Amazing! 3M CEO ADMITS that it's "Company before country"!

[Career Prole]

I couldn't believe my eyes.

I found this gem buried in an article about this month's consumer confidence report setting a new record for gloom. The emphasis is mine because damn...this cried out for emphasis.

<snip>

In 3M Co.'s quarterly update this month, Chairman and CEO George Buckley talked about how the company had closed 16 plants over the last year and a half, has been drawing down inventory and cutting capital spending.

"Is this healthy?" he said on the call. "All of us acknowledge we're collectively making the situation worse, but I think the first responsibility we have as leaders of companies is to make sure that we ensure the health and survival of our own companies first, not necessarily other people's companies, or, for that matter, the whole U.S. economy."

<snip>

I know I shouldn't be surprised, but my jaw dropped. He just literally admitted that if the choice is between the U.S. economy staying afloat or 3M staying afloat, he will put his hand on the head of the U.S. economy and push it under.

Someone tell me again why corporations should have "personhood" when it comes to influencing our elections.

[wildbilln864]

1. k&r and thank you. nt

[Taverner]

2. He's telling us something

The same thing every CEO has told us in similar situations

THAT THE LAWS ARE STACKED UP AGAINST ANY KIND OF ETHICAL DECISION

Look, his hands really are tied.

He can only serve the stockholders.

If he does something ethical, and it doesn't serve the stockholders - he can be legally fired.

This must change.

[sandnsea]

6. Saving the US economy

would reasonably be considered to be in the best interest of any US based corporation, in the long run. They are arguing this because they still can't believe the entire economy could really crash. When any of them face that reality squarely, they'll change their tune in a hurry.

[Taverner]

10. Oh corporations don't care

They serve to maximize profit, irregardless of origin.

That was one of the biggest mistakes in giving corporate personhood.

[sandnsea]

22. They will care

when there's no economy from which to make any profits.

[Taverner]

28. Yes - yes they will

[profitfighter1]

91. No they will not care

All of their employees will be long fired and the CEO/Board of Dir will have their $ in offshore bank accounts and tax havens laughing at the rest of us. Its like the game of Monopoly, but its real life. If you ever played it you know at the end how it turns out. One person owns everything and the rest are mortgaged and bankrupt. You know, Any Rand said the opposite of Profit is Loss. She exactly right. When one person profit, the other person loses. And that is what our economy is based on.

[The Doctor.]

88. AAACK!

Sorry... it's just that I cringe every time a very smart person uses 'irregardless' as a correct word.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

[ImOnlySleeping]

97. It's a word

It's a crappy word, but him, you and I all know what it means. A word is just a series of letters that has an associated meaning. Irregardless of your opinion to its validity.

[The Doctor.]

103. LOL...

"Irregardless" would mean the opposite of its intended meaning if it were a proper word.

Effectively, 'irregardless' would mean 'without disregard', and it's a word that no one with Taverner's intellect (which I have come to regard) should use.

Round these parts, the bright folks, and even I, appreciate getting little pointers now and then.

That way he, you, and I will come away all the richer. ;)

[Puzzler]

105. Here we go again...

...

[The Doctor.]

112. Are 'we' Canadian?

[Career Prole]

16. Sounds closer to treason than ethics.

Hell, b*sh's first response to 9/11 was an appeal to consumers to keep the economy propped up. That was his biggest concern...not those who died.
Maybe now he'll go to war against 3M.

[ClassWarrior]

18. All it takes is 26 words...

How Corporate Law Inhibits Social Responsibility
by Robert Hinkley (originally published at www.commondreams.org)

<snip>

In Maine, where I live, this duty of directors is in Section 716 of the business corporation act, which reads:

...the directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interests of the corporation and of the shareholders...

Although the wording of this provision differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, its legal effect does not. This provision is the motive behind all corporate actions everywhere in the world. Distilled to its essence, it says that the people who run corporations have a legal duty to shareholders, and that duty is to make money. Failing this duty can leave directors and officers open to being sued by shareholders.

<snip>

The specific change I suggest is simple: add 26 words to corporate law and thus create what I call the "Code for Corporate Citizenship." In Maine, this would mean amending section 716 to add the following clause. Directors and officers would still have a duty to make money for shareholders,

...but not at the expense of the environment, human rights, the public safety, the communities in which the corporation operates or the dignity of its employees.

This simple amendment would effect a dramatic change in the underlying mechanism that drives corporate malfeasance.

<snip>

-----

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0119-04.htm

NGU.

[ProfessorGAC]

74. I Like That

The extra 26 words are a good addition. Glad you found that article.
GAC

[northernlights]

101. not only fired...

I believe failure to fulfill fiduciary responsibility to shareholders leaves CEOs open to lawsuits and personal financial ruin.

The laws do need to be changed.

[sandnsea]

3. Americans have no right to jobs

How many years ago did Carly Fiorina say that? And she was legitimately considered a VP candidate for McCain, with no backlash.

This is what globalization means. The New World Order is a Corporate Order - Corporatism.

Why do so many people not understand this.

[Coyote_Bandit]

5. Globalization

taken to its logical conclusion means that there will be a single worldwide standard of living. In order to reach that end, rich countries will become poorer and poorer countries will prosper. Looking for economic opportunity? Go to a third world country.

[Taverner]

13. There is nothing wrong with Globalization as a concept

Its when we allow for slave labor, without reservation, that we run into problems.

[sandnsea]

20. Globalization as Mama Obama saw it

with small loans to local people and growing from the bottom up, yes. Global Corporatism, which by its very nature will exploit labor to the point of slavery, no.

[sandnsea]

17. Right, the last 8 years

has shown that this is clearly what global corporatism will accomplish. :crazy:

[Taverner]

27. No - the last 8 years is globalism botched

What if our brand of globalism had all of the promises of the American Dream?

[Selatius]

32. Then that's false advertising. The planet couldn't sustain that style of living.

The eco-systems of the planet would collapse under that kind of consumption.

[sandnsea]

42. Corporate profits depend on exploitable labor

And this thread proves that there will always be enough people to buy into the "investor class" economic theory that we will never get a brand of globalism that will benefit the people.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

54. Oh yeah.

They want everyone who isn't in the top .5% to have a single standard of living alright. Abject poverty. Those so-called "prospering" Third World countries are seeing that prosperity go mostly to a few wealthy families.

[Taverner]

12. Only by the "Please don't make it worse" group

Of course, they were thrown under the GOP bus

[Deja Q]

36. At least she was fired for wrecking her company (HP), and Compaq

I had not heard she was considered a VP for McCain. Source?

[Coyote_Bandit]

4. Just confirms

that we have lost our sense of national community. Everything is all about taking care of our own little agenda and prevailing on the matters that are important to us. To hell with how that affects anyone else. This is an attitude that is not limited to corporations and the people that claim to manage them.


And, yes, I am speaking of the generic universal "us."

[Deja Q]

35. Don't worry.

Countries that love these folks right now will either be betrayed... or are working on preemptively betraying these companies.

Sorry for the poor choice of words.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

7. The only way we will ever have a democracy is by reigning in

our corporate masters.

The only way that will happen is with a violent social upheaval. We will never elect our way out from under their thumbs because they control the votes and the folks who count them and the propaganda that informs the voter.

[RB TexLa]

8. I put many things above countries and I'd put a company above them if I were running one.

[FiveGoodMen]

9. Bush's grampa did that.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

51. He sure did.

And his son and grandson followed suit in their own ways.

[Coyote_Bandit]

21. Me too.....

I consider myself a global commodity - labor. And it seems that the desk which occupies a corner of a spare bedroom represents job creation. So in a manner of speaking I am running a company - Me, Incorporated. I would not hesitate to take myself, my family and everything I own and relocate to another country. There are better opportunities elsewhere. I feel no obligation to sacrifice the present and future well being of myself and my family for a nation that simply doesn't give a f*ck about me.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

52. Unfortunately, you don't have that option.

Corporations and capital can cross borders freely; labor can't. That's the way the Powers That Be set it up.

[Coyote_Bandit]

65. Ummmm......

Many countries are very welcoming to folks who desire to start businesses. With the resources and skills to operate a small business, self employed labor can cross borders.

Absent that alternative, there is absolutely no reason not to use a corporation to achieve personal ends. A corporate job can provide the opportunity to enter a foreign country legally and earn a livlihood while one figures out how to ditch the corporation and make a life there legally without being dependent upon that corporate income.

And, of course, there is always the option of crossing a border and entering another country illegally for purposes of earning a livlihood.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

66. Okay, good luck with that.

Why don't you ask the hapless souls who enter into Maricopa County Arizona illegally, only to be caught up in one of "Sheriff Joe's" dragnets? While you're at it, see how easy it is to legally emigrate to, say, New Zealand or France.

[Coyote_Bandit]

68. Well

I used to work in the international office of a large multinational. Several of my former co-workers have since moved abroad to start businesses. One became a franchisee in Canada. Another became a franchisee in Mexico - before starting a business serving US tourists. One went to work in the financial industry in London and eventually opened his own small little flooring supply business. One went south of the border to live her dream and work as an artist. Not everybody can do it. You have to have the skills and the resources and otherwise meet the requirements for immigration (education, background, language skills, etc).

In many nations the law is selectively enforced - sometimes by choice or practice and sometimes with a bit of persuasion. The price of justice is higher in affluent countries like the US. But I suspect even Sheriff Joe has his price.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

69. And if you don't have the "skills and resources"

You can basically fuck off and die. That's what "globalism" is all about, my friend. You're obviously okay with it. I'm not.

[Coyote_Bandit]

71. If you followed

all of my posts in this thread you would know that I am NOT ok with globalism. Its ultimate end is a single worldwide standard of living - which means that more prosperous nations will become poorer and poorer countries will become more prosperous.

The US is one of the world's more prosperous countries. We should be taking actions to protect our citizens and their ability to earn a livlihood, maintain their standard of living, and have access to things like healthcare and a safe environment and food supply. We are not doing that.

These are decisions that are made by the corporate bastards that manipulate and control our public perceptions and desires and fund our elected representatives and spend millions of dollars to influence their policy decisions. Regardless of who is elected we are not likely to make substantial strides in changing that during my lifetime.

Yeah, you've got to have skills and resources to be able to expatriate yourself as ***self-employed*** labor. Hell, you have to have resourcs and skills to be successfully self-employed here.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

94. I'm in a similar situation

I'd relocate if I could (family responsibilities). But where I'd draw the line is destroying or harming a community by moving hundreds of jobs offshore. That's what today's CEOs are doing.

The country is an abstraction. The people who live here are real. They can be devastated by the kinds of job losses we've seen periodically since the Reagan administration.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

50. Gee, I'm so surprised to see you saying that.

:sarcasm:

So, do you agree with the OP that U.S. corporations should lose their "personhood" status under the Constitution, given that you think they don't owe this country anything?

[RB TexLa]

53. Good God no I don't agree with that.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

55. Why not?

Why should corporations enjoy the protections of U.S. citizenship without the attendent obligations?

[RB TexLa]

56. They do not posses citizenship, you do not receive a passport or voter card with a corporate charter

:banghead:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

57. Neither does my dog.

I guess corporations shouldn't be considered "persons" either then, huh?

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

59. Really, what part of "personhood" should apply to corporations and what part shouldn't?

Taxes?

The draft?

The death penalty?

The inability to freely move across borders?

The inability to kill, maim, and poison people, in the U.S. or other countries?

What?

:shrug:

Attack me all you want but you have still not provided a reasonable explanation.

[OwnedByFerrets]

109. They are, however, treated as a person.

[HughBeaumont]

72. Wow . . . I'm . . . SO shocked . . .

:eyes:

Yep, I don't know why he's still here either.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

83. I've concluded that he either runs an outsourcing firm

Or he's one of those immigration attorneys who teaches companies how to disqualify American workers. It's got to be something like that. No one embraces destroying good paying American jobs to the extent he does unless they benefit from it in some way.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

92. Why am I not surprised to see you writing that?

:eyes:

Personally, I would put the interests of my employees (flesh and blood people) above the interests of the country, but todays' corporations concentrate on high dividends for their shareholders, consequences to the larger society be damned.

That is pure evil motivated by an overwhelming greed. We have gone from the ideal of people making a comfortable living by providing jobs and useful products and services of the highest possible quality at a fair price to a notion that the shareholders' profits are all that matters, and if that means selling shoddy products and lousy services and treating your employees like disposable diapers (shit on them and throw them away), fine, you'll be rewarded with a bonus.

[NashVegas]

11. The Race to the Bottom

I was heavily into online gaming, on a web-based MMO (massive-multi-player).

Among the top players, and narrowed down to the "whatever it takes" crowd who stratified the game and made it pretty much impossible for good, honest players to get anywhere near the top, there was a story a few leaders were fond of sharing:

Two men were in the African bush when a huge lion surprised and came after them. As they were running, one of the men said "there's no way we can outrun this lion, we'd do better to put our strength and minds together and take him on." The second man said, "I don't have to outrun the lion, I just have to outrun you."

And there you have, in a nutshell, modern business philosophy.

[tbyg52]

14. As corporations are set up now, that is a perfectly true remark

His primary responsibility is to maximize profits, period.

In other words, there's something wrong with the way corporations are set up now.

[malaise]

15. We have a choice too

Boycott 3M

[eowyn_of_rohan]

24. No more Scotch Tape for me!

;) Actually - what can we expect the guy to say? He was hired by 3M to manage the company and he's just doing his job. It's not very pleasant to hear though.

[Initech]

19. Now with every decision you make, you got to ask yourself "Is this good for the company?"

[gravity]

23. Do you expect companies to drive themselves out of business?

for the sake of the country. This isn't anything controversial.

He is talking about all the companies around the country who are cutting their own investment and laying off its workers to survive the recession. The problem is that this harms the economy even more because there is less investment and jobs, which causes a downward spiral.

The problem is with the system itself, not with the individual CEO morals. Everyone is just protecting their own asses, which has the side effect of making things worst.

That is why the Obama stimulus package is very important as it gives CEO's a reason to invest in capital and jobs again.

[sandnsea]

25. If a corporation can afford to keep employees

they should, even if traditional business practices would indicate cutting jobs. Not to save the US economy, but to save the corporate economy because it takes jobs to keep that economy going. The irresponsible thing to do is to cut jobs, for both the long term health of their individual companies and the US economy.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

95. To save THE SOCIETY

It's been documented worldwide that crime goes up when jobs disappear.

[Deja Q]

37. Thank you.

I was starting to get depressed.

We need more people like you on DU; those who WILL pose various viewpoints other than what's considered the most populist. And populism does not equate with authority. Maybe mob mentality, but not authority.

Let's hope Obama's stimulus plan does what is intended. To an extent, I think it will. The info I'd read on change.gov is reasonably detailed and sounds solid.

[Career Prole]

40. If the economy of the US failed the US as we know it

would cease to exist. Gone. This Buckley has said he puts the survival of his company above the survival of the US economy, which by logical extension means the survival of the US as a nation.
The problem is with the CEO's morals, and it is controversial.

[gravity]

41. You are making faulty assumptions

because the survival of the economy and this nation is vital to the survival of his company.

There is no need to read too much into this.

[Career Prole]

48. Actually, no.

We could suppose that 3M, being disinterested in the survival of the US economy, could move out of the country and theoretically survive. The world would go on without us.
These guys would probably be pissed about us skipping out on the bill as well as for the mess we left behind, but they'd find other tenants.

That said, I do believe that ass Buckley misspoke. I also believe he should at the very least face ridicule for his statement rather than defense for it.

[gravity]

85. They sell their products in the US

They can theoretically survive, but they will have lost their biggest customer which isn't in the interest of the company. There is no way they can profit more from the US going under.

You are reading too far into this when it is really just simple economics.

In normal times, companies invest and hire more workers which benefit the economy with the company. However, In bad times, they don't invest and have to lay off workers in cases where they can't afford. These types of actions while better for the company, make the situation for the economy worst. The company still doesn't make as much profit as they did during good times, they are just limiting their losses from the good times.

Every other company does the same thing, which causes them to buy less 3M products which puts the pressure on 3M to cut production. When 3M cuts production, it causes other companies to not sell as many products either. It creates a negative feedback loop which sends the country in a deeper recession.

It has nothing to do with the morals of the CEO's, but with a flaw in our current system and is why government spending is necessary to jump start the economy to get things back on track.

[ImOnlySleeping]

102. I primarily agree

but "It has nothing to do with the morals of the CEO" isn't really fair as he is a ruthless enough person to want to be a CEO in the first place. The statement is a legal responsibility that he has, but he but himself in that position.

[Deja Q]

82. Thank you.

We need more like you around here, to add in other perspectives, and as a reminder not to read into things too much.

And you're right, it is a symbiosis.

[anigbrowl]

47. The survival of his company is the only thing he can directly influence

Look at it from a different perspective. Should Obama put the survival of the US economy above that of the world economy? If so, does that make him a traitor to humanity?

[Career Prole]

49. What I hope for from Obama is fairness for all workers.

Everywhere in the world. That's why I voted for him.
I'm the working class. In my eyes that defines me nowadays more than my citizenship or the color of my skin.

[Sanctified]

26. I don't blame him, he has people he employs that he is responsible for.

His first commitment should be to them then the country. I mean if the company goes under then the whole country will suffer more with the complete loss of 3M and with all those employees who would then be collecting unemployment it would be more devastating to our economy.

[Career Prole]

60. LOL!

He doesn't give a damn about employees! Stockholders and his paycheck are all that matters to him.
If he could figure out a way to get his Post-It notes and Scotch tape out without any employees every last one of them would be gone tomorrow.

[Statistical]

29. Fiduciary Duty (Cornerstone of American Corporate Law)

The only thing interesting is the boldness and lack of tact the CEO of 3M showed.

ALL CEO have a Fiduciary Duty to shareholders and NOBODY else. The law prohibits them from acting outside the best interest of shareholders.

It has been a while since I took business law but maybe a law student could give us some of the relevant cases. It is a crime (fraud) for a CEO to work outside the best interest of the shareholders. Not only that the CEO (or other corp officer) can be personally sued by shareholders for doing so.

Now often times CEO make horribly stupid decisions (Jerry Yang, Yahoo CEO) but they can at least claim their stupid decision was what they BELIEVED was the best action for shareholders.

If the 3M CEO had said "we know it is not the best for the company but we are keeping these plants open for the sake of the country" anybody have a clue of what would have happened?

He would have lost his job, been sued. If he had actually done things he knew were outside the best interest of the shareholders he could be criminally tried for fraud. Even barring possible criminal charges, if the company lost value as a result of his actions, shareholders would sue him for violating his fiduciary duty. Likely he would lose his life savings except anything he could save in bankruptcy court. He would need bankruptcy protection because the lawsuit would be provable decrease in shareholder equity. For a company like 3M he could be personally liable for billions.

Officers of a corporation work for the shareholders. Period.

I don't care how "American" you think a company is. They have one responsibility: to maximize the wealth of shareholders. Period. By law EVERYTHING else is second. This isn't a new thing. It is how corporations have existed since Day 1.

If you don't think it is right well work to change the law but don't blame the guy for following it.
Seeing as the precedents go back two three hundred years before the founding of this country I think we are "stuck" with the rule book we have.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

61. I see your point.

I guess it's a good thing when CEOs like the one in the OP are honest. Let's hope more of them are and the American people understand where they are coming from. Then, and only then, will people demand changes in law and policy.

[ProfessorGAC]

75. I Don't Believe Long Term Strategic Thought. . . .

. . .violates that finduciary duty. The problem is that while nothing in your cite requires that duty to be manifest on a quarter to quarter basis, the expectation becomes just that.

Even you have bought into that mentality in your rationalization of that approach.

There is not a thing in any law that suggests that thinking about how to stabilize the economy at short term expense, in order to assure the long term survival of the company's markets is a completely acceptable manifestation of fiduciary duty.
GAC

[lumberjack_jeff]

76. If the dichotomy is country vs company, It's a no brainer.

If the issue is framed as long term benefit to the company vs short term, then it's debatable.

However, it is my opinion that there is nothing that anyone can do to mitigate the crisis. The best we can hope for (as individuals, families or businesses) is to survive to see the other side.

http://www.theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/

[ProfessorGAC]

86. Then That's A False Dichotomy

Because there is no Country v. Company comparison. If there were, a smart strategic business decision, and one that maintains a sense of fiduciary duty would be to not pay the corporate taxes.

So, apparently there is no country v. company dichotomy! It's completely false and when 3M's CEO said that, he should have known that it was already a false comparison.

And, i don't see how it's debatable as to whether fiduciary duty is served by having a long term focus that will benefit stakeholders well into the future. That's clearly serving the fiduciary responsibility of coporate office holders.
GAC

[Caretha]

90. You are incorrect

in stating that "This isn't a new thing. It is how corporations have existed since Day 1."

Knowledge of history is a good thing my friend.

http://www.citizenworks.org/corp/dg/s2r1.pdf

The History of the Corporation
By Lee Drutman

How did corporations become the dominant institutions in our society, powerful behemoths with a
hand in every almost every aspect of our lives? The history of corporations in America is indeed
a fascinating tale, the story of how a small legal construction designed to harness human ingenuity
and entrepreneurship for the public good has been transformed into a largely unaccountable force
that has, in some instances, grown larger than entire nations.

*snip

As the American colonies developed and won their independence, corporations remained in the
background. Sure, there were a few notable anti-corporate protests, like the Boston Tea Party (the
Sons of Liberty dumped 342 crates of British East India Company tea into the ocean), but the vast
majority of Americans at the time lived and worked on small family farms. The real threat was the
unilateral, unaccountable power of King George III, and the founders of a new nation, skeptical of that
kind of power, formed a government of checks and balances to prevent any one branch from getting
too powerful. Although corporations were not mentioned once in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights,
Thomas Jefferson famously noted that representative government’s purpose was “to curb the excesses
of the monied interests.” Had the Founders realized how powerful corporations would become, likely
they would have created checks on their power.

Post-Revolution America developed largely along the ideals of Jefferson’s yeoman farmer, with
American industrialism lagging behind its European counterparts. Corporations remained small
institutions, chartered at the state level for specific purposes, such as banking or seafaring. Corporations
could only exist for a limited time, could not make any political contributions, and could not own stock
in other companies. Their owners were responsible for criminal acts committed by the corporation
and the doctrine of limited liability (shielding investors from responsibility for harm and loss caused by
the corporation) did not yet exist. Often corporate charters went to the wealthy or well-connected. But
these small corporations did move America into the industrial era, encouraging entrepeneurism on a
grander scale. Governments kept a close watch on how these corporations were being run, regularly
revoking charters if corporations were not serving the public interest. For example, in 1832, President
Andrew Jackson refused to extend the charter of the Second Bank of the United States and the State
of Pennsylvania revoked 10 banks’ charters.

Slowly, though, corporations were gaining power. In 1819, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of
Dartmouth College v. Woodward that states could not alter a contract granted by a previous legislature,
leaving Dartmouth’s King George III-granted charter in tact and creating a framework of protection for
corporations against government encroachment.

As industrialization began reshaping America, great fortunes began accumulating in the hands of
canal owners and financiers and later railroad and steel magnates.And as great fortunes accumulated,
a new wealthy class began influencing policymaking, changing the rules governing the corporations
they owned. Charters grew longer and less restrictive. The doctrine of limited liability – allowing
corporate owners and managers to avoid responsibility for harm and losses caused by the corporation
– began to appear in state corporate laws. Charter revocation became less frequent, and government
functions shifted from keeping a close watch on corporations to encouraging their growth. For example,
between 1861 and 1871, railroads received nearly $100 million in financial aid, and 200 million acres
of land.

[JustAnotherGen]

93. Thanks for posting this

When Global Double Crossing 'got its due' - it was because of Fiduciary Irresponsibility - to the share holders. Not to it's employees - outside of the fact that they screwed us via our 401K's too.

If 3M is following the laws - then there's nothing we can do.

[davidwparker]

30. Well I have news for him. I only spend my money on local, independently

owned restaurants and services. I've very much limited spending on Chinese imports and I'm much happier for it.

If I do buy something, I'll make sure 3M isn't on it.

[B o d i]

31. Have you seen the movie "The Corporation"? If not, check it out.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379225/

imdb rating: 8.2/10 7,665 votes

[ImOnlySleeping]

98. Just drawing more attention to your post

the movie is awesome as is the book

[Odin2005]

33. Reminds me of the aristocracy of Classical Athens, who betrayed the Democracy to the Spartans.

Wealth and power over the well-being of one's country, I think I'm gonna be sick... :puke:

[unblock]

34. they have to act that way BY LAW -- their country has ORDERED them to put country second

c-level executives, by law, have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. not to country, not to workers, not to customers, and not to themselves even, but to shareholders (except in a bankruptcy situation, in which case the fiduciary responsibilities shift toward creditors over shareholders).

in short, our country, in its infinite wisdom, actually requires these people to run companies in a way that serves the narrow interests of their owners, even at the expense of the economy or other american constituents.

[Naturyl]

38. This is just textbook corporate policy in action.

A CEO's first responsibility is to make money for his shareholders by any legals means available.

For better or worse (and IMO it's for worse), this is the stuff capitalism is made of.

[southernyankeebelle]

39. I am surprised by your surprise

Of course companies have that attitude. They always have. Why do you think some of the companies moved overseas? I wish we could buy american but you can't find things made here. So we keep getting screwed. Funny that no one in white collar jobs seemed to be bothered by it but now, hell everyone is worried about it.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

62. The white collar folks weren't worried until they started losing their jobs too.

Then they realized that the line about "retraining" and "innovation" was a bunch of bull.

[surrealAmerican]

43. If corporations really were people, most of them ...

... would be in jail, some on death row. The problem is they get the benefits of "personhood" without any of the responsibilities.

[sarcasmo]

44. Corporate America in the most true form. Corporation first, country second, individual last.

[AwakeAtLast]

45. They need to lose every tax break given to them

:grr:

[Deja Q]

80. and 'government subsidy' to these large corporations that don't need a penny of it.

If it is "survival of the fittest", which is a lie Jesus and Mohammad would both agree on, the American government can shave off a hell of a lot of its costs by giving large corporations what's nothing more than free, no-strings-attached, continual welfare.

Then we can pay back the debt more quickly and all the other countries so hyper about the US economic issue will feel more relieved.

[OneGrassRoot]

46. K&R and bookmarked. Thank you. n/t

[Libertyfirst]

63. As Jefferson said, "The businessman has no country." n/t

[hulka38]

64. Everybody buy duct tape and plastic sheeting for the imminent chemical attack.

[grannylib]

67. Don't these dumb fucks realize that by NOT taking care of the whole

economy, they will ultimately be shooting their own companies straight to hell???
God, these filthy greedy fuckers just make me puke. What short-sighted bastards. No vision, no conscience...I hope there's a special place in hell for just such assholes.

[Deja Q]

81. And their own parachutes being as useful as anvils too.

[bertman]

70. You're right, Career Prole, you shouldn't be surprised.

His allegiance is to the bottom line.

[HughBeaumont]

73. Um . . . with no customers with money to SPEND, you HAVE no business.

If other companies who buy 3M shit in bulk go under, you HAVE no business.

Ask yourself this. To a family who just experienced a layoff (which would be MANY), which often times would mean financial devestation especially if they're a one-earner household, are Post-its and tape necessities . . . or "nice to haves"?

So you all better START thinking outside the corporate box you're supposedly "bound" to comply under and start thinking about the bigger picture, because I gotta tell you . .. you sure don't have many options to continue this Friedmanite way of thinking from where I'm sitting. A recovery doesn't start out of thin air. Someone has to make the first move.

[ImOnlySleeping]

99. they have to bank on

the US economy not completely going under, and in that case, they want to be one of the best corporations left. If they "waste" money on salaries that could be put into takeovers of companies that didn't make economically sound decisions, then they don't end up as good coming out of the downturn. That's harsh, but that's his job. I'd never want that job because I wouldn't be able to live with myself. I wouldn't judge him on the statement I'd judge him on the fact that he's a horrible enough person to take the job in the first place.

[HughBeaumont]

110. We're trimming salaries? Great. Let's start at the top.

Mr. Patrick D. Campbell , 56 Chief Financial Officer and Sr. VP $ 1.80M
Mr. Inge G. Thulin , 54 Exec. VP of International Operations $ 1.32M
Mr. Moe S. Nozari , 66 Exec. VP of Consumer and Office Bus. $ 1.43M
Mr. Frederick J. Palensky , 58 Chief Technology Officer and Exec. VP of R&D $ 1.16M

Buckley himself made 15.4 million in 2007, with added perks like a corporate jet, legal fees and company cars. It was probably more this year. Sure is a lotta money hovering up at that apex.

My guess is that Buckley and his ilk might not be starving much should 6 or so million get trimmed off of their salaries.

[ImOnlySleeping]

100. side note

As a side note, I think you severely underestimate what 3M does.
"With over 75,000 employees they produce thousands of products, including: adhesives, abrasives, laminates, passive fire protection, dental products, electrical materials, electronic circuits and optical films.<1> 3M has operations in more than 60 countries – 29 international companies with manufacturing operations, and 35 with laboratories. 3M products are available for purchase through distributors and retailers in more than 200 countries, and many 3M products are available online directly from the company." from wikipedia.

[HughBeaumont]

111. I don't underestimate them.

They're a far reaching company with their tentacles in a lot of markets. The average family, however, does not buy their fire protection, dental or circuit products, corporations do. If other businesses who DO buy this stuff go under, 3M will be closing more plants and laying off more workers, which doesn't help them at all.

[ColbertWatcher]

77. Great catch. n/t

[Joanne98]

78. TRAITOR!

[Deja Q]

79. So when America craters, with the markets following because when we drop so do they,

how will these self-proclaimed "fit" companies react then?

Their myopia will destroy themselves too.

So, yeah, the US economy should be important to them too.

[Statistical]

84. Survival is more important to a company durring a recession/depression

A lot of companies will fail but not ALL companies.

Each company is looking to maximize the likelyhood that THEY won't be the one to fail.

Easiest way to do that is "beef up" the balance sheet. Eliminate debt, sit on larges amounts of cash, slow cap ex spending, reduce workforce, limit new hiring, put new projects on hold.

Companies that don't do that likely won't live long enough to see the fruits of their labor. The company that is worried about the economy as a whole may actually help the economy and file for bankrutpcy and get sold off just as the economy begins to recover.

Look at it from a personal level. Unemployment has risen about 4%. Now I know unemployment # isn't total # of people who are unemployed. It isn't the total # of people unemployed when economy is good either. The point is the RISE. About 4% MORE people are unemployed.

If every single consumer spent 4% more (even if they needed to use CC to do so) the economy would quickly recover and unemployment would drop. The problems is something called "failure of individuals". In bad situation everyone looks for themselves first. I have cut back on spending AND investing. My actions likely caused someone to lose their job.

This is EXACTLY why we need govt spending. Something the freepers never quite get. If we accept that companies & individuals do what is best in their own self interest then we NEED govt spending.

The stimulus that Obama is planning doesn't help just in the short term. The money spent means increased orders for goods & services. To meet those orders companies need to expand workforce or lose the potential sales. Those newly hired (or not fired) workers spend money which expands income for other businesses ect.

Govt spending is one of few options that can break "failure of individuals".

[dysfunctional press]

87. being just a TAD melodramatic, aren't we...?

He just literally admitted that if the choice is between the U.S. economy staying afloat or 3M staying afloat, he will put his hand on the head of the U.S. economy and push it under.

:eyes:

when did he say any such thing?

if you're in a shipwreck, there's a BIG HUGH difference between saving yourself while others drown, than actively going around pushing people's heads under water to drown them.

you might want to write that down so you can remember it.

[Bluenorthwest]

89. If you are ever really trying to save a drowning person

Please bear in mind that paniced individuals will often drag their own rescures under water. Those trying to save themselves often drown others. Their only intention is to save themselves, but they will push others under, gaining no help for themselves, out of sheer confusion and self preservation.
You might want to take a life saving class or stay the hell away from the water. Half baked thoughts like that will get you killed.

[dysfunctional press]

96. half-baked thoughts like what, exactly?

:shrug:

btw- there's a spell-check button for a reason.

[Hawkowl]

104. Bad analogy

You don't understand your own analogy. If everyone is drowning, people will indeed try and push your head underwater as they climb on your shoulders. (I had a cousin who couldn't swim who did this to me as I was pulling him out of the water. We both survived but I repeatedly had to punch him in the face.) So by your analogy, 3M would destroy the U.S. economy if it could climb on the citizens backs to a safe haven such as India. Unfortunately, there isn't a safe haven in the world. Using my real world experience of drowning, I think we need to repeatedly punch the CEO's in the face (regulation, taxes increases, and social responsibility) to prevent them from taking us all under!

[dysfunctional press]

106. "saving yourself while others drown" doesn't necessarily mean on the backs of others...

if someone is able to swim away and save themselves while others drown- that's what i was saying...
and swimming away is not the same as staying put and pushing people's heads underwater. i wasn't making the analogy of 3m jumping on people's backs to stay afloat, so much as swimming away and worrying about saving themselves first.

there are indeed situations where it ends up being "every man for himself."

[Hawkowl]

107. Still a bad analogy

You say "swim away" to save yourself. Swim away to where? To India and China? If a great many of these companies save themselves by "swimming away" to other countries, yes the U.S. economy (and it's citizens) will drown. As even you must surely see, as it is all over the news, when the U.S. economy is drowning the whole world drowns with us. So. If by swimming away U.S. companies hasten the demise of the U.S. economy, they really hasten the demise of the entire worlds economy and thus they are metaphorically not only pushing others heads underwater to save themselves, they will find that this effort at swimming away has merely exhausted them, and they simply drown just a wee bit later. Everyman for himself simply no longer works in this day and age. We are too interconnected.

It would be much better for them to simply tread water and wait for the lifeguards, i.e; the American people vis-a-vis the newly elected administration. It really is the corporations' only hope. If we permit them to flee with jobs and capital, nobody will be able to buy anything. Without wages the whole world, CEO's included, will simply drown in poverty.

I think the crucial false assumption from which you are proceeding is that major corporations are isolated and do not have an effect over the U.S. and thus, the world's economy which then has a circular counter effect on these very corporations. We, as a planet, have reached critical mass and are interconnected as never before. Never before has Donne been more correct in his conclusion that "no man is an island".

[dysfunctional press]

108. the original analogy was made by the op, anyway-

"He just literally admitted that if the choice is between the U.S. economy staying afloat or 3M staying afloat, he will put his hand on the head of the U.S. economy and push it under."

and my point was that he was being a bit melodramatic- because saving yourself is not the same thing as putting your hand on someone's head to push it under- you seem to have some experience with that type of situation- how many people did YOU purposely drown while saving yourself? :shrug: