3 ms·

>>what stops companies from ruthlessly exploiting workers, selling products that damage society, polluting the environment, et cetera ...? When the companies e

by toss1 4y ago

>>what stops companies from ruthlessly exploiting workers, selling products that damage society, polluting the environment, et cetera ...? When the companies engage in the ordinary big-business practice of regulatory capture, absolutely nothing. It is just treated as a game to be hacked. And hack it, they do. Because according to your standards, companies don't need to treat everyone fairly (as a good citizen), but the govt must treat them fairly. That's how earlier this week we saw headlines that Tesla employees in Buffalo NY were organizing a union drive. Then the very next day, we see headlines that Tesla has fired 10 workers, the ones organizing it. It is illegal as hell, but they did it anyway. Why? Because Tesla knows that it'll take years for all the hearings to work their way through the courts, and the result will be a fine, which they can appeal, and delay further. Meanwhile, they figure the end cost will be less than having to deal with giving workers a fair deal. So, despite all the "excess govt regulation", the workers get exploited and screwed. It is also how Norfolk rail donated to both Trump and the Ohio gov and had regulations eased, e.g., requiring fewer workers on trains and not needing to update their technology with "extra" brakes. And now we have an environmental disaster as a result. And those costs will be 'socialized' to the taxpayers and victims in the town, while the company keeps most of it's profits (it will not pay even a small fraction of the costs and it will be years from now). So yeah, the govt structurally CAN NOT be as nimble as the companies, so the companies exploit that weakness. Great for them. Sucks for society. I'm not saying they're all bad or evil, but this over-simplistic "shareholder value only" concept /structure is not good for a sustainable society or even for sustainable corporations.

astrange 4y ago
> Because Tesla knows that it'll take years for all the hearings to work their way through the courts, and the result will be a fine, which they can appeal, and delay further. I do not believe this is how NLRB enforcement works. Though if the US had sectoral bargaining like other countries it just wouldn't be an issue in the first place.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  It's exactly how NLRB enforcement works. Company retalliation is immediate; the consequences tend to be small and long to arrive. The company gets years worth of intimidation out of the action, followed by a slap on the wrist much later.
alright_scowl 4y ago
You described quite well how companies, in their pursuit of profits at all costs, corrupt the systems that should rein them in so that they can freely exploit workers and externalize negativity. The answer for that is more regulation, stronger and more independent institutions that can rein those companies in. Not wishing thay companies magically become nicer.
- ElevenLathe 4y ago
  Yeah I mean I guess we can set up an iron-fisted Dept. of Transportation and staff it to do battle with the railroads, shippers, airlines, trucking companies, etc., or the DoT could just own and operate these things directly. Even the most pro-capital ideologue has to admit there doesn't seem to be much point in Norfolk Southern owning and operating the tracks through East Palestine, since there is no competition except via other, inherently pricier, forms of transport (highway or maybe lake freighter). Yes, competition can lower costs, and therefore you may want to provision some goods via regulated markets, but it doesn't make sense for everything. Why not do like we do on highways, with public tracks but private rolling stock? We can require inspections before they switch out of their private yards onto the peoples' tracks and make sure their chemical deathtrains have reasonably working brakes, etc. This isn't radical thinking -- it's literally how it already works for trucks and highways.
- toss1 4y ago
  I'm not wishing for them to "magically become nicer". I fully understand that that will not happen by itself. What I'm advocating is changing the STRUCTURE in which they operate so that "becoming nicer" is prompted by the system. The current system fully expects only the primary goal of maximizing profit/value for the shareholders/owners, and minimal compliance with anything else. This is despite the fact that EVERY corporation enjoys massive benefits of operating in a country that provides everything from transportation infrastructure, a reliable legal system, an educated workforce, to military protection of global shipping lanes. It would help to embedding into the law the concept of corporate responsibility, by providing a cause of action for irresponsible corporate actions. Expecting the corporation to take care of the workers, and the environment. E.g., In Germany, it is required that workers have seats on the boards and workers have much greater rights. The point is that the law is now, as you say, just [corps are expected to take care of only their shareholders] and [corps are subject to some regulation]. This system has been tried for nearly 250 years, and is obviously lacking. I don't think iron-fisted regulation will provide a solution. That's already been tried, everyone got annoyed at the overhead, and it was backed off (see Reagan administration), and the corp destruction has ramped up ever since. It literally just becomes a higher priority to corps to do regulatory capture then. We need to make the system harder to capture, spin a wider web. And that can be done by broadening the social and legal compact with corporations ('tho they'll fight like hell against it).

by toss1 4y ago

astrange 4y ago

> Because Tesla knows that it'll take years for all the hearings to work their way through the courts, and the result will be a fine, which they can appeal, and delay further. I do not believe this is how NLRB enforcement works. Though if the US had sectoral bargaining like other countries it just wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

ceejayoz 4y ago
It's exactly how NLRB enforcement works. Company retalliation is immediate; the consequences tend to be small and long to arrive. The company gets years worth of intimidation out of the action, followed by a slap on the wrist much later.

alright_scowl 4y ago

You described quite well how companies, in their pursuit of profits at all costs, corrupt the systems that should rein them in so that they can freely exploit workers and externalize negativity. The answer for that is more regulation, stronger and more independent institutions that can rein those companies in. Not wishing thay companies magically become nicer.

ElevenLathe 4y ago
Yeah I mean I guess we can set up an iron-fisted Dept. of Transportation and staff it to do battle with the railroads, shippers, airlines, trucking companies, etc., or the DoT could just own and operate these things directly. Even the most pro-capital ideologue has to admit there doesn't seem to be much point in Norfolk Southern owning and operating the tracks through East Palestine, since there is no competition except via other, inherently pricier, forms of transport (highway or maybe lake freighter). Yes, competition can lower costs, and therefore you may want to provision some goods via regulated markets, but it doesn't make sense for everything. Why not do like we do on highways, with public tracks but private rolling stock? We can require inspections before they switch out of their private yards onto the peoples' tracks and make sure their chemical deathtrains have reasonably working brakes, etc. This isn't radical thinking -- it's literally how it already works for trucks and highways.
toss1 4y ago
I'm not wishing for them to "magically become nicer". I fully understand that that will not happen by itself. What I'm advocating is changing the STRUCTURE in which they operate so that "becoming nicer" is prompted by the system. The current system fully expects only the primary goal of maximizing profit/value for the shareholders/owners, and minimal compliance with anything else. This is despite the fact that EVERY corporation enjoys massive benefits of operating in a country that provides everything from transportation infrastructure, a reliable legal system, an educated workforce, to military protection of global shipping lanes. It would help to embedding into the law the concept of corporate responsibility, by providing a cause of action for irresponsible corporate actions. Expecting the corporation to take care of the workers, and the environment. E.g., In Germany, it is required that workers have seats on the boards and workers have much greater rights. The point is that the law is now, as you say, just [corps are expected to take care of only their shareholders] and [corps are subject to some regulation]. This system has been tried for nearly 250 years, and is obviously lacking. I don't think iron-fisted regulation will provide a solution. That's already been tried, everyone got annoyed at the overhead, and it was backed off (see Reagan administration), and the corp destruction has ramped up ever since. It literally just becomes a higher priority to corps to do regulatory capture then. We need to make the system harder to capture, spin a wider web. And that can be done by broadening the social and legal compact with corporations ('tho they'll fight like hell against it).