jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (99 posts)

For Those Who Put Faith in Big Business

  1. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/eleven-stores- … b9Q0vmUQ4p

    This is what would happen without regulation of business (whether in an anarchist society by exile or completely shutting down something like this), or in a democracy (where the government steps in and regulates). 

    7-11 was able to run wild over their workers.  100 hours a week, less than minimum wage, fake identities.  Situations like this are exactly what life was like for most workers before the government stepped in and stopped this kind of abuse.  Those of who you want the government to "get out of the way" want to replace one master for another.  It's not freedom to let an employer steal the majority of your time while getting rich off of your labor.

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I wonder how many of the managers exploiting illegal labour were amongst those bemoaning the negative impact that illegal labour might have on your country?

      1. profile image0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well Big Business generally doesn't want to deport "illegal immigrants," because they are cheap labor.  Bush pretty much said this outright, when he claimed they do the jobs Americans don't wanna do.  He just left out the fact they are not paid well and there are no protections for them when it comes to dealing with these big businesses.

    2. Silverspeeder profile image60
      Silverspeederposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It would be interesting to know where the franchise owners come from. This seems to happen a lot in the UK but is normally associated within immigrant cultures.

    3. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This has been going on for years throughout the country. Remember the Swift meat packing raid that turned up to 1300 illegal workers in 2006? They just went about their business and hardly lost a day of production as more raids turned up more illegal workers with fake ID's. The hiring of these people drives down our standard of living for those who still try to make an honest living. Walmart makes billions of dollars by using overseas sweatshops to produce the products we demand to be low cost and by the way in many cases substandard.

      To try and make the government crack down on these practices by big business there has to be a soul check by the American public. Are we satisfied in buying these products as long as we get what we want or are we so lacking in moral turpitude as to not even give it a passing thought?

    4. Credence2 profile image87
      Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Its like being caged with a hungry leopard and believing that it won't 'scratch' you. Under Capitalism, between the pressures of technology and going abroad to obtain labor, the American worker is doomed.

      The only thing keeping big business from running off with the store is government regulation as the needs of the big business and the needs of the employee(labor) have never been so far apart.

      The conservatives spend a lot of energy resisting Obama's attempt to retool and retrain the American workforce to remain productive enough to overcome the disadvantage of having so many from other countries willing to work for less. If we are to survive longterm, short term thinking will not do, invest now in our people to prepare them for the kinds of jobs that need to be filled in the future.

      Is it a revisit of slavery or perhaps feudalism?

    5. Josak profile image59
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Just another of the billions of examples we have ranging from the industrial revolutions abuses of workers to the complete destruction of so many species and areas in the modern era that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that business cannot self regulate.

    6. HowardBThiname profile image90
      HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Interestingly, this is a common occurrence in labor unions. They hire illegals and the BA's cash the illegal's checks for a large cut of their wages.

      Corruption exists everywhere, but let us not forget that these businesses and unions are taking advantage of CRIMINALS. No innocent folks getting conned here.

  2. innersmiff profile image72
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    Arguing for less regulation on business is not an argument for slavery - stealing wages is involuntary servitude and does not represent free-enterprise in any way.

    But a way to combat this is to open the borders and get rid of citizen-benefits. There will then be less people for anybody to exploit in this way.

    Again, a problem with 'capitalism' that would be solved if government wasn't involved tongue

    1. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think capitalism is a utopian pipe dream.  It hasn't worked out on paper the way the theoreticians had hoped.  Sound familiar?

      There is no mechanism to stop employee abuse.  Before the government regulated wages and hours, people were forced to work 100 hours a week and paid barely enough to even survive.  Children also would work, and many of them would even die.

      As a serious question, how do you handle abuses like that without government, or a small community, to step in and stop it?  The market doesn't provide an adequate mechanism because the market didn't prevent it in the past when there was no government regulation on wages and hours, so there is no reason to believe the market would do any better now, especially with globalism now integrated into our world.

      The idea was tested, and failed.

      1. Credence2 profile image87
        Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Good question, Sooner I am anxious to have an explanation provided on the question you pose. I still fail to see how anyone can believe that the invisible hand of the free market will  correct all?  That hand is slapping American labor across the face. We have the past as a example of how unregulated Capitalism can debase a society.

        Why is the right telling me that the free market is any less ruthless today than it was before FDR?. This appears to be what they want to return to, too much Government regulation they say, but I say that there is still not enough in most areas of concern.

        How do conservatives propose to solve the problems outside of handing Thurston Howell an even larger bag of our tax money, hoping that he will invest in the economy, instead of just lining his pockets?.

        Let's face it, the Horatio Alger stuff from conservatives simply does not wash in todays economic climate. It is just more 19th century thinking....

        1. profile image0
          Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I concur, but Miff is a smart guy, and I'm sure he'll provide an answer, unlike many conservatives (though Miff is a libertarian, so he's not quite the same position as many of the GOP).

      2. innersmiff profile image72
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Free will is the mechanism that prevents employee abuse. In this situation, it is the US government violently preventing equality.

        There needs to be competition for workers, and legislation that states that workers that reside in the US have to have a certain wage, have ID, etc. reduces the competition considerably. There is great incentive for businesses to try and hire illegals seeing as they cost less, and they are, on balance, more desperate for work and will accept lower wages. Particularly vindictive business owners will have no incentive against abusing them because the illegals have no choice but to accept it. If, on the other hand, immigrants were allowed to enter the country and associate with whom they wish, they would have a lot more choice. Businesses would then have to compete for the best labour rather than the most desperate.

        Back during the industrial revolution, it was a cooperation between the unions and the entrepreneurs that reduced the number of hours work a week, because it was mutually beneficial. It turned out that it was actually beneficial to production and therefore profit, long-term, if the workers weren't completely shattered after a few weeks work. It is also beneficial to the business not to have poor working conditions, otherwise they would just leave. The accumulation of capital allowed for investment, and therefore more jobs, so this can only get better the longer it goes on. The proof is in the pudding: for example, deaths in the work-place were on a downward curve long before any large-scale regulatory program was put in. Average wage for most industries followed a similar curve.

        How is this possible without regulation? What explanation can you give for this phenomena if you reject that it is in the market's interest to have it done?

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You're missing out on a major part of economic theory - the correlation between demand and supply.

          Flood the labor market with illegals, providing far more supply of labor than can be used, and the price of labor goes down.  Without the need to compete for labor (and that is necessary, just as you say), the wages being offered will not go up, but will inevitably go down.

          We already see this in many parts of the country; those areas allowing large numbers of illegal aliens to work and live also see a large drop in wages being paid for any of the jobs being given to the illegals.  It really is basic economics.

          1. innersmiff profile image72
            innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            This actually wouldn't be a problem if citizen workers weren't guaranteed a particular wage, job-seekers allowance and various other benefits. This, in effect, reduces the supply of workers and in turn increases the price. Without them, opening the borders would equalise the market, and then we can see the true wage level. The market would then take as much labour as it can handle, and the best.

            If wages go down, they go down, but they would at least represent every worker's worth to the economy. The only reason businesses are taking the risk of hiring illegals is that hiring citizens is too expensive. So perhaps wages do need to go down - or at least get rid of minimum wage so that low-productivity labour can come back into the market.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yes lets all be like third world countries where people die young, where people don't have a proper roof over their head nor decent food in their belly.

              I thought you were a libertarian, not a fascist.

              1. innersmiff profile image72
                innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Did you know, we actually believe in the same things, except you believe that these things should be achieved through aggressive violence and I do not?

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No, you believe that people should be paid what the employers think they are worth (what they can get away with)

                  1. innersmiff profile image72
                    innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    In a sense. I believe people should be paid the market price for their labour. Any aggression against that is simply another form of price fixing, and can have as disastrous affects on the market as any other kind of price fixing.

                2. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  BTW, where is the aggressive violence in "we are not going to take this any more"?

            2. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yes and no.  Inviting in another 10 million illegals absolutely will provide additional labor and absolutely will drive down the cost of labor.

              The problem becomes one of living on the wage being offered then.  A family can survive on $10 per hour, but with nowhere the living standard Americans have come to expect and demand.  No phone, no car, no home (or 3-4 families per single family dwelling).  All the while business owners make hay; hay that continues until the average wage is too low to purchase what the business is selling.  At that point the system collapses back into the same conditions the illegals fled.

        2. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          There might have been cooperation between unions and entrepreneurs in cloud cuckoo land but in the real world there was very little. Rather it was the strength of the unions (and government legislation) that forced the bosses to stop using women and children in coal mines, to stop children as young as six or seven from working 14 hour days in the mills and to regulate working hours and other conditions.

          This belief that left to its own devices business would behave impeccably is pure fantasy.

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            What's going on here, John?  First you agree with me, and now I with you - are we in the last days? smile

            Because business won't behave very well without oversight, any more than government will.  It is absolutely up to the people to provide oversight.  The downside, of course, is that people don't do much better; as unions (the people) grew in power they have caused great harm to both companies and the country.

            Somehow, greed almost always wins out, whether corporate, government or individuals.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Scary isn't it lol

          2. innersmiff profile image72
            innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I'm still waiting for your explanation as to how the market managed to increase worker safety without swathes of regulation.

            Your worldview is based on a misunderstanding of incentive.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The market didn't manage to increase worker safety without regulation!

              I understand incentive absolutely, as did a former employer who had a bull whip nailed to the wall with "Incentive scheme 1999" writ underneath it.

        3. profile image0
          Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "Back during the industrial revolution, it was a cooperation between the unions and the entrepreneurs that reduced the number of hours work a week, because it was mutually beneficial. It turned out that it was actually beneficial to production and therefore profit, long-term, if the workers weren't completely shattered after a few weeks work. It is also beneficial to the business not to have poor working conditions, otherwise they would just leave. The accumulation of capital allowed for investment, and therefore more jobs, so this can only get better the longer it goes on. The proof is in the pudding: for example, deaths in the work-place were on a downward curve long before any large-scale regulatory program was put in. Average wage for most industries followed a similar curve."

          I agree that if business were acting rationally, they would pay their workers as much as possible and give them the smallest number of hours (within a certain profit margin).  But it wasn't some sort of cooperative relationship at all when unions achieved better working conditions!  Striking union workers were often attacked, and sometimes even killed.  Business didn't simply say, "Well, it actually is better for us if we treat everyone better."  People had to fight tooth and nail for better working conditions, and that eventually culminated in the 40 hour work week with the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937. 

          I partially agree with your point and illegal immigrant abuse.  If they are living in the shadows, it is much easier to abuse them; however, history shows that when everyone was in the sunlight, and there were no regulations on business, workers were treated poorly.  You may be able to point to a business here or there that didn't try to push out as much labor for as low a cost as possible from their workers, but they weren't the majority.

  3. wilderness profile image94
    wildernessposted 4 years ago

    I never would have thought of a small mom and pop franchise with a handful of employees as "Big Business".  This is nothing more than a few small time thieves.

    The Big Business known as 7-11, on the other hand, is "cooperating eagerly" with law enforcement agencies.

    1. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You swallowed the hook! 7-11 will disassociate themselves from this in such a hurry your head will spin. These stores have regular visits from corporate either through secret shoppers or regional management. They know the books and have seen the workers. A blind eye is always easier to defend and that will be the typical tact taken here.

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        They already have.  7-11 does not control who is hired or what is paid.  7-11 provides goods to sell, advertising, possibly some start up costs, etc. but does not run the franchises on a daily basis. 

        That is the responsibility of the person that owns the store.  They own it and, within requirements of 7-11, can run it as they choose.  That they cannot hire illegal aliens to work, that they cannot pay less than minimum wage, that they cannot steal workers earnings does not even need to be in requirements of 7-11 as those things are already well covered in state law.

        And it is certainly not reasonable to require that the corporate selling the franchise keep daily watch on the minutiae of the people buying that franchise.  A general over-view, yes, but not such things as the salary being paid or whether a fake ID was used.  And it is certainly not incumbent on 7-11 to investigate the possibility that every store owner is stealing identities from all over the country.

        No, this is not caused by 7-11 itself, and 7-11 had no responsibility to control of such illegal activities.  Now that the activities are found, it is certainly in the companies best interests to play a part in correction, but they have no real responsibility to find such things.  That is the task of law enforcement.

        Don't forget that a 7-11 stored is owned by a non-corporate individual.  Should they wish they can tell 7-11 to take a leap and transform that store into a bakery.

        1. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "And it is certainly not reasonable to require that the corporate selling the franchise keep daily watch on the minutiae of the people buying that franchise."

          This is precisely the gist of the posting topic. Corporate takes no responsibility and are only concerned with profits and damn the regulations. As I stated 7-11 will disavow any actions by the franchisee and therefore hopefully keep the heat off themselves and not have the sheeple remember that anything wrong took place in a "few" of their stores.

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If you had a product to sell (big gulp, maybe) would you deem it necessary, or even desirable, to examine the books, employees and off duty actions of the owner of the store you sell to?

            You keep insisting that 7-11 corporation owns all 7-11 stores.  They don't.  And outside of making sure the store owners comply with rules set up by 7-11 corporate they have no obligation nor duty to watch over individual owners.  And they certainly have no obligation to pry into the private lives of those owners to see if they are identity thieves.  Perhaps before sale of the franchise, but certainly not after.

            1. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You seem to disconnect the relationship between the two organizations operating as a licenser and the  franchise. One relies on the other for their partnership to remain profitable. It behooves corporate to have their franchisees to operate within the legal limits of the law. P.R. aside the shutting down of the franchise due to the lack of following existing regulations be it hygiene or employment practices is detrimental to corporate as a whole as commerce in that licensers area would be interrupted.
              No one can claim that corporate is responsible for what the operator chooses to do. But when the law is broken and it gets smeared around in the press, corporate is implicated. Besides the franchise holders books are always open to corporate for auditing and license fees. It would be a simple thing to see where the money is going and to whom. If there is any question of the money owed corporate you can bet they would shut the franchise down in a New York minute. It is funny how other breeches are so easily overlooked. That is a true argument FOR government intervention as corporate is not interested in the legality of the franchise and how it breaks laws. That is the real gist of the original topic posting.

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You're right in the corporate gets smeared.  Unfairly, because as you point out yourself, corporate is not responsible for what a franchisee chooses to do.

                But because it gets smeared, no matter how unfairly, it is in corporates best interests to cooperate fully with law enforcement, which 7-11 is doing.  It is not necessarily in their best interests to carry out a full audit of all books and private lives of the store owners, though.

                Walk through the store, looking at what is being sold and probably pricing on much if not most of it.  Look at cleanliness.  Maybe rate employees and discuss with management if unsuitable.  But there's no need to do a full audit of the books - corporate already knows exactly what is being spent on products and that's all they care about. 

                Other breeches of legal requirements are the business of the owner and police - while corporate should take note of any found in a casual examination they are not required to dig deeply for anything and to do so will cost considerable - cost that must then be passed on to the store owner.

                1. rhamson profile image77
                  rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  All of the things you cite are mostly true. All except that big business corporations through capitalism do not self regulate their business' nor the industry themselves. That is what is being addressed in this topic posting. The government through regulations and enforcement are necessary to do this. If this travesty in New York was not reviewed by the police then who would?

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, of course not!  It is a rare business or individual that will always "regulate" their actions, limiting them to what is right or even legal.  In this case, we can see that very clearly in the owners of those tiny business stealing identities to further their criminal activities.

                    So, absolutely it is the police (or other government entity) that has to oversee operations.  What I've said right along.

    2. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It appears they looked the other way purposefully.  Franchisees can't do what they want; the corporation has a heavy hand in its affairs because of the fact the franchisee is using the corporate label.

      It strains credulity to claim the corporate headquarters of 7-11 were completely unaware of what was occurring here.

 
working