Corporate ethics

[Abbey Marie]

Yes, I know to some the title is an oxymoron.

Moving on, though- do you think outsourcing jobs is unethical? I am talking about using outside contracting firms so you can lay off employees who are receiving costly health benefits. What about the faithful and talented employees who are let go for such a reason? In my example, the employees have excellent performance reviews, get along well with everyone. They are just expensive to retain. Do corporations have any responsibility to find other ways to trim their budgets, if budget trimming is necessary for their shareholders' happiness?

What if the outsourcing is beong done just to make some manager's resume look good. As in, "I saved Company X 1.2 million by outsourcing 20 jobs".
Any ethical problems there?

Finally, what about off-shoring jobs? Is that worse because the jobs are overseas, so that even the American contractors don't reap the benefits?

[Dilloduck]

Yes, I know to some the title is an oxymoron.

Moving on, though- do you think outsourcing jobs is unethical? I am talking about using outside contracting firms so you can lay off employees who are receiving costly health benefits. What about the faithful and talented employees who are let go for such a reason? In my example, the employees have excellent performance reviews, get along well with everyone. They are just expensive to retain. Do corporations have any responsibility to find other ways to trim their budgets, if budget trimming is necessary for their shareholders happiness?

What if the outsourcing is beong done just to make some manager's resume look good. As in, "I saved Company X 1.2 million by outsourcing 20 jobs".
Any ethical problems there?

Finally, what about whole hog off-shoring of jobs? Is that worse because the jobs are overseas, so that even the American contractors don't reap the benefits?

The entire world's economy is NOT about ethics. It's about surviving. We are born into a world that requires us to actually DO things to survive----we have decided to call those things "work".
You are free to apply any standard of ethics you would like to your own work and it may even be recognized and rewarded but expecting eveyone else to play by your rules will open you up for some big surprises.

Why is it so hard for people to accept the fact that they have to compete and work in order to survive ?

[Abbey Marie]

So you are of the opinion that nothing is out of bounds for companies to do?

[manu1959]

So you are of the opinion that nothing is out of bounds for companies to do?


first off companies don't do anything they are inanimate....

people outsource and they do it to keep costs down ..... otherwise they would justraise prices and or cut profit margin..... or both ....

as for if it is moral and ethical.... i guess they could choose to not do anyhing and just go bk.....

[Dilloduck]

So you are of the opinion that nothing is out of bounds for companies to do?

The law restricts them from what it considers harmful but I see no problem with being as successful as you can. If you think you can succeed by treating your employees like things, go for it. They are free to leave at anytime and even work for your competitor .

[Abbey Marie]

first off companies don't do anything they are inanimate....

people outsource and they do it to keep costs down ..... otherwise they would justraise prices and or cut profit margin..... or both ....

as for if it is moral and ethical.... i guess they could choose to not do anyhing and just go bk.....

C'mon Manu- do I really need a lecture in terminology? :poke:

Anyway, did you see my example of the manager who is trying to enhance his resume by cutting costs? That is a far cry from your outsource or go bankrupt example.

[midcan5]

Yes, I know to some the title is an oxymoron...

Abbey, you keep thinking ethically you'll soon be a liberal, one of those bad people. Seriously, I have seen (see) this first hand and for the most part it is immoral. Is it unethical or illegal, probably no, and that is why some can condone it as part of the global market. It started in earnest after Reagan removed many of the rights that supported unions and workers. Bush has done the same. Companies now call it global sourcing in an attempt to hide the fact they are shipping jobs overseas. The modus operandi today is to built or contract a center in India or the Dominican republic or the Philippines and then gradually shift American work there. This is support and telephone work. Next they engage in what is commonly called downsizing at home. The reason given is often there isn't enough work. Downsizing removes American workers as the companies shift our jobs. This is done cleverly and sporadically today as public outcry hurt the original downsizing that occurred under Reagan.

The business world our parents had after WWII is no more as American corporations are only interested in profit for themselves and not the country or its people. You see that in low wages, no healthcare and a lack of pensions. Our country has sunk so low and yet the corporate tools still preach. PS honesty: I have had a good life in corporate America. I was among the early baby boomers.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85209/alan-s-blinder/offshoring-the-next-industrial-revolution.html

[MtnBiker]

Well lets look at something. Several compaines are bidding to do a clean up project at a remote DOE site, a project that will take several years. One compaines through its exaimination of the workforce realizes it can replace 25% of the union work force with outsorced labor and save hundreds of thousands if not a million or more dollars. Now this 25% is peripheral labor, ie janitorial, foodservice, ground maintance and the like. The skilled labor is still left in place. The work of the clean up project is still done to specifications and on time, but has saved the tax payer money buy restructering the labor.

How is that unethical?

[fj1200]

C'mon Manu- do I really need a lecture in terminology? :poke:

Anyway, did you see my example of the manager who is trying to enhance his resume by cutting costs? That is a far cry from your outsource or go bankrupt example.

Shouldn't a manager be looking for ways to cut costs? If they truly saved 1.2mill without a loss in quality or other intangibles then he was being a good steward of the owners/shareholders investment. If a company can shed a non-core function, save money, and focus on its core competency then their are long-term societal benefits.

[fj1200]

Abbey, you keep thinking ethically you'll soon be a liberal, one of those bad people. Seriously, I have seen (see) this first hand and for the most part it is immoral. Is it unethical or illegal, probably no, and that is why some can condone it as part of the global market. It started in earnest after Reagan removed many of the rights that supported unions and workers. Bush has done the same. Companies now call it global sourcing in an attempt to hide the fact they are shipping jobs overseas. The modus operandi today is to built or contract a center in India or the Dominican republic or the Philippines and then gradually shift American work there. This is support and telephone work. Next they engage in what is commonly called downsizing at home. The reason given is often there isn't enough work. Downsizing removes American workers as the companies shift our jobs. This is done cleverly and sporadically today as public outcry hurt the original downsizing that occurred under Reagan.

The business world our parents had after WWII is no more as American corporations are only interested in profit for themselves and not the country or its people. You see that in low wages, no healthcare and a lack of pensions. Our country has sunk so low and yet the corporate tools still preach. PS honesty: I have had a good life in corporate America. I was among the early baby boomers.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85209/alan-s-blinder/offshoring-the-next-industrial-revolution.html

Oh come on are you serious? First, it's immoral but NOT unethical? explain that one. And you blindly blame Reagan for every sin that's occurred since???

Corporate America was fat and bloated after the 70's and was not prepared for global competition that was coming regardless of who was President. The tax cuts forced companies to reevaluate their capital usage, shedding under/nonperforming divisions and focusing on areas where they can actually make money.

The business world after WWII is gone because it's a global world, not a place where the only market left standing was ours (and FDR's New Deal meddling died with him). You can reminisce about how wonderful everything was in the 50's but we were in an isolated bubble that was going to burst and did.

If you want to see an explosion of American jobs, write your Congressman and tell them to eliminate the corporate income tax (or at least cut the rate to around say, Ireland's). You would either see a huge reduction in outsourcing or there would be so many new jobs created that you wouldn't even notice. The problem with Washington today is that they blame the symptom and not the cause.

[5stringJeff]

Abbey, the purpose of the company is to maximize profit for the equity share holders (in the form of long-term free cash flows). If outsourcing labor will increase profitability in teh long term, then a manager ought to do it. I don't see the firing/laying off of workers as an ethical situation. No one works under the illusion that their company will be around forever to keep them employed - at least no one ought to. The company gives the worker what the worker agrees to work for, one pay period at a time. On the flip side, the worker gives the company exactly what the company asks for, one pay period at a time. It's a contractual relationship, not an ethical relationship.

[Abbey Marie]

Abbey, the purpose of the company is to maximize profit for the equity share holders (in the form of long-term free cash flows). If outsourcing labor will increase profitability in teh long term, then a manager ought to do it. I don't see the firing/laying off of workers as an ethical situation. No one works under the illusion that their company will be around forever to keep them employed - at least no one ought to. The company gives the worker what the worker agrees to work for, one pay period at a time. On the flip side, the worker gives the company exactly what the company asks for, one pay period at a time. It's a contractual relationship, not an ethical relationship.

Jeff, I think you are the only one who really understood the question.