"You work for X Company, you're evil!"

[Rageaholic]

I've had a couple of opinionated college professors who held this view that those who work for a company that engages in less than ethical behaviors should be ashamed. I can understand this to an extent, but these professors took it way too far. Two of them had admitted to giving their family members a hard time because they work for Phillip Morris and smoking kills people.

1. Smoking is a personal decision. I don't do it, but if other people do, that's their business.

2. Tying into number 1, the company isn't forcing anyone to smoke, it's just offering a product.

3. Even if you want to argue that selling cigarettes is evil, you can't blame the individual employees who may not even have anything to do with selling cigarettes (for example, accountants).

4. Even if they do sell the cigarettes, and you want to argue it's wrong, they are probably just trying to make a living. And before someone Goodwins this by bringing up the nazis, I refer you to point 2. Unlike the nazi's, they are not forcing anyone at gunpoint. If we boycotted every company that engaged in unethical behavior, the unemployment rate would skyrocket.

Another example is a video a while back of some man going through a chick fila drive thru, asking the employees how they can live with themselves. If you're going to go after someone, go after the ones at the top who make the decisions to donate to hate groups. Or better yet, go after the hate groups. But leave the employee who's just trying to make a living selling chicken alone.

[s_stabeler]

not to mention that there were a lot of genuinely moral people who could be called nazis. Take the Wehrmacht. Were individual soldiers of the Wehrmacht evil? nope. Even the Waffen SS- quite a few of those were conscripts.

[Aragarthiel]

I hate these people. I remember seeing something somewhere that showed how most of the products consumers buy come from one of only a handful of companies, so if someone was to boycott a company that engages in unethical behavior, they may as well boycott any other products by the same company, effectively eliminating a sizable chunk of things they use every day.

[mathnerd]

I used to be a public school teacher. I left teaching and took a job with MajorBank. My boyfriend is retired from "Big Pharma". Let's just say this isn't something I'm unfamiliar with. I just roll my eyes and go back to my day.

[TheHuckster]

From a personal viewpoint, I do avoid associating with companies like Phillip Morris. Being in a family where over the past several decades family members have gotten hooked on cigarettes slowly and painfully die after having tried to quit, I consider cigarette companies especially to be morally bankrupt, and the only reason they're "behaving" is thanks to decades of government regulation preventing them from marketing to children, adding warning labels to their products, and public pressure... all of which they've resisted historically through lobbying and basically lying to their consumers about how harmful cigarettes are.

Yes, I understand a Phillip Morris is part of a huge conglomerate whose subsidiaries include a lot of products I buy. I'm sure with enough thorough research you could find a link between Ben and Jerry's and a cigarette company. The only justification I have for that is by purchasing Nabisco cookies, I'm doing jack shit to benefit their cigarette subsidiaries.

I also understand that the vast majority of corporations, especially larger ones, have a lot of evilness to them, either through paying low wages to their employees or outsourcing to foreign sweatshops so they can pay even lower wages than that, and others for all sorts of other reasons. If I had the conviction and willpower to rid myself from associating from all of those corporations I'd probably be in a shack somewhere in rural Montana, writing (peaceful) manifestos.

That said, I don't pass judgement to those who do associate with those companies. It's simply a personal conviction for me to at least avoid directly supporting the cigarette industry.

[Greenday]

I've worked for the government since I was 19. I'm well aware of what it's like to be accused of being evil for working for an "evil" company. I've been called a baby killer, I've been accused of making bombs to kill women and children, etc. etc.

Nevermind the whole fact that I'm doing what I do to save lives.

[XCashier]

If I had the conviction and willpower to rid myself from associating from all of those corporations I'd probably be in a shack somewhere in rural Montana, writing (peaceful) manifestos.

While in that shack, you'll need a lot of land to grow your own food, fibrous plants to make your clothes, a well for water, etc.

Yes, there is a lot of evil in the corporate world: human rights violations, pollution, corrupt practices, etc. The companies that do work ethically usually have to charge a high price to cover their expenses for, say, having their waste properly disposed of rather than dumping it in the nearest stream. And the consumers won't pay that high price if they can buy the item from the unethical competitor cheaper. Sadly, that is human nature. To change what's wrong, we'd have to change human nature itself.

We can make an effort to change things; we can boycott companies who have a stand we don't agree with, and write to the company's President or CEO to tell them why. It may not change anything, but it's more likely to than shouting at the cash register worker will, and having been the target of such wrath, I do wish more people would contact the one who's responsible.

[Tama]

But that would require actual WORK!

People are lazy.

[HYHYBT]

The companies that do work ethically usually have to charge a high price to cover their expenses for, say, having their waste properly disposed of rather than dumping it in the nearest stream. And the consumers won't pay that high price if they can buy the item from the unethical competitor cheaper. Sadly, that is human nature. To change what's wrong, we'd have to change human nature itself.

No, we wouldn't. This is where regulation is beneficial: if *all* businesses in a given field are required to behave, it removes that disadvantage.

[protege]

No, we wouldn't. This is where regulation is beneficial: if *all* businesses in a given field are required to behave, it removes that disadvantage.

Unfortunately, you can put all the regulations in place you want. What's to stop someone from moving production to a country that has fewer regulations? Look at what's happening to the Chinese environment because there are no pollution regulations? Skies that are black with smoke, because there are no pollution controls. Rivers that are choked with trash and all sorts of waste.

Most of you know that I live just outside a major former steel city. Before WWII, it wasn't uncommon for the skies to be black at 10AM. So much smoke from the mills turned the brick on many buildings black. Ever wonder why many old churches seem to be built out of black stone? That's why. Ironically, even the Carnegie Museum (which was founded by a steel magnate) was black as well.

Further outside of town, were huge piles of slag. Trains would haul the still-liquid waste to remote valleys, and dump it over hillsides. Even now, some 35 years after the mills closed, those slag dumps still exist. Granted, they no longer tower over the strip malls along Route 51, and have mostly been cleared and turned into gravel, but still.

Then there are the abandoned mines that still leak sulfur and acid into the rivers and streams here. No regulations--and no companies to go after--mean that the stuff spews right out of the ground. Many places, you can see it pouring out of hillsides, including one constant "spring" across from the Shire Oaks railroad yard on Route 837.

The reason all of this crap went on? Simple. The steel industry was simply too powerful and got away with it. Think about it--if you were going to force them to comply, would you really want to have to deal with thousands of suddenly unemployed voters--all of whom would remove you from office? Also, most people felt that if the waste wasn't seen, it didn't exist. That's why much of the slag and other waste got dumped in then-remote valleys--far from the city. In other words, it became someone else's problem.

It wasn't until after WWII, and a particularly nasty smog in nearby Donora, PA, that people got serious about pollution. I've seen photos of Pittsburgh before and after pollution controls, and it's like night and day. Granted, the mills eventually closed, but for the most part, the area's rivers and air has mostly recovered.

[TheHuckster]

You have to account for technology and engineering to be a huge factor in that, though. Nowadays it's easy to look back and ask yourself why they didn't just use cleaner and more efficient methods. The answer is easy: The technology wasn't there before WWII. Waste management and cleaner methods of refining raw materials has gone a long way in the last 70-80 years.

[s_stabeler]

actually, you're muddling up cause and effect there. Huckster. Less polluting methods of doing things tend to be more expensive as such, the research only tends to occur when there is some advantage to the less polluting method. ( compliance with government regulations, able to make a point about beig a green company, etc)

[protege]

Less polluting methods of doing things tend to be more expensive as such, the research only tends to occur when there is some advantage to the less polluting method. ( compliance with government regulations, able to make a point about beig a green company, etc)

It wasn't so much being "green" that the steel industry implemented changes. It was because city residents got tired of how dirty the city was then. The industries here changed because they were forced to. However, even though pollution controls were put into place, the mills were still mostly inefficient. Many, like Carrie Furnace (closed, but still exists, BTW), were never modernized after the war. Union threats of strikes kept Carrie in the stone age. That's why imported steel started coming in, and eventually drove local producers out.

Back on topic, some of you know that I work in the financial industry. I've had people scream at me because of what banks on Wall Street (which I have no connection to, BTW) have done. I'm not a trader, I don't follow the markets...I just confirm the occasional trade and fix the damn computers. Don't blame me because your 401(k) or IRA lost 90% of its value because you invested in Enron.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

It wasn't so much being "green" that the steel industry implemented changes. It was because city residents got tired of how dirty the city was then. The industries here changed because they were forced to. However, even though pollution controls were put into place, the mills were still mostly inefficient. Many, like Carrie Furnace (closed, but still exists, BTW), were never modernized after the war. Union threats of strikes kept Carrie in the stone age. That's why imported steel started coming in, and eventually drove local producers out.

Back on topic, some of you know that I work in the financial industry. I've had people scream at me because of what banks on Wall Street (which I have no connection to, BTW) have done. I'm not a trader, I don't follow the markets...I just confirm the occasional trade and fix the damn computers. Don't blame me because your 401(k) or IRA lost 90% of its value because you invested in Enron.

I get this frequently too. I work for a large telecommunications company. I just simply tell people that I'm NOT the CEO or the Board of Directors and whatever these groups decide, I have to go along with just like our customers and everyone else.