the Corporate Injustice march
By John-Talmage Mathis
Smashwords Edition
Copyright © 2012 John-Talmage Mathis
Smashwords Edition, License Notes
This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.
the
Corporate Injustice
march
the
Corporate Injustice
march
Copyright © 202 by John-Talmage Mathis
Cover copyright © 2012 by John-Talmage Mathis
Back cover picture taken by Amanda Bishop
All rights reserved.
The Author has made every effort to be as accurate and complete as possible in the creation of the content for this book. The views expressed are only the reflection of the Author. This book is a personal project and is not sponsored, endorsed, or represented by persons or entities mentioned. No representation is made about the accuracy of the information, which solely constitutes the Author’s personal view on these issues. The Author retains no responsibility for any loss that may arise from reliance on information or materials published or referred to in this book. No reference to any person, living or dead, is intended or implied.
DO NOT CONTINUE FURTHER IF MATERIAL OFFENDS ABOVE DISCLAIMER.
REPRODUCTION AND TRANSMITTAL IS NOT PERMISSIBLE
the Corporate Injustice march
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Realities of Life as a Laborer
ALSO FROM
JOHN-TALMAGE MATHIS
I Deal to Plunder
The ride through the boom town
You Against Them
Sample Edition
COMING SOON
You Against Them
I Deal to Plunder
(Parts I–III)
America, I Weep
Stay Connected…
@JT_Mathis
Website
PO Box 53281
Shreveport, La. 71135
the
Corporate Injustice
march
If you’re gonna dream,
dream big.
It’s free.
- Azzam Alwash
* * *
I know I’ve pushed you hard to succeed,
and always emphasized being the best.
If I can look back at you one day,
and see you are prospering in life,
then I have spent my life well.
- A father’s blessing.
~
Each step, I have forever tried.
My world is dark, I live in shame.
I am sorry.
- A son’s apology.
I’ve been told that I march to the beat of my own drum. Is this meant to offend? If so, I’ve felt otherwise. This solitary march of mine is in step to the rhythm from within. This beat, my beat, has separated me from the rest; it has allowed me to comfort victims wounded from the desolate migration. These wounded soldiers of hope have struggled to keep up with the march. Used and depleted, they have fallen behind, left in the dust of despair. There was a time I once followed the herd. I have seen what lies at the end of this worn path. It's a path that results in a cruel fate—a recurrent fate. It’s where will and innocence are stolen from the pure and good-natured.
I’ve stood in defense of those adulterated, but it’s far easier to shake my head disappointingly. At times, I’ve stood in frustration and imagined the differences I could make if I had the same courage as the Tiananmen Tank Man—to barricade the innocent from the calculable injustices. Maybe, instead, I share the same mental struggles as the tanks’ commander as he attempted to avoid crushing this lone ranger. Maybe, instead, I have the same fate as the Tank Man—grabbed and thrown to a darkness.
There’s a collective acceptance among the mass to ostracize the naïve and the unique. Those ostracized are hard workers. They’re honest. Their paths are hopeful. Some, are my own friends—friends who have called to report that they’ve lost their jobs. These friends are honest and hard working. It was this pain of theirs, as well as mine, that encouraged me to write about this march of injustice.
The same explanation was heard time after time in every story: profits were down. Yet, those who’ve remained employed are the ones “to make it happen.” As I listened to the stories from friends, I was reminded of the drumbeat of the march by society—the drumbeat that remains constant, never to miss a beat. Even though the corporate injustices are seen, the march continues onward. Then when we become victimized by the same injustices, there’s still a sense of surprise. Dr. Martha Stout wrote in The Sociopath Next Door of a lesson learned early in life by all: “Most of us have examples from our own lives in which someone unscrupulous has won, and there are times when having integrity begins to feel like merely playing the fool.”
Despite this foresight, I’m confused as to why people continue with this march through life. The outcome is known. The outcome is unfavorable. From massive layoffs to the robo-signing of foreclosures, a purposeful suffering is inflicted. It’s as if the destruction caused is orchestrated. I’ve been a victim to this same destruction. I’ve also felt the pain told by those who face the uncertainties brought on by the march.
I understand the fundamentals of business. What’s not understood is the forgetfulness of the businesses: unrealistic goals are made and social contracts are violated. A realistic goal shouldn't be a false illusion instilled among those employed. This goal shouldn’t result in the closing of a factory or the factory being moved abroad. These plans are accepted too eagerly and drawn by those who continue to profit: those who will remain employed. They are the original drafters of these failed goals. It’s the community and its inhabitants that suffer in the end.
I’m reminded of a poem written by an unknown author:
I sat before him helpless, in an ecstasy of woe—
the mountain mists were rising fast,
the sun was sinking slow—
when a sudden inspiration came,
as sudden winds do blow.
I took my hat, I took my stick, my load I settled fair,
I approached that awful incubus
with an absent-minded air—
and I walked directly through him
as if he wasn’t there!
To me, this incubus isn’t a specific person called out by a certain name. Nor is this incubus a certain race. To me, it's not the black man in the dark alley I fear. I have no fear for the white man huddled under the bridge. No fear is felt toward the Mexican along the railroad tracks. I’ve been pained by men of all races, cultures, and sizes. I felt pain when slammed against a tree repeatedly by a group of blacks, stomped on by a group of Mexicans, swindled by a group of Spaniards, cut by a group of whites, ridiculed by those who taught, taken advantage of by those respected, and tormented by the flesh of my own. Pain was inflicted from each of these men, but it was done individually. Men from each of these races have extended a hand in times of need. Faith was regained just as easily as it was robbed by men of each race and culture. Because of this, I know of no disparity or prejudice from one race of man to the other. There remains a fear of only one type of man, though. Fear is different from pain.
Fear is different;
it remains,
it causes prejudice.
The man I fear resides not in the dark alley, neither on the bench, nor near the railroad. I’ve come to fear the scholarly man who paraded his belief through ridicule. This man has converted my employment to the status of a contractor. My life was signed over to this man in hopes of achieving the American Dream; yanked when I volunteered to help those in need. This same man shackled me despite my pleas. He’s stolen from me, and continues to do so as the last dollar is pilfered. All the while, goals and ambitions are trampled and manipulated.
This man is neither black, Mexican, nor Spaniard. To those I’ll open the door. Let the black man or Mexican extend his hand, and I’ll see this as an invitation. It’s when the man I fear knocks, that I lean to the wall and make a silent gesture to my dog. Outside my door, the man is dressed in a starched shirt and tie. It's this old-white-man to whom I'll extend my hand apprehensively. As his hand is taken, I’ll contemplate whether there’s enough food for my dog to sustain an unexpected departure. Or whether I'll be taken away or informed of an uncertain future.
* * *
My first bit of advice is to not personalize a job loss. The cause for the dismissal was a business calculation. This is difficult to grasp; it’s difficult to accept that things sometimes just happen. Come to see this is an experience. Obviously this isn’t the most pleasant experience, but one that will soon be overcame. Recall your first dental appointment. Throughout the week, you were anxious. The visit was feared, it was painful, the ride home was numbing, but when all was said and done, you smiled proudly the next day. Being ejected from your career will cause this same fear, pain, and numbing sensation. Just as you overcame the fears and pains of the dental visit, you will soon smile after this time of uncertainty.
As friends told me of their terminations, I recalled the fears and uncertainty of being jobless. Like you, I did my best and made sacrifices for the employer. Yet, still, this didn’t amount to anything. It wasn’t enough. The extra dedication exerted wouldn’t have mattered. Fears of tomorrow still would have come.
For now, it seems as if life has begun to implode. Red phrases begin to appear on letters: “Due Now,” “Final Notice,” and “Disconnection Soon.” It’s easy to misconstrue these phrases as warnings of a personal doomsday. Rest assured, life will get better. I’ve overcome this challenge, as have countless others.
In the end, the response to our inequalities is the same: Who cares? Maybe responses aren’t this direct, but nonetheless, it could be generalized as such. The premise within our story of inequalities is all the same. Only the locations and names change. The pain isn’t felt until the experience becomes our story. For this abandonment experience, the unexpectedness, sadness, and unjustness of the occurrence don’t make sense. Emotions are in a whirlwind, playing within our minds in slow motion. At night, anxiety and confusion stir our sleep. No sleep is achieved. Fear, anger, and frustration continue to brew as another day of lost hope is experienced.
The unfairness experienced evokes the same sort of emotion felt when hearing of the generations lost in the destruction of a tsunami. Sudden and unexpected Life's comfort and future carried out to a void. Confidence is shattered. Each day it becomes easier to cast blame on oneself. Words to explain and comfort become limited when tomorrow is uncertain. These words are stuttered and whispered; especially when told to loved ones. I say to you now, this demise is not your doing. It was a demise set in motion from a desk and with the use of a calculator. Simple as that. A motion put into play by the thoughtless decision of a board member.
Too often, newspaper headlines inform us of the thousands, or millions, of jobs lost. It has become routine to read about the new round of layoffs—so much so that it’s discussed on porches in the same manner as approaching bad weather. I see it differently. I see the massive job losses as our modern-day Nanking Massacre. Homes are lost, hunger is felt, and the self-worth of the victims deteriorates. The only explanation I’ve found for this infliction of purposeful suffering is the obsession of hoarding wealth.
The lost security and lost livelihood of these victims are incomprehensible to those reading the front page. After all, the individual injustices are disguised by the use of the inconceivably large numbers or the reporting of celebrity antics. The pain and shame felt are unknown to those with planned vacations. They know not of the tsunami that rescinded the homes, goals, and hopes of its victims—swallowed by the sea of greed.
* * *
The house burned to the ground because of an oven left on is tragic. Pictures, souvenirs, electronics, and clothes are reduced to junk—forever gone. Now, take this same situation, but trace the cause to that of arson. In addition to the loss of pictures and electronics, a wife and child die. In comparison, more pain and sympathy is felt toward the second victim; nonetheless, both situations are tragedies. I use these scenarios to point out two things. One: There are far worse ordeals than the current one at hand. Two: In both situations, the victims overcame the pain. For them, and now you, the future appears grim. But ultimately, it is you who determines how grim your future becomes.
Motivation and aspirations are often challenged through the course of our lives. It's easy to complain and lay blame for our shortfalls. These complaints are used as justifications. However, it's the complaint of yesterday that seems increasingly trivial as time passes. Should we grasp onto complaints if their existence is short-lived? Are these complaints merely mishaps? Those born in the poverty of third-world countries have far greater injustices. These children train to kill or become skilled in opiate trade. Others from faraway lands are sold as sex slaves to fulfill dark, perverse fantasies. These examples are not used to minimize your encounter with unfairness. On the contrary, they’re mentioned to show that a job loss is a short-lived mishap. It’s a juncture in life that is temporary. Don’t dwell on this mishap. Think about a tomorrow where hope and happiness do exist. This tomorrow of happiness is a reality—one that is never seen by those born in the wrong lands.
The pain of some ordeals seems inescapable. Take, for example, the loss of a parent or the unfaithfulness of a spouse. Often, these pains are denied. Denying an ordeal won’t make it disappear. The trial will only reappear at night, the pain camouflaged by the darkness—proven by a damp pillow in the morning. Handled openly, the intensity of pain is relieved.
To deny or justify an unfairness, lessons are never seen, and relief comes by that of finger pointing. Then, failing to learn lessons from these personal injustices, opportunities are often missed. This approach acts as a thief to one’s progression and ambition. Understand the cause for the unfairness and find a lesson contained within this pain.
Let’s take the example of an unfaithful spouse. Imagine that this breach of trust occurred to two different people: John and Jane. Jane takes time to reflect on her heartbreak. She reads several books on relationships and self-help. Jane learns to value herself as well as the emotions of her companion. She finds that this is done through listening and openness. John, on the other hand, accepts the unfaithfulness as a punishment from the heavens. He becomes spiteful and angry. Unlike Jane, he remains confined within his home and views the world as untrustworthy. The same situation occurred to John and Jane; but, their futures are quite different.
What differed is how the experienced was handled. Jane saw it as an unfortunate event. She quickly moved on. The next week, she was dancing the Macarena with a co-worker. John, meanwhile, picked at a lukewarm microwavable meal as he watched a sitcom rerun. One outcome illustrates a happy Jane. The other outcome is John replaying the same lame day, like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day.
Life isn’t fair. It doesn’t make sense. This unfairness is felt by everyone, from the Las Vegas tunnel dweller all the way to the executive in the highrise. To some, these “unfair” experiences become a chastening ball and chain attached for the remainder of life.
The future can be seen when the past is left to the. . . past. Don’t back-pocket the experience to use later as an excuse or scapegoat. Remind yourself of lessons learned from each encounter. Our past has shaped our emotions, perceptions, and character. Not every lesson of yesterday is consciously recalled, but they remain with us in the same way that a dinner from last decade is long forgotten–even though its nutrients gave strength to live to this day. Both the dinner and the lessons have provided strength long after their consumption. They remain and have allowed us to wake safe and sound, allowing us to continue onward toward our pursuit of happiness.
Lessons are best learned from stories. Take time to learn how others handled their ordeals. Read the autobiographies of Bill Gates, Benjamin Franklin, or Henry Ford. Or learn from the challenges of Sean Combs, Richard Branson, Bill Clinton, or Oprah. Each experienced a turning point at which they saw past the hurdles, beyond into the horizon. Bookshelves are filled with accounts of those who have transformed their miseries into stories of empowerment. It was their hurdles that allowed them to strengthen their will and desire to succeed.
It’s said that Thomas Edison failed ten thousand times with the lightbulb. Many would quit after the first attempt—and certainly after the tenth attempt. Edison saw failure differently: “I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.” This same perseverance is seen in Abraham Lincoln. At the age of nine, Lincoln’s mother died. Shortly thereafter, he was forced from his home. Later in life, Lincoln borrowed money but soon filed bankruptcy. He experienced the death of his companion. Later in life, Lincoln ran for several political offices but was defeated. Throughout his life, Lincoln remained ambitious and kept dreams within reach. It's today that America’s sixteenth president is often referred to as the greatest president to hold office.
Take time to learn about Walt Disney. He went broke several times, and had a nervous breakdown. Disney overcame these difficulties and did remarkably well in life. Three lessons are taken from the stories of Edison, Lincoln, and Disney—One: All three historic figures endured tremendous ordeals. Two: These ordeals defined their character and increased their drive to succeed. Three: They overcame these hurdles and remained determined. So it appears that life’s challenges can ultimately increase one’s determination to seize life’s opportunities.
Life is difficult. These difficulties layer the lives of everyone. Some view these layers as motivators; others see them as excuses. Handle defeat rationally and learn from the lessons that become evident. Defeat and its associated emotions have caused many men to blindly push through hurdles that otherwise would’ve been barriers of excuses. I once read of an artist who gambled away his fortunes the moment he felt that his paintings lacked creativity. He realized that his wealth made him too comfortable, and that he no longer took risks or risqué approaches. Once his comfort through wealth was gambled away, the artist felt his drive awaken, and his paintings once again became vibrant and risqué.
Our tucked-away talents sometimes need an awakening. Sometimes, they are yet unidentified. Either way, talents are in need of being continuously refined. In Acres of Diamonds, Russell Conwell wrote of a time when a lady approached him after a lecture. Dr. Conwell (founder of Temple University, minister, philanthropist, lawyer, and writer) listened as the lady asked for advice on how to make more money. Dr. Conwell appreciated the lady’s ambition. As he listened, he was curious as to how she could afford the hat she wore. It looked expensive, made of beautiful material, and professionally crafted. After he answered questions and gave advice, Conwell asked the lady where she bought the hat. She responded that the hats in the stores were too expensive, therefore she made her own hats. Conwell was amazed by the quality and appearance of the hat; he enrolled the lady into his university.
Your current experience presents two options: find a new job or become an entrepreneur. Just like the lady, you’re unaware of some of your talents. They’re attributes that come easily and feel natural. Some people consciously discover their talents early on, while others don’t take notice to their extraordinary ingrained gifts. Consider Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods—both talented in sports. These talents are tasks that are enjoyed and feel natural. What didn’t come natural was their current skill level. Their talents first needed to be discovered, then refined. Once you discover your talents, refine them, and present them to the world. It’s then that life seems to make sense.
This book is in its fifth edition. The previous four were written mentally. I was inspired when the calls from friends who lost their jobs increased. Their stories of the defeat felt were all similar. If these stories occurred in my small world, how many others are in despair? It was the frequency of the same story told that encouraged me to write this book. Perhaps my experiences can provide a hand to those feeling a sense of defeat, confusion, or anxiety.
This book focuses on self-help, self-discovery, entrepreneurship, and employment. The chapters are transitional, and I hope, through them, to reawaken your motivation—to give some sense of direction by allowing my defeats to give insights to the looming uncertainties. Remove all doubts and anxiety. They’re unwanted gifts from the thoughtless acts of others. Surround yourself with hope and encouragement. We all need someone to cheer us on at times—not necessarily an actual cheerleader with cool socks and blindingly white shoes—but something that brings encouragement, be it a book, spouse, sermon, or dog.
I hope for this book to bring comfort through this difficult time in life. It is also my hope that you find your new direction, that this direction is kept in sight, and that you run like no other until it’s grasped and made into a reality.
You’ll do well.
The Realities of Life as a Laborer
Honesty and hard work. These are the principles taught by parents, self-help books, and religions. It’s as if this unwritten rule or duty is instilled within us upon the first spank into this world. I’ve even repeated the same mantra at conferences and meetings:
“I may not like this job,
but this is a choice I made.
A lot has happened
for me to get to this point in life.
My parents struggled,
their parents struggled, and so on,
for me to have the opportunity
to succeed.
Out of respect for my parents,
and for you, there isn’t any value
in doing anything less than my best.”
To this day, I can honestly say that I never deceived a subordinate. As long as another person depended upon me, I maintained the absoluteness of my moral compass.
Every decision can be categorized as right or wrong. Sure, it’s easy to say that there are gray areas. Understand though, these gray areas are your rationalization. If decisions based on so-called gray areas are done without intentional malice, they become justified or understood by those that judge. If this “gray” area has an overall societal justification, society will share the same rationale and will ease on the punishment given.
Consider the common hypothetical situation of a person that decides to break into a store for medication. The medication is needed to save a loved one. Was this unlawful? Was this apparent, but necessary act right or wrong? It’s wrong. Regardless of the person’s reasons, if I’m the store owner I now have to buy a new window and am shorted merchandise. Now measure the wrongness of this act on a societal justification scale. Even though the theft is wrong, the wrong is quickly forgiven by society and (most likely) the store owner.
The above example was used as a reference point for intent and societal acceptance. As I discuss the realities of a laborer, I want you to return to this reference of how decisions made within the gray area are reflected upon in regards to their societal acceptance. All decisions we’ve come to accept as right or wrong are ingrained from the society in which we abide. They’re not universally known or transferable. However, society is like a household; certain rules are established and followed. These rules don’t always appear logical, but when you’re in a certain setting, in a home, or society, the rules of each are known and respected. Otherwise, invitations are rescinded.
What is the point where we become receptive to those who flaunt their violations toward what is known as being right in our society? After being receptive toward these violations, we then come to accept them. Accepted as they may be, you personally would never act in this manner. You discourage loved ones if they disturb the comforts of others. The question is then asked: Why do we accept the intentional destruction of our societal morals?
I may be naïve or delusional to wave the ethics flag when the intentional disregard of morals is accepted. Certain models or goals in life seem as if they can be achieved only by the choice to disregard what’s right. Through various jobs, I’ve defended and encouraged the ethical approach. And like so many others, maybe even you, I often was tempted to view this defense as foolish or regretted. In the past, I stood firm by not signing misstated financial statements. All that this did was direct me to the unemployment office. I then had to sign stacks of papers to defend being wrongfully termination.
If I had a family, would these members that depended on me understand and appreciate my choice to remain ethical? How about when their tummies rumbled from hunger or as they received excuses for gifts on Christmas?
I’ve served in the military, broiled burgers, sold movie tickets, and catered to VIPs. In each industry, the “make it happen” or “everyone does it” approach exists. The moment you cried foul or decided to do things right, the more difficult it became to achieve “success” in the industry. In fact, the premise of the model of success seems unattainable unless the “gray” approach becomes common practice.
Those who lead, in turn, shape the minds of their followers. The followers don’t always follow voluntarily. Whether they follow because of the severity of the consequence or out of responsibility, followers align themselves with the path that brings short-term security.
If, on the other hand, the leader exhibits integrity, the follower will become a leader who makes decisions with integrity. But it’s once the leader continues to showcase the rewards from the justifications of the grays of morals, followers too absorb this understanding. Either a cycle of integrity is created, or a cycle of reward realization by gaming the system becomes habitual.
Through the years, in a variety of jobs and positions, I haven’t found many leaders I considered inspirational or ethically sound. To gain my leadership principles, I had to cherry-pick attributes. I was guided by their concept of how not to lead. These leaders were greedy; they lacked compassion towards those they led.
A lot is learned from an ineffective process. It forces one to further analyze the cause of the chaos. Anything analyzed soon becomes an instilled lesson. And it's this lesson (from an inequality) that becomes a life lesson. Sometimes, however, the gain from the unfairness or wrong is witnessed. As an "opportunity" (unethical though it may be) is presented. Some who achieve these gains by seizing an opportunity to game (or gray) the system. It is these incomprehensible moral robbers who have left us paths of harm.
The groups I’ve led in school or at work all refined my sense of direction, compassion, and intuitiveness. What I’ve come to learn is that there must be a conscious willingness to treat people—customers, employees, consumers—respectfully. In every decision, a company should screen its actions of intention through some sort of tort-screen-process-matrix, such as the following:
Is it negligent?
Is it a nuisance?
Is it harmful to a person?
Is it harmful to the economy?
Is it harmful to intangible property?
Is it harmful to a certain group of people?
The moment an establishment grossly violates this social contract or tort screening, the establishment should be restricted from certain freedoms. Remember, a corporation is a legal entity that can exercise human rights. If it acted in bad faith and caused mayhem, as with any other entity, its rights should be suspended or otherwise dissolved. Think about it: If you went next door and caused harm to your neighbor, you would be imprisoned. Some of your rights would be dissolved—freedom, ability to vote, to own a gun.
Monetary penalties aren’t the answer. The billion-dollar fines assigned to AIG and Siemens, or even the multimillion-dollar fines assigned to the many other corporations, aren’t any more of a discouragement than the five hundred-dollar ticket assessed against the politician or affluent person. The five hundred-dollar traffic fine assessed against a fast-food worker deprives him of his entire paycheck. This same penalty does little, if any, harm to the person who has the ticket “resolved” or has enough wealth that the traffic stop is seen as the only inconvenience. What has been achieved with this one-sided penalty? Furthermore, when an establishment is penalized, it's again the consumer harmed by the increase in prices or stock-value losses.
“Mistakes” are foreseen by companies. Fines, penalties, and lawsuits have become variables in equations for the profitability of committing an underhanded act. Let me explain it this way: If I murder someone, it’s highly probable that I’ll receive a long prison term. Let’s say instead, the penalty for murder is a million-dollar fine. Would this be more effective than jail time? Not at all. Criminals would have a shopping list of people to murder. Why? Because if they’re offered two million dollars for a “hit,” murder becomes profitable. Behold the practices of the legal entities known as corporations.
It’s likely that you’ve heard of the Ford Pinto controversy. Allegedly, Ford’s cost-benefit analysis indicated that it was cheaper to settle lawsuits than to recall and repair each car. The eleven-dollar repair cost would have prevented the fuel tank from exploding in the event of an accident. Instead, there are claims of hundreds that have died from the fuel tank flaw. Several million dollars and more than three decades later, Ford still exists and is profitable.
Blame doesn't reside on one company or even one industry. Let's not forget about pharmaceutical companies. They have been increasingly negligent in their practices. Each quarter, penalties imposed upon these societal violators set new records. However, each quarter, these same companies are more profitable than the previous. The same is true for petroleum companies, despite the environmental harm they cause.
Profit means growth, growth equates to acquisitions, and acquisitions stifle competition. To effectively compete with a large soulless monster, you have to take on some of the "successful" traits of the monster.
Every business class teaches the following:
The larger the risk,
the larger the reward.
Perhaps it’s time for a Business 2.0 revision:
If the reward is larger than the penalty,
the risk should be taken.
My earlier premise of respect to the whole establishes a concept of fair balance. Sometimes, this respect is conveyed to an individual; other times, it can be extended demographically. I understand that balance is subjective; however, like in any household, certain rules are implied, whether or not they are stated outright. You may not know to take off your shoes as you enter my home, but I’d hope that you would know not to defecate on my bed.
Certain social norms are known. As a human, I’m responsible for my own behavior. The corporation, however, is an entity that lacks a conscience. Its sole responsibility is to increase the wealth of its stakeholders. Still, the lack of conscience and the sole purpose of wealth maximization should not make harmful acts acceptable or a norm for the business. The use of expected losses from intended harm should not be a variable within a forecast equation. It’s an illogical expression within this universe that errs.
There are managers guided by the company’s mission statement. They never veer from what they see as rules set in stone. Then, on the other extreme, there are the barons who “make things right.” Both of these neglect a realistic balance of respect for customer and employee. Both customer and employee could care less about company guidelines or corporate pencil whipping. This is where the problem exists.
In theory, an effective leader is essentially a judge and executor of decisions. Decisions should rely on rules that are acceptable to society. Should paint that contains lead be used for children’s toys because it’s cheaper and would yield higher profit margins? Most people would say no. Our society considers the intentional act of harm to a child wrong. However, in today's corporate world, the leader’s job description isn’t to act in a judicial manner. Every aspect of the corporation is intended to make more money. The job description for the leader and the foundation of a company’s mission statement is to maximize stakeholders’ wealth.
Another question can then be asked:
“Is this wealth maximization achieved in a quarter,
a year,
10 years, or
25 years?”
Read this sentence over:
“Is this wealth maximization achieved in a quarter,
a year,
10 years, or
25 years?”
Prior to Enron, business schools didn’t emphasize course study on ethical practices. With the millions of new ethically educated graduates in the workplace, new questions have arisen. For one, how do you measure, or evaluate, a decision to determine whether it is ethical? If I can become extremely wealthy today, but the manner of receiving this wealth causes grave amounts of destruction to the environment tomorrow, this is far worse than a twenty-five-year R&D investment that leads to cancer cures. Is the immediate profit to stakeholders more responsible than long-term risks that profit society and its investors? Do capital gains trump product safety? And finally, should a stakeholder have to wait several years before a return is made on his investment?
Tomorrow’s destruction…
is today’s high-return for stakeholders.
Each of us is reminded of an example of the consequences of remaining firm and ethical in a goal-driven, short-term-profit environment. Whether this is from a personal experience or as a witness, these “righteous” principle practitioners are shunned and are no longer considered team players. Have you experienced more exceptional leaders or more disreputable leaders? When I say “disreputable,” I mean someone who embezzles, gossips, pencil whips, slacks, shirks, and otherwise misleads.
I mentioned these same characteristics at a speaking engagement. As I ran down the list, I noticed that some looked to the ceiling or otherwise appeared in deep thought. What I learned later is that the majority of these people matched a name to each characteristic I described. Did you do the same?
Unfortunately, it seems as if the “make it happen” approach overlaps personal morals. The blind eye overrides lessons learned at college and taught by parents at dinner tables. It’s the leadership judges—the ones just to all parties: stakeholders, employees, and customers—who are deemed unfit for the corporate culture. They have failed to fully maximize potential profits. As a result, a loop of deception becomes the corporate culture. Those within this culture believe, support, and rationalize these deceptions. In the end, all within the culture deceive each other.
Our recent Great Recession has shown unethical behavior is not only profitable but also inconsequential. The loop of deception continues to revolve until the biggest barons step off this merry-go-round. By this time, they’ve literally stuffed their pockets and have become parasites within another organization or government. Meanwhile, those still on the merry-go-round (the ones following the guidance from those instilling whimsical ethics) become dizzy and tumble over one another.
Wall Street executives have ruined lives and economies near and far. Surely the consequential destruction of the government and economic were grave. Sadly they weren’t; instead of the negative consequences directed to those responsible, it was you and I on the receiving end. Homes lie vacant and millions are unemployed. These were the effects of the intentional infliction of harm to society by those from Wall Street.
Despite the forests lost from the production of pink slips, diminished retirement funds, and lost livelihood, those responsible for these harms remain in position. They have even received incomprehensible bonuses. These hoodlums weren’t arrested, penalized, fined, or even executed; to this day, they continue to reap benefits from their pilfer.
Several documentaries have since been created to reposition the spotlight of fault. But, even as we’re reminded of the culprits, they remain in power. We can only shake our heads in confusion, powerless and distracted by our desperate search for job security. You may interject to say that the people responsible were held accountable. Not necessarily true. A lot of people tend to believe that Bernie Madoff was responsible for the economic deception and received his just consequence. They’re right in that he was sentenced, but his responsibility lies in the creation of the largest Ponzi scheme in history, which is entirely unrelated to the derivatives, subprime loans, and forged paperwork that brought us to the current recession epidemic.
One person that comes to mind, who was fined but also received a golden parachute, is Angelo Mozilo from Countrywide. He received the largest penalty from the Securities and Exchange Commission for his misrepresentations. Like the comparison from earlier, this penalty was more likely a simple inconvenience, not from the fine itself, but because of the time he had spent in depositions. The fine itself wasn’t any more of a grievance than the soda machine that kept your dollar.
Then, there are the government officials with money stored in freezers or connected to interests that prescribe lucrative opportunities. The same officials that received favorable mortgage terms from Countrywide. It seems as if more and more leaders have become part of some exploitive-elite group. Unless you’re invited to the Bilderberg Group or born into a destiny like a Rothschild or Rockefeller, the opportunities that once existed have become mirages in the rearview mirror.
The employee who makes minimum wage and believes in persistence and long hours of study is committed to an unrealistic path to prosperity. In the meantime, this person becomes human capital enslaved by the debt of student loans and complicated verbiage of deception.
There is sometimes more truth in a child’s book than the “rags-to-riches” stories of today’s elite. Save money and time and just lie about your life and experiences like David Edmondson. He “misstated” his education in theology and psychology. Who is David Edmondson? Before February 2006, he was CEO of Radio Shack. I’m sure some employees looked up to him and even aspired to follow in his footsteps. How many have sacrificed their livelihood for this corporate dream: If he can do it through hard work, I can also. I can imagine it being far easier to “misstate” educational credentials than exert the actual effort needed to attain them. Meanwhile, as idolizers followed their CEO’s path of success, they lived paycheck to paycheck.
Type “corporate scandals” into any Internet search engine. Hundreds of thousands of inquiries appear. Scandals from Halliburton, Siemens, Arthur Andersen, Exxon, Chiquita, Firestone, Kmart, and countless others are seen. Click on a few to read further about executives like Gregory Reyes, charged with financial record tampering. Then there’s Mark Hurd, CEO of Hewlett-Packard, who resigned after allegations of sexual harassment and expense account irregularities. These approaches are today’s business norms. It’s as if ethical bearings are competitive disadvantages.
The AFL-CIO website cites several case studies on bank CEOs who received bonuses after federal bailout money was accepted. (Remember, this money was needed to prevent the collapse of the economy—the collapse of the world.) These same banks then foreclosed on homes of residents. Residents became squatters and had their debt increased as a result of the bailout the bank received. Some might argue that it’s difficult to feel compassion toward the homeowner who was financially irresponsible; it seems unlikely that the millions foreclosed on were all negligent. If a teacher administered a test and every student failed, are all the students dumb? Or do we redirect our accusations to the teacher?
This aside, as people were thrown out their homes, the AFL-CIO indicated that Thomas Montag, Bank of America, had a total compensation of $29.9 million; James Dimon, JP Morgan Chase, $15.5 million; and John Haves, Citigroup, $11.3 million. Bonuses are incentives. When the leadership of a CEO has led to the collapse of the company, the economy, and the lives of millions, does it make sense that his actions justify million-dollar bonuses?
These bonuses weren’t company profits for exceptional performance. The money was siphoned from the bailout money loaned by the government. This loan became a debt of those now homeless. Money that the government could have used toward college education, skill training, or for the repairs of the nation’s crumbling roadway infrastructure. Instead it was given as an incentive to the host parasites that destroyed society’s dreams and hopes. That trampled the American Dream.
Let's look at some other industries. Maybe the parasitic greed is confined only to the financial industry. Considering that every industry experienced an underperformance in revenue and responded with mass layoffs, surely CEO bonuses were either eliminated or reduced. Unfortunately, this wasn’t the case. At the top of the AFL-CIO’s list of the one hundred highest paid CEOs is the CEO of Liberty Media. He made $87 million. At the bottom of the same list, the CEO was compensated $15.5 million. That’s a lot of money. I’m reminded of the time I played soccer as a young child; regardless of our team’s ranking, everyone received a trophy. Later in life, after third place there wasn’t any reward—much less a $15.5 million compensation.
Is it really necessary to reward the CEO with several million dollars? Why isn’t it logical or commonsense to pay the minimum-wage employee another quarter, give a quarterly fifty-dollar bonus, or even provide a two hundred-dollar gas gift card? Fifty dollars to someone who makes minimum wage adds several meals that would’ve otherwise been skipped. The gas card would have allowed a person to visit family they haven't seen in years. This compassionate stance would reduce internal theft caused by employees who feel disgruntled or cheated, creating instead an environment of loyalty—a loyalty that benefits the company, the customer, and the employee.
Recently, the Associated Press reported the CEO of Yum Brands received a 31 percent pay increase. I once worked for a Yum Brands franchise. I recall the late nights that I arrived home at five in the morning. If you were to look closely at my hands, you’d notice faint scars from the third-degree burns from the hotplates used to make quesadillas. Friends who had worked there for five years didn’t make more than a dollar over minimum wage. Was I incompetent? Were these friends dumb? Were they criminals? No. These employees—to include myself—were eager, honest, and hopeful for an opportunity to advance in the corporate world—a reward for countless days of honest work. Like everyone else, I chased after the dream to own a home with a white picket fence, to have two and a half kids, and a dog that brought me the morning newspaper. Many years later and all I have is the dog—he doesn’t bring me the newspaper.
Is the redesign of the logo far more profitable than an investment in the employee? At what point did it become acceptable for turnover to reach triple digits? Please, Mr. CEO, can you reconsider an investment in the employee? Maybe even hear the suggestions of the employee who has celebrated his or her twenty-year anniversary with the company. Are the ideas from the long-term employee more practical than the plans from the million-dollar strategic consultant ? The same plans that are later shelved.
Some may huff and puff about how the enormous compensation packages are needed to retain talent. Hogwash, I say! According to the Forbes article, “CEO Rankings: Performance vs. Pay,” Joel Gemunder of Omnicare had an average annual compensation of $13.9 million. Gemunder was at the bottom of this list. This means that he produced the least amount of returns for his company’s stakeholders. Year after year, shareholder value decreased. This meant nothing; he remained employed and later received a lucrative retirement package.
Business gurus and graduate courses praise the almighty General Electric. Its founder, Thomas Edison, seemed great, and Jack Welch appears ruthless, but Jeffry Immelt was ranked 188th. His average compensation package was $12.7 million. In essence, these CEOs consistently underperformed. This is the underperformance that the experts say require exorbitant salaries. If you make sense of this business model of wage inequality without relation to performance, please pass me some of the Kool-Aid you have sipped.
The bailout bonuses and the performance-wage scenarios serve two purposes. The first explained the disregard for ethics in the business environment. The other scenario showcased those rewarded for no apparent explanation. Education, hard work, performance—let’s leave these principles for the children’s books or the silver screen. The playing field is uneven. This is already known, but now it has become impossibly unfair. Even so, I continue to believe that integrity and hard work do count for something. But then again, I am write this book from a small apartment instead of a presidential suite in a skyscraper.
The recipe for business success is this: increase profits and forecasts by the reduction of expenses through labor elimination and restructure. Yet, the expenses for country clubs, bonuses, dividend payouts, and executive perks remain or increase for those profiting either which way—if the company does well or if it does poorly. My educational background is in business; I understand the principles and phases of a corporation. What I’ve come to learn is that once the corporate signage is stripped from the door, the same business models of the past fifty years are used at each company.
This model has a ratchet-based profit objective. Either an increase is made or the unfulfilled goal remains at its current position. Then, as the next quarter approaches, profits and sales are expected to increase by three percent. Soon profits continue to nosedive and the company rushes to revert to its original start-up success formula.
Company after company, case study after case study, and still, the same flawed model is followed. Perhaps it’s only flawed to those below the thrones of the company’s puppeteers.
Each time I hear of a friend terminated, I am reminded of the uncertainty and fear. The friend is considered a friend for a reason. I know of his commitment and dedication. I’ve seen his health decline, witnessed the promises he’s broken, and been told of his loved one that discussed separation. All from the arguments meant for bosses, the birthdays missed, opportunities lost, and vacations that became extended offices. Friendships and relationships fell in shambles. All this, so he could become a team player at his job. Nowhere is the team when he's terminated.
Then, the journey is made to find another job with the same flawed framework. For now, it’s probably a good idea for employees to join in prayer circles each morning to plead for the prevention of bad decisions made by top executives—like the change to the original soft-drink formula or to use lead paint on toys. Regardless of how predictably bad the decision was, these executives are destined to receive bonuses even as they hand out termination notices for the “flopped decisions.” For some reason, failures of our boss mean a lost job for us. Go figure.
I’ve learned to value the balance of priorities in life. You can be the best employee possible, and every so often the late nights are justified. However, as the balance scale tips toward your employer and remains weighted down, understand that this is a one-sided dedication. The longer the scale is tipped, the more that other aspects of life become neglected—family, children, peace of mind, and everything else that really matters in life.
This isn’t an invitation to become disgruntled or to shirk responsibilities. It’s said as a reminder to be ever conscious of the fair balance in life. When a favor soon is expected, and you find yourself frustrated more often than inspired, something has to give. The line in the sand must be defined.
Any friend or neighbor can save you a lot of grief and repeat the overall premise of this book: define your limits and know your balance. You’ve been forewarned to cherish each day. Instead of complete devotion of prime years to a company, spend time with family, enjoy life, and do the best that you can at work—within the boundaries of balance, that is.
The rungs on the corporate ladder that are so desired are also soiled. There is always someone willing to do what you won’t or able to perform better at a far lower price. How much is lost once it’s understood that there is a difference between contractual obligations from moral obligations.
Don’t “go all in” with your life for a job. This isn’t any different from playing roulette and placing all chips on red. There are two whammies: black and green. The ball may very well land on red. However, is the “all in” employee gamble worth the sacrifice of family and health? Scatter the opportunity. Put something on red, black, and even some on green. A career and a personal life can be mutually exclusive.
If you’re approached at work to come in on the weekend and you’ve made plans with your companion, say with unrelenting confidence: “Thanks for choosing me for this responsibility. Unfortunately, I promised my wife a visit to the beach this weekend. I can come in early Monday to review the reports. I don’t mind looking over it now until it’s time to leave.”
Dedication is a great trait. It’s also the trait most abused by superiors. In short, you are an asset that can be easily replaced. Your proficiency is profitable to the company and makes life easier for supervisors. But the constant imbalance may result in a divorce or decline in health. Don’t lose sight of your values. You’re a person, a human—you’re not part of a herd or a slave from past days. Don't allow another human to decide your priorities. Their decisions are made without the slightest concern for how you’re inconvenienced.
What this all comes down to is that corporations are predators. They prey upon opportunities to increase their profits. This gobbling of opportunities transforms the corporation into a an Ouroborus—an ancient symbol that depicts a serpent eating its tail. This tail consumption takes shape in the form of layoffs, restructures, mergers, and bankruptcy. A corporation, like the Ouroborus, will continue to consume itself to its own demise.
Always remember that the sole goal of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value. Period. Corporations aren’t intended to serve the interests of the community, society, employer, or anything else for that matter. They are designed to consume opportunities to the point that all wealth is centralized. By this time, shareholders have maximized their wealth. The result? The corporation implodes from the deterioration of greed. Meanwhile, several blocks away, the same model is implemented with hopes to further maximize profits.
Don’t allow past experiences to be forgotten.
Hold them close.
TWO DIVISIONS OF SOCIETY
There are two methods of human activity~
and according to which one of these two kinds of activity people mainly follow,
are there two kinds of people:
one use their reason to learn what is good and what is bad
and they act according to this knowledge;
the other act as they want to and then they use their reason to prove that that which they did was good and that which they didn’t do was bad.
Leo Tolstoi
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PURCHASE.
PLEASE LEAVE COMMENTS
DON’T ALLOW THE ILL-INTENTIONS OF OTHERS BECOME LESSONS.
TURN THE PAGE FOR ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Meet the Author
John-Talmage Mathis
Thank you for your support and purchase.
Please leave a comment, rating, and feel free to e-mail me.
jt@jtmathis.com • www.JTMATHIS.com