Debate: With great power comes great responsability

[Kaftan Barlast]

I thought id start this topic not to hijack the "EA fires 1500 people to increase profit" thread.

 

 

The title quote is the old saying that Ben parker tells Peter in spiderman. It's a rephrasing of an older arguments on the ethics of goverment. In the EA thread, I said that I think it should be illegal for a company to fire employees for economic reasons if the company is making profit. I believe that any entity with the kind of weight EA has, needs to take greater responsability than an individual because the consequences of their actions are so great. Our society is built on a cycle of labour and consumption; people work to get money in order to buy stuff and pay taxes, which creates a flow of capital that allows society to function. When people become unemployed, they cant consume and pay taxes, resulting in a decrease in the flow which is harmful for every single person from corporate CEO to wellfare-reciever. So when a company like EA fires people en masse for a slight increase in profits, they are doing alot of damage which cant be compensated just by the taxes on their profits or the 'trickle-down effect'.

 

Are we just supposed to sit and allow this to happen? Im all for individual liberty and the freedom to pursue profits thrugh bussiness, but when companies are casually destroying our society without taking any responsability for the consequences, we have to step in and put our feet down. Its not socialism, its just common sense and self-preservation. We dont allow them to destroy the enviroment for profit anymore, so why should we keep allowing them to do that to society?

Edited November 11, 2009 by Kaftan Barlast

[Rosbjerg]

Bad idea Kaftan, because companies will then be a lot more reluctant to hire new people, which will hurt the economy more. It's naive to think EA just takes away 1500 employees for the profit of it, it hurts production and morale when you do mass firing and that'll hurt your buisness more. It's really only something you do when you have no other option, even if you are making a profit.

[Walsingham]

1. If a company wants to fire people, and all it has to do is post a loss... then it will post a loss. Easy.

 

2. You're essentially preventing a company from letting go of a loss-making element of their business to concentrate elsewhere. Lets get all trendy and point out that if the copmany is Exxon it means it can't fire its oil workers, drillers, prospercters etc because they make a profit. So shucks they just can't reorient on green energy.

 

Legislation is a hammer, and your using it to do surgery?

[Wrath of Dagon]

If you're going to tell everyone how to run their business, just have the government take it over and be done with it.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Ok, Ill try to make a clearer example

 

 

scenario 1: company B buys a patch of land and uses it to dump toxic waste and motivates it by "its our land, we can do whatever we want with it".

 

scenario 2: company A fires 3000 people and makes the remaining employees work themselves to death to make up the slack and motivates it by "its our company and we just want to make a profit".

 

 

I dont think anyone would say 1 was alright, but most of you would be fine with 2. Why is that?

[Gorgon]

Look, employment, with the exception of the public sector in those cases where you can't fire anyone without misconduct, is a mercenary relationship. That goes both ways, the sense of company loyalty common two or three decades ago has long since evaporated. People aggressively negotiate wages on an individual basis regardless of what that does to the prospect of collective bargaining. In Denmark applications for 'safe' government jobs in the health industry has risen by, in some cases, several thousand percent since the start of the financial crisis.

[Walsingham]

Ok, Ill try to make a clearer example

 

 

scenario 1: company B buys a patch of land and uses it to dump toxic waste and motivates it by "its our land, we can do whatever we want with it".

 

scenario 2: company A fires 3000 people and makes the remaining employees work themselves to death to make up the slack and motivates it by "its our company and we just want to make a profit".

 

 

I dont think anyone would say 1 was alright, but most of you would be fine with 2. Why is that?

 

 

It's a question of degrees. It's also a question of consequences. Or do I mean the two together?

 

Part one involves causing direct harm by action, and there is a little anyone can do to avoid the consequences. Part two involves firing people - presumably with a severance package - who are free to go to do other work. moreover if the company does it in an aggressive and exploitative way then they damage the morale and productivity of the remaining employees.

 

Ultimately you can't expect government to act like a nanny and smack anyone who's a bit mean.

[Hurlshort]

I think big companies should cut 10% of their workforce every five years. It's called trimming the fat. It would probably prevent some of the economic woes we are in right now if GM had run a tighter ship.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Ok, Ill try to make a clearer example

 

 

scenario 1: company B buys a patch of land and uses it to dump toxic waste and motivates it by "its our land, we can do whatever we want with it".

 

scenario 2: company A fires 3000 people and makes the remaining employees work themselves to death to make up the slack and motivates it by "its our company and we just want to make a profit".

 

 

I dont think anyone would say 1 was alright, but most of you would be fine with 2. Why is that?

To take EA as an example, they're laying off people because they've cancelled 15 games. Would EA be forced under your system to continue making those games? Or would they just have to keep paying those people for doing nothing? Layoffs are a necessary evil in capitalism because it removes people from jobs where they're not needed and forces them to find jobs where they are needed. Failure is painful but necessary to maintain market discipline, that's the only reason capitalism works at all. Also you're grossly exagerrating with your "worked to death". Employees are not slaves, if conditions are bad in one company they're free to find another job, plus there are worker protections in the law, plus everyone knows mistreating your employees is not a way to be successful.

[Gorgon]

That all depends. Sweatshops are profitable because they mistreat the workforce, and they are a part of the whole that makes up Capitalism.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Sweatshops exist in third world countries because of poverty. They're still a hell of a lot better than being out on the street with nothing to eat. I don't think lay offs from sweatshops is what we're talking about here.

[Morgoth]

EA got rid of the 1500 staff because they don't fit anymore in their future policy. EA now is restructuring, focusing on less well established IP and milking it a'la Activision does. Not what I think is great as a consumer, but hey...

Those 1500 folks will easily find new jobs, there are tons of other game companies in the LA area and around.

[Guard Dog]

It's not usually accurate to assume that layoffs always happen because the company wants to boost profits. Wells Fargo got rid of all their stagecoach drivers a long time ago because no one was taking the stagecoach anymore. Some times the service a particular group of employees provide is simply no longer needed. Thats what happened at my last job. I was a Microwave Network Design Engineer at AT&T for many years. AT&T divested their microwave networks. After that there was just nowhere for me to go but out. I wasn't laid off to boost profits, my job simply did not exist anymore. It happens all the time, a company stops making product X, everyone who works on product X serves no purpose now. If they can be moved or retrained the usually are but sometimes there is nowhere to go but out the exit.

 

It sucks to be the one with no chair when the music stops but thats just how it is sometimes.

[Volourn]

Companies should be allowed to hire, and fire any employee they want. Just like any employee can work or quit any job they want. Companies don't owe employees 'loyalty' as employees don't owe them loyalty. It's up to the employee to prove their worth to the company just as its up to the compnay to prove that working for them is a good idea.

 

No mercy in business. That's my motto.

[Hiro Protagonist]

Sweatshops exist in third world countries because of poverty. They're still a hell of a lot better than being out on the street with nothing to eat. I don't think lay offs from sweatshops is what we're talking about here.

 

Personally, I think call centres are modern day sweatshops.

[alanschu]

I'd just like to state that Electronic Arts wasn't turning a profit.

 

Link

 

$391 million dollar loss.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yeah, and that's just in one quarter.

[Volourn]

"Personally, I think call centres are modern day sweatshops."

 

Oh, come on. You get paid at leats minimum wage, work 40ish hour weeks, get fair breaks, etc., etc.Working call centers can be boring, annoying, and stressful but sweatshops? Give me a break. Not all work is fun, you know.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Volourn

[Gorgon]

Having worked in one I concur with Humanoid.

[Hiro Protagonist]

"Personally, I think call centres are modern day sweatshops."

 

Oh, come on. You get paid at leats minimum wage, work 40ish hour weeks, get fair breaks, etc., etc.Working call centers can be boring, annoying, and stressful but sweatshops? Give me a break. Not all work is fun, you know.

 

I know you(ve) work in a call centre Volo. Being a bit defensive?

[Gorgon]

That would be Hiro

[Moose]

Although I don't agree with EAs strategy, when people take up employment they sign a contract. Surely it's down to them to negotiate terms stating 'You can't fire me if the company is making profit'.

 

But no company would agree to that, which is why we need a law to enforce it

 

Meh... is that what we really want? Why can't people simply boycott a company known to be a bad employer. Contray to popular belief, EA doesn't own a monopoly on the computer game industry. Last I read it was around a fifth.

[lord of flies]

You speak of corporations in defensive terms, justifying their vice and greed with itself. Yes, in order to make money they have to be a ****. That's not a justification, you merry bunch of capitalist apologists. Allow me to explain the flaws with modern capitalism.

 

A single corporation in a sea of corporations is going to have to apply its resources inefficiently, on things like industrial espionage and reverse-engineering. It will also focus on extremely short-term investments (at least, a modern corporation will). This leads to an economy which is incapable of properly propelling itself into the future. So what is necessary is a single supercorporation which owns everything and thinks in the long term. But this corporation would logically focus on its own advantages, which is why I propose that we make the corporation democratically accountable via a council democracy. Then, since it has already eclipsed the government, we hand over the military and police forces to the general populace, who form revolutionary militias and People's Guards.

 

There, I said it.

[Volourn]

"I know you(ve) work in a call centre Volo. Being a bit defensive?"

 

Whyw ould I need to defend it? I just speak the truth. Every call center I worked in the past paid higher than minimum rage, was 40 hours a week with the CHOICE to work up to 60 hours, regularly scheduled breaks, lenient sick/vacation days, etc. The work itself isn't the most fun or exciting (though I find the customers HILARIOUS but I find that no matter what). Some people cna't handle the work; but that's their problem not the call centers'.

 

Definitely no 'sweatshiop'. Have you ever worked in a REAL sweatshop? Or seen one in practice? I doubt it.

[alanschu]

Modern day sweatshops are.... sweatshops. That often have issues with child labour and extensive working hours.

 

I wouldn't call a call center a sweatshop.