Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Business corporations and society essay
Labor union conflict strikes in the 1800s
Business corporations and society essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Business corporations and society essay
The Ones To Rule Them All
Corporations are large companies around the world that are legally recognized as people. Because corporations are legally people, we can consider them to be like the modern plantation owners; the plantation consisting of the planet, and the workers being synonymous to slaves. We citizens, as consumers, are indentured to corporations; we “need” the goods they provide in order to meet our basic, and not-so-basic, needs. Everything we own has been tainted by a corporation - the food is imported, the goods are shipped internationally, the energy that is used to drive cars, and so forth; it is all provided by a corporation. According to the source, workers are 'insecure' and live in a constant state of fear from their
…show more content…
Large transnational corporations, such as Chiquita, Del Monte, and Dole, ship them around the world; the ones mentioned are based in America. The bananas they ship are largely produced in Latin America, namely Ecuador, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Columbia; however, they all export to the United States, Canada, and Europe. Lasker notes that bananas come from questionable workspaces, as these businesses often violate human rights. Chiquita's workers, for example, were violently repressed from forming unions by paying the United Self-Defence Forces of Columbia (AUC), a right-wing paramilitary group in Columbia, to intensify violence against union leaders. Lasker mentions that the AUC has also been linked to rich landowners, petroleum companies and the Colombian military. Chiquita admitted to the bribing, claiming that they were paying the AUC to protect the workers. Hundreds of civilians were killed, in addition to the union leaders. Only a 'master' with a complete disregard for human 'slave' lives would regard protection to be akin to massacre. The US State Department, after 9/11, designated the AUC as a terrorist group. According to American law, if one were to offer a terrorist group any material assistance, they would be sentenced to fifteen years in prison. Yet when Chiquita supplied the AUC with 3400 assault rifles, the behemoth got away with a fine. Independent researchers have exposed an inglorious past showing Chiquita’s intimidation and violence against union leaders is not a well-kept secret. According to Lasker, the pattern of repression goes back to the 1920s. Columbia now has a free trade agreement with the United States, which has lessened their notoriously high assassination rate of union leaders. Many international companies and organizations continue to advocate for worker's rights; however, some have a "track record of failing to uphold
Throughout her article, “I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave,” reporter Mac McClelland refers to her employer as some rendition of “Amalgamated Product Giant Shipping Worldwide Inc” (394). She justifies the use of this nickname by explaining how “to do otherwise might give people the impression that these conditions apply only to one warehouse or one company. Which they don’t” (395). McClelland utilizes her legal liability to make her experience apply across the nation, instead of only in the one particular warehouse she describes. While it is clever, it leaves me curious as to exactly which and how many companies participate in the indecent employee treatment she unveils. The generalizing statement poses the danger of condemning potentially innocent
The leaders of big business didn’t give workers the rights they deserved. In the text, Captains of Industry or Robber Barons?, it states, “Workers were often forbidden to strike, paid very low wages, and forced to work very long hours.” This evidence is a perfect example of the dehumanization of workers. The employers treated their workers like interchangeable parts, which were easily replaced. The big business leaders started paying less attention to the working conditions, and more to the production rates, and money. They didn’t care about worker’s family or the worker’s wellbeing. Due to the horrible working conditions, the workers were more likely to be injured, and sometimes, die. The capitalists didn’t give their employees the rights and respect they deserved, because to them they were just unskilled, cheap labor. If the workers were unhappy, they would easily replace them with other unskilled workers. That’s why they were considered interchangeable parts. This evidence shows the big business leaders only cared about money, and didn’t treat their workers
A corporation was originally designed to allow for the forming of a group to get a single project done, after which it would be disbanded. At the end of the Civil War, the 14th amendment was passed in order to protect the rights of former slaves. At this point, corporate lawyers worked to define a corporation as a “person,” granting them the right to life, liberty and property. Ever since this distinction was made, corporations have become bigger and bigger, controlling many aspects of the economy and the lives of Americans. Corporations are not good for America because they outsource jobs, they lie and deceive, and they knowingly make and sell products that can harm people and animals, all in order to raise profits.
At first glance, it seems implausible the word democracy isn't written in the United States Constitution, or in the Preamble of the Constitution, or even in the Declaration of Independence. One would assume a concept so paramount to modern American culture would surely be derived from one of its oldest and most endeared documents. Alas, it is not. The Constitution only specifically mentions two entities, the government and “We the People”. Defining government is an easy enough task, but who are “We the People”? Originally consisting of only white male property owners, eventually adding in other races, income classes, women, and astonishingly, corporations, the definition of “We the People” has evolved numerous times. Corporation is another key term the architects of our government failed to define for us, perhaps that is why it found its way into the phrase “We the People”. A grave dilemma lies in this fallible defining of terms. Granting corporations person-hood legislatively shifts the power of democracy from human interests to corporate interests. This corrosion of human interest can clearly be noted when examining the battle over corporate power highlighted in the court cases of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and United States v. Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company.
Millies, Stephen. "How United Fruit Robbed and Killed the People of Central America." Workers World. 3 Oct. 1996. Web. .
In America, the goal of corporations is to maximize profits, while workers aspire to maximize
“I regard my workpeople just as I regard my machinery...When my machines get old and useless, I reject them and get new, and these people are part of my machinery” (Sands 12). A foreman at a textile mill in Fall River, Massachusetts spoke these words in possibly the worst time during American labor history, the Industrial Revolution. During the Industrial Revolution, large numbers of people in the United States flocked to work in factories where they faced long hours, unsanitary and unsafe conditions and poor wages. Labor unions, or groups of organized workers, formed in the United States to ensure workers the right to a safe workplace and a fair wage in the face of capitalistic factory owners seeking wealth. In exchange, union members owe the responsibility to work diligently and to the best of their abilities or face the failure of their company and the loss of their jobs.
In fact, they believe that workers usually do not unite to revolt. Capitalism sets up a system of competition where people work against one another, as the rate of unemployment has increased. Thus workers discriminate against one another based on race and gender and therefore cannot form a united front. Even if workers did rebel, opponents feel that workers are not strong enough a force to overturn social structures that have been around for many centuries.
Producing goods or services are dictated not by employees but by their employers. If profits exist, employers are the ones that benefit more so than the regular worker. “Even when working people experience absolute gains in their standard of living, their position, relative to that of capitalists, deteriorates.” (Rinehart, Pg. 14). The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Hard work wears down the employee leaving them frustrated in their spare time. Workers are estranged from the products they produce. At the end of the day, they get paid for a day’s work but they have no control over the final product that was produced or sold. To them, productivity does not equal satisfaction. The products are left behind for the employer to sell and make a profit. In discussions with many relatives and friends that have worked on an assembly line, they knew they would not be ...
Shah, A. (2006, May 28). Corporations and Worker's Rights. - Global Issues. Retrieved April 21, 2014, from http://www.globalissues.org/article/57/corporations-and-workers-rights
This film has opened up a new perspective to me about the mindset of many of the people that have and are running many of the most noticeable household name brands that we have all come to know since childhood. The film does a very good job of explaining how businesses and corporations have not only grown but evolved over the last 40 plus years. We all know that at the end of the day, a company’s goal is to make money. “The Corporation” gave me a very in-depth look at the extent that major corporations will go to in order to keep their company successful and profitable. With many of the companies that were mentioned in the film, the average person such as myself, would never know that the companies that we support and patronize have taken part in modern day slavery to give use the products that we have come to love. The part of this that was most troubling was the fact that these business practices no matter how unethical we find them are in fact legal and do not
The issue of the impacts transnational corporations have on less developed countries has been a controversial and much disputed subject within the field of economics and development studies. Researchers using various models such as the Rostow Development model, Harrod Domar model and the Neoclassical Theory Model, have studied these impacts and have tried to come to a conclusion to this issue. Researchers have also conducted many case studies in order to investigate in depth factors contributing to impacts and whether there are differences due to external factors. The issue has grown in importance over the last decade and this paper attempts to discover whether the impacts are beneficial enough in order to uphold transnational corporation activities in less developed countries. The first section is a literature review, which will consist of a brief clarification of economic development and explain different economic development theories, which will help, evaluate whether activities by transnational corporations help accelerate economic development in LDCs. It will also consist of different scholars definitions of outsourcing, networking and linkages further evaluating the costs and benefits of these activities by transactional corporations. The analysis section will consist of a case study of Nigerian offshore drilling. This case study gives a more depth analysis of the negative impacts TNCs can have on LDCs. Transnational companies are contributing to economic development, showing positive and negative impacts transnational corporations have on host countries through real case studies that have been conducted by other researchers. The conclusion section will consist of an examination of all the research prior to this section to...
The progression and evolution of international business has played an integral role in the overall development and progress of the world economy, culture, and politics. The multinational corporation was an essential part of this process and has roots as far back as the 15th and 16th centuries in Western Europe, specifically in the nations of England and Holland, during a period known as mercantilism. This was a time of unprecedented global exploration, colonization, and other imperialist ventures. Organizations such as the British East India Trading Company, promoted both global trade and the acquisition of natural resources, primarily for their home countries in areas including Africa, East Asia, and the Americas. Global trade was the primary factor in the growth of the world economy during this time. However the modern MNC, as it is known today, did not appear until the 19th century. These new entities provided a new level of inter-firm connectedness, a wider division of labor, and a higher level of product integration across countries in which MNCs are growing. Studies have shown that modern MNCs are characterized by a high degree of complexity, and have not followed a linear pattern in their development. In addition, it is crucial to understand the geographical context in which these MNCs were founded. This paper will analyze the development of the multinational corporation (MNC) from the 1870s to the modern day and examine it what ways, and to what degree it has changed over time.
It seems obvious that large corporations have a tendency to ignore the negative effects of their actions in favor of profit. This example, although sensationalized, still says to me that with power comes responsibility. It affirmed my belief that a corporation’s goal cannot be just to provide profit to shareholders, but there must also be an element of social responsibility.
As Harry Braverman writes, human beings have an innate nature to do work. That is, from time human beings have worked on the materials provided by nature and improved them. Hence, work has been an essential part of human survival on the planet. Humans need to work to provide for themselves. Following this logic, we can conclude that work is not unique to the capitalist system of production. However, in capitalist society, the organization of work separates the workers from the simple production for personal use. In other words, capitalist societies support a system where the emphasis of human work is not the provision of their needs but rather the provision of capital. Braverman explains this situation succinctly, writing “It is only by creating a surplus for the corporations that we obtain permission to create necessities for ourselves.