French labour laws trigger immense protests

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Interestingly many company mission statements make comments about social impacts that they have or want to make, beyond legal and shareholders' requirements. They believe they have or are perceived to have such responsibilites.

Only a fraction of those says that they will accept heavily losses maintaining production in the deep red or that could be done just as good in a cheaper country.

[Dauphin]

That has also happend here, but it actually doesn't make sense. Often it's a matter of survival for the compaby to move - typically leaving some administrative, designing and development jobs back. Of course it sucks for those fired, but what is the difference if the company dies in a year or two because it didn't move ?

I'm not saying they can't do it, they probably have to do it, but still they need to handle it properly with due care and consideration to more than just legal and shareholder requirements. The people losing their jobs, customers, suppliers, government, press, etc are all going to be considerations in how they action a closure.

[David Floyd]

The people losing their jobs, customers, suppliers, government, press, etc are all going to be considerations in how they action a closure.

It comes down to mass media and the public face of a company. Companies have an incentive to handle situations like this with "due care and consideration" because of the possibility of public outcry, resulting in falling profits. The company should not care about public outcry in and of itself, it should simply care about the bottom line and the financial return to shareholders.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Rather, I think they believe that they will lose money if they don't do certain things. There's a difference. The ultimate responsibility of any business is to, well, remain in business and post a profit each quarter.

Well, yes, I agree with you, but not all investors are in for the profit motive alone.

[David Floyd]

Well, yes, I agree with you, but not all investors are in for the profit motive alone.

Um, in a "for profit" company, I would argue that investors by definition expect an RoI.

If they don't expect an RoI, then they should be and are generally investing philanthropically (is that a word??) in non-profit organizations such as the Red Cross or Salvation Army.

If a "for profit" company fails to provide a positive RoI, then than company's management is not doing its job, and that failure will be the ultimate consideration of investors and stockholders, over and above any "social good" the company did.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Dauphin

That has also happend here, but it actually doesn't make sense. Often it's a matter of survival for the compaby to move - typically leaving some administrative, designing and development jobs back. Of course it sucks for those fired, but what is the difference if the company dies in a year or two because it didn't move ?

I'm not saying they can't do it, they probably have to do it, but still they need to handle it properly with due care and consideration to more than just legal and shareholder requirements. The people losing their jobs, customers, suppliers, government, press, etc are all going to be considerations in how they action a closure.

Oh, sorry. That is what typically is done here - when a company has mass firings, they do it in a planned way including education and search for new jobs.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Um, in a "for profit" company, I would argue that investors by definition expect an RoI.

If they don't expect an RoI, then they should be and are generally investing philanthropically (is that a word??) in non-profit organizations such as the Red Cross or Salvation Army.

If a "for profit" company fails to provide a positive RoI, then than company's management is not doing its job, and that failure will be the ultimate consideration of investors and stockholders, over and above any "social good" the company did.

You can be interested in profit but state things you find unacceptable. For example you may only invest in companies that do not sell tobacco. You want a profit but have a reason beyond profit to make an investment decision.

[David Floyd]

Certainly, investors can pick and choose investments based upon what they think of the company. However, once they invest their money, their primary concern WILL BE to get a return on it.

Obviously some investors won't invest in tobacco companies (the smart ones will, though, or at least that has been true in the past), but no matter who they invest in, their primary expectation will be a return on their money.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by JohnT
Bet you those schlub workers were real proud that Spiffy could go "slumming" with them.

Spoken like a guy who doesn't know me

I know full well that my trip into manual labour can look like an obscene zoo-sightseeing. It's a risk I was aware of well before beginning. And it's a risk which hasn't turned into reality, at least not yet.

The reason for that: I don't consider that I'm lowering myself to their level. Simply because they're humans, they're on the same level as me, regardless of social strata.
This is the same reason why I don't feel I'm rising above my level when I go speak with high bourgeois (I know some). Simply because they have the same dignity as me, and as any human being.

Manual labour wasn't something below me. It was something unknown to me, and there are plenty of manual labours that still are.
Just like, when I first entered the OT (full of Yanks), I didn't consider the Yank perspective to be inferior, but to be unknown. 3 years after, the confrontation of perspectives based on national cultures is still one of the things I find most exciting in the OT, and this is actually what I aimed to when creating this thread.

Actually, I know full well that my glimpse into manual labour will give me only small-scale anecdotical experience. However, even knowing that, I feel it is infinitely better than the complete lack of experience I had before.

Imagine the sense of pride they felt knowing that you were willing, even eager, to lower yourself to their level.

1. When I get acquainted to a colleague, you think I start saying that I come from prestigious studies? Heck, when they first ask me if I studied, I only tell about one element of my studies (sociology, which doesn't sound prestigious) so that an artificial gap doesn't get created.
I also do the job as well as I can (which is incidentally the reason why I have worked so many days in that sports store), in order both to prove myself that I can do it, and in order to prove to the others that I consider their job is a serious thing, that I'm not a tourist.

2. You know, I do talk with the colleagues I get to know well (and they also get to know me well). Yes, even about my "lowering" myself to their level. They tend to appreciate what I do. Since we're mutually interested in the others' accomplishments as individuals, since we discuss as equals regardless of our different social backgrounds, they like me.
When I came back to the construction site, a month after the end of my contract, I was welcomed by those who knew me and who were still there.

3. As to the sense of pride: I learned from them (both with job and life [edit] experience), and they are proud of having taught to a youngster.


I expect this post to be welcome by something like "blah blah blah, more patronizing crap".
The reason for this is because I think some posters here (but maybe JohnT will surprise me) cannot imagine that social backgrounds can be ignored when having a human relationship

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Certainly, investors can pick and choose investments based upon what they think of the company. However, once they invest their money, their primary concern WILL BE to get a return on it.

Eh? If the company changes, and starts selling tobacco, the investor will not ignore that fact and retain the investment purely on the great RoI. They will still be looking at the factors that lead to their decision in the first place. If the criteria no longer are met they will divest.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Interestingly many company mission statements make comments about social impacts that they have or want to make, beyond legal and shareholders' requirements. They believe they have or are perceived to have such responsibilites.

How long do such rosy statements last when it conflicts with the goal of making money for shareholders. I refer specifically to Google in China.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by C0ckney

Originally posted by Spiffor
I expect the basic respect that is owed to every human being.

owed by whom exactly?

By other human beings.

[David Floyd]

If the company changes and starts selling tobacco the investor will not ignore that fact and retain the investment purely on the RoI. They will still be looking at the factors that lead to their decision in the first place. If the criteria no longer are met they will disinvest.

Possibly, but I doubt they'd be willing to accept a loss on their investment. Either way, though, this doesn't contradict my point that any decision a company makes is and should be made in the ultimate interest of the bottom line, and that includes both providing a profit to shareholders AND retaining investors. A balance has to be struck.

[David Floyd]

Dauphin, I think we are making a very similar point, just emphasizing different aspects of it. We both agree that the bottom line is ultimately what the company has to look at, but sometimes aspects other than pure business affect the bottom line and must be taken into account. Right?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Possibly, but I doubt they'd be willing to accept a loss on their investment. Either way, though, this doesn't contradict my point that any decision a company makes is and should be made in the ultimate interest of the bottom line, and that includes both providing a profit to shareholders AND retaining investors. A balance has to be struck.

What would you do if faced with a business decision where the financials were too complex or ambiguous? Often there is no clear decision to be made based on financials alone. How do you measure the value of intangibles like generated goodwill?