I have been fairly silent for a while. Watching and waiting to see how we would pull ourselves out of the financial mess we now find ourselves mired in. I am no closer to any great insight, but I find myself more and more astonished at just how low we have sunk as a society.

Toyota. A once powerful symbol of automotive quality. A beacon of corporate responsibility, and the go to vehicle for those looking for value, quality, longevity, and safety. That is… until now.

Every company makes mistakes, but it is how mistakes are handled that make a difference. So what makes Toyota’s debacle different? Well, there are a few things. first of all there is now evidence coming out that they were complicit in the deceit. “Documents released Sunday show Toyota officials basked in their success in lobbying federal safety officials in 2007 to limit a recall tied to sudden-acceleration complaints to just 55,000 vehicles, saving the company $100 million, according to an internal document obtained by a congressional committee” (WSJ, 2010). They even consistently blamed the floor mats, while allegedly being quite aware the problem was mechanical. According to the Wall Street Journal (2010) “the company blamed incidents on all-weather floor mats, instead of a potentially more costly defect with the car itself.”

This deceit in favor of profit is bad enough, but it goes much, much deeper.

In June of 2006 a man coming home from church with his family, driving a Toyota Camry, slammed into another car killing the family inside. He was going speeds somewhere between 70 and 90 miles per hour at the time of the accident. He was arrested and convicted by a jury of his peers of vehicular manslaughter despite not being under the influence of any substance whatsoever. His sentence? 8 years of which 4 have already been served. The family of the victims are in pain, and will never get their loved ones back. The driver, Mr. Lee, a Laotian refugee that came to this country for a better life and a system he believed to be just, never saw the birth of his child or spent an hour with this child in its first four years of impressionable life. Justice was served, and the American flag flew high. But this tragic story does not end here.

Mr. Lee consistently maintained that the accelerator pedal stuck and sped the car up while the brakes failed. Of course he was not to be believed. The jury of his peers had never heard of such a thing happening, and Toyota said nothing despite numerous complaints about the same 1996 Camry model Lee was driving . According to ABC News, the judge admonished the convicted man of not even showing an ounce of remorse.

The case is now being reopened, and even the victim’s family is fighting for Mr. Lee, but where is Toyota? Of course they are now concerned about lawsuits, and must have been similarly concerned in 2006. That is understandable, but let us open our eyes people! In favor of corporate profits Toyota “allegedly” stood by and watched an innocent man be sent to prison and countless other be killed or maimed.

So, how far does corporate greed go? As the truth comes out, it appears pretty far. I may not be able to do much more than spread the word via my blog and my classroom, but I want to set an example. Although I have never owned a Toyota, for the rest of my life I never will. That is how I can make a stand. How about you?

References

Linebaugh, K. & Mitchell, J. (Feb 22, 2010). Houese panel slams toyota. Wall Street Journal.   http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704454304575081363213478420.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

Rhee, J. & Ross, B. (Feb 22, 2010). New evidence of runaway toyotas may help imprisoned camry owner. ABC News.                      http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/RunawayToyotas/toyota-acceleration-problems-new-evidence-                       imprisoned-minnesota-toyota-camry-owner/story?id=9903455&page=1

I am a week or so behind on  my comments regarding Wall Street’s  acquisition of N1H1 vaccines, but that is partially because I am so disgusted at the in our faces display of our society’s failings that I have been stumped for words. Earlier this month it was revealed that some Wall Street institutions like Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and others received doses of the vaccine to give to their employees. Now, all large companies request them, but they received them. As we all know, there are simply not enough vaccines to go around, and adding insult to injury people are dying of this flu that could reach pandemic levels.

Currently the vaccine is for those at the highest risk. So, what makes Goldman Sachs employees high risk? Nothing. What makes them more special than our hospitals? Nothing. Why should they have a better chance at health than others that are in immediate peril? They shouldn’t. In fact, they should be the lowest risk group in the country if we want to be fair, but a plutocracy is not fair. There is that word again. It just keeps popping up. First they stole from our economy, then our taxpayers, and now from our very well being and survival. You may even agree with me, but you are probably still saying to yourself “it doesn’t have anything to do with me.” May I remind you of a piece written by Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemolle for a speech he gave in 1946.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

I am not equating Nazi Germany with what is happening here in any way, but we simply cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the destruction of America by out of control big business. This nation is rich in its history of innovation, corporate social responsibility, and the best there is when it comes to taking care of our fellow mankind. Ask yourselves what is happening, and how much more can we take before we demand something is done?

Anyone that doubts we are a plutocracy must look at this as another example. Please, I beg someone to take the opposing side to this argument and prove me wrong. Can’t, can you?

It is fairly plain to see that the $700 billion stimulus has not worked. At least not so far, and in light of the planned executive bonuses there is a fair chance we can take that statement to the bank. This is good in that at least we have something to take to the bank considering all they are taking from us, but I digress.

As an economist, I take this seriously. I realize the government is trying anything to get the economy back on track, but seriously folks in D.C. Did you really think that money would find its way down from Wall Street to Main street? A trickle down theory of economics is good, and has at times been successful; however, not when greed and corruption are rampant. This is where my common sense becomes inflamed. The government knew very well that corruption had caused the banks to crumble. Why then would they pour $700 BILLION into a corrupt institution?

Did we need a stimulus? Yes. Do we still need a stimulus? Yes, because main street is still suffering. Unemployment is quickly approaching 16% in places like Michigan, but even in California it is continuously creeping up. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics it rose again to over 12% in September. In fact, that is only “registered” unemployment and not actual figures. It does not account for those that are underemployed or are not eligible for unemployment compensation such as the formerly self employed. If we counted those workers the numbers would more than likely approach  at least the 20% – 25% level. As of the latest September statistics, long term unemployment (those unemployed more than 27 weeks) rose to 5.4 million people. Does this sound like a recovery? Does this resemble a successful stimulus?

Although I was not a fan of the previous administration, I am also one to give credit where credit is due. The decision to give a stimulus to the people, in the form  of a $600.00 check, was a step in the right direction. It was designed to “stimulate” consumer spending, but it did not do the trick and was therefore deemed a failure. That was also part of the design. The administration needed to be able to point to a failure of the trickle up theory of economics. The failure was in the fact that the amount was ridiculous. If anyone thought that $600 in a person’s hand was going to do anything but pay a bill or two they were sadly mistaken. Very few people ran out and went on a shopping spree with a paltry $600, and thus consumer spending continued to drop. See, trickle up doesn’t work so let’s try trickle down and give big business billions said the guys in charge. Whew, aren’t we glad they tried? Don’t we feel better now?

Why not try this President Obama? How about taking the beginning amount of $700 billion and divide it by the 250 million adults in the U.S.? MAYBE, even add another $700 billion to the mix, which is probably closer to the amount that will actually end up being poured into our failing economy. Divide all of that by 250 million adults and watch how they spend their $5,600 windfall. Yes, people will pay down a bit of their debt like they did with the $600, but they will definitely go out and spend some of that much larger check. How do I know this? Because it is human nature. Sociology 101 for a consumer nation, and especially with the holidays right around the corner.

Trickle down did not work. What do you say we give trickle up a “real” try, and watch our economy start to right itself with a genuine stimulus?!

BLS (Oct. 21, 2009), Regional and State Employment and Unemployment Summary. Retrieved Oct. 23 from

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm

The new film by Michael Moore, Capitalism, A Love Story, did not really say anything different from what I  have been talking about for many years now. While I am not necessarily always a fan of his tactics, he does have some very insightful things to say. Capitalism is failing.

For almost a year now we have been hearing Wall Street wail as loud as they can for help so we bailed them out despite the knowledge that they created the disaster themselves by virtue of unethical business practices and greed. The idea was such that pouring taxpayer money into badly managed, unethical, parasitic banking institutions would save the economy, our beloved free market system, and give them more money to loan. The trickle down theory of economics in practice, but it is not trickling down and never will. Therein lies obvious as well as less apparent problems.

By the very definition of capitalism and free market economy it is survival of the fittest. This is what Wall Street has been espousing far longer than I am alive.  But wait! Apparently that does not apply to Wall Street itself, and the rest of us never got the memo. If it did apply they would have insisted that inferior institutions be allowed to fall in order to make way for the stronger ones, but they didn’t. All of a sudden they had their hands out with fear mongering speeches decrying the end of America. The best part is that we the American public, and our government, all drank the Kool-Aid. We buy into fear. It unites us. It gets us to agree to things that we later scratch our collective heads in wonderment over. If the previous eight years can be pointed to as an example it is not surprising we find ourselves in a similar position today, and those that reap the rewards stand laughing.

Just a few days ago I ended up in a conversation with an otherwise intelligent man that begged me to understand that the United States financial system was hours away from “Armageddon.” Armageddon?! Does this not wreak of familiar pulpit driven tactics to control the masses from thoughts of upheaval? Of course, the moment he began spouting his vitriol I correctly guessed that he was an investment banker by trade.What was there to understand? Where is their free market, capitalist model now? I do not see small business being bailed out, and small business employs the bulk of Americans. Small businesses are failing at record rates because of the mess that Wall Street created.

I am not saying I disagree with a free market system, but left unchecked as it has been since WWII it is doomed to self destruct. The fact that our economy has been in free fall has not been remotely solved by the big bailout, but why? That is what they promised after all. The answer is simple. Our form of capitalism breeds greed. We can look back to Lord Acton’s famous quote; “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” This is why my recent debate opponent sees nothing wrong with the bailout or the huge sums being given out as bonuses to the very people that did a poor job to begin with. It is not that he is a “bad man” as Lord Acton would suggest, but he is employed by some. If the rest of us had driven our companies into the ground we would surely not be given bonuses.

This folks is capitalism, but it is not democracy. They are mutually exclusive from one another despite what we are too often told. It is not democracy it is plutocracy, which is the form of government rampant, unchecked capitalism is best suited for. By definition plutocracy is “government by the wealthy.” Sound familiar?

Some residents of Big Tujunga in the Los Angeles area are making claims today that their homes were lost when firefighters were diverted to the Palos Verdes fire. Now, for those of you not located in Los Angeles I will give you a little geography and fiscal education. Big Tujunga is fairly well populated with older smaller homes dotted throughout the canyon while Palos Verdes is populated with larger, many newer, more opulent homes. Now let’s do the math:

According to several real estate websites the mean home price in Palos Verdes, CA is just under $1 million. The mean home price in Big Tujunga, CA is between $400,000 – $500,000.  If property taxes are assessed at around 1% we can easily see that between the two areas Palos Verdes is the big ticket item for the state.  A state in dire financial crisis I might add.

Right now you are saying “that can’t be!” How can a professor of business ethics jump on the accusatory bandwagon of alleging financial favoritism? Has the latest news story gotten to her head without doing the research? Have conspiracy theorists invaded her cerebellum? No. Quite the contrary. I am not jumping on a bandwagon, not a conspiracy theorist, but most importantly am speaking from personal observation.

What the residents of Big Tujunga are claiming rings true. Almost every other year now I have been evacuated from my own canyon home above Chatsworth, CA due to raging, out of control fires. I am not complaining about this fact because I accept the pitfalls of living in paradise. Four years ago we were evacuated and I attended an NBC news conference being held by Mayor Villaraigosa and the fire chief just below the canyon. They proudly announced to the crowd and the cameras how the water drops were taking place at that very moment in Bell canyon. Now, this would have been good, but the homes most in danger were in Box and Woolsey Canyons. The fire had not even reached Bell canyon at that point, but rest assured those homes were protected while not one water drop had occurred in Box or Woolsey. When I confronted the mayor about this he hemmed and hawed so I pressed the point and inquired as to whether the higher property taxes in Bell canyon had anything to do with why we were not receiving the needed water drops. While watching the television camera go from my face to his repeatedly he appeared to be a deer caught in the headlights then sputtered out that he would personally go check on our homes. To his credit he did just that, but I wanted water drops like Bell Canyon was getting not a mayoral visit. We did begin to get water drops just minutes after his trip up our canyon, and I am not saying definitively it was because of my confrontation, but I also don’t believe in coincidences.

So, when I saw Bert Voorhees, resident of a burnt out home in Big Tujunga Canyon, make his claims on the news today I gave a silent cheer and ran to my blog. After all, I have a blog on ethics and what could be more unethical than greed on the part of our government? Some may argue that it makes financial sense. I say garbage! It is not okay, nor is it ethical to decide whose home gets saved by the value of their property tax! Next thing you know the government will decide whose life is worth saving by how much money they have. Uh oh, they already do that. It’s called health care and war.

All fifty states operate under the guise of “at-will ” employment to some extent. This essentially means that an employer may discharge an employee without cause. It was originally designed to protect both the employer and employee on several levels but has not really lived up to its intent. The theory is that both the employer and employee can get out of a situation without recourse, but in reality only the employer has that capability while the employee has the unspoken responsibility to not leave the employer “high and dry.” Why? Because if they do there will surely be no glowing employment references.
When you consider the implications it essentially gives employers carte blanche to dismiss employees on a whim. This was not much of a problem when the odds were in the worker’s favor due to it being an “employee market”, but in times of economic crisis it becomes less and less ethical. No one is ever going to ask employers about their record of giving advance notice to employees, but if an employee wants that job on their resume they had better give plenty of notice and leave on the best of terms. So, while the law is intended to protect both parties it is decidedly one sided.
Aside from the ethical question of whether or not this law should be changed perhaps we should be looking at the bigger picture. Our workforce is overworked, burnt out, stressed out, and just generally mistreated. We ask the world of our personnel in unpaid overtime, little to no vacation time, and dedication all in the hopes that they might someday climb the corporate ladder and see a payoff only to get tossed out with the trash in favor of someone younger, less expensive, and equally as expendable. Loyalty is expected from employees with very little offered in return; most often in the name of increasing the bottom line and C level bonuses.
Wake up corporate America and earn the loyalty and respect of your workforce before it is too late. You’ll be glad you did.

It is very important for vendors and consumers to have a clear understanding of the companies they deal with or purchase from. There are three distinct ways one can do this by way of looking at how a company treats its customers, vendors (partners), and employees.
CUSTOMERS
1. Does the company ignore customers?
2. Does the customer have the perception that they are being given the benefit of the doubt, which is sometimes mislabeled “the customer is always right?”
3. Is the company guilty of poor customer service?
4. Are customers passed off to an overseas call center with no authority to problem solve?

VENDORS
1. Does the company treat its vendors with honesty?
2. Does the company treat its vendors with fairness? (ex: selling fair trade products)
3. Does the company pay vendors in a timely manner

EMPLOYEES
1. Do employees feel undervalued?
2. Do employees feel over scrutinized? (not trusted to do their jobs)
3. Do employees feel expendable?
4. Do employees feel underpaid for the level of work they are doing?
5. Is there high turnover in the company?
6. Is there a consistent pattern of using employees to gain contact lists or knowledge and then letting them go?

If a company fails in one or more of these areas it could be a clear indicator that you would not want to deal with them on any level. The greater implication here is that the business is operating in an unethical manner. Aligning yourself with a company such as this will undoubtedly place a black mark on your reputation in business or have you suffering as a consumer. Additionally, it could also be an indicator of a misuse of company funds, but that will be saved for the next time……

Okay, so I am going to go out on another limb with something controversial here, but I just feel that it is time to chime in as it is becoming an ethical issue. For years now I have been hearing, and understanding, how everyone has a right to their “opinion.” This is true, and freedom of speech and expression are two of the factors that make this country great. Now, let’s go a little deeper into the idea of “opinion.”

Once “opinion” crosses over into “action” it is no longer a “point of view.” I always see both sides to an argument and value people’s differing opinions, and this subject has been no different until now. With states like Maine legalizing gay marriage day by day and public figures such as Miss California joining organizations to prevent the legalization of gay marriage the debate is heating up, but it is now more than a debate. I understand that there are many people in this country that oppose gay marriage primarily on the foundation of religious reasons, and that is to be respected to a degree, but we also have laws in this country that protect a person’s civil liberties. In this case we are left arguing based on the Principle of Rights, i.e. one person’s rights versus another’s. Allowing a gay couple to marry is not infringing on the rights of those with strong religious beliefs, however, the campaign to prevent them from marrying does infringe on another group’s rights.

Our civil judicial system operates under this very principle of rights and so it is doing in this case. The courts are deciding whether or not gay couples should be allowed to marry. The courts are where cases of rights are adjudicated not by public vote. If this were not the case then there would be many things in this country that would never have changed. It is not, in any situation, appropriate or ethical for the majority to dictate to a minority on basic human rights.

It wasn’t that far back in recent history that African Americans and Caucasians were not allowed to marry. The “majority” felt it should be prevented based on religious moral convictions. Sound familiar? We look back on this today as ridiculous, but the fight for this right was long and arduous. The majority’s moral, religious conviction against the allowing of multiracial marriage was deemed unethical and a violation of rights of another.

Our system is designed to protect the rights of the minority against the whims of the majority. It is our ethical duty as Americans to address this. Not to pick on this one person, but if Miss California had stood on the Miss USA stage and ranted about taking away the rights of multicultural partners to marry we would be outraged. We would be quick to call her and others like her racists and un American. Why then is it “okay” to do the same to another group of tax paying Americans?

Now I am going to jump on the bandwagon. About a week or so ago I witnessed a minor accident on a main thoroughfare and without missing a beat I automatically stopped to give my business card to the non-responsible party. I was in between meetings so I really did not have time to chat, but I could see the shocked look on his face as I handed it to him and briskly got back in my car to zoom away to my next appointment.

I stopped for many reasons. Foremost, it is the right thing to do, despite the fact it is rarely done. Secondly, although it would have appeared to be a rear end/right rear quadrant collision, the party that was hit was actually one hundred percent at fault. She decided to cut across four lanes of busy traffic to grab a parking spot and the poor sod in front of me had nowhere to go. Third, I firmly believe in random acts of kindness, and I knew the unfortunate fellow was going to get blamed when he was in no way at fault, and lastly, it could just as easily have been me in his position had I been two minutes earlier for my appointment.

So I felt good about being a Good Samaritan and doing the right thing, but my moral to the story is exactly why people rarely stop in the first place. Later the same day the victim’s insurance company, AAA, called me and asked for a recorded statement. I was more than happy to accommodate and was done swiftly. Now, two weeks later I get a cryptic letter from Mercury Insurance, which I despise for their business practices to begin with, asking me to type out a statement and mail it back to them. I have two problems with this approach. To begin with, I am extremely busy and do not have the time to type out random statements. More importantly, they expected me to put my own stamp on the envelope and take the time to mail it out. This was really not a big deal, but remember, I was just being a good citizen and this was the insurance company of the guilty party, who by the way was trying to say it was not her fault. It was the principle of the matter. They could have at least provided the stamp!

This is exactly the reason people do not take the time out of their busy day to “do the right thing.” The Good Samaritan seems to always get bitten somehow. How many times have we all heard stories of a caring citizen coming to the rescue only to get sued in the end themselves, etc. Remember Richard Jewell, the hero of the Atlanta Olympic bombing? He died last year a broken man and all he did was the “right thing.” As for me, I will continue to pay it forward as often as possible, but I most certainly understand why people are reluctant to do so.

Reprinted from my blog at a national travel magazine April 10, 2008