3 ms·
Sure, I totally get that. But grand-parent post made it sound like a corporation has zero responsibility to give one shit for anyone it employs. I just think th
by selmnoo 13y ago
Sure, I totally get that. But grand-parent post made it sound like a corporation has zero responsibility to give one shit for anyone it employs. I just think that's terrible, that's a terrible and dispiriting culture that permits and even encourages that kind of callous I'm-just-in-it-for-myself thinking.
- bmelton 13y agoWell, in all fairness, a corporation does have exactly zero responsibility to give a shit about its employees. It's certainly nicer when they do care, but they aren't obligated to, nor should anyone expect them to.
- MaysonL 13y agoBullshit!
- bmelton 13y agoI can't vote that down, but I would if I could. A corporation, by its very nature, is obligated to its shareholders. They are in violation of the law if they do not attempt to maximize profits for their shareholders. In order to shift any of that obligation toward employees, they'd have to get shareholder approval, and/or justify it in a way that made sense as a profit-motive (e.g., our workers will be more productive if they're happier or better paid). The problem isn't that Wal-Mart is paying too little, it's that they're paying the wrong people. Those jobs are perfectly great for high-schoolers and those with little experience, but apparently horrible for others. That isn't Wal-Mart's fault, it's a market problem caused by a poor economy and/or a dearth of existing jobs.