anonymous23456
Well-Known Member
The question from the internet:
'
when company financials improve with fewer humans.
I for one would like social duties baked into the legal definition of a corporation, and not just duties to the shareholders. Something like the - exceedingly rare - two lines in the mission statement of the small company I work for:
- Provide values to the community by doing well and pay taxes
- Provide a means of living to the employees that enriches their lives
I kid you not: that's literally written in the company's foundational documents, and the company has been doing very well since the 1980s. It's not growing at an extraodinary rate, and it's not producing obscene billionnaires that regularly make the news. But the 55 of us working there have a happy work life, and the company consistently exceeds its targets and hires - slowly - all the time.
What's wrong with that? Why shouldn't some of what my employer choses to focus on be legally mandated? It's not outrageous and it's not groundbreaking.
------------------------------------
The answer from the internet:
What's wrong with that? . . .It's not outrageous and it's not groundbreaking.
It costs money.
------------------------------------
The rebuttal:
Does it?
I would argue that it doesn't. At least if you consider society as a whole and not just what the company can't externalize.
If employees aren't as stressed out, they're healthier: they cost less in healthcare.
They keep their jobs for a long time: they cost less in unemployment benefits.
Remember, I'm talking companies that have performance requirements for society here, not just for the owners.
Ruthless and cutthroat corporate behaviors certainly have a very real and very high cost: it's just that the cost is borne by someone else other than the company shareholders in today's capitalism, and I argue that it doesn't have to be that way.
'
when company financials improve with fewer humans.
I for one would like social duties baked into the legal definition of a corporation, and not just duties to the shareholders. Something like the - exceedingly rare - two lines in the mission statement of the small company I work for:
- Provide values to the community by doing well and pay taxes
- Provide a means of living to the employees that enriches their lives
I kid you not: that's literally written in the company's foundational documents, and the company has been doing very well since the 1980s. It's not growing at an extraodinary rate, and it's not producing obscene billionnaires that regularly make the news. But the 55 of us working there have a happy work life, and the company consistently exceeds its targets and hires - slowly - all the time.
What's wrong with that? Why shouldn't some of what my employer choses to focus on be legally mandated? It's not outrageous and it's not groundbreaking.
------------------------------------
The answer from the internet:
What's wrong with that? . . .It's not outrageous and it's not groundbreaking.
It costs money.
------------------------------------
The rebuttal:
Does it?
I would argue that it doesn't. At least if you consider society as a whole and not just what the company can't externalize.
If employees aren't as stressed out, they're healthier: they cost less in healthcare.
They keep their jobs for a long time: they cost less in unemployment benefits.
Remember, I'm talking companies that have performance requirements for society here, not just for the owners.
Ruthless and cutthroat corporate behaviors certainly have a very real and very high cost: it's just that the cost is borne by someone else other than the company shareholders in today's capitalism, and I argue that it doesn't have to be that way.
