Corporate America - Can it be stopped?

[robyn]

I'm not sure I'd argue that the wage or the union has as much to do with your point as the general operating procedures of low-wage processors. A company that's putting low-wage workers on the line is probably doing a dozen other things that contribute to unhygenic conditions: running the line to fast, neglecting cleaning and sterilization, ignoring "minor" violations that compound or accumulate, etc. Low wages are more of a symptom than a cause, I think.

It's a coincidental, not a necessary connection. The issue is more about standards and care for those standards. Right now, the consumer is more concerned about the price of their beef than the cleanliness -- at least as a whole. If it started to be the case that everyone knew someone who had gotten violently ill from beef, that might change. But it's still rather rare. Traffic accidents are a huge problem, by comparison, and you don't see us switching to the monorail (what's that you say? monorail!)

It's about balance and the market has decided that it's not enough of an issue to require raising the price of beef. You could think about it like airport security prior to 9-11. If we have a major, or several medium-level outbreaks of e coli that really pisses people off, or just scares them, then I'm sure the market would demand stricter regulations. Outbreaks in the past have caused companies, eg, Jack in the Box, to strictly enforce quality on their suppliers.

I don't see much difference in quality, escept maybe in meats and fish sold, between a Wal-Mart and the higher-priced Safeway or a Winco and the higher-priced Albertson's. And I think CostCo shows that you can be cheap and sell good stuff.

I think that manufacturers have an obligation to allow their employees to negotiate a decent wage. Laws that favor employers over union organizers in the U.S., and the systematic exploitation of poor, ignorant and beaten-down peasants (plus the occasional corruption or arrest of union organizers) abroad are the major source of low-wage and low-benefit labor.

I agree with you here. But as a libertarian, I neither like laws favoring unions (such as not allowing employers to hire scabs or fire union workers) or companies (eg, requiring cooling off periods, laws not allowing unions to contract with employers to be union-only, etc). I'm all for sticking Wal-Mart's or Safeway's feet to the fire when they break the law, but if they're just tough business people, that's fine.

But I disagree strongly, very strongly, that we as first-worlders or companies should be ashamed of the wages they pay in 3rd world countries or in exporting jobs. a) because their wages don't match our wages for equal work doesn't mean that the wages aren't good for them, b) service oriented jobs, such as financial and technical services, have been growing in the US much faster than manufacturing jobs have been shrinking; I'd much rather our country be working in offices than working in factories, c) why are so often the same people who lament greedy Americanism so worried about spreading the wealth, if that's what it is, anyway? d) the issue is still standards; it's not enough to assume that because Mexicans or Malaysians aren't on average as educated as Americans that they will make a poorer product, grow less healthy crops, or whatever; they still have the same brains and they can be taught what they need to be; what's necessary is standards from distributors and customers in the US.

Actually we do have a monorail - in Jacksonville - the "people mover". It's not anything that most people want - or use - but it did cost a ton of money.

As for your "jobs overseas" discussion - I'm afraid you're a bit behind the times. There's a lot of outsourcing of technical and financial jobs - to places like India - where a lot of people are better educated than US workers - speak better English than US workers - and will work for a heck of a lot less money than US workers. When the last time you called Dell technical support (all of it is in India now - except for the very large corporate users - they complained for various reasons and their tech support is being moved back to the US)? Also - take a look at computer programming. Again - there's a tremendous amount that's being shipped abroad.

Our economy is - increasingly - a global economy. To remain competitive in the future - the American worker will have to show why he or she is worth more in manufacturing than a Chinese worker - or more in tech support than an Indian worker.

It is perhaps round 2 or 3 in an ongoing battle. First jobs moved from high to low cost areas in the US (Jacksonville won out in the first round - because white collar workers who commanded salaries of $40-50,000 in the northeast were lucky to earn $30,000 here). Now - a lot of those jobs are being shipped from the northeast directly to India - where workers are happy to work for less than $10,000 a year. Robyn

[robyn]

...Neither does the use of underpaid workers.  There are perhaps arguments to be made against these things - but they are political - not a question of public health

I am pulling on one string in this sweater.

I agree that this is a political issue, but it seems to me that at some point employee wages could result in a public health issue.

Am I reaching too far on this?

I think so - but try to "connect the dots" for me. Robyn

Okay, here's what I am currently thinking, it's early-ish so bear with me.

Whether it's the food industry or any other, most employees are paid. The extreme low end of the pay scale tends to find people that a lot of times are, in my opinion, just trying to get by. No more, no less.

So, a person working in a meat packing plant, for example, drops their knife on the floor. They pick it up, wipe it off on their dirty smock, and continue. The same thing happens at a unionized butcher shop. The butcher, who is paid more, cleans the knife before continuing. This is something that could contribute to a breakdown in the health chain.

Does this connect any of the dots? Or am I still too fuzzy?

Sidebar- I have read this entire read and was surprised how quickly it exploded. One thing that stuck out was the Walmart wage debate. Without trying to stray to far from the food issue, why is it entirely Walmarts fault? Yes, they farm out jobs to third world countries that pay crap wages. These employees in turn make, sometimes, crap merchandise. We buy this stuff.

At what point does the manufaucturing company have a responsibility to pay decent wages to their employees?

And again I apologize for veering off track.

As someone who lives in the south - it's hard to relate to all the union/non-union talk - because - for the most part - we don't have unions (except perhaps for things like teachers' unions - and we tend to hate those). Do our workers earn less - yes. But when's the last time you saw a new house for $120,000 (you can buy them here)?

Also - as far as I'm concerned - this is kind of a totally silly discussion - because there are only about 100 people in the whole country who think about this kind of stuff when they go shopping. You want to try shopping without buying stuff made by workers who earn low wages - like people in China - well I reckon it means not buying clothes - not buying electronics stuff - etc. - etc. Robyn

[dankphishin]

No one likes this stuff............but as long as people buy it, it'll exist. try as we might, people that like real food won't stop getting people to eat at burger king (as a college student, $10 for me means a case of schlitz and two wendys jr bacon cheeseburgers). I love good food but for me, the ends (not being hungry) justify the means. I'm sure it's the same for lots of others. Hopefully, small businesses survive because they offer better service than these stupid chains. My grandpa's appliance store is still going strong because not only do they deliver the appliance, they install it and even get rid of the old one. people stay with these places because they offer a level of humanity that the chains can't hope to achieve. Regardless, real food and real stores are the good guys, and one can only hope.

[Pan]

Eloquently expressed.

[hjshorter]

Click here for a depressing article on the cult of the consumer.

[Busboy]

[

I think that manufacturers have an obligation to allow their employees to negotiate a decent wage. Laws that favor employers over union organizers in the U.S., and the systematic exploitation of poor, ignorant and beaten-down peasants (plus the occasional corruption or arrest of union organizers) abroad are the major source of low-wage and low-benefit labor.

I agree with you here. But as a libertarian, I neither like laws favoring unions (such as not allowing employers to hire scabs or fire union workers) or companies (eg, requiring cooling off periods, laws not allowing unions to contract with employers to be union-only, etc). I'm all for sticking Wal-Mart's or Safeway's feet to the fire when they break the law, but if they're just tough business people, that's fine.

But I disagree strongly, very strongly, that we as first-worlders or companies should be ashamed of the wages they pay in 3rd world countries or in exporting jobs. a) because their wages don't match our wages for equal work doesn't mean that the wages aren't good for them, b) service oriented jobs, such as financial and technical services, have been growing in the US much faster than manufacturing jobs have been shrinking; I'd much rather our country be working in offices than working in factories, c) why are so often the same people who lament greedy Americanism so worried about spreading the wealth, if that's what it is, anyway? d) the issue is still standards; it's not enough to assume that because Mexicans or Malaysians aren't on average as educated as Americans that they will make a poorer product, grow less healthy crops, or whatever; they still have the same brains and they can be taught what they need to be; what's necessary is standards from distributors and customers in the US.

Actually we do have a monorail - in Jacksonville - the "people mover". It's not anything that most people want - or use - but it did cost a ton of money.

As for your "jobs overseas" discussion - I'm afraid you're a bit behind the times. There's a lot of outsourcing of technical and financial jobs - to places like India - where a lot of people are better educated than US workers - speak better English than US workers - and will work for a heck of a lot less money than US workers. When the last time you called Dell technical support (all of it is in India now - except for the very large corporate users - they complained for various reasons and their tech support is being moved back to the US)? Also - take a look at computer programming. Again - there's a tremendous amount that's being shipped abroad.

Our economy is - increasingly - a global economy. To remain competitive in the future - the American worker will have to show why he or she is worth more in manufacturing than a Chinese worker - or more in tech support than an Indian worker.

It is perhaps round 2 or 3 in an ongoing battle. First jobs moved from high to low cost areas in the US (Jacksonville won out in the first round - because white collar workers who commanded salaries of $40-50,000 in the northeast were lucky to earn $30,000 here). Now - a lot of those jobs are being shipped from the northeast directly to India - where workers are happy to work for less than $10,000 a year. Robyn

[tryska]

hear hear, busboy.

[ExtraMSG]

In addition, economic development strategies that rely on growing cheap manufacturing in less developed nations also tend to go hand-in-hand with agricultural policies that force peasants from the land and lead to the kind of corporate farming that got this thread started in the first place. (got myself back to food, finally). A lot of the Mexicans crowding into border areas and Mexico City lost or sold family land to the people who now ship edible wax tomatoes to the US 12 months a year.

On the other hand, protectionist actions aimed at protecting U.S. interests can harm foriegn workers, especially in agricultural economies, so I'm not calling for any kind of broad retreat from internationalism. Greater attention towards labor and environmental issues as the global economy opens further would be a good idea, however.

Which is why what people should be concerning themselves with is not how much someone gets paid or whether their conditions meet our standards, but whether the Rule of Law is being upheld and whether they have basic rights of self-determination, such as the ability to make contracts, enforce those contracts even if they're poor and not powerful, change jobs, not sell their land if they don't want to, etc. These things are way more important than us assuming that earning 20 cents a day is bad or assuming that working in 100 degree heat is bad or that working at 14 in a factory is bad. The former items, the Rule of Law and basics of self-determination let these peoples figure it out for themselves.

[robyn]

Which is why what people should be concerning themselves with is not how much someone gets paid or whether their conditions meet our standards, but whether the Rule of Law is being upheld and whether they have basic rights of self-determination, such as the ability to make contracts, enforce those contracts even if they're poor and not powerful, change jobs, not sell their land if they don't want to, etc.  These things are way more important than us assuming that earning 20 cents a day is bad or assuming that working in 100 degree heat is bad or that working at 14 in a factory is bad.  The former items, the Rule of Law and basics of self-determination let these peoples figure it out for themselves.

I think it is pie in the sky to hope for western legal standards in most parts of the second and third world. There simply is no rule of law as we understand it - particularly when it comes to property rights (as western people sometimes learn when they buy "vacation" houses in these places). I have a simple rule of thumb for determining whether a country has a reasonable legal system. Can I buy a supplemental auto insurance policy if I'm planning a trip there - and want to rent a car. I can buy such a policy for just about everywhere in western Europe. But such a policy isn't available in much of the world (because the insurance companies don't think the countries have rational legal systems). Robyn

[Pan]

There's an additional item that you're leaving out or at least not making explicit, ExtraMSG:

The right to organize unions. In Indonesia under Suharto, anyone who tried to organize a union (let alone strike) was automatically arrested and tortured! Arresting, torturing, and illegally killing or legally executing union organizers is something that has happened again and again in countries with entrenched big businesses in control of governments - including in the U.S., where unionists were repeatedly roughed up and worse by both cops and company goons in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

I agree that knowing the dollar amount of wages tells us nothing, if we don't know what one can purchase for a dollar in that country (or even locality). It may be quite alright for there to be 12-hour days at 50c/hour someplace, but the right for workers to be able to choose to bargain collectively without a likelihood of facing intimidation and violence as a result is fundamental.

[fresco]

I'm also kind of partial to the idea of people who work, in, say, supermarkets, being able to command a wage sufficient to allow them to buy groceries and the other necessities.

[oraklet]

"how good the food is in various European countries." (pan)

well, compared to somalia, i think we are doing quite well in denmark. on the other hand, compared to italy or france...

anyway, let me tell you, in denmark it's the big corporations who are making the choice for us. i'm forced to shop on a dayly basis in our local supermarket, because i have to pick up our youngest son from kindergarden (wife picks up daughter) before they close, and THEN go shopping. no time for buying high quality stuff in central copenhagen where i work - and that's the only place to get it. now, we live in a part of urban copenhagen that is rather poor by danish standards, and i'm aware that some supermarkets in other parts are better, but that's irrelevant to me. so, what can i get in this supermarket of ours? stone hard peaches, sour pineapples and green bananas. bland apples and strawberries all year round. chicken that are of an industrialized race with hardly any flavour (organic, free range or whatever). ham that's been pumped full of water and chemicals. samurai-cuts (made by a swordsman whirling two swords at random down the lines of hanging carcasses) of beef, veal, turkey, pork etc etc.

i'd gladly pay 30% more for better quality, and in the case of chickenor other meat, 100% more. after all, we could tell the kids that they can not have the latest playstation game instantly. but this alternative does not exist for us, except on saturdays. actually not even then, because if i want, say, an unadulterated ham, it's not 30% more it's 300% more.

what i'm lamenting is not so much the existence of cheap, poor quality. it's the huge gap between the good stuff and the crap. big corporations make big deals with big manufacurers and transporting companies who make big deals with big farmers. this makes for the production of loads of easily transported crap (because customers have come to see apples and strawberries as year-round produce, and meat as a daily necessity). the good stuff becomes niche production, and is therefore much more expensive than it need be. and the fault is not mainly with the customers, because it'd be very easy for the supermarkets to do a little educational effort. i mean, ANYBODY can taste the difference between a danish apple and a french or chilean apple.

that's the situation as seen from copenhagen, denmark.

oh, and robyn, what a load of crap about the thin norwegians.

Edited December 17, 2003 by oraklet (log)

[Busboy]

In addition, economic development strategies that rely on growing cheap manufacturing in less developed nations also tend to go hand-in-hand with agricultural policies that force peasants from the land and lead to the kind of corporate farming that got this thread started in the first place. (got myself back to food, finally). A lot of the Mexicans crowding into border areas and Mexico City lost or sold family land to the people who now ship edible wax tomatoes to the US 12 months a year.

On the other hand, protectionist actions aimed at protecting U.S. interests can harm foriegn workers, especially in agricultural economies, so I'm not calling for any kind of broad retreat from internationalism. Greater attention towards labor and environmental issues as the global economy opens further would be a good idea, however.

Which is why what people should be concerning themselves with is not how much someone gets paid or whether their conditions meet our standards, but whether the Rule of Law is being upheld and whether they have basic rights of self-determination, such as the ability to make contracts, enforce those contracts even if they're poor and not powerful, change jobs, not sell their land if they don't want to, etc. These things are way more important than us assuming that earning 20 cents a day is bad or assuming that working in 100 degree heat is bad or that working at 14 in a factory is bad. The former items, the Rule of Law and basics of self-determination let these peoples figure it out for themselves.

I think you're being a little disingenuous. I agree that wages and working conditions vary from country to country but if you're looking for places where the rule of law is not upheld, finding factories where workers are grossly underpaid or exploited, or work in unacceptably dangerous conditions, is a pretty good way to go about finding them.

There are a lot of ways to game or to subvert the system -- it even happens here -- that aren't as obvious as mass executions or large scale consfiscations.

[robyn]

oh, and robyn, what a load of crap about the thin norwegians.

Your English is good enough that I think you could make your point with a bit more eloquence.

I have not spent a lot of time in Scandinavia - just a little. I found the food there to be very good - and very expensive. Of course - I am partial to fish - and there is an awful lot of it there - and the restaurants knew how to cook it in many many different ways. On the other hand - not only was fish expensive - everything was expensive. And if I thought food was expensive - well forget about liquor (nothing like a $6 beer is Oslo).

I spent some time in supermarkets - and I can't tell you a whole lot about the quality of the food (I was mostly looking - not buying) - but my impression was that the high prices were largely a result of protective tariffs (and taxes) - not some vast conspiracy on the part of the sellers.

Anyway - it is not my problem. If the people in your country want things that you think are better - well you have to right to vote. Vote to change things. Robyn

[oraklet]

heh - i'm not norwegian. and i'm sorry for being impolite. i just happen to know that norway is one of the richest nations on earth. i also know that, as you said, they eat a lot of fish, and half of them go skiing half the year. might explain the low number of obese norwegians. just like the low number of obese danes can be explained by most peole owning a bicycle - and using it for everyday purposes, like going to work, shopping etc. not a lot of elevators around, either.

and actually, round here, the poorer you are, the higher risk of obesity. isn't that the case in most of the first world, as well as in the second world? i think you may be confusing being fit with being starved...

and where did danes voting this or that way enter the picture?

[Craig Camp]

Back on topic please and end the personal exchange.

[Craig Camp]

...oh yeah, I almost forgot. If you disagree take it to a PM not on the thread.

[ExtraMSG]

Pan wrote:

The right to organize unions. In Indonesia under Suharto, anyone who tried to organize a union (let alone strike) was automatically arrested and tortured! Arresting, torturing, and illegally killing or legally executing union organizers is something that has happened again and again in countries with entrenched big businesses in control of governments - including in the U.S., where unionists were repeatedly roughed up and worse by both cops and company goons in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

To me that was implicit in what I stated. I think it's a breakdown in the rule of law and the ability for self-determination. Strictly speaking it may not be a breakdown in the rule of law by itself, since the law could be established, public, known, and enforced fairly and judiciously, even if it's a law we disagree with.

Busboy wrote:

I think you're being a little disingenuous. I agree that wages and working conditions vary from country to country but if you're looking for places where the rule of law is not upheld, finding factories where workers are grossly underpaid or exploited, or work in unacceptably dangerous conditions, is a pretty good way to go about finding them.

I don't know if disingenous was the right word. It has harsh connotations. Maybe you meant simplistic.

I think the issues are two separate ones and that people too often focus on merely the wages and working conditions in relation to American/Western expections. It's ridiculous to expect or even desire some Malaysian factory worker to make $10/hour. Not only would no business ever want to open a factory there because there would be no comparative advantage given the infrastructure issues, the shipping issues, the productivity and education issues, etc, but it would cause crazy-ass inflation where farmers and other peasants would have even a tougher time buying goods, everyone would be rushing to the towns where the factories are competing for limited jobs. There'd be unrest and great dissatisfaction with alternative occupations, etc. These things need to be made in small steps and the market generally works that way, luckily. Companies go to these countries in order to save money, knowing that they can pay a lot less in wages, get decent enough productivity over time, while dealing with increased other costs that make them more profitable in the long run. Meanwhile, the country transforms its economy, people become more educated to compete for jobs where education matters, they get out of the rice patties, out of the weather, can afford clean drinking water, and put their kids through school. There are problems, too, such as pollution, urbanization, secularization, loss of communities. But I think overall if our goal is to have the world enjoy the same fruits that Americans enjoy, it's the process they must go through.

Anyway....

Globalism and international corporations seem like a vehicle for this movement. Some people may be unhappy with that. My mom, a hardcore left-winger in the spirit of Nader, bless her heart, likes the idea of de-industrializing, she dreams of an idyllic time when everyone lived off the land, there was no pollution, no cars, no real urban centers. Of course, it didn't really exist, But beyond that, imagine if everyone today burned wood for heat. Can you imagine the pollution? How many trees would we have left? Of course, that wouldnt' be much of a worry because more than half of children would die in childbirth and people would only live to 40 anyway.

Too often, I think, the anti-globalization forces and anti-corporate forces dream of this same thing for other countries ignoring the trouble they're in, thinking that us first-worlders could just give them sustenance and otherwise leave them alone.

Sure corporations destroy a certain aesthetic. But they also bring a lot of possibility.

[robyn]

heh - i'm not norwegian. and i'm sorry for being impolite. i just happen to know that norway is one of the richest nations on earth. i also know that, as you said, they eat a lot of fish, and half of them go skiing half the year. might explain the low number of obese norwegians. just like the low number of obese danes can be explained by most peole owning a bicycle - and using it for everyday purposes, like going to work, shopping etc. not a lot of elevators around, either.

and actually, round here, the poorer you are, the higher risk of obesity. isn't that the case in most of the first world, as well as in the second world? i think you may be confusing being fit with being starved...

and where did danes voting this or that way enter the picture?

OK - You mentioned you lived in Cophenhagen - and you were complaining about the foods that were readily available to you. That's where the Danish voting came into the picture. Sorry if I didn't connect the dots in a logical way.

You are correct (at least in my opinon) that healthy living - as well as healthy eating - contribute to the lack of obesity I observed in Norway (and in Denmark as well). I will never forget spending a Sunday in Bergen. Just about everyone in the whole town - from the youngest to the oldest - indeed - everyone who could walk - hiked up to a certain area (I think it was a park) because that's what everyone did on a nice day in Bergen. I can't imagine how many calories were burned off that day in Bergen.

I don't know if poorer = higher risk of obesity everywhere in the first world - but it's certainly (and especially) true where I live. I've had different theories about this over the years - but they're unscientific and I'm not sure they're correct. Robyn