February 21, 2008

greedy grubby globalists

Della is 49, happily married with kids living independently and has a high powered job earning her a six-figure salary. What is more important, though, is that she enjoys an untarnished reputation in the business world. She will only work for ethical corporations but finding such an employer among so many greedy grubby globalists is not easy.

"Mostly," says Della, "the global lay-off frenzy that heralded the start of the 21st century was a genuine coping reaction by companies in trouble. Those that delayed cutting staff went under. And plenty went under. However, there is growing evidence that some companies were not in trouble and simply laid off workers in order to artificially boost stock value."

"When you work for such a company," says Della, "you are placed in an ethical dilemma. Do you stay and show loyalty above and beyond your gut feelings, or do you consider that working for such a company is beneath your dignity?"

"A successful career woman," advises Della, "does not stay with such a company. Her value is very much allied to the reputation of the companies with which she is associated. She does not allow herself to become devalued by working for a company that sells socially unacceptable products or is in any way engaged in unethical practices."

"When you read about companies that have laid off hundreds of workers - mostly at a strategic time, either in terms of the fiscal year or the accrued benefits of the workers - and then shortly afterwards have hired hundreds of contract workers or outsourcers to do the same work, one gets to comprehend, very sadly," says Della, "that for some companies it is all a greedy and grubby game."

"These days," says Della, "the salaries of more and more company executives are being sacrificed for stock. Rather than a seven figure salary, it could be six figures or less with stock. In fact, stock options are often offered to new staff as a perk but you would be silly to sacrifice salary for a nebulous bit of paper - especially when such offers imply a commitment to work long hours for the benefit of a company in which you would be a miniscule shareholder."

"With company executives depending largely upon stock value to boost their personal fortunes, it figures," says Della, "that they are going to take on a more aggressive role. Rather than their traditional role as servants of shareholders, they now have both the power and the incentive to manipulate the company's value for personal gain. Look at what happened to Enron!"

"Artificially boosting profit margins by laying off workers is the quickest and easiest way to boost stock value," says Della, "and if this laying off can be accomplished at a time when other companies are seriously in trouble -- laying off staff in order to genuinely stay afloat -- it can pass as a legitimate lay-off rather than the greedy and grubby maneuver that it is."

Della advises that when official figures show an increase in job losses, yet an increase in new job creation, what we are looking at is nothing more than sleight of hand.

Remember the Pink Slip parties organized by recruiters during the layoff frenzy a few years ago? These parties almost indecently coincided with the exact date at which certain companies laid off staff, making it appear that they were part of, rather than a reaction to, the lay-off frenzy.

"You see," says Della, "the recruiters were invariably hiring people as contract workers -- or consultants, same thing -- to do the very same jobs they once did as long-term employees. Only this time around the employees were not getting the financial benefits of long-term employment that they would have been entitled to had they not been laid-off before such entitlements fell due."

"In this respect," says Della, "older workers are prime targets when company executives decide to lay off staff in order to boost their personal stock. They are not first in the firing line because they are too old for the firm's image, or not as productive as younger staff. They are first in the firing line because they are due for entitlements. This is grossly unethical and if it is legal, as it appears to be, then a law should be passed immediately to make it illegal."

So, would a successful career woman work for a company that has laid off staff for the sole purpose of boosting the stock value and thus the personal wealth of its executives?

"No. Definitely not," says Della. "A successful career woman guards her reputation. Wealth gained by unethical practices is likely to tarnish her value."

Would a successful career woman accept re-employment as a consultant or contract worker by a company that fired her before she was due for long-term financial benefits?

"No. Definitely not," says Della. "A successful career woman would not fall for such exploitation."

Would a successful career woman buy the goods or services of a company that has laid off staff for the sole purpose of boosting the stock value and thus the personal wealth of its executives?

"No. Definitely not," says Della. "She would boycott them."

Most women are so concerned with job survival that they don’t look at the big picture. Successful career women, like Della, have the big picture in mind at all times and it is not just their incomes that reflect their worth but also their untarnished reputation.

This story first appeared as corporate ethics

Labels: , , , ,