Loyalty towards corporate america - is it possible?

[crystal_dance]

It's funny how corporations try to teach ethics and loyalty to students on campuses these days. Corporations spend millions on Sarbanes Oxley compliance which is not only a pain in the ass but something that was unecessarily brought about just because of a dishonest little company called Enron.

They tell us that they look for candidates who can show commitment to community. People who can be honest, hard working citizens of the world. They say they seek self thinkers. People who can stand out. People who will stick by a company through thick and thin. They look for all american heroes...

Reality is so different though. Corporations are greedy and selfish. They don't give a rats ass about community and you are an expendable commodity that can be renewed. They don't seek out of the box thinkers. They seek cogs. They want people who they can mold and program into doing a task over and over again. It's ridiculous. They try to con you of your true worth offering you low salaries. Senior management get where they are through anything but merit. Stock options are backdated, businesses are re-engineered, pension funds are wiped out, veteran employees are sacked and in the process a few men get richer.

I'm not exactly ranting here, but painting a picture of reality. It's true, all this happens. So why do companies say they seek the highest quality people who are honest and ethical when the top execs are con artists ?

[yankeeyosh]

Amen Brothah!!!!! AMEN!!!!!!!!!!

Corporate (or shall I say CRAPorate) America is simply greed, being cutthroat, and not really caring about what makes America REALLY work...the individual.

Here's an example...when the plane crashed killing Yankee Cory Lidle last week, the people in my office were more concerned about what this meant for the bottom line than any possible human toll and whether this was terrorism (this was before all the details were in). My boss was even laughing at the matter. This is why I despise Corporate America. They don't have any interest other than a few fat cats in some penthouse New York office who you will never meet. Same goes with the employees. Sure, they'll throw you a bone once in a while, but it means shit. At the end of the day, they're not going to care about you or your wellbeing. So you worked 80 hours a week and are manager at 24? Good. Now continue working 80-90 hours a week until you reach the next rung of management. And the next rung, etc. That's all it is. And it's not worth it.

Oh yeah, and if there's one thing they don't like about you...whether it's the color of your shirt or the shape of your head, you're out the door...and you have to scramble and compete with millions of other bright-eyed naive soon-to-be-victims to find yet ANOTHER miserable boring low-level position in the rat race called CRAPorate America.

[The X]

Work for the government. Less money, but less bullshit.

[cache]

OK. I'll play ball.

Sure, there are those elites in corporate america who get richer, and often times, management ignores responsibility in the name of profit. But, when you talk about Enron, it is the exception. Throw in World Com, Tyco, Global Crossing, and a dozen other crooked companies/executives. Heck, throw in a few hundred. You hear about them because they are the exception. Most corporations act ethically and responsibly. If you think people as individuals are any different, you are sorely mistaken. Let's take about the number of people who cheat on their significant others. Or the number of people who abuse their children. Or the number of people who cheat on their taxes. Or who know that the grocery clerk gave them too much change but say nothing.

I happen to be of the opinion that corporate america, while it has its issues, has helped keep this economy moving forward for the last half century at a rate unseen almost ever in history. Corporations DO reward merit, but you must be deserving to receive those rewards. A college education is not a ticket to anything, despite what you may have been told. If you choose corporate america, then you must be willing to run at its pace, and not for one second think that it is YOU who dictates the pace. If you do't like the race, get out of the game.

Me? I love the race. I want to move into executive management one day, and I do so by consistantly doing a few things: playing by the rules of corporate america, and infusing my work with my own ideas and innovations while still staying in the accepted framework. At the same time, I maintain my own identity, and always question the ethics of my work and the company I work for. I will not contribute to the unethical side of business when I am consciously aware of it. That is why I can stand here and defend that which you despise.

[allie1105]

I hate, hate, hate corporate america. I can't wait to get the hell out...it doesn't matter how many hours you put in or how well you perform - if the company goes to shit, then you get canned. I almost lost my job b/c they were doing away with one of the products we sell.

I hate the people - so concerned with a company that has no concern for them. People put their lives and their families on hold all the time, but for what? Why should I give my soul to a corporation who cares more about the bottom line rather than the individual? Ethical behavior? I'm supposed to display this, when corporate america has no IDEA what this means?

[LaFille]

I hate, hate, hate corporate america. I can't wait to get the hell out...it doesn't matter how many hours you put in or how well you perform - if the company goes to shit, then you get canned. I almost lost my job b/c they were doing away with one of the products we sell.

I hate the people - so concerned with a company that has no concern for them. People put their lives and their families on hold all the time, but for what? Why should I give my soul to a corporation who cares more about the bottom line rather than the individual? Ethical behavior? I'm supposed to display this, when corporate america has no IDEA what this means?


i don't feel like it's for me either. i think this is one contributing problem to me finding a job. i don't want to join the rat race. i don't want to be just another pawn for some big company that doesn't give a shit about me or the community or anything.

i went to a job interview and the guy was like 'so, why do you think you belong in corporate america?' and i seriously felt like saying 'oops, i just realized that i don't!' of course i gave some canned answer, but later i was like holy crap, i'm sitting here in the middle of a job search and i forgot to ask myself question #1: do i belong in corporate america?!?! :eek:

[cache]

...


...


Seems like its pretty lonely on my side of the room :cool:

[LaFille]

...


...


Seems like its pretty lonely on my side of the room :cool:


honestly though, we need people who do enjoy the corporate scene and who are good at making it work to make this country and our economy run. i admire and am grateful for people who can do it.

it's better for myself and for the entire universe if i stay out of the corporate scene though :huge:

[BlueEyedFunOne]

I work in the corporate environment, although I'm not a big fan of it. The way I see it, I'm working to make someone else rich.

[WorkInProgress]

I work for a company (medium-ish size), and I don't feel this sort of anger or bitterness towards corporate America. But I also haven't worked in a shitty work environment, either.

I'm not sure that loyalty towards "corporate america" as an entity is even possible--and I'm not sure what that supposed to mean, in all honesty.

I am, however, quite loyal to my company. I think the muckety-mucks have worked very hard (and continue to do so) to cultivate this. Partly because it makes happier employees, and partly because they (for ex. my company president, and the founder) are genuinely wonderful people. Perhaps my employer is the exception, but I've never had any reason to gripe, and I've never felt used. Even though replacing me wouldn't really be all that difficult, and would probably be cheaper. Not saying that there aren't issues, or that every day is just peachy, but overall, it's good.

I'm working for me. And "the big boss" is probably one of the most hardworking people I have ever seen. I know that he earns whatever it is that he gets, which I'm hoping is a lot.

[crystal_dance]

OK. I'll play ball.

Sure, there are those elites in corporate america who get richer, and often times, management ignores responsibility in the name of profit. But, when you talk about Enron, it is the exception. Throw in World Com, Tyco, Global Crossing, and a dozen other crooked companies/executives. Heck, throw in a few hundred. You hear about them because they are the exception. Most corporations act ethically and responsibly. If you think people as individuals are any different, you are sorely mistaken. Let's take about the number of people who cheat on their significant others. Or the number of people who abuse their children. Or the number of people who cheat on their taxes. Or who know that the grocery clerk gave them too much change but say nothing.

I happen to be of the opinion that corporate america, while it has its issues, has helped keep this economy moving forward for the last half century at a rate unseen almost ever in history. Corporations DO reward merit, but you must be deserving to receive those rewards. A college education is not a ticket to anything, despite what you may have been told. If you choose corporate america, then you must be willing to run at its pace, and not for one second think that it is YOU who dictates the pace. If you do't like the race, get out of the game.

Me? I love the race. I want to move into executive management one day, and I do so by consistantly doing a few things: playing by the rules of corporate america, and infusing my work with my own ideas and innovations while still staying in the accepted framework. At the same time, I maintain my own identity, and always question the ethics of my work and the company I work for. I will not contribute to the unethical side of business when I am consciously aware of it. That is why I can stand here and defend that which you despise.

It's wonderful that you stand here defending corporate america's cause and all that, but I wasn't ranting and raving at the injustice of it all. I am fully aware of the flaws and successes of America Inc. and know better than to expect the world to revolve around me.

My question was why do companies pretend to care about communities, people and all that fuzzy good stuff when all of us know that a company's goal is to do what it takes to maximize its ROI.

Let me give you an example of what I meant by this post. My cousin works for a major asset management firm's trading desk in Tokyo. He just graduated and was sent to London for training immediately. When he was recruited he was told that he will be sent to the Hong Kong desk which is what he wanted.
However, midway during training in London they decided to send him to Tokyo instead. It didn't seem so bad at the time because he didn't mind either. However, the company screwed him over by not adjusting his salary to match Tokyo's cost of living. He's being paid the salary he was signed on for HKG which is 75% as expensive as NYC as compared to Tokyo which is 125%. At that rate, you barely break even. Whats the point of going all the way to Tokyo to barely break even?
The sad part is that he declined all the other job offers and interviews after he got this job offer because of loyalty and ethics. But now, whats the point of being a loyal employee when your company leaves you stranded in a foreign land? Get what I'm trying to say?

[BlueEyedFunOne]

I'm working for me. And "the big boss" is probably one of the most hardworking people I have ever seen. I know that he earns whatever it is that he gets, which I'm hoping is a lot.

That's awesome. It's nice to hear about some 'big bosses' whose days don't revolve around power-lunches and tee times :razz:

[WorkInProgress]

That's awesome. It's nice to hear about some 'big bosses' whose days don't revolve around power-lunches and tee times :razz:

Yep, he's good people. One of the things I like best about working here, actually.

[WorkInProgress]

Let me give you an example of what I meant by this post. My cousin works for a major asset management firm's trading desk in Tokyo. He just graduated and was sent to London for training immediately. When he was recruited he was told that he will be sent to the Hong Kong desk which is what he wanted.
However, midway during training in London they decided to send him to Tokyo instead. It didn't seem so bad at the time because he didn't mind either. However, the company screwed him over by not adjusting his salary to match Tokyo's cost of living. He's being paid the salary he was signed on for HKG which is 75% as expensive as NYC as compared to Tokyo which is 125%. At that rate, you barely break even. Whats the point of going all the way to Tokyo to barely break even?
The sad part is that he declined all the other job offers and interviews after he got this job offer because of loyalty and ethics. But now, whats the point of being a loyal employee when your company leaves you stranded in a foreign land? Get what I'm trying to say?

That is such crap. (Not the decision to move him, the decision to not adjust for COL.)

[cache]

You see, I am a believer that everyone makes their own deals and is responsible for themselves. The corporate environment is one in which you can not be a passive entity and survive. It requires the ability to stand up and speak for yourself. Personally, I have negotiated with my employer for a variety of different things, and am happy with what I get...because it is the way that I want it.

If I was told I had to take a job elsewhere where the COL was much higher with no increase in pay, I would speak up and stand my ground. I am more valuable to them than they are to me. Period. The minute someone stops believing that, is the minute they open themselves up to be taken advantage of now and forever.

Corporations are obligated by law to put profits above all else. The Supreme Court says so. I happen to think corporations do a lot of good for communities, but that is all about perspective. But let me put this to you...what do you do in your local community to make it a better place? Most corporations donate plenty of money, volunteer their employees time, and support non-profits. Do you do all of those things? If you do you are the exception. So why does a corporation have a greater obligation to the community than you do?

[TinyDancer]

Fortunately, not every company throws social responsibility out the window. I'm really proud of my company and our involvement in the community and with the environment. . . but my company does okay enough that we can afford to put energy into that stuff.

I guess that I'm lucky because I can honestly say that about all the companies that I've worked for. They've all done a lot of really great things for the community; however, it doesn't always get publicity (if any at all). . . I doubt that all the people in our company know about the great things we do, let alone outsiders. . . but it's amazing.

The picture that you paint of Corporate America, crystal_dance, is the opposite of what I've seen. . . Yeah, there are some irresponsible companies in Corporate America. . . but not all of them are.

Also, I'm with WIP. . . I respect my people at the top, and think that they are brilliant and hard-working and 100% deserve to be where they are.

[analogman]

I didn't read through the thread; heck, I couldn't even make it through the whole first post.

There are corporations out there that care about their employees and their communities. A lot of companies are finding that one can do well by doing good.

One can argue till they are blue in the face whether corporations do more good than harm but it is undeniable they do things that benefit the society. For some ideas, look at the companies that Calvert funds invest in.

Edited to add link
http://www.calvert.com/sri_calvertratings.html

[lonestar]

this is qlc.com. You are not allowed to like corporate America or money here. If you do, the bosses will demote you to crackpot status. :rolleyes:

[analogman]

this is qlc.com. You are not allowed to like corporate America or money here. If you do, the bosses will demote you to crackpot status. :rolleyes:

:eek: Sorry, didn't get the memo :cool:

[yankeeyosh]

You see, I am a believer that everyone makes their own deals and is responsible for themselves. The corporate environment is one in which you can not be a passive entity and survive. It requires the ability to stand up and speak for yourself. Personally, I have negotiated with my employer for a variety of different things, and am happy with what I get...because it is the way that I want it.

If I was told I had to take a job elsewhere where the COL was much higher with no increase in pay, I would speak up and stand my ground. I am more valuable to them than they are to me. Period. The minute someone stops believing that, is the minute they open themselves up to be taken advantage of now and forever.


Well, there's your answer on my end. I am the most passive person I know...I'm very weak and cannot sound convincing. So clearly, this ain't the road I should continue on. Problem is...how do I get off this road? :neutral:


Corporations are obligated by law to put profits above all else. The Supreme Court says so. I happen to think corporations do a lot of good for communities, but that is all about perspective. But let me put this to you...what do you do in your local community to make it a better place? Most corporations donate plenty of money, volunteer their employees time, and support non-profits. Do you do all of those things? If you do you are the exception. So why does a corporation have a greater obligation to the community than you do?

That is true...corporations *SHOULD* make a profit...otherwise we're in deep shit. But the problem is that the wealth generated from these profits are rarely shared fairly. Many major companies (including mine) don't give bonuses, give pathetic raises, and do not encourage their employees to give back to the community (hell, there's a rule that says you can't even take a second job). Also, when you compare the profits to how much the company gives back to the community, it's pathetic. Oh, yeah...a donation of $100 for every home run some team hits out of the coffers totalling tens of billions. Really generous. There are also things going on behind the scenes at most major companies that are generally unethical...backstabbing and blackmailing, to name a couple. Hell, today at work, one of the managers proclaimed in a loud voice "Greed is Good!" And sadly, this wasn't the first time I heard it at this place.

Granted, this isn't the case at every company...and there are many corporations that are ethical, do treat their employees with respect, and do give back to the community. I know quite a number of them. However, there are innumerable corporations that are not as decent...they don't care if the employees are living or dead, as long as they somehow contribute to the profit margin.

[analogman]

Granted, this isn't the case at every company...and there are many corporations that are ethical, do treat their employees with respect, and do give back to the community. I know quite a number of them. However, there are innumerable corporations that are not as decent...they don't care if the employees are living or dead, as long as they somehow contribute to the profit margin.

If people stop working at those places, they will change. It's the same as people who complain about certain stores yet continue to shop there. If your mouth and your money aren’t in the same place, your words won't be very convincing. That's kind of how capitalism works (until democracy and the sovereign state takes over anyway).

PS: Wal-Mart ranks lowest of the 100 biggest companies on Calvert's list; just thought I'd share that.

[lonestar]

:eek: Sorry, didn't get the memo :cool:

that's cause you've already been demoted. :neutral:

[analogman]

that's cause you've already been demoted. :neutral:

I've never been popular on the boards anyway, I didn't have much to lose :rolleyes:

[lonestar]

I've never been popular on the boards anyway, I didn't have much to lose :rolleyes:


hehe. maybe it's time for a meeting with the Bobs...

[yankeeyosh]

If people stop working at those places, they will change. It's the same as people who complain about certain stores yet continue to shop there. If your mouth and your money aren’t in the same place, your words won't be very convincing. That's kind of how capitalism works (until democracy and the sovereign state takes over anyway).

Well, except for the case of Enron and a few others, the average Joe doesn't know much about the ethics of companies they're applying for beforehand. Some might have friends who work there, but those are few and far between...esp. for smaller companies. Ninety-five percent of the time, one doesn't find out what they're getting themselves into until they start working.

[analogman]

Well, except for the case of Enron and a few others, the average Joe doesn't know much about the ethics of companies they're applying for beforehand. Some might have friends who work there, but those are few and far between...esp. for smaller companies. Ninety-five percent of the time, one doesn't find out what they're getting themselves into until they start working.

The information is out there so it's a matter of doing research. The good companies also advertise good corporate citizenship/worker friend environment/etc as a differentiator from peers in their industry.

Finally, that kind of sounds like "I was always told to study what I love and I will be able to make a living...."

[yankeeyosh]

The information is out there so it's a matter of doing research. The good companies also advertise good corporate citizenship/worker friend environment/etc as a differentiator from peers in their industry.

Finally, that kind of sounds like "I was always told to study what I love and I will be able to make a living...."

You can research all you want, but a lot of stuff goes on behind the scenes that never makes the headlines. I would guess that at least half to maybe three-quarters of all corporations engage in unethical behavior...it might be slightly reduced since Enron, but I don't think by that much.

However, I admit that the companies that do promote good citizenship/a worker-friendly atmosphere tend to be more conscientious of being decent than those that don't.

[Xander]

Reality is so different though. Corporations are greedy and selfish. They don't give a rats ass about community and you are an expendable commodity that can be renewed. They don't seek out of the box thinkers. They seek cogs.
You're talking about "Corporations" as if they're conscious beings. We all know they're not. How can such emotion-based concepts be applied to a non-sentient entity?

Cars are evil and suicidal. They get into accidents all the time and kill so many people. They pretend to be safe with airbags and seat belts, but we all know that's just for PR.

Corporations are a collection of individuals with like-goals. It'd be better if you said, "when groups of people get together, they all become evil and greedy" which is what I think you mean (hopefully you didn't mean "Corporations" really are alive). But if the former is what you believe, then I have to completely disagree. I'm part of a corporation, and I'd never do anything that compromised my personal morals, let alone laws and generally accepted ethics (which are more relaxed than my personal morals). My coworkers are also very good people. I'd stake my job and personal freedoms (jail time if I'm wrong) that they wouldn't do anything "evil and greedy," screwing others over.

But if you make my company the exception, I've gotta tell you that it's not. The exceptions are the Enrons and Anderson Consultings of the world. Sometimes "people at the top" become corrupted, but this isn't a symptom of the collective (corporate) structure, but a cancer within the dynamic.

What I'm saying is, individual people are inherently good (if you don't believe that, ignore my post) even if bad people do exist. When inherently good people group together, they emulate good, collective behavior. If one person within a collective is rotten, they tend to get weeded out (fired) before they reach a position where they're insulated from the collective social dynamic. Even the people at the top have to answer to others, though.

Anyway, saying top execs are all crooked is a gross generalization (stereotype). I'm personal friends (or family friends) with many top execs from small to large companies, and they're some of the greatest people I know (which is how they got to where they are). It's a shame a few rotten eggs (and media stereotypes) dig their way into people's brains, getting them to buy into the stereotype.

Boo. :torn:

[Xander]

I would guess that at least half to maybe three-quarters of all corporations engage in unethical behavior...
I can pull make believe figures out of my ass too: 98.31% of what happens in a company is translucent--it's built that way so corruption can be spotted. The problem with the Enron corruption is that protocol was not followed, which allowed the checks and balances to fail. The independent auditors at Anderson Consulting got lazy, not evil. This allowed corruption to go unchecked at Enron, while it gets spotted immediately at other companies, and at a much earlier "phase" of corruption (the top of the downward spiral, which becomes easier and easier to slide down).

[yankeeyosh]

I can pull make believe figures out of my ass too: 98.31% of what happens in a company is translucent--it's built that way so corruption can be spotted. The problem with the Enron corruption is that protocol was not followed, which allowed the checks and balances to fail. The independent auditors at Anderson Consulting got lazy, not evil. This allowed corruption to go unchecked at Enron, while it gets spotted immediately at other companies, and at a much earlier "phase" of corruption (the top of the downward spiral, which becomes easier and easier to slide down).

Frankly, almost every corporation I've worked for performed unethical practices...I saw this stuff all the time. But you would never find any of that information online, or anywhere. Granted, I had shitty luck in the workforce, so maybe my experiences aren't the same as others. But nevertheless, you're lucky you work for a good company. A large fraction (maybe VERY large) of corporate drones aren't as fortunate.

[lonestar]

statistics are unreliable...they can be used to prove anything. 51% of the people know that. :huge:

[analogman]

Frankly, almost every corporation I've worked for performed unethical practices...I saw this stuff all the time. But you would never find any of that information online, or anywhere. Granted, I had shitty luck in the workforce, so maybe my experiences aren't the same as others. But nevertheless, you're lucky you work for a good company. A large fraction (maybe VERY large) of corporate drones aren't as fortunate.

Your misfortune and experience working for bad companies does not necessarily mean others will have the same experience. You also have insufficient information to extrapolate and say most companies engage in unethical practices.

Let's stick to facts or opinions, not extrapolated/iffy statistics.

[Xander]

Frankly, almost every corporation I've worked for performed unethical practices...
Which companies, what did they do, and why the hell didn't you do anything?

But nevertheless, you're lucky you work for a good company. A large fraction (maybe VERY large) of corporate drones aren't as fortunate.
It has nothing to do with luck. A large fraction (maybe VERY large) of corporate "drones" are in my exact same position--great companies, great leaders, with a tiny minority blaming "The Man" for all the problems in their lives.

[PenforPrez]

You can research all you want, but a lot of stuff goes on behind the scenes that never makes the headlines. I would guess that at least half to maybe three-quarters of all corporations engage in unethical behavior...it might be slightly reduced since Enron, but I don't think by that much.

The next company I find I can trust will be the first. Corporations are the reason taxpayers pay hundreds of millions of dollars for brand new baseball stadiums while millions of poor working families get their healthcare taken away through Medicaid cuts (which costs taxpayers more in the long run).

They get to demand ANYTHING as far as tax and energy incentives, while the poor person gets screwed. Lets help the poor before the rich, thank you.

Need I remind everyone that the CEO of Wal-Mart was openly quoted as saying that his employees would be better off on Medicaid than on Wal-Mart's healthcare plan. I worked for Wal-Mart for a good while; don't get me started on the crimes they're guilty of.

Another example. Briggs and Stratton, the small engine maker, is a huge employer here in Missouri. A couple of years ago, Congress was debating emission regulations for small engines. Briggs and Stratton threatened to close their plants if the bill passed. So our Senator Kit Bond (an ex-alcoholic, nonetheless) fought like hell to defeat the bill, and he succeeded. It did not pass.

So what did Briggs and Stratton do? They announced last month they're closing down all their American plants anyway. Par for the course.

But corporations will be their own ruin, especially if there's any truth to the talk of those who believe peak oil is already here. :idea:

Paul

[yankeeyosh]

Which companies, what did they do, and why the hell didn't you do anything?

Let's see, charging clients extra for services that they should have received for free, fraud, cheating on IRS forms, artificially raising prices, etc. etc. etc. The list goes on and on. And I didn't say anything because I didn't want to get fired (of course, I've been fired twice already for other reasons, so maybe I should have said something...)


It has nothing to do with luck. A large fraction (maybe VERY large) of corporate "drones" are in my exact same position--great companies, great leaders, with a tiny minority blaming "The Man" for all the problems in their lives.

Well, I respect your opinion, but I just don't see it.

[WorkInProgress]

Another example. Briggs and Stratton, the small engine maker, is a huge employer here in Missouri. A couple of years ago, Congress was debating emission regulations for small engines. Briggs and Stratton threatened to close their plants if the bill passed. So our Senator Kit Bond (an ex-alcoholic, nonetheless) fought like hell to defeat the bill, and he succeeded. It did not pass.Paul

What has that got to do with the price of tea in China?

[wordsmith]

The thing is, there are employers that treat their workers as valued commodities and those that don't. And any employer can do that. Corporate America gets a rap for being unconcerned with its workers or the world outside of it, which is in some cases assuredly not an undeserved one.

As an aside, what is "corporate America," these days, anyway? Anybody walking into my workplace (and at least one QLCer has and could vouch for it) would assuredly not categorize it as remotely "corporate" in nature, by stereotypical standards...I work for a newspaper; we're a small storefont office with a very relaxed atmosphere, yet we're owned by a small corporation that runs over 100 similar newspapers across the country, and runs things from afar, no day to day contact. But it's not a high rise office building with cubicles, I don't wear a suit, I don't have somebody on my case about TPS reports. We don't even have a water cooler, and nobody wears a tie except my dipshit GM. Is that corporate America? Or is corporate America only invesment banking with Goldman Sachs? I would suspect that for many of us, the former is closer to reality than the latter.

Anyway, tangent. The complaint that many have against the mythology of corporate America comes down to matters of ethics and caring, and the nature of business can bruise anybody's sense of each. Screwing one another over and backstabbing goes hand in hand with some industries, and that gets to be the stereotype. But it's not true for all. And industries that aren't stereotypically associated with that certainly DO have it go on. The stakes are just different.

Whether you work for a massive corporation or a small business or in academia or for a nonprofit or the government, it doesn't matter. The bottom line is, there are people who want to feel as if their employer ACTUALLY DOES care about them/the work they do/responsibility to something outside the company's bottom line, etc. at least as much as it does making a buck, and value them. There are people who honstly don't care about that. Everybody's different, and you have to find the sort of atmosphere that works best for you.

I do think there is a big problem with loyalty when you don't have the sense that you are valued by your employer, no matter the size or characteristics of that employer. There is also a big issue of motivation and correlation with job satisfaction at play, as well. People who feel valued tend to be more motivated to give their all and be more satified than people who know they're a replaceable cog in the wheel. That doesn't breed either loyalty or dedication to do your best work.

[WorkInProgress]

Agreed. And that's what I was trying to get at, Words.

Although, my brother (who just started a much more "corporate" job than mine--shirt & tie necessary) said that at his new office, they actually have cell phone quick draws. He's 4th from the bottom, but it was his first week. And, apparently, his "holster" is a handicap. :rolleyes:

[cache]

Hell, today at work, one of the managers proclaimed in a loud voice "Greed is Good!" And sadly, this wasn't the first time I heard it at this place.

You do know where this comes from don't you? Your manager didn't just make it up, it is from the movie Wall Street. Michael Douglas, a cut-throat financier, says it.

And, I stand by my belief. If you know something unethical or irresponsible is going on, it is up to you to do something about it. So you have a choice: get fired and maintain your ethics and integrity or don't. Every time, I know the choice I would make, even if it means unemployment...

[wordsmith]

The thing is, most places just aren't ethical, though. So you'd be pretty much quitting every job you get into, on that basis alone.

Inethical things go on where I work. It's not Enron, but there are questionable ethics. I don't know of too many placs where that's not the case. Every time my lazy, lazy advertisers sell an ad and tell me that I need to go and do a "news story" a given business, "because then they'll keep buying ads, and besides, I told them that we'd be glad to give them the free publicity," (i.e. used me in my capacity of writing actual newsworthy things to try to jumpstart their own advertising commission), that's inethical. Why should some people get more press (which is usually completely unwarranted) because they advertise with us? To me, that's inethical and pimping your newspaper out. It's no different from being bribed, and every newspaper in the world does it. Does it matter? Maybe only in principle. But just one example of something I think is inethical, but widespread.

[CTGirl]

Ethics is a funny thing. It's hard to say really waht's ethical and what's not, and we all have different opinions on where to draw the line. I can't even tell you how many hours we spent in my undergrad business classes arguing about what was ethical and what wasnt.

We live in a capitalist society, so yeah, companies are gonna do what they need to do to get ahead, that's just the nature of the system.

Not all big companies are bad to work for (see the Best Companies to Work for List every year), and a lot of what's being discussed here comes down to personal preference in working environment. If you don't like the cut-throat competition involved in "big business" then don't work there, that's all there is to it. Some of us thrive in the fast-paced world of competitive firms, and so we'll work there, and you don't have to.

[wordsmith]

But that's the whole thing...What are people willing to accept and what do they see as undermining integrity? If you have really strict standards for what's ethical, you're going to have a hard time anywhere, because everyplace does this. If you aren't bothered by lapses in ethics, you still have the knowledge and awareness that there are areas in which your employer doesn't operate on the up and up, and know that it could bite you in some way in the final analysis.

[CTGirl]

But that's the whole thing...What are people willing to accept and what do they see as undermining integrity? If you have really strict standards for what's ethical, you're going to have a hard time anywhere, because everyplace does this. If you aren't bothered by lapses in ethics, you still have the knowledge and awareness that there are areas in which your employer doesn't operate on the up and up, and know that it could bite you in some way in the final analysis.

I dont think its an issue of some people having more tolerance for unethical behavior, I think it's more that we all define what is ethical differently, so there are always going to be people who don't think their company is doing anything unethical, and there will be people who disagree.

The only standard here is the law, so I think it's more important to make sure that no laws are broken in your company.

[wordsmith]

What's ethical does not always follow what's law, though. It IS a shade of grey, which is what makes it hard.

Promising out additional print space in exchange for advertising dollars, for instance is NOT legal. But it has the power to seriously undermine the integrity of your newspaper, because you're basically selling your newsspace to the highest bidder on the sly, if you're shortchanging actual news stories to make space for something not newsworthy because it's a backscratching effort for them having dropped a bunch of cash your way. And in my case (small community papers), it rarely matters much, the stakes are less high. But if you look at the bigger picture, I'm sure you can see the implications that would have...news media not being perceived as trustworthy b/c advertisers have them in their pockets, etc. Speculation that what you cover has more to do with who's bankrolling your paper than with what is fact, truth, reported on, etc. When you're maintaining journalistic ethics, you've got a lot at stake. But with things like that, that could sacrifice your ethical standing and public trust on the larger scale aren't, in fact, illegal.

[CTGirl]

What's ethical does not always follow what's law, though. It IS a shade of grey, which is what makes it hard.

Promising out additional print space in exchange for advertising dollars, for instance is NOT legal. But it has the power to seriously undermine the integrity of your newspaper, because you're basically selling your newsspace to the highest bidder on the sly, if you're shortchanging actual news stories to make space for something not newsworthy because it's a backscratching effort for them having dropped a bunch of cash your way. And in my case (small community papers), it rarely matters much, the stakes are less high. But if you look at the bigger picture, I'm sure you can see the implications that would have...news media not being perceived as trustworthy b/c advertisers have them in their pockets, etc. Speculation that what you cover has more to do with who's bankrolling your paper than with what is fact, truth, reported on, etc. When you're maintaining journalistic ethics, you've got a lot at stake. But with things like that, that could sacrifice your ethical standing and public trust on the larger scale aren't, in fact, illegal.

I definitely see what you're saying, and in that case, that's where company rules should be coming in. If there's something that can be done that would seriously damage the business, it should be against company policy so that there is no grey area there.

I realize of course that "should" and "do" are a world apart, as that is what my field is all about, but the bottom line is, if a company does not promote positive behaviors and punish bad ones, just stay away from them.

[analogman]

wordsmith, I'd like to point out that there is something you can do about your unethical advertisement seller :) You can actively refuse to give unwarranted coverage to organizations that advertise in your paper. The paper (and really any organization) can't go very far down a shady path unless there are few powerful individuals or many less powerful individuals that choose to walk down that path.

[wordsmith]

I definitely see what you're saying, and in that case, that's where company rules should be coming in. If there's something that can be done that would seriously damage the business, it should be against company policy so that there is no grey area there.

I realize of course that "should" and "do" are a world apart, as that is what my field is all about, but the bottom line is, if a company does not promote positive behaviors and punish bad ones, just stay away from them.

It absolutely should be against policy. But then you get into management figures who are, at the end of the day, all too willing to sacrifice integrity/public trust/journalistic ethics for $$$. Like I said, it's small potatoes, here, but if it happens here, trust it happens places where it counts more.

[cache]

I was watching the local news a few weeks ago, and there a story about a certin type of truck being named the best selling truck for like the 20th straight year. You could tell the story was pretty much read straight off of a press release.

But I didn't think it was unethical, just a reflection of the relationship between business and media...

[wordsmith]

wordsmith, I'd like to point out that there is something you can do about your unethical advertisement seller :) You can actively refuse to give unwarranted coverage to organizations that advertise in your paper.

Gee, ya'd think it'd be a no-brainer, wouldn't you? You can...if you want a fight on your hands from the upper level management who hear about it if you refuse to do the coverage. And being a persona non grata for costing the paper advertising accounts if you don't comply. And then it becomes a matter of picking your battles. It disgusts me, but it's not pervasive, and I don't have another job lined up, so then realism comes into play. Am I going to become jobless because it's poor journalistic practice for our parent company to pressure us to put crap in the paper? Hardly, at this point. I gots bills. And, besides, the advertising rep who does this most often is somebody I've successfully played hardball with. A few times of me telling her, "I'm sorry, I'm not doing that," and she gave up. But she's a bad salesperson, most are more dogged than that.

And, as I said, earlier, the stakes are relatively small at my level. I'm not suppressing national news to run a fluff story on Joe's Pet Store b/c they bought at ad. But I think you can see how things could snowball at higher levels and at larger papers. And then, I COULDN'T feel good about working for a place like that.

The paper (and really any organization) can't go very far down a shady path unless there are few powerful individuals or many less powerful individuals that choose to walk down that path.

Dingdingdingding. And they do. Bottom line, baby. Most newspaper management would quite literally sell their souls for advertising dollars...they're the only money most papers make. See, it doesn't matter the field, level of "corporate-ness," etc. What's "ethical" is pretty malleable in the eyes of some.

[wordsmith]

I was watching the local news a few weeks ago, and there a story about a certin type of truck being named the best selling truck for like the 20th straight year. You could tell the story was pretty much read straight off of a press release.

But I didn't think it was unethical, just a reflection of the relationship between business and media...

It's a slippery slope...is it inethical to play up a product from someplace that scratches your back, or is it business? Can you see how that could get to be a really blurry line in some cases?

[cache]

It's a slippery slope...is it inethical to play up a product from someplace that scratches your back, or is it business? Can you see how that could get to be a really blurry line in some cases?

When it comes to media things, I guess I just see the fact that any story can be slanted any way. When I was flying home from college one time, I read the Indianapolis Star(I think it was called), and the headline was something like "Clinton bullys Congress into passing emissions law". When I got to Cleveland, the local paper headline for the same story was something like "Congress reluctantly passes environmental clean up law". The distinction was stark, and I realized that any story can say anything that the writer wants it to say. So what is the difference between a story slanted a particular way, and a story slanted toward a particular business?

That's just how I see the media side of ethics. Not unethical, just working towards a goal..or a particular point of view...

[CTGirl]

When it comes to media things, I guess I just see the fact that any story can be slanted any way. When I was flying home from college one time, I read the Indianapolis Star(I think it was called), and the headline was something like "Clinton bullys Congress into passing emissions law". When I got to Cleveland, the local paper headline for the same story was something like "Congress reluctantly passes environmental clean up law". The distinction was stark, and I realized that any story can say anything that the writer wants it to say. So what is the difference between a story slanted a particular way, and a story slanted toward a particular business?

That's just how I see the media side of ethics. Not unethical, just working towards a goal..or a particular point of view...

Exactly, I think that one of the great things about our country is that we are allowed to do this sort of thing. On the other hand, one of the worst things about this country, is that many of the people here are too uneducated and naive to see that everything in our society is a subjective opinion, and you have to make your own judgements.

[wordsmith]

Slanting is not inethical or illegal. Lying is both.

And in the example from earlier, determing coverage based on who pays you more is inethical. But not illegal.

[wordsmith]

When it comes to media things, I guess I just see the fact that any story can be slanted any way. When I was flying home from college one time, I read the Indianapolis Star(I think it was called), and the headline was something like "Clinton bullys Congress into passing emissions law". When I got to Cleveland, the local paper headline for the same story was something like "Congress reluctantly passes environmental clean up law". The distinction was stark, and I realized that any story can say anything that the writer wants it to say. So what is the difference between a story slanted a particular way, and a story slanted toward a particular business?

That's just how I see the media side of ethics. Not unethical, just working towards a goal..or a particular point of view...

Right, but that's not what I'm talking about...I'm not talking about slanting viewpoints on stories...if you don't fudge fact to do it or lie, I have no problem with that. I'm talking about determining what you do or don't cover based on who's bankrolling you. It's a completely diff. issue.

[analogman]

Gee, ya'd think it'd be a no-brainer, wouldn't you? You can...if you want a fight on your hands from the upper level management who hear about it if you refuse to do the coverage. And being a persona non grata for costing the paper advertising accounts if you don't comply. And then it becomes a matter of picking your battles. It disgusts me, but it's not pervasive, and I don't have another job lined up, so then realism comes into play. Am I going to become jobless because it's poor journalistic practice for our parent company to pressure us to put crap in the paper? Hardly, at this point. I gots bills. And, besides, the advertising rep who does this most often is somebody I've successfully played hardball with. A few times of me telling her, "I'm sorry, I'm not doing that," and she gave up. But she's a bad salesperson, most are more dogged than that.

And, as I said, earlier, the stakes are relatively small at my level. I'm not suppressing national news to run a fluff story on Joe's Pet Store b/c they bought at ad. But I think you can see how things could snowball at higher levels and at larger papers. And then, I COULDN'T feel good about working for a place like that.



Dingdingdingding. And they do. Bottom line, baby. Most newspaper management would quite literally sell their souls for advertising dollars...they're the only money most papers make. See, it doesn't matter the field, level of "corporate-ness," etc. What's "ethical" is pretty malleable in the eyes of some.

I think we all have a certain threshold for things we are willing to tolerate. I am glad you were able to play hardball with this person. By the way, that's more of what I had in mind on actively refusing to cover someone just because they are buying ads.

[wordsmith]

I think we all have a certain threshold for things we are willing to tolerate. I am glad you were able to play hardball with this person. By the way, that's more of what I had in mind on actively refusing to cover someone just because they are buying ads.

And it's also an illustration of choosing your battles. That worked with a ditzy airhead who won't push the point, or take it to the next level that I won't cooperate. It won't work with my boss.

[yankeeyosh]

You do know where this comes from don't you? Your manager didn't just make it up, it is from the movie Wall Street. Michael Douglas, a cut-throat financier, says it.

Ah, the movie with the 80s cellphones that look (and weigh) like bricks. Didn't know that. But that doesn't surprise me. And I don't see how this derails my argument.

And, I stand by my belief. If you know something unethical or irresponsible is going on, it is up to you to do something about it. So you have a choice: get fired and maintain your ethics and integrity or don't. Every time, I know the choice I would make, even if it means unemployment...

Well, I don't know about you, but if I get fired and have to collect unemployment...that won't even cover my rent. Maybe in January, when I have one payment left. But it's too early. And I need "solid" proof other than observations.

Furthermore, I knew my company had numerous ethical issues before I started working here. But I was so desperate for a decent job (even though in the end, it never turned out that way) that I had to accept it. I wasn't happy with my decision in March, and I'm even more unhappy about it in October. But when you have as poor of an interviewing record as I do, you have little choice in the matter. Beggars can't be choosers.

[cache]

Right, but that's not what I'm talking about...I'm not talking about slanting viewpoints on stories...if you don't fudge fact to do it or lie, I have no problem with that. I'm talking about determining what you do or don't cover based on who's bankrolling you. It's a completely diff. issue.

I just see slanting and coverage based on contribution as more similiar than you. I know in the past it was the media's "responsibility" to inform the public, but my view is not that of media today. I look at media as just another business - they all sell similiar products, but it is the consumer who has to decide which one is best for them. If someone wants objective information, a single news source to me is pretty weak. I may not need an extra cup holder in my new car, but it it comes free, then I';ll take the deal. I may not need to know about an advertisers new innovations, but if it comes with the paper I like, I;'ll take the deal.

[cache]

Ah, the movie with the 80s cellphones that look (and weigh) like bricks. Didn't know that. But that doesn't surprise me. And I don't see how this derails my argument.

If someone says that at my work, I would laugh, and take it as a joke. Sure, its true, but its business, the object is to make more money than your competitors - aka to be greedy.


Well, I don't know about you, but if I get fired and have to collect unemployment...that won't even cover my rent. Maybe in January, when I have one payment left. But it's too early. And I need "solid" proof other than observations.

Furthermore, I knew my company had numerous ethical issues before I started working here. But I was so desperate for a decent job (even though in the end, it never turned out that way) that I had to accept it. I wasn't happy with my decision in March, and I'm even more unhappy about it in October. But when you have as poor of an interviewing record as I do, you have little choice in the matter. Beggars can't be choosers.

I understand its a matter of personal perspective. But me personally, I will never compromise my ethics and responsibility for business. I lied enough when I was younger, and now I always think about that country song where a line in it says behave responsibly and honestly so that "you can look the whole world in the eye"

[wordsmith]

I just see slanting and coverage based on contribution as more similiar than you. I know in the past it was the media's "responsibility" to inform the public, but my view is not that of media today. I look at media as just another business - they all sell similiar products, but it is the consumer who has to decide which one is best for them. If someone wants objective information, a single news source to me is pretty weak. I may not need an extra cup holder in my new car, but it it comes free, then I';ll take the deal. I may not need to know about an advertisers new innovations, but if it comes with the paper I like, I;'ll take the deal.

No information is objective. If people are involved, there is by nature at the very least a measure of objectivity removed. So, no, you absolutely can't think that you're informing yourself by depending on one outlet for information...you have to gather as much as you can and rely on you own base knowledge and intellect to inform your beliefs and opinions. That doesn't mean, however, that news providers have a free pass to cheat, lie, misrepresent, act inethically, or mismanage how they disseminate information. It's idealistic to hope that all news outlets are high minded, but it's just unrealistic to say that they're up for sale to the highest bidder. It is still very much the media's responsibility to inform the public, because otherwise the public isn't gonna be informed, other than the most scholarly among us. It's definitely not just another business, it has a much greater responsiblity to the common good than many businesses, so I can't agree with you. Whether or not its higher ups choose to shoulder that responsibility appropriately, that's still where the responsibility rests.

And let me go back to your example defending the corruption underlying specific pillars of corporate America early in the thread, and apply it to well-run media sources... Sure, there are news sources that ignore responsibility in the name of profit. But is that indicative of most people working tirelessly and ethically as journalists? Nope. You seem quick to defend corporate America from what you see as overly sensationalized criticism of ethics, yet you're doing the same thing if you paint news media as an overall opportunistic business and put the word responsibility in quotes.

[CTGirl]

No information is objective. If people are involved, there is by nature at the very least a measure of objectivity removed. So, no, you absolutely can't think that you're informing yourself by depending on one outlet for information...you have to gather as much as you can and rely on you own base knowledge and intellect to inform your beliefs and opinions. That doesn't mean, however, that news providers have a free pass to cheat, lie, misrepresent, act inethically, or mismanage how they disseminate information. It's idealistic to hope that all news outlets are high minded, but it's just unrealistic to say that they're up for sale to the highest bidder. It is still very much the media's responsibility to inform the public, because otherwise the public isn't gonna be informed, other than the most scholarly among us. It's definitely not just another business, it has a much greater responsiblity to the common good than many businesses, so I can't agree with you. Whether or not its higher ups choose to shoulder that responsibility appropriately, that's still where the responsibility rests.


While I agree that the news media is probably not in the same category as corporate America because of it's purpose and perceived responsibility to the public, I think it belongs in the same category as our government, and look at how they abuse and corrupt their power much in the way that the CEO of a corporation does.

[wordsmith]

Same category as govt? Interesting.

Trust me, I and every other journalist in the world would take the perks/time off of being government employees and receiving a boost in pay courtesy of government funding! Of course, then the government really WOULD "own the news media."

[cache]

And let me go back to your example defending the corruption underlying specific pillars of corporate America early in the thread, and apply it to well-run media sources... Sure, there are news sources that ignore responsibility in the name of profit. But is that indicative of most people working tirelessly and ethically as journalists? Nope. You seem quick to defend corporate America from what you see as overly sensationalized criticism of ethics, yet you're doing the same thing if you paint news media as an overall opportunistic business and put the word responsibility in quotes.

defending corruption...huh....interesting way to express it.

I just don't see the media as having any responsibliity to anyone, hence the quotes. It is not a matter of considering the industry unethical as a foundation of principle. Most newspapers are for-profit entities. Everyday, there is a new product introduced that has to be sold. Many businesses take already existing products, change one little thing, and market it as a new product. Others continue to market and sell the same product they have for a long time. That is how I see the media. They are not unethical or irresponsible, at least no more so than any other industry. Some sell the same product they have as long as they have been around, while others attempt to introduce a new product everyday in hopes of increasing revenue. The company that repackages an existing product is not unethical, just as a TV station that reads a press release as a news story is not.

Or, your argument can be 180ed: If business is corrupt, and the media has a responsibility to the public, then perhaps the media is unethical if they allow the corruption to continue unreported?

[wordsmith]

Newspaper profits are made through selling advertising space, though, nearly solely. Not through lying to the public in their editorial content. The ethics of which I speak relate to editorial content.

[CTGirl]

Same category as govt? Interesting.

Trust me, I and every other journalist in the world would take the perks/time off of being government employees and receiving a boost in pay courtesy of government funding! Of course, then the government really WOULD "own the news media."

I only put the 2 in the same category cuz both are kinda in a "representing/informing the public" type of position. Both news mediums and the government have a responsibility to the public more than private companies do, and both are just as open to corruption as those private companies are - which, in an ideal world, they shouldnt be.

[wordsmith]

I only put the 2 in the same category cuz both are kinda in a "representing/informing the public" type of position. Both news mediums and the government have a responsibility to the public more than private companies do, and both are just as open to corruption as those private companies are - which, in an ideal world, they shouldnt be.

No, I know...I was kind of joking. But yeah, I do agree...those are forums that exist to serve the public. Unlike corporations, which generally speaking, primarily do not. Which means that they should certainly be held to a different standard.

[lonestar]

Because corruption, lying and deceit doesn't occur in the the public sector... :neutral: The corporation I work for seems pretty cool...granted I am new, but they have a lot of offerings to employees ranging from free healthcare to tuition compensation to competitive salaries.

[wordsmith]

I'm sure they have questionable business practices, though, somewhere. I've only ever worked for one place that did not have questionable business practices that I could find in the years I worked for them, and it was a nonprofit. Which is not to say that nonprofits are in any way immune from sketchy ethics, I'm sure many, many are...this one just didn't seem to have anything going on that wasn't fair and on the up and up.

[Xander]

Corporations are the reason taxpayers pay hundreds of millions of dollars for brand new baseball stadiums while millions of poor working families get their healthcare taken away through Medicaid cuts (which costs taxpayers more in the long run).
Really? I thought politicians and sports teams did that, not "corporations"... But thanks for telling me. I'm going to call my corporation right now and ask it why it built stadiums. I mean, what the hell is my corporation going to do with a stadium? Bad corporation! Bad!

...I didn't say anything because I didn't want to get fired
Silence entails support. For example, if you just stand there while someone gets raped, you should be locked up too. It's interesting, because what you argue against (corporate corruption) is exactly the thing I have zero tolerance for while you stand by, accepting it. Why? Next time, do something. Your job isn't worth your sense of self... or is it?

It's a common sociological phenomenon for groups to facilitate inaction (deviation from the norm). If you're in a big group, and you see someone steal someone else's bag, what do you do? You look around at the 30 other people standing around, minding their own business. The thief runs away. You feel bad. You complain about thieves on a message board. Oddly enough, all it takes is for one person in that huge crowd to go after the guy, and the group mentality shifts from inaction to pursuit. But admittedly, only certain personality types allow them to break from group mentality (people who have a defined sense of self--"self-actualization" on Kohlberg's moral scale).

I don't fault you for not doing anything--the great majority of the population would do (or not do, in this case) the same thing. But I have a feeling a lot of people here have and will act based on their own ethical standards--not law or any external guideline--and speak out whenever they see something "wrong." You just don't happen to be one of them, regardless of whatever excuses you come up with ("I'll get fired and unemployment wont cover my rent").

If you don't try and stop corruption, you are part of the problem. But I wont say "hypocrite."

And keep in mind, a company can't fire you for reporting illegal acts. They can fire you for other technicalities, but that's why you look before you leap. Most of the time, after you've reported illegal acts, higher-ups are afraid to fire you since it'll appear as if they retaliated (which you can, and should, sue their asses for). The checks and balances are there. Learn your rights and exercise them. Don't just bitch and whine (like the UN). Live your life! Just do it!TM.

As for the media, Word, do you really believe a majority of journalists treat their job as a civic responsibility? Due to the for-profit nature, I visualize many journalists sensationalizing their articles to gain readers (to sell ads). Too bad I've always preferred "boring" news.

[wordsmith]

As for the media, Word, do you really believe a majority of journalists treat their job as a civic responsibility? Due to the for-profit nature, I visualize many journalists sensationalizing their articles to gain readers (to sell ads). Too bad I've always preferred "boring" news.

Yep. I'm in the trenches, and I really do.

Your average beat reporters don't see the profits. Owners do. We don't do the jobs to rake in the big bucks for the paper, because those $$$ don't trickle down to us. In my particular family of papers, anything we bring in through solid reporting and writing (which is really only additional advertising as a byproduct, because that's what salespeople use to convince advertisers to buy space..."Oh, our good writing supports a strong circulation,") we don't see. We limp by on crappy equipment and 18-cents a mile mileage reimbursement and no company contribution to a 401K so that the profits can go into our owner's home on Grand Cayman and into buying up little newspapers to run into the ground.

I've never known a single reporter to prefer to sensationalize an article, of colleagues I've known in person. I've known plenty of owners and publishers to demand that approach of their reporters and writers and editors, though. It's far more comfortable to do work with integrity, and simple "boring" stories are by far the most enjoyable to work on. That's why I do small newspapers. I have no pressure to sensationalize.

I honestly, and am definitely not in the minority in this among writers, really could give a rat's ass about "selling advertising." It's not mine to worry about. My job is to do a good job with what I write, and let that speak for itself. My job is not, repeat, not, to pander to advertisers. That's ad reps' jobs.

[yankeeyosh]

Silence entails support. For example, if you just stand there while someone gets raped, you should be locked up too. It's interesting, because what you argue against (corporate corruption) is exactly the thing I have zero tolerance for while you stand by, accepting it. Why? Next time, do something. Your job isn't worth your sense of self... or is it?

Well, that's a totally different issue. You're comparing apples to oranges.

It's a common sociological phenomenon for groups to facilitate inaction (deviation from the norm). If you're in a big group, and you see someone steal someone else's bag, what do you do? You look around at the 30 other people standing around, minding their own business. The thief runs away. You feel bad. You complain about thieves on a message board. Oddly enough, all it takes is for one person in that huge crowd to go after the guy, and the group mentality shifts from inaction to pursuit. But admittedly, only certain personality types allow them to break from group mentality (people who have a defined sense of self--"self-actualization" on Kohlberg's moral scale).

Again, apples to oranges. When your livelihood is at stake, you can't go around blasphemizing the company you work for.

I don't fault you for not doing anything--the great majority of the population would do (or not do, in this case) the same thing. But I have a feeling a lot of people here have and will act based on their own ethical standards--not law or any external guideline--and speak out whenever they see something "wrong." You just don't happen to be one of them, regardless of whatever excuses you come up with ("I'll get fired and unemployment wont cover my rent").

I think Gen 'Y' does have higher expectations for high ethics in the workforce compared to previous generations. However, I do think, as you say, the vast majority will find another job before they speak up. In a perfect world, you can say what's on your mind. But when every paycheck means the difference between living and starving, it makes things more complicated for us.

If you don't try and stop corruption, you are part of the problem. But I wont say "hypocrite."

And keep in mind, a company can't fire you for reporting illegal acts. They can fire you for other technicalities, but that's why you look before you leap. Most of the time, after you've reported illegal acts, higher-ups are afraid to fire you since it'll appear as if they retaliated (which you can, and should, sue their asses for). The checks and balances are there. Learn your rights and exercise them. Don't just bitch and whine (like the UN). Live your life! Just do it!TM.

They can make excuses for firing me. This is an "at-will" society, so anything goes.

[Xander]

I've never known a single reporter to prefer to sensationalize and article, of colleagues I've known in person. I've known plenty of owners and publishers to demand that approach of their reporters and writers and editors, though.
Hmm.... interesting. I wonder what news would be like if we took owners out of the equation. I think we'll see that soon enough though, as blogs take over newspapers. Do you have a blog? Any of your colleagues?

Well, that's a totally different issue. You're comparing apples to oranges.
You're right. One is a crime, and the other is... a... crime. Oh wait. :rolleyes:

What, you're going to argue what white-collar crime doesn't hurt people as much? Tell that to the Enron-casualties, who've spent their lives saving to retire, only to discover they no longer can.

Again, apples to oranges. When your livelihood is at stake, you can't go around blasphemizing the company you work for.
And this is why you'll always stay silent. You don't run in the street naked screaming your company did something bad. You use the proper channels, and go about it smart-like, you hear? :frustrate

In a perfect world, you can say what's on your mind. But when every paycheck means the difference between living and starving, it makes things more complicated for us.
it. is. not. black. and. white. Raising concern within the company wont get you fired. Being a dumbass about it will. Being fired wont lead to starvation. Assuming you actually get fired, you don't just sit at home crying and complaining. You do everything you can to make money. I don't believe a normal person can't make enough to feed themselves. And if you don't have a savings, that's your fault. Reference the "excuses for not having a savings" thread. Your defeatist attitude... isn't cool.

They can make excuses for firing me. This is an "at-will" society, so anything goes.
Then you've already made your decision without even being placed in any situation. Your sense of ethics--your obligation to yourself--is weaker than your desire to stay in a job.

Oh well... It's your life.

[yankeeyosh]

it. is. not. black. and. white. Raising concern within the company wont get you fired. Being a dumbass about it will. Being fired wont lead to starvation. Assuming you actually get fired, you don't just sit at home crying and complaining. You do everything you can to make money. I don't believe a normal person can't make enough to feed themselves. And if you don't have a savings, that's your fault. Reference the "excuses for not having a savings" thread. Your defeatist attitude... isn't cool.

Look, I have to come up with $1,100 a month for the next four months. Being unemployed and getting $200 a week won't be enough. And given my current employment record, the next unemployment stint might be the death knell for me. And regarding savings, my rent is what is killing me from saving money. And this has absolutely NOTHING to do with this topic.


Then you've already made your decision without even being placed in any situation. Your sense of ethics--your obligation to yourself--is weaker than your desire to stay in a job.

Oh well... It's your life.

Again, I have to stay at this job, whether I hate it or not until this lease is up or close to up. I'm not living in New York where I have my parents. And honestly, the lack of ethics is on the bottom of the pile of things that makes me sick about this job. I have other issues right now, and I have no desire to "fix" this.

[wordsmith]

Hmm.... interesting. I wonder what news would be like if we took owners out of the equation. I think we'll see that soon enough though, as blogs take over newspapers. Do you have a blog? Any of your colleagues?

Eh. Blogs won't take the place of newspapers. Online newspapers will take the place of traditional print newspapers, most likely. Blogs just don't have the credibility at this point to be taken seriously as news sources by and large, and are too unregulated, by comparison.

I don't really blog myself; it would mostly be a rehash of my columns.

[cache]

Look, I have to come up with $1,100 a month for the next four months. Being unemployed and getting $200 a week won't be enough. And given my current employment record, the next unemployment stint might be the death knell for me. And regarding savings, my rent is what is killing me from saving money. And this has absolutely NOTHING to do with this topic.

Look, it may sound insane, but if you work two full time minimum wage jobs, you can bring home over 400 a week. If it was me, I would choose to hold my head high, and quit, and deal with the 80 hour weeks if I had to. Ethics is always a choice.

[yankeeyosh]

Look, it may sound insane, but if you work two full time minimum wage jobs, you can bring home over 400 a week. If it was me, I would choose to hold my head high, and quit, and deal with the 80 hour weeks if I had to. Ethics is always a choice.

OK, and how does someone with a master's degree get said minimum wage jobs? We had a whole nutty thread about this a few months back when someone was fretting about not getting hired for McDonalds...

[Xander]

You're living beyond your means if you can't save. Please read the savings thread, for your own good.

I have other issues right now, and I have no desire to "fix" this.
Then with all due respect, don't complain about something in which you're part of the problem, and entirely unwiling to help. Of course you can complain if you want. it's just... not cool. :rolleyes:

Eh. Blogs won't take the place of newspapers. Online newspapers will take the place of traditional print newspapers, most likely. Blogs just don't have the credibility at this point to be taken seriously as news sources by and large, and are too unregulated, by comparison.

I don't really blog myself; it would mostly be a rehash of my columns.
You're right about online papers replacing print papers. But I see individual journalists gaining independent identities, or at least forming an independent group--like what happened in the film industry. That way, money goes to the journalists, not the the people minding/fixing the books. There are already many examples of this. instapundit.com, for example. And he doesn't even really write articles, really.

And this isn't as off topic as it seems. Business organizations are becoming increasingly decentralized, mimicking entrepreneurial models. I think we'd all benefit with a decentralized media.

[analogman]

yankeeyosh,
I agree with cache and Xander here. It would appear that your desire for a paycheck from your jobs outweigh your desire to work for a company that share your ethical standards. That's OK though. We all have thresholds of what we will tolerate and are willing to compromise.

On an unrelated note.... From what I can tell I would have to say my employer is more concerned with not having the government come after us for having done something wrong than trying to squeeze employees and society dry. Litigation with governments is often disastrous for corporations.

[analogman]

Maybe I am showing too much loyalty to Corporate America by saying this, but I tend to trust things published by the big names (Financial Times, WSJ, NY Times, AP, Reuters, etc...) more than some no name guy with questionable credentials.

For this reason, I find it hard to believe that blogs are going to take over as the primary source of information.

[wordsmith]

Ethics is always a choice.

Ethics ARE always plural.

I'm sorry, the editor in me is going insane on this late deadline night. Occupational hazard. :huge:

[yankeeyosh]

yankeeyosh,
I agree with cache and Xander here. It would appear that your desire for a paycheck from your jobs outweigh your desire to work for a company that share your ethical standards. That's OK though. We all have thresholds of what we will tolerate and are willing to compromise.

$200 a week is NOT survivable in boston, massachusetts, especially when your rent is more than that. I didn't say I need six figures, but getting fired again or quitting (where I *CAN'T* collect ANY unemployment) will not work right now, since I am not a favorable candidate for getting a meaningful position right away. Not to mention the fact I was fired from another Corporate job just a year ago. And as I said, it's the least of my problems right now. I'm trying to get out of this company anyway, since I hate everything about it.

[wordsmith]

You're right about online papers replacing print papers. But I see individual journalists gaining independent identities, or at least forming an independent group--like what happened in the film industry. That way, money goes to the journalists, not the the people minding/fixing the books.

Still, though, somebody's gotta sell ads for anybody to get paid. Subscriptions don't finance print papers, and they won't finance online papers, either. It's all in the advertising.

[Xander]

For this reason, I find it hard to believe that blogs are going to take over as the primary source of information.
I agree, and I shouldn't have generalized "blogs"--sorry, my bad. But if Donald Trump started a blog about real estate, would you believe it to be credible? Extreme example, but the possibility is what I'm entertaining.

An online "journalist collective" is more interesting in our crystal ball than single, random bloggers, I suppose. To reiterate, I see this type of decentralization as the direction corporations are moving in.

$200 a week is NOT survivable in boston, massachusetts
As insane as this may sound to you, move. Sit down and consider it. It may not seem so insane...


Still, though, somebody's gotta sell ads for anybody to get paid. Subscriptions don't finance print papers, and they won't finance online papers, either. It's all in the advertising.
Absolutely right. But selling ads online isn't as demanding as the print world. It's a different structure. And if journalists follow the "Independent Film" road, what I see happening is a shift of currency, from desk jockeys to front-line reporters. That's all... money where the money should go.

[yankeeyosh]

As insane as this may sound to you, move. Sit down and consider it. It may not seem so insane...


And go where, pray tell? Back home? I'm 28...I've already moved back home four times. I'm not doing that again. I'll never hear the end of it. And I still have four more rent payments anyway until this lease is up.

[analogman]

I agree, and I shouldn't have generalized "blogs"--sorry, my bad. But if Donald Trump started a blog about real estate, would you believe it to be credible? Extreme example, but the possibility is what I'm entertaining.


Interesting question.... I'd probably read a few installments then make up my mind. It took me reading a few articles written by the person who wrote "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" before deciding I was not interested in what he had to say anymore.

[lonestar]

The thing is that everybody, including people who have found their exact calling in life, have to deal with situations that are not fun sometimes. I am in a coporate environment now, and it pays very well but I also have to deal with downsides: I have to put policy over costomers in assesing damages, I have to be on the road 21 days a month (which I actually find exciting), work 50-60 hour weeks, and I have to spend time in towns/areas that have been obliterated by storms and other cats (I am a Catastrophe Claims Adjuster). Other people have lower tolerances for corporate bullshit and that is okay too...for me the notion of buying a home next year, having a pension (dinosaur!), and having a company willing to pay for a masters degree is well worth putting up with the bullshit. Plus, I get to see a lot of places and don't have to work in a cubicle and I have been assigned to a team with a bunch of people that I really like (so far...)...we are on the road together so we build up a good rapport (at least so far...)

I tried the not-for-profit world and hated it (not enough work, not enough opportunity to go above and beyond, too many people putting in their 40 hours and going home). I got restless...every time I tried to work more they told me not to...

So, different strokes for different folks. If corporate is your thing, so be it...if not, that's cool too.

[wordsmith]

But this thread isn't really about having fun/not having fun at your job. It's about employers who inspire loyalty and dedication.

I'm honestly a firm believer that you're either a person dedicated to what you do, or you're not. It won't matter so much who you work for, what sector they're in, dedication lies in believing in what you're doing. If you're a paycheck player, solely, the dedication may or may not be there. If it's in your makeup and work ethic to give something your all and you do love what you do, you'll give it your all. Even when it's not fun every day.

[wordsmith]

I tried the not-for-profit world and hated it (not enough work, not enough opportunity to go above and beyond, too many people putting in their 40 hours and going home). I got restless...every time I tried to work more they told me not to...

Just for the record, my nonprofit experience couldn't have been more opposite. Probably the most inspirational work I've ever done. Talk about engraining dedication.

[Xander]

But this thread isn't really about having fun/not having fun at your job. It's about employers who inspire loyalty and dedication.
I hate to drag up an old topic, but I have an addendum.

My company and its culture inspires loyalty and dedication in me, but I'm a sucker for giving undying loyalty, so I may be a little more extreme than the typical employee. Anyway, we work with government contracts. US, Canada, other international contracts...

We've been presented an "opportunity" to do business with/in Iran. I'm a peon, but I believe Iran to be led by a morally bankrupt government. That said, I've made it known to my boss that I believe our company's culture and social obligations directly conflict with pursuing this contract, regardless of how profitable it is ($$$$$). Basically, if we pursue this contract, I have to resign.

A little melodramatic, but it wasn't that way when I spoke with him (I was a little more tactful :p). He generally agrees, but we'll see what happens... I have faith in the management, and think we'll pass even though we have a very good chance of making a lot of money. If they place profit over ethics, it's not a company I want to associate with.

Can we end all corporate corruption and morally questionable activities? Probably not, but this is a real-world example of how all of us have the ability (and obligation) to speak up when something conflicts with our personal morals. We can all choose to not be a part of it. In this case, nothing illegal is happening, but it still conflicts with my beliefs...

[CTGirl]

Wow, good for you Xander, way to stand up for what you believe in!

[cache]

I'm a peon, but I believe Iran to be led by a morally bankrupt government.


If I limited myself to working in nations that did not have a "morally bankrupt government," then there wouldn't be a single place on earth for me to get a job.

[wordsmith]

Don't you think that everyone is at liberty to draw his or her own personal line as far as what he or she will and won't take part in, according to personal feelings, beliefs, ethics, whatever?

[WorkInProgress]

If I limited myself to working in nations that did not have a "morally bankrupt government," then there wouldn't be a single place on earth for me to get a job.

*chortle* Um, yeah. I've yet to study any government (system or specific) that's not.

[WorkInProgress]

I hate to drag up an old topic, but I have an addendum.

My company and its culture inspires loyalty and dedication in me, but I'm a sucker for giving undying loyalty, so I may be a little more extreme than the typical employee. Anyway, we work with government contracts. US, Canada, other international contracts...

We've been presented an "opportunity" to do business with/in Iran. I'm a peon, but I believe Iran to be led by a morally bankrupt government. That said, I've made it known to my boss that I believe our company's culture and social obligations directly conflict with pursuing this contract, regardless of how profitable it is ($$$$$). Basically, if we pursue this contract, I have to resign.

A little melodramatic, but it wasn't that way when I spoke with him (I was a little more tactful :p). He generally agrees, but we'll see what happens... I have faith in the management, and think we'll pass even though we have a very good chance of making a lot of money. If they place profit over ethics, it's not a company I want to associate with...

And you have every right to do so. Choosing not to do something that compromises yourself is, IMO, a good decision. I'd rather be content with myself than employed at a job where I feel compromised, since there are other places to work (I am also unfettered by many obligations).

[cache]

Don't you think that everyone is at liberty to draw his or her own personal line as far as what he or she will and won't take part in, according to personal feelings, beliefs, ethics, whatever?

Not sure if you're talking to me, but yeah, sure I do. I am cynical of all government staructures, and have a difficult time seeing any one better than another, so from my perspective, I have to work for a morally bankrupt government. Xander's line of moral bankruptcy is at a different place than mine, where the US is on one side, and Iran on the other. To each his own.

[jrwilheim]

Corporate America has no loyalty to us. We therefore owe no loyalty to it.

When people can be downsized, or have their pension shredded, or be given bad advice to over-invest in company stock in their 401(k) so that higher-ups can make millions through fraud, there is no good reason for us to play our lives by the rules of corporate America. There is no reason to stay in jobs we hate for an "acceptable" period of time before moving on, there is no reason to put loyalty to the company above a better deal somewhere else, there just isn't. Loyalty is a two-way street, IMHO. If corporate America wants our loyalty, it will give some loyalty to us.

[Xander]

Don't you think that everyone is at liberty to draw his or her own personal line as far as what he or she will and won't take part in, according to personal feelings, beliefs, ethics, whatever?
Absolutely.

Xander's line of moral bankruptcy is at a different place than mine, where the US is on one side, and Iran on the other. To each his own.
Yes, our perceptions seem to differ. I don't see the US on one side, and Iran on the other. I see Iran's leadership threatening to annihilate another country, denying the holocaust, etc. But I don't want to get into an argument on Iran.

Surprisingly, they canned the contract this morning, which is a few days sooner than I expected (it typically takes a week). The official position is it wasn't a good fit, but I don't doubt the originating country had a part in the decision. Well... at least I don't need to look for a new job. :p

There is no reason to stay in jobs we hate for an "acceptable" period of time before moving on, there is no reason to put loyalty to the company above a better deal somewhere else, there just isn't. Loyalty is a two-way street, IMHO. If corporate America wants our loyalty, it will give some loyalty to us.
If you work for a company where the potential of being screwed over exists, I suggest changing companies. My company has a long track record of making positive ethical decisions. This recent issue further convinces me of that fact.

[yankeeyosh]

Corporate America has no loyalty to us. We therefore owe no loyalty to it.

When people can be downsized, or have their pension shredded, or be given bad advice to over-invest in company stock in their 401(k) so that higher-ups can make millions through fraud, there is no good reason for us to play our lives by the rules of corporate America. There is no reason to stay in jobs we hate for an "acceptable" period of time before moving on, there is no reason to put loyalty to the company above a better deal somewhere else, there just isn't. Loyalty is a two-way street, IMHO. If corporate America wants our loyalty, it will give some loyalty to us.


*Applause*

[wordsmith]

Not to nitpick, because I get what you're saying, but honestly, ANY company has the potential to screw you over. Track record or no.

[CTGirl]

Not to nitpick, because I get what you're saying, but honestly, ANY company has the potential to screw you over. Track record or no.

Agreed, "corporate america" just looks worse cuz there's more of em, and they make a bigger splash.

[Xander]

Not to nitpick, because I get what you're saying, but honestly, ANY company has the potential to screw you over. Track record or no.
Agreed. You can also be killed by a meteorite in 5 minutes, but with all things, we calculate odds and place ourselves in situations we're comfortable with (e.g. you don't need to worry about the meteorite as much as chain smoking). I'm more inclined to trust my future to this company versus, say, Chrysler.

I should have said, "If you work for a company where the potential for being screwed over is high, I suggest changing companies." Thanks for noticing. ;)

[jrwilheim]

If you work for a company where the potential of being screwed over exists, I suggest changing companies. My company has a long track record of making positive ethical decisions. This recent issue further convinces me of that fact.

And how, pray tell, are workers supposed to know where "the potential of being screwed over" exists? I'm sure the good people of Enron thought Ken Lay and the other members of the Enron board had their best interests at heart before they proceeded to cheat them out of billions of dollars. People low on the totem pole have no way of knowing what scheme the higher-ups are coming up with to screw them over.

And some of these issues go beyond this or that specific workplace. For instance, this stupid notion of etiquette in corporate America that it's somehow "unprofessional" for co-workers to compare salaries--in some companies, people actually get fired over this. If corporate America is really so concerned with how this kind of thing "lowers morale," it shouldn't f******g pay people in vastly inequitable ways--i.e., don't pay two new hires with the same position and level of experience different wages, don't take advantage of people's desperation for a job to pay them as little as possible, don't dole out raises or bonuses in ways that everyone in the office can tell are based on pure favoritism rather than performance. A standard of etiquette like this, which presumes to be about other things, is really just a way of screwing people over.

[Xander]

And how, pray tell, are workers supposed to know where "the potential of being screwed over" exists? I'm sure the good people of Enron thought Ken Lay and the other members of the Enron board had their best interests at heart before they proceeded to cheat them out of billions of dollars. People low on the totem pole have no way of knowing what scheme the higher-ups are coming up with to screw them over.
If you're really that afraid, don't work for such a massive corporation then. I'm very uncomfortable in a large corporation partially due to the anonymity.

I'm not sure how this pertains to corporate loyalty, but I'll address your (most likely rhetorical) questions point-by-point.

don't pay two new hires with the same position and level of experience different wages
Companies want to pay as little as possible. Employees want to get paid as much as possible. As long as both parties agree to a price, it's fair. It must work both ways. You cannot fault the company for wanting to pay less if you do not fault the employee for wanting to be paid more.

don't take advantage of people's desperation for a job to pay them as little as possible
If this person is so desperate as to willingly take a low paying position, he believes himself to be in a better position with the job than with no job. No one is being taken advantage of. If the person is found to be worth more, the company will pay it or risk the person leaving. This is how the free market works.

don't dole out raises or bonuses in ways that everyone in the office can tell are based on pure favoritism rather than performance
If you see inequities in your company, and are so utterly disgusted you do not want to work there any more, quit. The company can carry itself however it wants. If the culture is such that it alienates its employees, they wont have very many much longer. It is a job which you can choose not to have. It is not slavery.

A standard of etiquette like this, which presumes to be about other things, is really just a way of screwing people over.
The stigma of comparing salaries is orchestrated by "the corporation"? Is that what you're saying? (I'm trying to understand exactly what you mean) If that's what you believe, no reply is worthwhile.

[yankeeyosh]

And how, pray tell, are workers supposed to know where "the potential of being screwed over" exists? I'm sure the good people of Enron thought Ken Lay and the other members of the Enron board had their best interests at heart before they proceeded to cheat them out of billions of dollars. People low on the totem pole have no way of knowing what scheme the higher-ups are coming up with to screw them over.

And some of these issues go beyond this or that specific workplace. For instance, this stupid notion of etiquette in corporate America that it's somehow "unprofessional" for co-workers to compare salaries--in some companies, people actually get fired over this. If corporate America is really so concerned with how this kind of thing "lowers morale," it shouldn't f******g pay people in vastly inequitable ways--i.e., don't pay two new hires with the same position and level of experience different wages, don't take advantage of people's desperation for a job to pay them as little as possible, don't dole out raises or bonuses in ways that everyone in the office can tell are based on pure favoritism rather than performance. A standard of etiquette like this, which presumes to be about other things, is really just a way of screwing people over.

Thank you. Thank you. This is what I'm talking about. You're speaking my language. HR and hiring managers really need to step back and realize that loyalty is not a one-way street.

[CTGirl]

Thank you. Thank you. This is what I'm talking about. You're speaking my language. HR and hiring managers really need to step back and realize that loyalty is not a one-way street.

The issues he's discussing are not about loyalty, there are a lot of other factors involved in deciding how much a person is paid. Yeah, sometimes its unfair, but tough, life was never meant to be fair.

[cache]

If you don't like it, stay out of corporate America. Freedom of choice.

Plus, Mark, no HR people I know expect loyalty. I look for people who have the potential to stick around, but I know there are no guarantees.

[jrwilheim]

If you're really that afraid, don't work for such a massive corporation then. I'm very uncomfortable in a large corporation partially due to the anonymity.

Again, this is NOT about any specific company. I'm not presently employed, although when I am back to work (which will be within about a month), it will be for a one-man shop (I've been hired, we just haven't set a definite start date yet).


Companies want to pay as little as possible. Employees want to get paid as much as possible. As long as both parties agree to a price, it's fair. It must work both ways. You cannot fault the company for wanting to pay less if you do not fault the employee for wanting to be paid more.

If this person is so desperate as to willingly take a low paying position, he believes himself to be in a better position with the job than with no job. No one is being taken advantage of. If the person is found to be worth more, the company will pay it or risk the person leaving. This is how the free market works.

I'm not sure how this addresses my point at all. None of this has anything to do with paying people (sometimes vastly) different amounts of money for doing the EXACT SAME JOB with the EXACT SAME LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE/COMPETENCE. Moreover, you're also assuming there's equal bargaining power in these situations, which there usually isn't.

If you see inequities in your company, and are so utterly disgusted you do not want to work there any more, quit. The company can carry itself however it wants. If the culture is such that it alienates its employees, they wont have very many much longer. It is a job which you can choose not to have. It is not slavery.

Not legal, chattel slavery, no, but for a lot of people, it is wage slavery. If you don't have adequate savings (true of most people--the average American family could maintain its prresent standard of living less than 2 months if the main breadwinner lost his/her job), if you have a family to feed, if you are quitting for a reason your state will not accept as valid for collecting unemployment, then no, you really don't have a choice in this matter. People don't always have the choice to quit because they don't like the culture of the place they work. I stayed in a truly toxic corporate law firm much longer than I should have because I did not have the resources to quit.

The stigma of comparing salaries is orchestrated by "the corporation"? Is that what you're saying? (I'm trying to understand exactly what you mean) If that's what you believe, no reply is worthwhile.

Often times, yes--it is orchestrated by the corporation. As in, many companies have formal, written policies that people can be terminated for discussing salaries with co-workers. And even where is no formal policy, an instance of doing this can still be used against an employee by human resources.

[analogman]

Maybe it's because I work for a good company but it seems like there is a lot of conspiracy theory against Corporate America and victim mentality going on.

I believe in the free market system. My employer can keep me or not keep me. I can choose to work for someone else if I wish. The relationship has held for six and half years and I expect it to for some time to come.

Xander, good job for standing up for what you believe in. I recently gave our sales and marketing people a piece of my mind on some new advertising they are doing.

[yankeeyosh]

If you don't like it, stay out of corporate America. Freedom of choice.

Too late.

Plus, Mark, no HR people I know expect loyalty. I look for people who have the potential to stick around, but I know there are no guarantees.

Well, how come then, have I not had a single person contact me in the past two months despite all the resumes I'm sending?

[jrwilheim]

Maybe it's because I work for a good company but it seems like there is a lot of conspiracy theory against Corporate America and victim mentality going on.

I believe in the free market system. My employer can keep me or not keep me. I can choose to work for someone else if I wish. The relationship has held for six and half years and I expect it to for some time to come.

Xander, good job for standing up for what you believe in. I recently gave our sales and marketing people a piece of my mind on some new advertising they are doing.

I believe in the free market system, too. I just also object to some of the dehumanizing and invasive ways many corporations treat a lot of their employees.

[Xander]

Companies want to pay as little as possible. Employees want to get paid as much as possible. As long as both parties agree to a price, it's fair. It must work both ways. You cannot fault the company for wanting to pay less if you do not fault the employee for wanting to be paid more.
I'm not sure how this addresses my point at all. None of this has anything to do with paying people (sometimes vastly) different amounts of money for doing the EXACT SAME JOB with the EXACT SAME LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE/COMPETENCE. Moreover, you're also assuming there's equal bargaining power in these situations, which there usually isn't.

jrwilheim, I don't think we'll make any progress in understanding each other, so I'm going to limit my reply with hope that someone else will pick up something.

Lets say you own a house, and are looking to sell it. You get no value from it as an owner (can't stay in it, etc.). Fortunately, I'm looking for a place, and saw your ad for $500K. I look at it and like it. I willing to pay you $450K. Analogman comes across your ad and looks at the house. He's willing to pay you $350K (cheap bastard! ;)). You will get no more offers on the house, so there's no incentive to "hold out" for a better offer. What do you do?

A) Sell it to me at $450K
B) Sell it to analogman for $350K
C) Get pissed no one is willing to pay your asking price and don't sell it (this option gives you no value, and you keep paying property taxes).

A is the correct answer.

analogman and I are HR people at different companies. The house is your talents/skills. You are the employee looking to sell your talents/skills to the highest bidder. You have the option not to sell your talents/skills, but you will starve. You'd rather get something than nothing.

Now lets revisit my house selling analogy. You sold it to me for $450K.

Analogman and I find another home, exactly the same as yours. The homeowner lists it for $500K, just like you. I see it and offer the same $450K. The owner tells me he'd rather see it burn than sell it to me at that price. We negotiate, and I end up giving in and agreeing to $500K. But analogman is pissed I took the other house away from him. He doesn't want to lose this house too. He goes to the homeowner and offers $510K. Analogman has hurt my feelings, and I want to see him suffer. I counter his offer at $520K. We get into a bidding war, with him winning at $555K. I'll get you another time, analogman! :p

Same type of home, same type of location... drastically different final price. There was no homeowner conspiracy on your part, and at the end of the day, everyone willingly agreed to the price they paid for, and the price they got.

If you think my examples are bullshit, I'm sorry to report that's how the real world works (ignoring the exaggerations). I thought this concept was fairly simple.

Well, how come then, have I not had a single person contact me in the past two months despite all the resumes I'm sending?
Hundreds of variables can account for this. The quality of your resume, your experience, your cover letter, their hiring procedures, their budgets, their requirements, etc. If you haven't even interviewed, how is corporate loyalty to blame?

[yankeeyosh]

Hundreds of variables can account for this. The quality of your resume, your experience, your cover letter, their hiring procedures, their budgets, their requirements, etc. If you haven't even interviewed, how is corporate loyalty to blame?

Or blacklisting....

Well, they might see that I have trouble staying at a job, but that is 99% NOT my fault. The problem is HR can't read between the lines, so they assume I'm a job hopper because I want to be one.

[Spinney]

Switching jobs and buying a house are two very different things though. If I'm looking to buy a house I'm already living somewhere else and buying the house is not critical to my survival. Living in an apartment isn't dehumanizing, like working for some employers is, and all too often the "hiring advantage" for lack of a better term leans toward the employer. Your example basically ignores scarcity, the importance of which is magnified when you're talking about something that is critical for survival. That's why in Canada we still have crown corporations running the power utilities with strict regulations on cutting people off in the winter if they haven't paid. Between December and March it's simply illegal for them to stop providing service to anyone because they'd freeze to death.

The reality for at least 90% of the population is that they really don't have the freedom to just quit a crappy job. It can take a long time to find a new job...finding my first one took over a year! That's a bit of an extreme example but 3 or 4 months would not be odd. When it's so hard to find work the employer is in control, and they can be as tightfisted as they please.

Obviously this is not the case for everyone. Right now I'm working at one company and just got an offer from another one for a much better job. I'm even negotiating the offer package to include relocation costs etc, which is something most other employers don't even consider doing.