Benefits for Whom?
Nowadays, especially since ‘the economic crisis in the U.S,’ restructuring of companies have been usual all over the world. Day by day, enormous people are losing their work places. As a result, many blaming voices also have risen. Not only about reconstructions, but also when we talk about other negative issues that companies make,-fraud, pollutions, or absurd happenings- there are some common phrases people say. Such as, “Because companies are being in order to produce benefits,” “To survive,” or “Profit is the most important thing for companies.” Moreover, and also unreasonably, many people seem to just easily accept these perspectives. Even in one class that I took in the university, a student answered similar to the phases mentioned above. In the other hand, whenever I think about this topic, I question to my self: “benefits for whom”? For example, when people talk about ‘the benefits,’ I raise a question like ‘what benefits’? In addition, ‘who are going take advantages from those benefits?’ For example, Samsung- Korean multi-branched company- is a good example. Especially in Korea, Samsung doesn’t allow any labor unions. The boards of Samsung announced this policy is to increase the company’s profit and for the future of the company. In addition, Samsung’s welfares-benefits- for their employees are horrible to compare the company’s annual income. In this case, what would be the profit of not non-labor union policy? Of course without arguing with labor unions, the profits on the accounting paper would increase. However, they forgot about the people in the company: employees. Company means not only CEO or the board. They don’t know, or even ignoring, that the marrow of the company is people. For instance, even though, there are many strategies, theories, and products in company, whom actually make these things to work or move, are people. Therefore, when if employees are not happy, can we say this situation as ‘a profit-creating situation?’
'It appears we've accidentally laid off all the people who 'do' things.'
Some people might argue that reducing medical insurance or laying-off actually increase the earnings of company. However, when we see many CEOs in the U.S are still making enormous money-especially after the collapse of economic- while about 51,621,000 of Americans don’t have proper health insurance(The Bureau of U.S Census website,2007), this fact force us to think about company’s reason for being: to feed some exclusive people up there in penthouses or the top of skyscrapers? A few months ago, I read an article of one Korean CEO. He said company should produce profits by reducing social cost, but not cutting down employees’ benefits. I strongly agree with and also I think many CEOs should serious consider that making people upset worth the opportunity cost of it. In sum, long story short, I am not saying that every company should worship people who work for them. However, managers – or at least us- must think about what are the real benefits and where- for whom- those benefits go: don’t just be naïve, and know your rights.
-Kohlberg's stage theory-
Table of Moral management= Kohlberg's stage theory,Wikipedia
statistical data= The Bureau of U.S Census website
1 comment:
A very interesting post, Sung Hwa, which you have clearly thought about in some depth. I personally find it impossible to justify the salaries some top CEOs make, especially when compared to the amazing work that other members of society do, often for very little pay. I also don't understand the salaries of sports stars, but I do understand the enjoyment people get from watching their favourite players! I wonder what kind of work you are going to be interested in once you graduate - what seems to be the types of work you feel that you would like to pursue?
Post a Comment