discussion 1

Welcome to week Four. The text introduces us to the idea of a commitment to sustainability to corporate social responsibility (CSR). In short, this chapter has us consider what things businesses are doing to be good corporate responsible organizations. If you go on Starbuck’s website, you’ll see information linked to their CRS activities discussing how the company has bought farming equipment for coffee growers around the world. The idea is that if the company provides them with the necessary equipment/tools, those farmers will produce a better grade of coffee and the consumer will come to see that Starbuck’s will willing to support farmers in low-income nations as a way to give the consumer what they want.

In 1913 [DST], workers were laboring on a Ford assembly line (a) in Highland Park, Michigan. In Dodge v. Ford Motor Company (1919), the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that Henry Ford (b) must operate the Ford Motor Company primarily in the profit-maximizing interests of its shareholders rather than in the broader interests of his workers and customers. (credit a: modification of “Ford assembly line – 1913” by unknown/ Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain; credit b: modification of “Portrait of Henry Ford” by Hartsook/Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain)

Ironically, in the same case, the court upheld the validity of a doctrine known as the business judgment rule, a common-law principle stating that officers, directors, and managers of a corporation are not liable for losses incurred when the evidence demonstrates that decisions were reasonable and made in good faith, which gives corporate management latitude in deciding how to run the company.4 Essentially, the business judgment rule holds that a court will not second-guess the decisions of a company’s managers or directors. The legality and appropriateness of social responsibility as a business policy have followed a long and winding road since 1919. In the 1950s and 1960s, for example, some state courts rejected the shareholder primacy doctrine, instead ruling that a broad interpretation of the business judgment rule allowed managers discretion when it came to allocating company assets, including using them for programs demonstrating social awareness.

Let’s discuss the idea of the business judgement rule. Did the court provide a means for allowing business leaders to do as they please and hide behind this rule if things go/went wrong or is this a reasonable protection for business leadership/management…Why Why Not?
————————

discussion 2

Welcome to week five. This week, we discuss the relationship between business and culture.Each generation has its own rules in terms of how business could/should be conducted. My father’s mother had a J.C. Penny’s chard card st one time but as a kid, I always found it strange that the card was in my grandfather’s name and not hers. I learned as I got older in her day, merchants did not trust females with making sound business decisions on their own so with major transactions such as property ownership, credit, financial transactions, etc. Either a husband or some responsible male such as an uncle or bother had to carry the transaction in their name.

Business practices and ethics have certainly changed over time. When the cosmetics industry first started to grow, many companies used small animals such as puppies, kittens, rabbits and the like to test chemicals on as they made their products. As the years passed, many females became upset over the abuse/treatment of these small animals and protested against cosmetic companies who continued that practice. The protests and negative public sentiment eventually forced the end or reduction of that practice.

Today, globalism and technology tend to be the biggest threats to a business’s operation in that ca it compete with its foreign competition and will technology use be more profitable than using human capital? Business in and of itself tends to do well with proper market support. Read the following article: https://wealthygorilla.com/top-20-richest-women-wo…

The discussion this week,”Why is it that we know about male business successful people and not so much about female ones? Is this unethical in some sense or just culture acting as it normally should do ?

Discussion 3

This week’s focus is about what employers owe employees. Those of you currently working or who have had jobs in the past had certain expectations of your employer (s). You wanted to know that the culture/environment was appreciative of your work efforts, the workplace was reasonably safe and that compensation would come as agreed upon. We have discussed on and off through the course at this point how in bygone eras, the company saw you primarily as their property. You could be treated anyway the leadership desired: pay could be docked, a job could be terminated and the worker could be told they would never work in the industry again.

What we want to take away from this week is that while employees do not have the significant power they once did under unionism; most organizations still understand the importance of taking care of their people… up to a point! Pier 1, the retail chain decided as profits have declined to close a number of its stores which will leave many people out of work well before summer vacation time and we combine that with the paying off of Christmas bills; a o tog people are going to suffer economically. Pier 1 to my knowledge has done little or nothing to assist these displaced workers. If you apply for almost any position today and you’re not brought in for an interview or not hired; the organization often does not tell you. You used to receive a letter and now an email letting you know that your application is no longer being considered. The business culture tends to be one where the company tends to its own interests and does little to assist its human capital unless there is some potential benefit. We’ve seen some companies offer to pay for gym memberships and other health related activities and this may be done to try to ensure that the company can maintain a healthy workforce so production can continue on.

Kentucky, like many other states is a “Right to Work/ At Will” state meaning that at any given time (unless prohibited by law or policy); the employer can terminate an employee as their desire. So, with a company in town like Staples, if the organization’s manager decides they have a reasonable need to end your job they ca with little or no advanced warning. On the other end, organizations prefer an employee give them a two week notice before they leave. For example, Mike works for Applebee’s and the company buys out Steak & Shake, Mike may be able to keep his job but if management feels the Steak& Shake people would be better suited for their goals…Mike’s gone.

For our discussion this week, how quickly should an employer give notice to an employee their job is going away and likewise; how soon should an employee announce to the employer that they intend to leave? Why in both cases?