Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiCorporations and the Conventions
At the Democratic convention last week, I kept bumping into two different kinds of corporate professionals. Most have headed over to the Republican convention this week. One type says its job is "public affairs;" the other, "government affairs." They sound similar but the jobs are quite different.
The "public affairs" types are at the conventions to bring attention to their companies' commitments to social responsibility. Many of them have hand-outs and fancy brochures touting all the good things their firms do. The "government affairs" types are at the conventions to build their companies' political influence. They're the ones in the sky boxes with cocktails and hors d'oeuvres.
The two types often work for the same big companies but they seem to operate at cross purposes. For example, I met a public affairs person who talked about the great strides his company was making in green technologies. But the government affairs people from the same company have been actively lobbying against environmental laws and regulations.
Another public affairs person was touting her companies' dedication to its communities - gifts to local schools and playgrounds, for example. But in the sky boxes were lobbyists from the same firm that have been demanding tax abatements from those same communities, as a condition for keeping jobs there. And those tax abatements have meant less revenues for local schools and playgrounds.
Other public affairs people told me how much their firms value their employees, giving them more flexible work schedules and extra days off. But the same firms have been lobbying against paid family leave.
I'm not suggesting hypocrisy. I mean, it's entirely possible these companies have voluntarily taken on corporate social responsibilities and don't want the government to force them to do any of it. Or maybe the left hand of corporate public affairs doesn't know what the right hand of government affairs is up to.
But I can't help thinking that if these companies took social responsibility seriously, they'd put a brake on their lobbying and influence-peddling. Maybe they'd even avoid spending so much on political conventions.
18 Comments so far
Show AllConservatives/Liberals the terms are outmoded. Governors are less interested in the governed than they are about Re-election. Would *"Native Criminal Class", be a better Descriptor? *Gore Vidal
Ok, I'll put his book(s) in my reading carel.
("Locked in the Cabinet") was that the one you are discussing here?
Any others?
I'll get to them after I finish with Elizabeth Drew's "The Corruption of American Politics" (for the 3rd time, It's that good) and Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine".
btw, I'm still trying to get that BCCI scandal taste out of my mouth.
Robert Reich is in no position to be posted on a website for progressive politics, he's entirely linked with the the ruling class. His comments on corporations are nice, but he himself only helped to the best of his ability with Sec. of Labor to push through the horrible anti-labor legislation and general onslaught against U.S. workers under Clinton -- very effectively, too.
It would be good is commondreams not offer him legitimacy, even when any given column/commentary is OK, for he is -- to put it mildly -- a wolf that sometimes drapes himself in sheep's clothing.
Conservatives/Liberals the terms are outmoded. Governors are less interested in the governed than they are about Re-election. Would *"Native Criminal Class", be a better Descriptor? *Gore Vidal
I was very interested in learning about Mr. Reich's thoughts concerning labor.
I have recently begun to read more about the problems that organized Labor are facing today.
Then I read about some comments made by journalist Bill Moyers from a 2003 interview on Buzzflash.com where he said this about government, mind, that the date is after any Reich term as Sec of labor but this seems to make more sense considering the shell game we've been watching for the last 7 1/2 years.
Quote from Buzzflash (2003) "The corporate right and the political right declared class warfare on working people a quarter of a century ago and they've won." He noted that "The rich are getting richer, which arguably wouldn't matter if the rising tide lifted all boats." Instead, however, "The inequality gap is the widest it's been since 1929; the middle class is besieged and the working poor are barely keeping their heads above water." He added that as "the corporate and governing elites are helping themselves to the spoils of victory," access to political power has become "who gets what and who pays for it."
I wanted to post this here because the article by Mr. Reich concerns the role of business and in particular the appearance of business as a "Corporate Citizen".
I have noticed that the public face of business is friendly when you want to buy services but if you have some concerns about services or a dispute then the dialogue becomes difficult and involves a lawsuit as the fix to your question and out of court settlement and a non-disclosure statement and a spin to make the business seem "friendly", again.
A similar problem affects the Labor Unions right up to the AFL-CIO. I read at the Department of Labor's website that the AFL-CIO's membership had fallen so much by 2003 that the organization created a new coalition of trade groups called the New Unity Partnership (NUP). The 2004 general election had a bad effect on Organized Labor with their candidate John Kerry losing his bid to become president. The following year the NUP tried to reorganize union goals by reducing the central governing group reorganizing some union groups and focusing on training of new members instead of advancing the Unions industrial policies.
This was unpopular and the NUP dissolved in 2005 leaving the door open for a newer and more radical group called the Change to Win Federation that demanded a new organization to challenge the Executive council.
Late in 2005 the Change to Win organization lost their bid to take over the Executive council and 3 of the 4 largest group's in the AFL-CIO finally announced that they would leave the AFL-CIO (the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the International Brotherhood of Teamsters ("The Teamsters"), and the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW).
This was a bitter fight involving a major split between the AFL-CIO's president John Sweeny and his protege Andy Stern (SEIU president).
The result of this dispute has been the crippling of what little power was left to the Labor and Trade union organizations in America because of fighting over losses of jobs and power control by the governing bodies.
I am wondering if the strategy of hearing so much bad news about our jobs hasn't already pre-conditioned us to not be shocked or concerned until we hear the worst news of all. (pick a topic)
These are tactics used by opponents in a war. Does this not seem alarming to any of the readers here. I'm watching the pot get stirred by a group of cooks who deliberately want to poison the patient.
hman
Since corporations so obviously run both parties, why is everyone so frantically concerned about whether figurehead #1 or figurehead #2 is selected? In the end the corporations will have their agendas serviced by either figurehead, and screw the people.
Dave
http://daveeriqat.wordpress.com/
Remember who Clinton's mentor was? A man who revealed to the world in his book "TRAGEDY AND HOPE" what the goal of the elites is..
Reich being a hardcore Clinton man, had have been willing to follow is leaders goals, which were that of his mentors, who supported the elites goals, but diagreed with the fact that they kept them hidden. "Carroll Quigley".
TRAGEDY AND HOPE
by: Carroll Quigley
Excerpted from pp. 950 - 955 - detailing the establishment of the "New York branch of the ROYAL INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS". . . the:
COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Group has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, of any other groups, and frequently does so.
I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments.
I have objected, but in the past and recently, to a few of its policies (notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic rather than a European Power and must be allied, or even federated, with the United States and must remain isolated from Europe), but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wished to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.
The corporations are all chartered in Delaware with a racket that allows them to get around social responsibility. The relevant office there in Delaware may become the ceremonial spot where the new progressive federal government will officially eliminate corporate personhood and limit the lifespans, market shares, and assets of all corporations doing business in the United States.
Democrat/Republican conventions are nothing more than a WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY !! Besides, 3rd party candidates get nothing the likes of those two over-polished conventions !
That is why Nader is running. At 10% he gets presidential funding and then, well then what the Corporate Parties don't want just may be starting. Their demise.
I like the idea of Nader running, but... he isn't. Not meaningfully. Not seriously. He got into the game way too late and he's not on the radar. The odd Nader supporter who enthusiastically declares, in a discussion forum, that he or she will be voting for Nader isn't enough visibility. Nader's wasting his time in my view.
Corporations' only real contenders are other corporations. Ralph Nader or other progressive attorney, incorporate We the People and beat them at their own game.
Did he really speak of corporations taking their 'social responsibility seriously?' That may be the funniest thing I've seen in print for a while.
For one thing, its almost illegal under currently law. Corporations are required by law to act to maximize the money that goes to their investors. The notion that a corporation also has a social responsibility is a very quaint one that dates back to the days when the states were more careful about issuing and re-issuing corporate charters. They actually had the nerve back then to say that a corporation should be helping the society around it instead of harming it in order to be granted the charter by the state.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Completely true. I had the privilege of going to a speech by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. at my school last night and he brought this up. Corporations cannot legally do philanthropy. They only appear to because they think it will boost their image and lead to more sales, services, etc. Legally, corporations can only work to increase the profit for their shareholders, plain and simple.
That is incorrect. Corporations are legally required to follow their charter, which may include social responsibility, philanthropy, or other noble sentiments. Charters used to have a set duration, after which the corporation would be dissolved, but that went out of fashion around 1850. Believe it or not, such things as 'non-profit corporations' exist.
Typically the hellbent drive for profit only infects corporations with outstanding debt (i.e. publically traded shares of stock). Legally, it is correct these corporations must benefit their stockholders, and this has been interpreted as profits first with social considerations and evils not ranking as relevant. Privately held corporations and small business are free to be as profitable and/or socially responsible as their owners wish them to be.
Robert Reich was for a time a good soldier in the administration of Bill Clinton, the Democrat who assassinated what was left of the party's soul and replaced it with a man-sized safe that is now in the possession of Dick Cheney. When you read this, keep that in mind.
My impression from Reich's book Locked in the Cabinet is that Clinton was just not progressive enough for him on economic issues and Reich resigned after one term as Sec. of Labor, in my opinion, to his credit.
Sounds like both good and bad. He spent one four year term giving the Clinton pro-corporate rule a faux progressive face. Then he did have the integrity to design.
The interesting thing is that while Mr. Reich is still one of the best known Democrats speaking on economic issues, I don't remember him having any voice at the recent convention. That the person who is the leading Democratic voice on progressive economic issues was sidelined by the Obama campaign tells us a bit more about where Obama is going. And like all the other indicators we've gotten, it does not seem good.
The guy who says Walmart is a friend of working people is the leading economic adviser to the Obama team, while the leading progressive economic voice in the party is left on the sidelines.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
It's the nature of the corporate beast to play every angle to maximize profits. The "public affairs" types exist to spread the illusion that corporations are good social citizens while the "government affairs" are busy selecting politicians and groups who will undermine democracy to promote their corporate agenda.
Sad part is that there are no public or government affair types that are representing the average guy out there.
It is a shame, Space Cadet, and it's a double shame because that was supposed to have been the job of our elected representatives who currently occupy Congress (and the White House).