Walmart is so evil satan just shakes his head in disgust

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Nugog


Using your example - no because it involved slavery.

And this is a problem because....?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Saying "We pay $.08 an hour, but the factory down the road pays $.04" isn't a convincing argument to me.

Would you criticize these companies if they just didn't buy labor from developing countries in the first place?

Case A: company does not hire laborers at all from poor country. Poor country is no better off than before. No one complains about the evil company.

Case B: company hires laborers from poor country for a little bit more than the local wages. Poor country is a little bit better off than before. Everyone constantly whines about the evil company.

Does that make sense to you? By doing some good, they become evil?

In Case A, where does the company hire its laborers from?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Reebok can show up in that country and pay a little more than Nike and hire all teh expert shoemakers away

But then Puma shows up and pays a little more than Reebok does

What amazingly unique skill do you think the people that assemble shoes for Nike have that Reebok can't find in 450,000,000 or so other people?

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Kontiki


And this is a problem because....?

Once it was discovered there would be an outcry - and the company would be slaughtered.

International companies need to operate within the laws of the country they are in - not some highly idealogical vision from developed nations.

The majority do bring prosperity to the areas they operate in - wether you wish to see that or not.

At the end of the day - they are a business - not a social service.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Nugog


Once it was discovered there would be an outcry - and the company would be slaughtered.

So the only reason is to avoid a possible public backlash at home, not the slavery per se.

International companies need to operate within the laws of the country they are in - not some highly idealogical vision from developed nations.

The majority do bring prosperity to the areas they operate in - wether you wish to see that or not.

At the end of the day - they are a business - not a social service.

Of course they do and of course they are. Again, to make clear, I don't subscribe to the notion that Walmart or whomever shouldn't buy stuff from third world suppliers, nor that low-wage factories in developing countries aren't a good thing on the whole. I do, however, feel strongly that corporations have obligations that extend beyond their bottom lines, and that there are limits to where things should be done regardless of whatever may be legal in another country.

[Xorbon]

Reading some of these "laissez-faire" capitalist arguments makes me want to become a socialist.

It would be nice if morality and ethics would trump "legality", but unfortunately it doesn't in most cases.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Vesayen
Not only am I not a vegetarian, I mock vegetarians for moral inconsistancy, not wanting animal suffering while ignoring human suffering, the problem with most of them.

I oppose sweatshops because I feel for my fellow man, even if my fellow man is a small yellow person.

Maybe if you'd said "PETA nutjobs" Id've not lolled.
A vegetarian and especially vegan engages in choice and action which actually reduces animal suffering.

Are you trying to say, that by unmaking their choice, by supporting animal suffering through their actions, that they simultaneously reduce human suffering?

The "There's only a finite amount of suffering to go around" theory is a fascinating one. Maybe you could elaborate?

[Vesayen]

Seperate issue Blake but I've gotten into arguments with vegetarians before. I can respect those who do it for dietary reasons, or make a serious effort on issues besides their diet. However if I see someone proclaim to be a vegetarian because they care about animal suffering, then go shop at walmart and wear clothes made by slaves? That is morally inconsistent, to care more about animal suffering then human suffering, especially when most are ignorant or apathetic. I've yet to meet a single vegetarian who when coming to the startling realization that they are ignoring suffering, actually changed their life because of it.

If told about the human suffering, they all say it is bad, so clearly they condemn that too, however they won't do anything to stop it, because it is a lot harder then only eating vegetable and acting like a snob. It is hypocritical. They will do one relatively minor act, not eat meat, to not have a hand in animal suffering, then go and directly cause suffering in humans.

If you point out the leather in their leather products suffered just as much as the cows they are not eating, you’ll get a similar blank stare and no change in habits.

Originally posted by Flubber


Management at a Walmart or any other company have the obligation to do any legal thing that their shareholders direct.

Signing a paper which says you promise to do something, does not make any conduct done in pursuit of that thing, any less immoral.

If for example the CEO of walmart signed a contract with all his stock holders, promising to club babies to death with seals, and then he does this, it is not a defense they he agreed to do it.

It is still immoral.

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I do, however, feel strongly that corporations have obligations that extend beyond their bottom lines,...... *snip

Why?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Xorbon


It would be nice if morality and ethics would trump "legality", but unfortunately it doesn't in most cases.

My question is abou the morality and ethics of which individual or society is supposed to govern? I have seen enough moral/ethical debates to know there is rarely a consensus and the disparity grows as you involve people of various cultures.

So is it YOUR morality that should trump the law? Mine? The bushman of the Kalahari?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Nugog
At the end of the day - they are a business - not a social service.

Wrong. They are a social service first. If they fail to serve us their license will be revoked.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Vesayen


Signing a paper which says you promise to do something, does not make any conduct done in pursuit of that thing, any less immoral.

As a blanket statement I can agree with this .

Originally posted by Vesayen


If for example the CEO of walmart signed a contract with all his stock holders, promising to club babies to death with seals, and then he does this, it is not a defense they he agreed to do it.

Isn't this kind of a strawman example since killing babies would be illegal in any case.

But lets take a simpler example.(and leave aside stupid concepts like the idea that a CEO signs contracts with stockholders to do x or y). If the ceo of a company wants to move some manufacturing to China for instance, the involvement of the shareholders in that instance might depend on the size of the company and the size of the business to be moved and how the particular corporate governance is set up.

--If something is big enough to the company ( ie a small company closing its only US plant and opening one in China) it is quite likely the action can only be undertaken with explicit approval of the sharehoders.

-- If its a small piece of business comparatively, it would fall under managements normal duties and the shareholders would only get involved if some sort of special resolution was passed.


CEOs can rarely get into the moral debates. Many people find stem cell research immoral. How does a ceo of a biomedical firm deal with that? Others find gay sex immoral. Should the ceo of a cruiseship line refuse to allow cruises targetted at homosexual travellers? How about the minority of people that find sex outside of marriage immoral?


So if you want morality to be your guide, my question again is which individual's moral code shall govern.

I suspect that if we are talking about things that 98% of all people would agree are "wrong"-- most of the big companies don't do those things anyway.

Take Chevron-- they stress safety and their policies and procedures far exceed legal requirements. The resources they expend exceeds what they can expect to recover from having fewer incidents. So no-- the bottom line isn't everything.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Xorbon
Reading some of these "laissez-faire" capitalist arguments makes me want to become a socialist.

I am not laissez faire as I fully support minimum wage and employment condition laws for instance. I believe businesses should be well-regulated

I believe that if some action is offensive, you make it illegal. To keep something as both legal and immensely profitable rewards those businesses that do not exhibit a better practices.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Wrong. They are a social service first. If they fail to serve us their license will be revoked.

Is this some cryptic commie-babble? The workers will revolt yadda yadda ?

In some of the developing nations, an overthrow of the government would probably be a good thing.

In Canada/US/Europe/Austrailia etc etc I expect that the policies of the liberal/socialist governments have done enough for the "worker" that only the most fringe elements are even vaguely interested in bringing on the revolution .

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Is this some cryptic commie-babble? The workers will revolt yadda yadda ?

If we have to we will revolt. There are lots of things to do. We can regulate you, boycott you, tax you, and yes we can put you out of business.