In the October 26 issue of The Sun News, there is a very interesting article pertaining to AVX and the pollution problem and its relationship to S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC). According to the article, DHEC has never required testing of pollution control equipment at AVX. DHEC has not tracked AVX pollution and is not certain how much hazardous air toxins are being emitted into the atmosphere. DHEC allows AVX to use the "honor system" when reporting facts and figures regarding pollution. Their reasoning is that "AVX would never falsify those figures and risk negative publicity."
This is incredibly naive. Expecting a company to follow the rules is no excuse to not have a method in effect to make sure that's what they are doing. It seems as though DHEC has forgotten their responsibilities to their other publics. Perhaps AVX is providing DHEC some sort of incentive to give them as much leeway as they have been....
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
"Local Steelworkers Reach Deal"
In the Wednesday, Oct. 22 edition of the Sun News there is an article about the union negotiations and new contract reached at the local Georgetown, SC steel mill owned by ArcelorMittal in Luxembourg. A new 4 year contract was approved which will help ease the financial burden of about 100 workers who were placed on a 3 week suspension due to a "global economic slowdown" resulting in a decrease in the demand for steel. As a result of the new contract, all 14,000 members of the United Steelworkers union will get a $6,000 bonus. This will certainly help those who were temporarily laid off in Georgetown. A strike was averted through negotiation and as a result workers receive a $1 hourly increase for the first year and 4 percent per year in each of the following 3 years. Health benefits and other benefits increased. Retiree benefits were cut by 35%. The contract also requires ArcelorMittal to make capital investments in its U.S. plants. ArcelorMittal is the world's largest steel producer and employs more than 320,000 people in over 60 countries. Eighteen thousand of those employees are in 17 U.S. locations.
This is an example of how union contract negotiations should take place. It appears as though both sides left the table happy. Had a strike occurred the company and the union would have been cast in a negative light resulting in negative consequences for both. A decline in employee moral was avoided and more importantly the agreement gives both the union and the company the benefit of a positive image to society.
This is an example of how union contract negotiations should take place. It appears as though both sides left the table happy. Had a strike occurred the company and the union would have been cast in a negative light resulting in negative consequences for both. A decline in employee moral was avoided and more importantly the agreement gives both the union and the company the benefit of a positive image to society.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
"AVX Shifting Blame"
Once again AVX is in the news. In the Oct. 14 issue of the Sun News there was an article pertaining to the on going controversy about AVX's responsibility in the pollution of aquifers surrounding its Myrtle Beach location. To this day, AVX has not admitted its role in the pollution problem and is still trying to diffuse responsibility. This time they claim that the former air force base holds some share of the blame and therefore, the U.S. government should foot the bill for clean up. They make this claim even though all evidence shows that the air force base had nothing at all to do with it. Homeowners in the area feel that AVX is showing no concern for them and the pollution to their groundwater at all. They are angry and rightfully so.
It seems to me that AVX is blatantly violating the social contract between business and its environment. Perhaps a look at the broad view of social responsibility would lead them to the conclusion that they need to internalize these externalities at any cost, if for no other reason than there is a moral obligation.
It seems to me that AVX is blatantly violating the social contract between business and its environment. Perhaps a look at the broad view of social responsibility would lead them to the conclusion that they need to internalize these externalities at any cost, if for no other reason than there is a moral obligation.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
"AIG's Blunder"
In the Wednesday, October 6 edition of the Sun News in the Money Section there was an article about the AIG executives responsible for the company's collapse. It turns out that they had been hiding losses and risks stemming from mortgage defaults. Big Surprise!
I fail to understand why a company that played Russian roulette with billions if not trillions of dollars should be given $85 billion. What puzzles me even more is why the U.S. government would assume responsibility and bear the weight of this problem. Where is AIG taking any responsibility? Nowhere that I can see.
This seems like a giant handout in its purest form - one whose bill, we the taxpayers, are paying. It is ironic that we are paying to bailout a company and its executives who were part of the chain that shackled our economy.
Why didn't anyone with any authority at AIG come forward before it was too late?
I fail to understand why a company that played Russian roulette with billions if not trillions of dollars should be given $85 billion. What puzzles me even more is why the U.S. government would assume responsibility and bear the weight of this problem. Where is AIG taking any responsibility? Nowhere that I can see.
This seems like a giant handout in its purest form - one whose bill, we the taxpayers, are paying. It is ironic that we are paying to bailout a company and its executives who were part of the chain that shackled our economy.
Why didn't anyone with any authority at AIG come forward before it was too late?
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
"The Wonderful Microsoft"
Early this morning I tried to download Professor Wittkower's "schedule update" from Blackboard. It was in Word 2007. I, probably like most of you, still use Word 2003. We all know that Word 2003 can't open Word 2007 documents. I don't know about you, but I can't afford over $400 for this new program. This leads me to my concern for this week.
Is this price justifiable? There seems to be a lack of concern for the consumer coupled with the primary concern of bolstering the bottom line. I foresee two things happening and possibly both can happen. First, consumers will not buy Microsoft products any more and there will be enormous numbers of people switching to another company such as Linux. Second, the government will once again have to step in and crack down on Microsoft. Either way, Microsoft may be increasing its bottom line in the short run, but in the long run I don't see how this can pay off. Not to mention the whole idea of charging someone $400+ for a software program raises many moral and ethical suspicions.
Is this price justifiable? There seems to be a lack of concern for the consumer coupled with the primary concern of bolstering the bottom line. I foresee two things happening and possibly both can happen. First, consumers will not buy Microsoft products any more and there will be enormous numbers of people switching to another company such as Linux. Second, the government will once again have to step in and crack down on Microsoft. Either way, Microsoft may be increasing its bottom line in the short run, but in the long run I don't see how this can pay off. Not to mention the whole idea of charging someone $400+ for a software program raises many moral and ethical suspicions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)