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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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....
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
No, you believe that people should be paid what the employers think they are worth (what they can get away with)
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.
And if the market price for labour was set at zero?
That's the market rate. Of course nobody would work for it and a lot of people would starve to death.
It was a hypothetical question.
So as no one would work for Zero wouldn't business have to start the spiral of wages to entice workers?
OK, you tell me what the market rate for labour is if you don't agree that it is the least that employers think they can get away with?
The most the employee can get away with?
In general the two are one and the same...
And yet...employers pay and employees get paid. The identical amount no less.
When that happens, how can they be worlds apart?
Because generally the system does not work as a free market. Government intervention precludes that except in areas with no government set minimum wage and where wages are nowhere near what the employee might find acceptable.
No, generally (and that means more than half, not just a big number!) wage is set by mutual agreement between worker and employer. Minimum wage jobs are the minority, not the general case.
It is true that the tide swings one way, giving advantage to one side, but it always swings back, too. I've lived long enough, and so have you, to see it both ways; an employers market and an employees market where employees can ask nearly anything and get it.
An employees market only existed when there was more jobs than there where people to do them. That state of affairs is unlikely to return.
Certainly n the UK jobs where the minimum rate applies are the majority of jobs where there is too much competition for the jobs.
I expect it to return to the US. At least if we come to our senses and close the borders to illegals - every time the jobs open up so does the flood of illegal workers, depressing the price of those jobs.
Part of the reason I say that is that few jobs actually only pay minimum wage in the US. Even such traditional jobs as McDonalds are very often above that and as soon as you get above the non-skilled jobs the pay is slowly rising once more. I don't have numbers, but I would be very surprised if more than 10% of jobs pay only the minimum and a great deal of those are temporary. Farm work and such - very often filled by illegals because they don't pay enough for a citizen to live on and the country is increasingly limiting what even older children can do in the job market.
You must remember though that the minimum wage in the US is equal to less than £5 and although the cost of living in the US is cheaper, it's not that much cheaper for the basics. Very few people could live on the minimum US wage.
I doubt if full employment will ever return.
I disagree. A single person (and minimum wage jobs were never intended for a family) can live reasonably on minimum wage...IF housing costs are kept low. A rented room in someone's home, perhaps, or an apartment or house with several roommates. There won't be much, if anything, in the way of luxuries - a junker car, no smart phone, no big screen TV with satellite reception, etc. but it can be done.
And I don't have a problem with this. It's an entry level wage, sufficient to survive on plus a small amount more - what an entry level worker should expect. If they want more, gain some skills, pick up more work, whatever it takes.
The problem is when a family earner is forced into that position, and the recession has caused that in far, far too many cases. Those people are in real trouble and need real help - help that is all too often going to illegals, going to buying cell phones for people too lazy to work, going to food stamps and rent assistance for people that don't truly need them.
So there is nothing wrong with a minimum wage job, but there is an awful lot wrong with the US welfare system. Which, I know, is another topic entirely.
Lots of UK families where the main breadwinner is on minimum wage.
And as for people too "lazy" to work, well think of the problems if they wanted to work? Wages would be even lower.
But as you say, welfare is another topic entirely - and one of the worst elements of capitalism.
Welfare is purely a socialist idea John and you know it.
In this country our social security and NHS is run an a socialist basis.
But as you say welfare is another issue all together, just like immigration and its affect on wages and benefits.
No, no, no, unemployment benefit especially and welfare generally is not a socialist idea - with true socialism none would be needed. With socialism everybody works unless they are unable to.
Do a little research into the foundations of unemployment benefits in this country and then explain to me why, if it was socialist idea, the socialist fought tooth and nail against it, only very grudgingly agreeing to support it at the eleventh hour.
It was brought in by Lloyd George, probably the most socialist prime minister the country has ever had despite being a Liberal MP..
I would love to know how socialism would give us full employment?
A liberal, the most socialist!
Simply put, socialism would provide full employment by sharing out the work - not having one man work an 80 hour week and another do nothing.
Assuming that business is not so stupid as to drive their costs up by hiring more people, that it is cheaper to work people overtime than it is to hire additional people, who pays the extra cost? Society as a whole via higher product prices?
What happens when the cost is driven higher than people are willing to pay? Just shut down that business and create more unemployment? Or pretend it won't happen 'cause we don't want it to? Hope that government will subsidize as necessary from the tax base?
Stop thinking like a capitalist!
Only a capitalist business would drive their costs up by hiring more people and we are talking socialism, not capitalism.
As usual, I failed in producing a clear post.
There are times, fairly frequent, where it is cheaper to pay overtime wages than to hire additional people. If socialism demands the extra people anyway, in order to "spread the wealth" of having a job, the product cost goes up. Who pays that cost?
Stop thinking like a capitalist.
The product cost only goes up to maintain profits, take profit out of the equation and there is no "extra cost" to pay.
Not so. Whether there is X profit built into the price or not, increasing costs by hiring additional unneeded people won't change that. If it is built in, it is still built in. If it is not, the price must still go up to cover costs. Unless govt. is going to subsidize it somehow.
Socialist, capitalist, communist - it doesn't matter what the basic system, when costs go up price goes up as well whether paid by the consumer, government or other entity.
Stop thinking like a capitalist.
Prices are a product of a capitalist system.
And anyway, who was talking about hiring unneeded people any way? It's purely capitalism that labels people as unneeded.
No, prices are not a function of a capitalist system. Prices, whether charged or subsidized, are a function of the cost of production. You can try to hide real prices by having tax receipts cover the cost, but actual price is still there and is a direct result of costs.
If 5 people can make a car but 10 are used, with no increase in productivity, then 5 are unneeded to produce the car. You can't change the results of physics, John, only the politics of economics. While it could be advantageous to pay the extra 5 people to produce nothing (doubtful, but possible in a political world) that has nothing to do with need from a production standpoint.
The cost of production is capitalist!
If five people can make a car in 100 hours then so can ten people make a car in one hundred hours, it just means that the five will have to work for 20 hours whilst the ten will only have to work for ten hours!
Absolutely true. And the car can be exchanged for the fruits of 100 hours of labor in producing food. Food sufficient for 5 to eat on - what do the other 5 eat?
Which is better for society as a whole - low productivity rates or high? Which one produces a higher standard of living? Is society better off when everyone works half time, or will everyone have more when the vast majority works full time?
Stop thinking like a capitalist.
Who says that the labour input into the car can only be exchanged for a similar input of labour in producing food?
With capitalism the vast majority will never work full time again!
With socialism all those who are capable of work will work, no people laid off to keep wages low or to keep inflation down - both products of the capitalist system.
But what is full time? Is it every waking hour, or long enough to cover needs and a few wants?
But I like thinking like a capitalist - it's the best system for producing the most goods for the most people.
If you don't want to exchange your car for food, pick something else. 5 cell phones, maybe. It doesn't matter in the least - the point I'm making is quite clear. When 10 people are utilized to produce goods that 5 can do, society suffers. Including all 10 people doing the production.
Ignoring those few that can't work or that are intentionally between jobs, capitalism does a better job of producing at higher rates than any other system in the world. It's human nature - be compensated for your labor or don't work as hard. It also produces more per person, too, rather negating the idea that we should hire more people that aren't needed to do the job.
Full time - I took your numbers as I'm happy with them. 40 hours per week. Some time off for holidays, vacations, etc. I understand that the number is lower in socialistic countries, and that's fine for societies that don't want as much. I prefer to work more and have more - in general that means the longer weeks.
How does it benefit society to have five people overworking and five people not working and getting up to no good when you could share the work out more fairly?
And how much of this excess produced by capitalism just goes straight to waste? We hear about grain mountains in almost the same breath that we hear about starvation. And do families really need more cars than they have people to drive them?
Capitalism no longer offers full employment and hasn't done for many years now and that is allowing for those unable to work or between jobs.
And it's fine for you who wants to work more to have more, what about those who don't have that choice, work all the time they can and still have insufficient?
Because the extra, unneeded 5 workers never get into the car factory and therefore go make cell phones. Now you have both cell phones AND cars; as many as if all 10 people were doing only one job.
Some indeed goes to waste. Every time govt. sticks its stupid nose into the equation and tries to regulate free enterprise. For the grain; it would only happen one year without govt. subsidies; the second year the granary that stockpiled it would be out of business and so would the farmer growing the grain. No more surplus.
No country in the world offers 100% employment except maybe pure communism. Personally, I expect some unemployment and am OK with it; it's how the free market corrects "mistakes" like overproduction or poor business practices such as hiring too many people in the first place.
Capitalism isn't about the individual; it's about the society as a whole. Which is why society has more per capita than socialism; it is a more efficient system on the whole. Individuals suffer (which is why we have welfare) but the standard of living is higher on the whole.
Why not use that surplus grain for feeding the hungry rather than stockpiling it to inflate the price for the shareholders benefit?
Can't see that it increases the income of shareholders at all; either way the govt. buys it. Whether they let it sit and rot or give it away to someone that can't buy any at any price doesn't matter to a shareholder. You'll have to ask the politicians that caused the problem in the first place for an answer to that one.
There is probably some small justification in using it to stabilize the price so the farmer isn't rich one year and broke the next, but in reality I strongly suspect that is not truly behind the practice. It makes a good excuse for the gullible, but that's about it.
Of course artificially restricting the supply of grain benefits the shareholders (or commodity brokers) why else do they do it? And government involvement is just more private profit and public loss.
And giving it away to somebody who can't buy it at any price is another example of capitalism.
Do you think the capitalist politicians would give me straight answer?
Only because of capitalism would you have the situation where a farmer was rich one year and broke the next.
Politicians produce surplus, you just have to look at the EU CAP to see that .
As for car production take a look at the old communist countries, the Trabant was a huge success wasn't it.
Socialism is more about control than capitalism ever was.
No, farmers produce surpluses, commodity brokers produce mountains. Politician just play around the edges looking after their own.
The communist countries weren't socialist, they were capitalist, only instead of private profits they engendered profit for the state.
Capitalism is all about control by the few, socialism is about control by everybody.
Please explain how socialism is controlled by everybody?
Surely the whole world would have to be socialist?
Quite simply, you don't have an elite telling the rest how to behave. With your anti EU stance I thought that would rather appeal to you.
It would be better if the whole world were socialist but by no means necessary.
Very naive of you John to think there wouldn't be a socialist elite.
If there was an elite then it wouldn't be a socialist system.
So nobody would be in charge then. Chaos ensues...............
So hang on, it sounds to me like you've started to support the EU! After all they are big central and distant from the people, and you reckon small and local would result in chaos!
The EU is full of bureaucrats fed on socialist principles. (sounds like we are back where we started John)
I am all in favour of democratically elected representative but that's not what we have is it.
Don't fall into the trap beloved of our US friends of labelling everything they disagree with as socialist.
i didn't but i will call a socialist a socialist even if they call themselves something else.
I didn't disagree with joining the EEC but the EU isn't that any more is it?
Have you ever considered that the reason they don't call themselves socialists is because they aren't socialists?
The party of European socialists hold 217 seats with other leftist parties holding another 31 seats.
Even barroso was a communist until it wasn't lucrative enough for him.
In the UK its the minimum wage of £6.19.
I doubt however that an educated professional would work for this amount so business has to set the rates, sometimes in competition with other businesses pushing up the minimum rates for different types of employment.
No, that is a minimum rate set by government. What would be the market rate?
Yes John that is the only rate set by the government and in the UK workers decide if they will work for that rate or not, big business here does not set the minimum rate.
How can we define what it would be if the government didn't set the rate. The rate i suppose would be what people are prepared to work for.
And has been proved time and time again that the horribly work shy wasters will actually work for a wage that does not allow them to keep body and soul together.
A bit of back ground reading for you as you seem a little out of touch with worker/employer relationships.
So as i said John the workers were not prepared to work for the wages offered and withdrew their labour. And as far as i can ascertain its still immigrant workers that are taking the brunt of unscrupulous employers, mainly of course from the immigrant community.
However in most cases when the employees withdraw their labour the employer has a decision to make, this sometimes results in a rise in wages and in some cases results in employers moving to areas (worldwide) where labour costs are cheaper thus resulting in the loss of employment.
Its a delicate balancing act.
And yet you still believe that it is a level playing field between employer and employee!
In this country as it stands i do john, if you are talking world wide then no i do not.
However if you could come up with something that was acceptable to employer and employee then not only myself but the whole world would love to hear about it.
BTW, where is the aggressive violence in "we are not going to take this any more"?
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.
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.
What's going on here, John? First you agree with me, and now I with you - are we in the last days?
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
So you're saying that the only thing that has ever stopped you from doing anything wrong was the threat of violence?
"Well, of course not! It is a rare business or individual that will always "regulate" their actions"
See that italicized always in the quote from my post? No one I've ever met has always made the right decision, always acted in a moral manner. Everyone, including you and I, have made bad choices at times.
The problem is that without threat of violence, those bad choices have a very strong tendency to grow out of control. Not everyone, again, but with enough people that civilization falls apart. People are not robots we can program young to do the right thing; they have wants and desires that they will fill given a chance.
So society controls, with threat of violence, the actions of it's people. The alternative, given that people are what they are, is that long discredited "might makes right".
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.
by GA Anderson 3 weeks ago
There is a discussion about penalizing businesses that hire illegal immigrants on a thread not related to that topic - so I thought it might deserve discussion.I will grab one of Wilderness' comments to start:There is currently an employee verification process. It is called E-verify. Employers...
by Frank P. Crane 5 years ago
Given ubiquitous & inevitable greed and deception, would you prefer big government or big business?What do you find most threatening? Big corporations operating on greed and deception? Or big government doing the same?
by junko 7 years ago
To cause the President to fail? Is that why Big Business is not hiring and sitting on all that money? Why is Health insurance covering less and costing more? What's more important to the Nation and American people Jobs or who's president?
by Gary Anderson 5 years ago
Hey Even, Mises said big business was not evil. To be fair, he did not live to see the TBTF banks, but I am waiting for his libertarian followers duped by this stuff to say the TBTF banks ARE evil. Say it Evan!Here is my post to your off the wall review of my ebook on Amazon. It will show that your...
by Credence2 2 weeks ago
I think that conservatives would have no problem withTime Magazine as not being "fake news". But I am seeing this article in other outlets as well. It goes to show why I am not particularely fond of conservatives nor their mode of thinking.What gives America the right to invade Venuszuela...
by retief2000 3 years ago
Obama's wars for oil, is this just the latest?Libya, Yemen and now Iraq/Syria - is this just the latest war for oil that Obama is waging? Libyan oil supplies Italy and France, the war there was to protect that flow. Obama destroyed Qaddafi just to replace him with something worse. Is Syria next and...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|