Worker exploitation - bad for business?

[epiphany]

I'm sure we're all familiar with the ethical arguments against worker exploitation, but from the perspective of the CEO, surely if your aim is to minimise the cost of labour no matter what conditions that leaves your employees working in, then it stands to reason you won't have the most productive and "efficient" workforce will you?

 

Are businesses who save on production costs by paying their workers barely enough to live on actually practicing good business sense in the long term? How productive is a demoralised, fearful, sick, overworked and needlessly antagonised workforce vs a healthy, positive workforce that feels more intrinsic to the organisation and the capital they collectively create?

 

In short, why are some employers so short sighted when it comes to the bottom line?

[CottonTop]

Its not that they are shortsighted when it comes to the bottom line. They just can't see it for the dollar or pound signs in their eyes.

[epiphany]

Its not that they are shortsighted when it comes to the bottom line. They just can't see it for the dollar or pound signs in their eyes.

 

But my argument (well not just mine) is that in the long run they could see an increase in $£$£ if they nurtured a more productive working environment.

[CottonTop]

I agree with you 100%. There are a few businesses out there, even big ones, that do seem to nurture a productive environment. I think a list is published here every year and broken down my most family friendly, most flexible, etc. They tend to be the more successful ones. I can't figure why any company would choose to do things otherwise.

[epiphany]

I agree with you 100%. There are a few businesses out there, even big ones, that do seem to nurture a productive environment. I think a list is published here every year and broken down my most family friendly, most flexible, etc. They tend to be the more successful ones. I can't figure why any company would choose to do things otherwise.

 

Yes I think I know which list you mean. Can't remember the exact title but will try and dig it up.

 

Indeed many companies have turned themselves around in the face of growing consumer awareness. Unilever had a terrible record but have invested huge amounts in corporate responsibility and raised the bar as a result. Of course there are other problems inherent to the model they operate but there are signs of progress.

 

Edit: It was this I think. Very interesting. Like they say, "it pays to be ethical".

[CottonTop]

I was not familiar with the list you posted but it was very informative. Here is one I am more familiar with:

 

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2010/full_list/

 

There are other sites that list best companies for older workers, part-timers and mothers. Treating employees with respect and giving them reasonable benefits and leave go a long way toward a company's success. Its a shame more companies don't realize this.

[Cavegirl]

I have to post this link in reply to your post. It's a very short film (15 mins) by Stefan Molyneux, a Canadian philosopher, anarchist and blogger, that I think really gets to the nub of the point raised in the OP whilst also somehow managing to cover the whole of human history in a very short time-no small feat!!

 

 

Guaranteed to make you think, and perhaps more importantly question, which can never be a bad thing.

 

Stefan's main site is:

 

http://www.freedomainradio.com/

[Jason Bourne]

Are businesses who save on production costs by paying their workers barely enough to live on actually practicing good business sense in the long term? How productive is a demoralised, fearful, sick, overworked and needlessly antagonised workforce vs a healthy, positive workforce that feels more intrinsic to the organisation and the capital they collectively create?

 

If an employer requires bright people to do the job, such as those in the technology industry, then it makes sense to treat them well and pay them a good salary.

 

But if an employer only requires morons to man a simple production line, then what's to stop him maximising his profits by paying his workers as little as possible? Thanks to mass immigration, there are literally tens of thousands of wretches out there willing to work for a few quid an hour.

 

x

[epiphany]

I have to post this link in reply to your post. It's a very short film (15 mins) by Stefan Molyneux, a Canadian philosopher, anarchist and blogger, that I think really gets to the nub of the point raised in the OP whilst also somehow managing to cover the whole of human history in a very short time-no small feat!!

 

 

Guaranteed to make you think, and perhaps more importantly question, which can never be a bad thing.

 

Stefan's main site is:

 

http://www.freedomainradio.com/

 

That was very interesting and thought provoking indeed, thank you. I liked his analogy of farming and the "free ranged serfs".

 

Some might say it's pessimistic to presume that this age-old antithesis between the propertied classes and the "serf" will never be synthesised, and therefore their granting of additional liberties may indeed serve only to ensure that the masses feel too "comfortable" to rise up and truly change the economic and social order, if only for the exploited serfs a couple of worlds away.

 

One could argue that slaves of the early 19th century were better off than slaves a century earlier. Of course, you'd assume that person would not be presenting that as an argument for slavery!

 

What I'm interested in (as a pessimist in respect of the above ) is what we can expect as far as a continuing gradual progression of liberation that reflects the consciousness and demands of our people. The constant chipping away at coercive institutions and questioning the validity of traditional constructs. No more blind acceptance of the status quo. Awareness is the first stage, and I only believe it to be recently that we have obtained access to the knowledge required to fulfill that primary yet essential stage.

 

The distractions, the bread and circuses if you will, are becoming more and more sophisticated for a reason.

 

Perhaps we, especially in the west, are currently too comfortable in our golden chains, and I can appreciate the perspective that claims this is exactly what the landlording intellectuals were anticipating and ultimately prepared to accept in their struggle to keep the existing order firmly intact.

 

My thoughts are all over the place with this, as clearly demonstrated, so I'll leave it there!

[Cavegirl]

I recently watched a brilliant lecture by Noam Chomsky (an MIT professor of linguistics and a very active political activist) who made a really interesting point.

 

He was discussing post WW II western economic policy as laid out at the Bretton Woods meeting in 1944 where the ruling elites of 180 countries came together in order to set an economic agenda that would help repair the damage caused by the cost of fighting such a large-scale war. The agreement they created led to a 'Golden Economic Age' with tight regulation of capital flows leading to lots of economic growth and a general rise in prosperity until the early 1970's.

 

At this point President Nixon and subsequent presidents began to strip away the controls and deregulated everything creating enormous wealth for a few shareholders at the expense of the general population. This affected the UK and other countries because our economies were tied directly to the dollar at the Bretton Woods meeting. Ever since then most people have had to work increasingly harder just to stay even.

 

It's interesting to note that the 70's was also the period in which feminism and the idea of a woman's right to work really came into prominance and I believe that this was a socially engineered phenomenon. Feminism was a total sham unfortunately- people bought into the idea that it was beneficial to women and if it had been promoted for the reason of giving woment the choice to work and a better education it would have been wonderful, but really it was only promoted in order to enslave the other half of the population into work thus hiding the fact that money was being sucked out of the economy at enormous rates into the pockets of the rich. Thatcher and Regan both argued that this money would then trickle back down to the poorer classes, but of course this never happened.

 

Chomsky puts this economic situation down to what he calls the 'virtual senate'. He suggests that deregulated markets offer short term boosts to profits, but they inevitably take money away from the state and deposit it into private hands- thus shrinking the welfare state whilst increasing the gap between rich and poor. But relevent to the topic is the point he makes about this actually being (perversely) "good" for the health of the economy because workers who are insecure and are worried about losing their jobs will not ask for a pay rise, will not strike, will not expect holidays etc.

 

He suggests that the media use propaganda in order to reinforce the worker's beliefs that their jobs are at risk and that they should continue buying products because this is the only way to reinvigorate the economy. Of course once the economy is growing again the media then shifts to suggesting we borrow more and accrue high levels of debt because the debt will then keep us quiet in our jobs.

 

It's very simple, but very effective.

 

I realise this is a cynical perspective and I don't think it applies to all companies. In fact I think the great majority of company owners do want and strive for a happy and well looked after workforce. Unfortunately I think there's a point at which a small number of companies become too large and too powerful. These companies seem to take on sociopathic tendencies- for example, in "Capitalism- A love story" Michael Moore highlights the adoption of 'Dead Peasant' insurance policies that some large multinationals have started taking out on their workers- these companies are actually profitting from the deaths of their employees. It's a total disgrace and a truly frightening situation. These are the companies that are driving the overall economic agenda and are causing such turmoil in the world. I do think it could be resolved by tightening the laws surrounding the conduct of companies and making them more accountable- however, that's another rant

 

This is the link to a fantastic lecture:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpSFx0yntuY&feature=related