FINALLY evidence that big-corporation integrity isn't a complete myth

"Japan Airlines' CEO slashes his pay below the pay of pilots. CNN's Kyung Lah reports"


Now for a back story to my own jubilee behind my posting this link:

Today in my Christian Ethics class we watched a documentary film called Maquilapolis telling the story of a handful of the millions of factory workers, or maquiladoras, in Tijuana, Mexico... the pure portrait of modern globalization.  I've always been moderately sympathetic to the plight of factory workers and individuals employed by American corporations outsourcing their paid labor.  But this film was just utterly disgusting.  Only a few days earlier I had caught news of the three American airline CEOs who flew each of their private jets to ask for taxpayer bailout money, and even that was enough to upset me about the American obsession with wealth and the big bosses' inability to relate or to think about their average employee and the communities they impact.   But Maquilapolis highlighted it in such a way that it made me physically ill.  These owners of big-name multinational corporations exploited (and still exploit) cheap labor across our borders, then get away with picking up their entire company from the foreign nation overnight in order to avoid paying taxes and employee severances and cleaning up the toxic materials in the poorest neighborhoods.  The film was surprisingly graphic about these realities.


Why can't we follow suit with the hint of corporational integrity that this Japanese CEO lives? 
At least SOMEBODY in this world can't sell his integrity for wealth.


Were that the whole world was so great...

5 comments (Add your own)

1. Jose wrote:
Hannah, your Facebook says you're a "Conservative, leaning Libertarian," yet libertarian and conservative policy is exactly what leads to what you've described in this blog post. "Corporational integrity" doesn't exist in Conservative America.

Fri, November 21, 2008 @ 6:28 PM

2. Andrew wrote:
I'm not sure where the idea that government policy is the REASON behind the crap that companies do.

yeah sure, certain parties do have iffy policies on regulating business, but, that does not mean that "Conservative America" or a "Liberal America" would be that much different as far as the companies go.

Sweatshops would still exist. Exploitation would still exist until somebody (ie, Hannah and people who think the same) make a big enough fuss to catch the attention of the policy makers and the companies together.

And just because one would affiliate oneself with a party does not make that person exactly the same as any other person affiliated with said party. And it does not mean that one is not capable of trying to fix the affiliation's problems.

Sat, November 22, 2008 @ 1:34 AM

3. Hannah wrote:
Andrew beat me to much of what I wanted to say. I would like to reiterate, first of all, that ANYONE who buys into his or her political party's set of beliefs and never questions a single thing that results from this set of beliefs does absolutely nothing for political and social progress. Otherwise, isn't it just the age-old, fruitless, red-blue tug of war? Needless to say, although I identify myself as mostly conservative and leaning libertarian, I am not an immovable idiot. Second of all, if corporational integrity does not exist in "conservative America," that doesn't NECESSARILY make conservative America the one active player in the drama... but rather an identifiably passive one, one which simply does not stop the individual CEOs and private companies from committing injustices. And this is precisely why I see little problem with recognizing the injustice while maintaining my libertarian leanings. Third of all, when I claim to be "conservative, leaning libertarian," I am identifying primarily that I was raised with a conservative worldview, but as I grow up I am recognizing its inadequacy, but finding that the convictions I am developing for myself do, for the most part, line up with the libertarian beliefs. And as far as I know, I'm still in the "figuring it out" phase of my young life.

Oh, and for the record, I, too, have a strong distaste for neoconservativism.

Sat, November 22, 2008 @ 2:02 AM

4. Jose wrote:
When your political philosophy is basically nonintervention, as is the case in conservative and libertarian financial policy, then yes, government becomes part of the reason. Conservatives and libertarians are the ones promoting laissez-faire economics and massive deregulation--basically a marketplace that is held accountable by the stockholders rather than the people. The whole point of regulation is to avoid these types of things, but they want to do away with as many as they can. When liberals say that the WTO and NAFTA, in their present state, are detrimental to other countries at the expense of our own, conservatives cry out, "but it leads to economic prosperity! Who cares!" Libertarians naively proclaim, "Just let them do what they want!"

It doesn't really matter how much you agree with libertarian ideas instead of conservative ones here, because they both have such similar policy when it comes to economics. Of course I'm simplifying the issue, and of course not all liberals, conservatives, or libertarians completely adhere to all their party's philosophy. Maybe you agree with deregulation as a whole but think multinational corporations who exploit overseas workers should be regulated--I don't know. I was just making a simple statement about the consequences of basic libertarian and conservative philosophy, and maybe you don't agree to the principals I was criticizing, so I'm sorry for making the comparison to your views.

Sat, November 22, 2008 @ 2:15 PM

5. Hannah wrote:
That's exactly what I was trying to say. No matter how much I would prefer the government NOT to micromanage American business and economy, I am not SO sold on the idea that I can justify giant corporations' clear injustices abroad.

Sat, November 22, 2008 @ 6:47 PM

Add a New Comment


Comment Guidelines: No HTML is allowed. Off-topic or inappropriate comments will be edited or deleted. Thanks.