Corporate greed and the downside to their greed
Tags: General
For those of you who don't live in Australia and haven't heard, we have a very large corporate company called Pacific brands. This company has got a lot of publicity all for the wrong reasons, and maybe in the long run for the right reasons as well.
A little over 12 months ago the new CEO Sue Morphet had entered her position, taking control of the company with a massive increase in Salary. Yet in the same breath she also knew that jobs would have to be cut, to keep the profits of the company at a desired level.
Her situation is all too common of the so called fat cats, where the interest in maintaining profit is a priority over the people who help them achieve what they have to achieve to maintain there position in the company.
If it wasn't for pure greed, she would not have accepted the increase in pay and possibly the company may have survived longer.
This company also highlights the fact that these corporations who are listed on the Stock Exchange have a lot to answer for, when it comes to the way the economy is generated in the world.
It is the average consumer who is struggling who is convinced that to make money for retirement, they have to invest in super annuation. This is then invested back into the corporate world to invest in these companies, to help generate the wealth that we are promised we could have when we retire.
Yet when things go wrong, who is the ones who end up suffering? We do, most of us know how much money we have lost in our super. And money that should be guaranteed and put away is virtually eaten up to nothing, so how is that fair to these people who could have had that money in their pockets or put away in a more secured way.
Let's take a look at this in another way for a minute, these companies have to downsize because they are in the same position and have to tighten their belts. Why do they have to tighten their belts, because we are spending less because of the way we fear that our jobs are on the line. And when our jobs are then no longer, these people then expect us to go and purchase their goods or services and think that we will just except that these companies had to do what they had to do.
In some cases this maybe true, but the likes of companies who are making billions of dollars in profit who drop to millions of dollars in profit. Raise their prices to make up for the short fall in lost revenue, how hard is it for these companies to realize that we as a consumer are now in the voting position with their futures.
Pacific Brands have made the decision to take their operations offshore, for the fact that they can make more profit when it is manufactured offshore. Yet they have left a wake of thousands of angry people who once worked for them, these people do become bitter when they have spent most of their lives working for such a company. Then to be chewed up and spat out, will make them very bitter to say the least.
I personally will never shop nor buy services from such companies anymore, however there are some that I can't avoid like our banks. Who control the money we earn or have in our accounts, and if you are a low income earner then you will be forking out more in fee's and such because these banks just wish to keep their profits high enough to make a return to fuel their greed even further.
I have no idea what the solution to this down turn is, but what I can tell you is that people don't forget and would you work for someone who has gone out of their way to hurt you financially, or even given your devoted life too? How long can these companies continue to prosper at our expense?
Or do they think that they can win our hearts back, I don't see how.
-
I don't think they realise what they've done.
# Posted By Chris Dawes | 3/2/09 6:19 PM -
I was reading just recently an article in the NY Times if I remember correctly about Russian companies going back to barter again like they did in the 90's. Something that struck me in particular about the article is that although the journalist mentioned that barter helped them to keep their companies in business through tough times, she also criticized them for choosing to take that route because it's outside the realm of normal modern accounting.
So in other words, you trade a thousand pounds of underwear (which are actually pretty easy to sell) for your product, you then sell the underwear, keeps your company in business, workers employed (no layoffs -- or fewer layoffs) and food on their tables. But the criticism is that, woah, hold on there, mr. big business man, our fancy schmancy accounting system doesn't know how to handle the fact that you took in underwear in trade for your widgets!
Aside from the very basic food on the table notion, there's also some very good and recent science that shows that job loss is the single most effective predictor of violent behavior (and violent crime) compared to all other predictors, including a HISTORY of violent behavior (which prior was the biggest predictor). The problem is they don't know this... well that's part of the problem... if they knew that layoffs caused people to beat the crap out of each other, I think they'd be more willing to look for alternatives to layoffs.
-
@Ike - yeah its a catch 22 situation for sure, and a situation that you have clearly identified as an issue in the real world. But do they really know that they are only delaying what will be.
# Posted By Andrew Scott | 3/2/09 10:44 PM



TweetBacks