Should workers be rewarded for the profits they help to create?

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If the suggestion is that the price of a cheap turkey twizzler for a family comes above birds being used for games of baseball then I have to say I thouroughly disagree.

No one here is suggesting they are going to change the world through their one man buying power.

All I'm saying is I do not wish to pass my money to company which has several times been filmed and taken to court for various less than ethical practices.

I really fail to see why you are arguing over this?

have you checked the conditions in your alternative source?

Graham_Devon

Yes

mayonnaise wrote: »

Have you seen the documentries (sic) on Foxconn also? Taiwanese electronic components firm with their main manufacturing base in China. You might remember reports of them putting nets below factory windows to prevent employees from jumping.
Foxconn suplies;
Sony
Microsoft
Nintendo
Blackberry
Sharp
Acer
Cisco
Dell
JVC
Hewlett Packard
Panasonic
Motorola
Toshiba

...the list goes on...

I assume you use none of these brands, being so wonderfully ethical?
What's the manufacturer of the device you post your MSE ramblings on? Your TV? Your mobile?
Such naivety.

Yup, some things you cannot get away from. I have mentioned I won't buy Apple though. They are far more involved than a lot on your list.

As I say, I'm not pretending I'm going to change the world (so please don't use a silly line to make out I am), I'll simply avoid things where I can.

This has become utterly pathetic though and become a forum war via the usual people again, so I'll leave it at that.

I honestly don't know why you guys find it so surprising that some people have a few principles which they will stand by where they can.

bugslet

Graham_Devon wrote: »

How about giving a reason as to why you think workers shouldn't get a profit share?

We had a few years when we lost money. I doubt they'd want to take a pay cut in the bad years and to my mind if they want to partake of the good, you have to partake of the bad.

mayonnaise

No

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You haven't seen the documentries on Sports Direct? I have, it's enought to make me think "ok I won't shop there".

I'm with you on that one.
Haven't seen the documentry, but I just don't have the time to stand around for that elusive second shoe while the sole footwear section attendant is busy serving a swarm of local chavs on the hunt for another pair of Lonsdales.

Generali

Regarding supply chains, generally if you want to be sure of the supply chain being ethical you are better with Apple or Maccas where pressure groups are keeping watch on their every move.

You're far more likely to get food poisoning from Southern Fried Chicken or some such in London than Maccas or KFC; there is even a special EH rating for non-chain take aways in London.

When it comes to Foxconn, they employ well north of a million people. If you took a sample of a million people of working age and followed them for a few years you can bet a lot would commit suicide. That Foxconn actually did something about it is much to their credit, Apple's credit and the credit of the pressure groups watching them.

Far better to work for Foxconn than for one of the little back street smelters down the road.

Supply chain is an interesting area. Waitrose were selling dead pet horses that were unfit for human consumption whereas the much derided Iceland were not. The reason? Iceland bought meat from 2 or 3 farms whereas Waitrose was using the same highly complex mix of suppliers as the other big supermarkets and so simply didn't know where the meat was coming from. Iceland knew their supply chain.

ukcarper

Yes

CLAPTON wrote: »

your missing the point

Graham isn't concerned about the company doing well or badly or how best to incentivise the staff to increase profits
but 'fairness'

so people are addressing different issues

Is fairness such a bad thing?

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

...
When it comes to Foxconn, they employ well north of a million people. If you took a sample of a million people of working age and followed them for a few years you can bet a lot would commit suicide. That Foxconn actually did something about it is much to their credit, Apple's credit and the credit of the pressure groups watching them.
...

Foxconn has lost contracts in the past. The bad press they had received about working conditions didn't help; which is partly why they employed a team of monks to look after spiritual welfare etc.

kabayiri

I guess the conclusion is that workers are generally troublesome.

Will the impending robot apocalypse resolve matters?

...We may end up moaning about troublesome robots in years to come!

Graham_Devon

Yes

Apple are an interesting one. Their profit per device ranges from 45-61%.

They have changed some of their ways with regards to their workers in the far East. However, those changes can hardly be described as an Apple decision. They were pretty much forced to change some of their ways due to exposure.

(This is all IMHO) Apple could do a lot more. So could lots of other companies, but the profit margin on apple products is very much higher than many of the other companies on the list. IMHO again, Apple do the very least they can do to continue on without too much focus on the company. They could do a lot more quite easily and the cost to Apple would be negligible.

Sure, they are not forced to do anything more. Sure, other companies use them. But I feel personally that Apple were a big driver in how foxconn ended up where it was. Child labour for instance was a result of apple demands for a higher, almost instant turnover. The far east companies can't just flick a switch, so the results were child labour under the guise of student placements. I remember the stories of driving down the costs, which in turn drove down the welfare for those in the far east. Since then things have changed slightly for the better with regard to Apple, however, to say that Apple is safer to buy from as they are watched like hawks misses the reason as to why they are watched like hawks.

I guess Apple fits in to the overarching point of this thread quite uniquely. Their collosal reserves of cash allow them to do so much, but it appears (without knowing more) that they do the very least they can and will only do something when things look to be damaging the brand. Just 1% of their profits handed over would change the lives of people in these factories.

Theres a difference between companies who operate on such tight margins (Primark) and Apple who operate on such huge margins. Neither are "better" or removed from the responsibility, but Apple could make a huge worldwide stand and not damage the company at all. They have so much money it would take something quite monumental to see the company suffer as a result of implementing better working conditions.

While not Microsoft itself, at least Bill Gates is genuinely doing something....not only with his money but also his time.

I guess the key point is Apple responds. They also respond from a very low base, so get some praise which is somewhat undeserved, as Dell, HP etc are already a long way ahead. But responding is a long way from actively looking to make things better - and they arguably have the largest resources to do so.

antrobus

bugslet wrote: »

We had a few years when we lost money. I doubt they'd want to take a pay cut in the bad years and to my mind if they want to partake of the good, you have to partake of the bad.

That would be the real issue.

It's not as if your typical big company didn't offer some kind of profit sharing scheme. Most of them would be more than happy to increase the proportion of employee pay that varied in line with profits. However, one suspects that many employees would not favour such a development.