babble home - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Ten worst corporations of 2001

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Ten worst corporations of 2001
Babbler # 690

posted 06 January 2002 01:35 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Corporations Behaving Badly
From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Babbler # 124

posted 06 January 2002 03:03 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

This one suprised me.

Let’s start with Harry Potter.

IF coca cola is unregulated for children how does it matter how its marketed. I mean would it have been any bette if Cap'n Crunch bought the rights. How about McDOnalds with their high fat food. They did no worse than any other corporation did and do not deserve any special distinction due to being successful at what many do.


How about race discrimination?

Late last year, Coke agreed to pay $192.5 million to resolve a federal lawsuit filed in April 1999 by African-American employees of the Coca-Cola Company.

Only a maybe on this one. Coca cola may have settled simply to avoid the negative publicity. How much would they have paid in damage control advertising if they prolonged the lawsuit and eventually won.


It also grants broad monitoring powers to a panel of outside experts jointly appointed by Coke and the plaintiffs’ lawyers — an extraordinary accomplishment.

This sounds like something they should be awarded for not top 10 listed.


Complicity with death squads?
Earlier this year, in Miami, the United Steel Workers Union and the International Labor Rights Fund filed a lawsuit against Coke and Panamerican Beverages, Inc., the primary bottler of Coke products in Latin America and owners of a bottling plant in Colombia where trade union leaders have been murdered.

I'd like to see if any criminal charges result from this suit. Will it simply be settleed showing the Unions really didn't care about those lives. Only the money.

The lawsuit alleges that Coke employees either ordered the violence directly, or delegated the job to paramilitary death squads that were acting as agents for Coke.

Then the unions shouldn't settle this lawsuit. If they settle without a dircect admission by coca cola then they are also advocating this behaviour. That its OK that Coca cola kills as long as they pay us x dollars in the lawsuits. I await the result.

“If we cannot get Coke, one of the most well known companies in the world, to protect the lives and human rights of the workers at its world-wide bottling facilities, then we certainly have a long way to go in making the global economy safe for trade unionists.”

So simply by coca cola's failure to protect they are guilty. When did coca cola become empowerd to police, investigate and lay criminal charges.


“We vigorously deny any wrongdoing regarding human rights violations in Colombia and are deeply concerned by these allegations against our company,” says Pablo Largacha, spokesperson for Coca-Cola de Colombia. “We have been and continue to be assured by our bottlers that behavior such as that depicted in the claim has in no way been instigated, carried out or condoned by these bottling companies.”


Made the list for this policy.


Part One: We believe there could conceivably be a global warming problem: “We agree that the potential for climate change caused by increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases may pose a legitimate long-term risk.”

Part Two: But we don’t know enough yet to take action: “However, we do not now have a sufficient scientific understanding of climate change to make reasonable predictions and/or justify drastic measures. Some reports in the media link climate change to extreme weather and harm to human health. Yet experts [he goes on to cite James Hansen, one of the handful of greenhouse denialists] see no such pattern. ... Although the science of climate change is uncertain, there’s no doubt about the considerable economic harm to society that would result from reducing fuel availability to consumers by adopting the Kyoto Protocol or other mandatory measures that would significantly increase the cost of energy.”

Part Three: So we should study more and rely on voluntary action. “This does not mean we favor doing nothing. We have redoubled our efforts in energy conservation at our own operations around the world” and are investing in fuel cells.

THis makes you 10 worst. Wow

Philip Morris:
Still the Same. Still Killing.
We’ve changed. That’s the line from Philip Morris.

The tobacco giant says it is spending $100 million in the United States to reduce youth smoking.

The only problem: It is all a sham. Public health experts agree the company’s youth smoking prevention advertisements and programs are either worthless or harmful, because they portray smoking as an adult activity and thus make it more desirable to kids.

Well then they're guilty of the same thing gov't is by putting 18 age limits on smoking thereby portraying it as an adult activity.

How ridiculous is it to make a product legal but deny a company the ability to market it. I mean if you want to stop them then make it illegal. Stop trying end runs around legislation.


“The Virginia Slims ads,” the statement rightfully concluded, “are the most recent evidence that Philip Morris’ attempts to portray itself as a socially responsible company are a sham.”

This same group would accept nothing less than Philip Morris' suicide as a socially responsible act.


, the study argued that smoking saved the Czech Republic government money by contributing to the “early mortality of smokers.” When smokers die, society saves costs on healthcare, housing and pensions for the elderly, the report ghoulishly argued.

Yes but was it a fallacious argument. Does anybody deny this may be the truth?

(But even this conclusion was deceptive, points out Clive Bates of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) UK — the acknowledged costs of smoking in the study (including health care costs and lost income to society from early mortality) are about 13 times higher than the purported savings.)

I'd like to see the studies head to head. Was this study attacked in the same way as the other one. Isn't it pretty ghoulish as well. OR can only philip morris be attacked for a study like this.


Dirty Money and Dirty Air

Against Workers, Against Community


First, according to Leonard, is a “velvet glove” meeting with the workers to unlawfully try to find out why they want a union.

Then representatives from the company’s Arkansas headquarters try to explain why workers should oppose a union. If that approach is unsuccessful, he says, management resorts to the “iron fist.” The company identifies leaders in the organizing drive and, he says, seeks to bribe them with pay raises or promotions, or moves to fire them.

Is that why Windsor wal mart workers fought so hard to get rid o fa union that was imposed on them. I don't buy it, this parts sour grapes by union officials for not getting in. If it were that easy to block unions everyone would.

The fact is that unions can deliver no benefit to walmart workers thats why they're not unionized.

From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Babbler # 1234

posted 06 January 2002 03:29 PM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree that corporations should be regulated more heavily, especially large corporate entities that have great influence.

From the linked site, here is the problem:

The U.S. Supreme Court says a corporation is a person, or at least must be treated like one when it comes to most constitutional protections.
In the US this causes serious problems with regulating corporations because the original precendent for establishing corporate personhood in the US was the 14th Constitutional Amendement (an amendement to protect blacks after slavery legally ended), which says that laws cannot discriminate against particular groups of people. (A good exposition of this development has been posted to Babble a couple of times The Santa Clara Blues) Now the upshot is that corporations have succesfully challenged many regulations designed to limit their negative activity on this personhood basis.

More recently personhood has been used as an argument to attach more strict liability to the corporation civily. If a corporation isn't a person, the argument goes, how can you sue them? There have been successful lawsuits against corporations that have put a cramp in their activities. The problem is that for a large multi-national, the judgement would have to be huge to really punish them for heinous activities, which corporations avoid by settleing lawsuits, appealing judgements (which often results in a judge lowering a jury awarded amount), and appealing verdicts (which can take years to resolve while they continue to make money from the negative activities).

So the issue of corporate behaviour seems to hinge on whether or not they are the same as people. If the tide changes and the legal answer becomes 'no' will they be civily or criminally liable for their actions? Who will be held to account? On the other hand, will their lobbying influence prevent regulation even if their legal status changes?

In the mean time, I say highlight bad corporate behaviour til the cows come home! Get it out into the public sphere, make your case, and let people decide if you're being to harsh or not.

From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Babbler # 124

posted 06 January 2002 05:51 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In the mean time, I say highlight bad corporate behaviour til the cows come home! Get it out into the public sphere, make your case, and let people decide if you're being to harsh or not.

Now thats democratic protest at its best!!!!!

From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008