded example, but to me it just reaks of governmental control over every aspect of life (not legislating morality).

My morality comment was geared more towards corporate and private moral issues like accurate accounting reports and gay marriage. In that instance - I agree with you 100% - every pertinant law is rooted in morality - especially the statutes that require some standard of ethical behavior in business. Shameful it has to be legislated to make people comply, isn't it?


For every "evil" company out there there are thousands playing by the rules. Proud Pony's point about the company where his friend treats his employees well to keep them happy proves a point as well. That point is that happy employees are productive employees. A good manager knows that good decisions from the human standpoint can and often are also good for the company.
I agree that there are both good and bad examples out there. But I disagree that there is a 1000:1 ratio. I'd say it was closer to 50:50 if I wagered a guess.
I will say that I sometimes go out of my way to give work to this one shop just because I know the guy and what he is doing with the work. His employees speak highly of the guy, which tells me they are seeing the effort the owner claims to put forth.

Look at any company where the employees are treated poorly vs. a company where the employees are rewarded and look at their financials. Southwest airline has NEVER had a loss in any given year, they are very profitable, keep costs low, etc.,and they have an incredible corporate culture for rewarding and appreciating their employees.
I would like to add to the list you started here... look at turnover. People jump ship from shoddy employers, so turnover is very high. If you hear that almost everybody in the community has worked for "X-bot Inc." but none of them do now - you can bet you have a real gem of an employer there. Everybody has been there, but left or got fired for some reason, indicating a radical (and potentially goofy) management.

I have NO IDEA what any of this tripe has to do with whether it is more beneficial to the US economy to buy a domestic brand vs. a domestically produced import brand. No one seems to be able to answer that question.
At this point, I don't think any of us - on either side - can produce a concrete block that says yea or nea. Think about it, if the fact was that obvious, there would have been boocoo ads and articles about it, and the press would be pounding it out to the fear of domestic manufacturers (or imports depending on the results). We have each pleaded a case, each strong in it's own way. I guess time will be the tell-all... as usual.

Does this mean domestically owned foreign brands are off limits? Mazda is 49% Ford owned. It may not be built here but some of the profits do come back here,if that is your measurement. What about Saab buyers? Are they OK because the profits go back to Detriot?
Well, in those instances, I guess 49% or better is far better than nothing at all!

A rising tide lifts all boats kiddies.

Originally Posted by Beanboy

Domestics:
"GM, the world's largest automaker, posted a 12.7 percent decline after a slight 1 percent increase in January. Ford, the No. 2 U.S. automaker, said sales of its domestic cars and trucks fell 3 percent in February -- its ninth straight month of lower sales versus a year ago."

Japanese Imports:
"Once again, the best reports came from Asian companies. Toyota Motor Corp., Japan's top automaker, said its U.S. arm's sales rose 11 percent from a year ago, while Nissan Motor Co. logged a 10 percent increase -- its best February on record despite a 2 percent decline in car sales."

German/Domestic:
But DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group said sales rose 7.5 percent on another month of sizzling car business, which was up 21 percent from a year ago. Truck sales rose 4 percent.


Silly domestics...

Originally Posted by ProudPony