How Socially Responsible Are Computer Companies? 377
mlc asks: "I'm involved in some projects for social justice, et al., and I'm also a geek. But I've never really given much thought to reconciling the two. How ethical are computer companies, especially hardware companies? Do semiconductor factories in Taiwan treat their workers better than any other factories in Taiwan? Does Dell donate any of its profits to charity? Are there any other tips for the socially responsible computer buyer?"
Clean Computer Campaign website (Score:2)
A report card for major computer manufacturers on environmental responsibility. Apple and IBM scored the highest.
$1M/student is about right (Score:2)
However, it supports in perpetuity; a $1M donation lets you have one student in school *forever*
hawk
What makes corporate giving socially responible? (Score:2)
What gives the directors or executives any moral authority to decide which charities should receive the money? Isn't it better for the shareholders to make this decision?
Quite frankly, unless the corporation is contributing to charities I want to support, my reaction as a stockholder is that my money is being wasted (and yes, I think the same applies to political spending by both corporations and unions).
Just hand over the proceeds to the shareholders, and let the shareholders use *their* views on the socially responsible place to spend the money.
Re:Depends on the company, mostly (Score:2)
You don't remember correctly.
If you can increase your price without losing all of your customers, you have market power. With barriers to entry, you can be a monopolist--microsoft certainly has enough market power to meet any normal economic meaning of monopolist.
A monopolist *will* charge different prices to different groups if it can keep them separate. It will also lower price and increase quantity if it feels heat that may lead to regulation, consumer boycott, or other activities that reduce its profit.
hawk, professor of economics
HP at least tries to help the environment. (Score:2)
I finally used up my first toner cartridge last year and they made it trivial for me to send it back to them for recycling.
They also talk about [hp.com] other facets of their philanthropic image on their website, but I've never had any personal involvement, so YMMV.
[Clue] (Score:2)
Re:Social responsibilty (Score:2)
If you think the quality of Microsoft's products is the *only* reason not to use them, you're not listening carefully enough. As recently as last week, they managed to buy their way into the George W. Bush campaign. They will push hard for him to win, because he's not going to push anyone in the judicial branch to do anything about Microsoft. Do you want *any* corporation to have that level of control with any politician? Let alone a corporation that has been judged as illegally acquiring and maintaining a monopoly
They're cheaper! (Score:2)
Whenever possible, I buy from mom & pop hardware shops - there was one exception where I needed a certain drive NOW and they had to order it, I couldn't wait so I had to buy from comp usa, but in general, in my area you always get a more knowledgeable sales staff and a better price at the local non-corporate shops.
OTHO there must be a reason why (Score:2)
... (Score:2)
Re:Who Really Cares?? (Score:2)
The name of Kant tends to command a lot of respect from people; people who would never refer to christian morals as an authority without at least giving a second of thought that not everyone is a Christian, will happily refer to the "categorical imperative" as if it were, well, truly categorical and imperative and universally applicable to everyone whatever their beliefs.
Re:Ayn Rand novels (Score:2)
now Russell, that was a real smart, open-minded guy. Gödel wasn't really in the business of belief peddling, was he? Where I come from, he's known more as a logician than as a philosopher...
Re:Bill Gates (Score:2)
Say what you want about Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie, but their enormous philantrophic efforts has resulted in many libraries, improvements in institutions of higher education, money for the arts, and on and on. In fact, the Public Broadcast System in the USA would never have been possible if it weren't for generous grants from the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations in the late 1960's.
Apple Computer? (Score:2)
After all, Apple was founded by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, both people firmly rooted in the 1960's counterculture movement and were members of the Homebrew Computer Club in the 1970's. Given that type of background, by nature Apple should be a socially conscious company.
Now, if we can just get Jobs to donate US$1 million to save and improve KTEH (the PBS affiliate in San Jose, CA).
Counting Secretaries (Score:2)
At least two, IIRC - read Cringley' s book [barnesandnoble.com] on the history of Sillicon Valley, I believe he mentions 'em. AFAIK, at the time he wrote it, one of 'em still worked for MS.
In any case, looking at MS stock price and valuation over the last five years - couldn't dig any further than that on quicken.com - MS has had three stock splits; if you extrapolate backwards, I think that 5 splits since 1990 isn't too unlikely. Which means that anyone who had 500 shares or options in 1990 - including employees with MS stock in their 401ks and the like - and who still holds those shares, has been a millionaire for the last couple of years.
Given that, I'd be surprised if there weren't multiple secretaty/administrative assistants/salepeople/HR persons/others at MS who are - or have been - millionaires.
Re:It's not their *job*! (Score:2)
Re:Socially responsible? (Score:2)
On the other hand, some companies, like Ben & Jerry's, really believe that they have a responsibility to recycle their profits back into the community or society, hence the 1% to charity standard.
----
MacBastard, please don't spread lies. (Score:2)
There is no such preclusion like you mention, and you clearly aren't familiar with the way the deals work. Schools which receive those donations are free to choose what they want. The only caveat is that Microsoft will support their own software for free, while the schools have to pay for their own support if they don't choose Microsoft. Considering what they're getting for free, it sounds like more than a fair deal to me. Besides, why would you want Microsoft partners teaching you how to use products other than those in which they're skilled?
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Re:MacBastard, please don't spread lies. (Score:2)
But you specifically said that the donations preclude people from learning other OSes. It's simply not true. Yo_Mama said that he'd feel chagrined and worried that the grants would dry up if he stopped using Microsoft software, but where's the evidence that this has happened?
Here's an article [macconnect.com] on the program from Applelinks.com. Being an Mac publication, you can guess the slant, although it seems a little disturbing for them to refer to Gates as a "villain" for his donations, even as they admit that the libraries can buy Macs instead of PCs. They just won't get technical support if they do. It's hardly Microsoft's fault, except for their popularity, that tech support and training for alternative OSes is harder to come by, and if the library thinks that the burden of having non-Microsoft-OS-running computers is too much of a burden, nobody's forcing them to take the grants.
And that's the important thing -- the choice. Gates is giving away loads of money to outfit these libraries and schools with free computers if they choose to take them. Even if they decide to go the alternative OS route, it's silly to think that having no computers is better than having some computers but no free support. Hell, I'd practically kill for the offer of free PCs with no OS or tech support or training! It's as if the criticism is for being very generous -- just not generous enough.
And if Gates really isn't doing it out of an interest in increasing the computer literacy, but instead to pave the way for future profits, then why aren't Larry Ellison, Scott McNealy, or Steve Jobs (I'd especially like to ask Applelinks, "Why not Steve Jobs, then?") doing the same thing? Surely you don't think that those three aren't cynical enough to emulate this tactic if it was all about the benjamins and not philanthropy, do you? Of course not. Sheesh, people act like Gates is the only rich dude on the planet.
Re:Wake Up! You're doing his homework for him! (Score:2)
Re:Buy products based on quality! (Score:2)
If the only jobs availible (because a US-friendly government has taken over farmland) are in sweatshops, people are going to work in sweatshops, whether they like it or not. I don't advocate for an end to manufacturing in the "Global South;" this'd leave the workers utterly jobless and worse off than before. Similarly, I don't even call for a boycott. I merely argue that those working in the factories should be treated like human beings. Workers in a the Carribean Apparel factory in Santa Ana, El Salvador are paid 15 cents for every pair of $16.96 Kathie Lee pants that they sew. If their wages were doubled, and the increased cost were passed directly on to consumers, the pants would cost $17.11. The transnational megacorps are making insane profits, and it's only reasonable for me, given a choice, to pay the extra 15 cents so that someone else can feed her family.
DEC used to be great...not sure about Compaq (Score:2)
FYI: AOpen = Acer... (Score:2)
Re:Bill Gates (Score:2)
Re:Social responsibilty (Score:2)
If your concept of "social responsibility" includes ridding the world of all of the offending substances, you're going to have a tough time.
There's little evidence that migration of BPA from say a keyboard to a body through skin contact is significant, but it's far more likely to be a problem in the case of bottled/packaged foods that are in contact with the plastics for extended periods. Have you tried to buy juice in a glass bottle lately? It's become pretty much impossible over these last few months. And kids drink a lot of juice. The point here is that while the jury is still out on things like BPA skin exposure, we are ignoring the possibly much greater danger of plastic in food and drink contact applications. Let's keep our priorities straight - iMacs are not the most significant threat even if you're worried about these things.
Sony:hardware::Microsoft:software
CompactFlash: IBM Microdrive, Flash, Ether, Modem, etc.
Re:One socially conscientious company... (Score:2)
In addition to serious and recurring scandals involving large amounts of UW money, there's the simple fact that this orgaization is horrendously inefficient, taking several times more off the top for its own operations than do more effective (and unfortunately far less well funded) charities.
I stopped giving to/through United Way years ago, and I encourage everyone else to do likewise. They are an unnecessary and undesirable middleman in the funds disbursement process, and only serve to sponsor corporate campaigns that paint non-contributors as somehow evil and vile. (Opposing, or even simply not contributing to, UW in some companies can be a serious career-limiting move, something that should in itself give us pause as to the organization's power and true intent...)
Sony:hardware::Microsoft:software
CompactFlash: IBM Microdrive, Flash, Ether, Modem, etc.
Re:Ecologically conscious oil companies? (Score:2)
I can speak to my personal experience in the environmental area, which is that some of the largest oil companies in the world take their environmental responsibilites *very* seriously, something that both impressed and surprised me when I began working with them.
Sony:hardware::Microsoft:software
CompactFlash: IBM Microdrive, Flash, Ether, Modem, etc.
Re:Seagate and Toxic chemicals (Score:2)
I remember reading an article a few years back in AMD's "PC Currents" about how they reclaim the silicon waste and donate it to art schools and the like where it is used in pottery.
I couldn't find anything about it specifically on their website but I did find this [amd.com].
Re:Buy products based on quality! (Score:2)
"If Nike has armed guards outside their factories keeping their "slaves" from leaving the factory then yes, that is horrible. So far though I've never heard of anything like that."
I don't know about the armed guards outside the factories, but it's interesting you should pick Nike as an example
Currently, Nike pays very few of it's 'third world' workers enough to keep them above the poverty line. To do so would result in the uncomfortable rise in price for US residents of a whole $2.00 a pair of shoes. (Outrageous!!!). I don't need to know whether or not Nike employs armed guards or not to know that this is unacceptable behaviour. Oh and if you're interested in why Nike doesn't pay a fair wage - well nobody else pays a fair wage either so why should they.
But of much more importance is you ability to decern quality. Nike does not make quality product. Nike makes consumer goods that you sadly equate with quality because they spend so much money telling you about how you'll have a good lifestyle if you buy their shoes. I can't even remember the last time Nike ran an add that talked about how good their equipment was. Nike's products are certainly no better than their consumers, the only difference is that their advertising budget is bigger and you've allowed yourself to think that because their adverts are good, so must their products be.
To follow this logic to is conclusion, Microsoft must produce the best operating system, because they spend a lot of money convincing you that your life will be simpler if you use their products, and that they aren't evil.
It's just a thought!
Mintslice
Re:charity (Score:2)
The problem I have with Bill Gates is that as far as I can tell, the amount he gives in donations is directly proportional to the amount of trouble Microsoft is in with the Justice Department.
For instance, back in 1997:
"Among the stingiest of the top givers was William Henry ("Bill") Gates III, ... [his] donations in 1997 came to $210 million, or barely 0.53 percent of his net holdings. Moreover, the money came with virtual strings attached; most of it was earmarked to provide public libraries with Internet access (not books, mind you), a self-serving gift for a software provider if there ever was one. Gates was subsequently quoted by Forbes magazine on the difficulties of philanthropy: "Giving away money effectively is almost as hard as earning it in the first place." Since most of his Microsoft billions are the result of the speculative stock market boom of the '90s and are therefore unearned, it's hard to sympathize."
Source: http://www.populist.com/98.3.billionaires.html [populist.com]
Which stands in clear contrast to his behaviour today. Did he grow a heart in the last three years, or is he being forced to donate by some exterior influence?
Re:Depends on the company, mostly (Score:2)
A cup a day (on average) with a cost of $.20 and your talking almost $50 per employee per year.
Of course a good high dollar programmers will offten consume 20x that.
One places I worked found it was cheaper to provide coke than water.
Please understand "understanding" (Score:2)
"...only caveat is that Microsoft will support their own software for free..."
Kinda like there's no preclusion when all the PC OEM's will only sell you a PC with Windows on it?
How did that caveat turn out?
Or when Microsoft will only sell you Windows WITH Internet Explorer?
Ask Netscape how that caveat turned out. Ooh...they're called AOL now.
In fact Microsoft is quite evil in its subtlety of constructing these quid pro quo's....
Am I wrong?
Re:Who Really Cares?? (Score:2)
Whether others follow my lead or not, I can't control. (At least, not without using force. While using force to stop polluters is certainly justified, it's outside the scope of this discussion about market choices.) I am responsible for my own actions only; the actions of others don't release me from that responsibility.
Re:Depends on the company, mostly (Score:2)
Where'd you get that idea from? MS employees can get into any MS building they want 24 hours a day.
--GnrcMan--
Re:Surprised this even needs to be asked (Score:2)
Re:Are companies capable of ethics? (Score:2)
//rdj
It's not their *job*! (Score:2)
If you want to be socially responsible, here's your best bet:
Make the best deal you can, for the best price that you can, and donate your 'extra' money to the charity or cause of your choice. Using the company as a social proxy is in-efficient compared to making a normal buying decision and having your personal causes a separate and distinct thing.
I'm not against the concept of social responsibility, I just think it's best done independently.
Volunteer work (Score:2)
On Gates' co called "chairity"... (Score:2)
Try reading this article:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/991001-000005.html
The truth behind Gates' so-called "chairity" was discoved many months ago.
When WILL gates learn to reign in ms's email network??? These embarassing leaks occur so frequently, that I sometimes think there must be a secret resistance working within the collective itself; feeding information to the forces of freedom.
Anyway, The Register exposed gates' supposed "generousity" as a fraud last year. It's nothing more than a quite cynical PR exercise.
And it's a grossly overvalued PR exercise at that. Note the paragraph which mentions just *HOW* the values of his donations are computed.
A rathar pathaetic and transparent ruse, I would think.
john
Re:Who ever is sells the best product... (Score:2)
She is a purveyor of replacement dogma with the statement that her philosophy and beliefs allow for freedom of expression, growth and evolutionary thought -- essentially, the new approach fails to take into account all of the marvelous evolution which resulted in his freedom and ability to express his disdain or concern for the state of affairs extant. Self-fulfilling prophesy is always convenient and safe. It's anything but evolutionary.
A good critique of the objectivist philosophy is at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7842/otjindex.htm
As an aside, I find it incredibly funny that pages such as that of the Ayn Rand society read very much like religious and racist cult web sites.
----
Now, in regard to public corporations and social contributions; I believe that there should be a separation of church and state. Any programs that don't further the company in some way are certainly questionable when considering efficiency. That doesn't mean that I'm a heartless bastard. It just means I think that if people in the company want to start such a foundation, then they can in their own free time. As for giving non-profit corporations cheaper prices -- the corporation selling to them can probably benefit through some government tax scheme anyway.
This, however, should not be a rational basis from which one would enslave workers in foreign countries or dump toxic waste into a nearby lake. Laissez-faire capitalism shouldn't be a means to institute and promote tyranny or totalitarianism, especially in foreign economies. It also doesn't mean that they can take advantage of their employee's here or at large.
In the microsoft case someone talked about above: If employee's feel that they have been duped and a certain corporation has found a loophole -- then let them take it to the courts and possibly set a precedent either way and have their reputation damaged (many foreign countries, of course, have no such rules, which makes these primarily complex ethical issues).
Re:Who ever is sells the best product... (Score:2)
"Morality is not about efficiency, it's about doing 'the right thing'"
Yes, again, sorry for not being clear. I was referring to the establishment of social foundations, charity groups, et al in the public corporation. I meant this primarily in regard to issues it is not directly tied to. However, it would make sense if their promotion of such issues would help the company in the long run or somehow morally balance the wrongdoing they are currently doing today and/or in the past (e.g., company x who dropped toxic waste in lakes in the past working with government agency such as EDF to collaborate with other companies {y,z} to create a more environmentally friendly management process because of law or internal or external moral pressures)
"when a company goes to a country that has lax labor laws, or is a dictatorship, it supports them."
Yes, as I said, these are complex ethical issues which can't be glazed over with hasty generalizations. There is a difference between, say, Wal-Mart employing lower wage blue collar work in countries where socio-economic conditions that allow them to produce for less - and one where they are employing child slave labor in Bangladesh and then sticking a "Made In America" sticker on it (which they have done in the past).
Re:Who ever is sells the best product... (Score:2)
If owners of a corporation agree that such philanthropy will be good PR, and the community at large will, according to economic laws of utility, put value in their philanthropic social standing - then so be it. When voting with our dollars in an economic system, we take the sum of variables from utility in our perceived world - whether positive and negative factors. Note that I say perceived because we are only able to take into consideration factors that we are aware of.
Re:Social responsibilty (Score:2)
Re:Bill Gates (Score:2)
I don't think very many give anything past what isn't deductable.
Re:actually not that silly of an example, (Score:2)
The V-2 choke shutter was a novel idea though, although I don't know if that was Von Braun or not.
Re:actually not that silly of an example, (Score:2)
Re:Bill Gates (Score:2)
One socially conscientious company... (Score:2)
Since I've been here I've come to realize that Hewlett-Packard does a lot for the community.
In particular, there is a very close alliance with United Way and conducting a donation drive annually.
Also HP focuses its efforts locally. For instance, our site's contributions directly benefits the surrounding area.
I think companies and ESPECIALLY ones with earnings in the 10^9 $US should contribute to the surrounding community of its offices. If for NOTHING else, than to the betterment of the educational resources for the families of the community in which the company resides..
i'm happy to work for a company that shares this viewpoint.
:)
Re:Buy products based on quality! (Score:2)
The only kind of shoes I will wear are ones of the Airwalk or Vans style. (Lowtops, suede-like material) When I went looking for some, even at supposed bargain stores, the cheapest I could find them for was $50, and those were styles I didn't even like. Somewhere within the last few years, Airwalk and Vans must have gotten popular or something because their prices were nearly double what they used to be. So disgruntled, I was about to walk out of the mall, but figured I'd try Payless (no, this isn't an endorsement.
So the moral here is that something that doesn't have to cost a lot of money to be high quality. And many times the stuff that is high priced isn't worth half of what you pay for it. Case in point, my Tekram SCSI card [tekram.com].
Just occured to me, that this is probably a LOT off-topic.
advertise it (Score:2)
If there are companies out there that engage in friendly activities, advertise it. I eat vegetarian, and try to purchase organic foods as much as possible because it's not only friendly for the earth and my body, but tastes better as well. Companies should let it be known on the packaging that they engage in friendly practices, and that your purchase of their prodcut won't go towards enslaving someone else on the other side of the planet to make more of what you bought.
I thought that's what writing programs and building robotics was all about, reducing the amount of labor required by people instead of increasing it, and reducing the pleasure from it.
If computers are more perishable than fruit... (the machine I bought 3 months ago is obsolete already) then where is all this stuff supposed to go after it's lifespan is finished? Why are we leaving behind this wonderful legacy of well constructed open source systems, if there won't be anyone around to use them? Contributing to the source pool adds strength to the group, so does being kind to our planet.
Now what I'd like to see it a keyboard, mouse and case to be made out of wood, and have some nice detail carved in.
A living wage is needed! (Score:2)
Just get the word out... (Score:2)
I know there are mutual funds out there that are supposedly made up of "socially responsible" firms, so that might be a good place to start.
That said, I think we'll see these New Economy corporations get more involved with their communities, but it will be a few years off yet, while these companies and their markets mature. With business moving along at "internet speed", charitable works end up ranking pretty low on the priority list. There's simply too much going on right now.
sorry I wasn't clearer . . . (Score:2)
Computer Companies and Charities (Score:2)
Here [capitalresearch.org] is a little more recent set of numbers for MS, HP, IBM, Oracle, Apple and some others.
It even talks about Bill's personal charity foundation.
-Marc
Re:High Tech = high toxic (Score:2)
But, to be fair, many of those sites were made before the toxicity levels of those chemicals and their effects upon the enivronment were well known.
(Much less having waste levels mandated by law, which is what really drives most companies clean-up efforts.)
(Side-Side note: Even if you know X is bad, if you do something about, and it is not mandated by law, then your stockholders will hang you out to dry for wasting their dividends!)
CSG_SurferDude
Re:charity (Score:2)
But it is nice to see him give back some money. It would be even nicer to see him take a break from his quest to rule the world and personally donated time to a cause. For all we know some PR person that makes 6 figures a year cuts the checks for publice relations purposes.
Here' some info from Taiwan (Score:2)
Re:Buy products based on quality! (Score:2)
Sounds like a good idea except that it reminds me of something we learned about in religion class; for some people, poor, starving people especially, God (or whatever you want to call...err...it) can be a slice of bread. For others, God can be the love of a friend. But you cannot enjoy the love of a friend before your other basic needs are met. Relating more to your post, yes, teaching them to use computers and to participate in the "technological revolution" (yea! I'm trendy!) would be wonderful but I think we'd have to be sure that their other, more, err, Darwinian?, needs were met. After all, if you were on the verge of starvation, would you like gobs of computing power or a peanutbutter and jelly sandwich? Hmm, perhaps that was the wrong question to ask on this forum. I think my point is somewhat obvious....just in case, no, we couldn't just throw computers at them when they are starving, we'd have to wait for them to be well-nourished. Or better yet, we in the first world could get our heads out of our asses and realize that there are other freaking people on our rock!
Re:Depends on the company, mostly (Score:2)
Actually, it's more "contrary to the uninformed person's belief" rather than "contrary to popular belief". Anyone who's read a Bill Gates biography or a history of Microsoft that's more than 5 pages (ie: not some article on the web) would know that Microsoft has been good to their employees for years (heck, I guess I could almost even say "decades"). Free Coke (ahem, the liquid not the powder), all company retreats (I'm unsure if they still do this, but they used to) and how many millionaires has Microsoft made with it's stock?
It is under such scrutiny that is can't afford not to.
As you've seen from my above paragraph, this didn't start recently. I mean, come on! Do you really think Uncle Bill was a whip bearing slave driver until the DOJ came along? I think not, and as a matter of fact, I know not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's not their *job*! (whose is it?) (Score:2)
Take the Oklahoma bombing, for example: If all you care about is profits and GDP, the bombing was actually GOOD for Oklahoma. Overtime for firefighters and police in the rescue and investigation stages; Media station overtime spent covering the incident; Medical companies made a killing (excuse the pun) taking care of the non-dead victims; here were the psycharitrist and therapy bills for people who dealt with the aftermath; costs for replacing the bombed out building, and the money that went into demolishing the remains, etc..
Then there were the volunteers: These people should be thrown in jail for the suck that they are on the economy. If it wasn't for these people, so much more would have had to be done by paid professionals -- thus further increasing the GDP. Instead all of this sorely needed work gets done and no money changes hands!
So, if all you care about is profits and GDP, encourage acts of wanton terrorism, and blow up volunteer support sites.
Disclaimer: If you can't get the sarcasm in this you are in SERIOUS need of help
Re:Who ever is sells the best product... (Score:2)
Re:Who ever is sells the best product... (Score:2)
Re:Bill Gates (Score:2)
Whether or not you like the company the man seems to have a vision of the benefits to come from his extraordinary wealth.
I for one salute him on this.
Re:Depends on the company, mostly (Score:2)
Contrary to popular belief, Microsoft is probably actualy nice to many of its employees.
I know one of my freinds that works there (Microsoft) and he knows the "dirty tricks" MS trends to play with it's enemies, but from my freind: MS is extremely loyal to it's freinds (employees). My freind claims to make 2 times for sys admin work then any other company was willing to pay, and the longer employees work their, the more benifits they receive. Sure, most people look at Microsoft as a "stable" job that is sure to be there for awhile, it isn't as sexy as a "startup pre-ipo Linux company", but if you have a wife and kids, sometimes risk isn't the best thing.
He claims it is a really postive and uplifting place to work in, he says MS does take care of it's employees and maintains loyalies between them.
Sure they make Crappy Software [linux.org.uk] and in that sense, socially non-responsible, but proving a decent to great workplace, in that sense they are socially responsible.
Not that I use or work for MS or anything, just stating information my freind gave me (which probably isn't worth a whole lot of
thanks for making me feel bad!!! (Score:2)
Permatemps (Score:3)
Good temps are usually offered a fulltime position after about 6 months of work. This has happened for countless of my friends. Those who don't care about overtime usually take the position. However, I know many, many workaholics that plan to spend at least 60 hours a week at work and want to get paid for the time. These people usually refuse fulltime work, choosing instead to make massive amounts of up-front cash through overtime.
Yes, they are denied benefits and stock options this way. However, their base pay works out to be up to double what a fulltime employee makes, especially if they have been around for a year or two. Many of my temp friends choose this route because it gives them a lot of freedom if they decide to leave the company. Options are great if you plan to stay around for 5 or 10 years, but if you leave after only a couple of years then you can only cash in a very small fraction of your options.
In short, I know a lot of people at Microsoft and cannot think of a single temp who has been abused by the company. They voluntarily trade benefits and options for immediate cash. It's hard to argue that you are an exploited temp when Microsoft repeatedly offers you a fulltime position and you turn it down! However, this option will soon be denied to them because of the greed of a few contractors who want to have their cake and eat it, too.
People love to compare the plight of the MS contractors to that of sweatshop workers. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are talking about wages that start at $20/hour and go up from there, with time-and-a-half overtime. These people are hardly starving. If MS has committed ethical violations, it is not with their work force.
Re:Depends on the company, mostly (Score:3)
Try going there yourself before shooting off like that.
Contract workers are one thing, employees are another. I've been to Microsoft's campus for interop meetings they've hosted, and it's quite a nice place to work. Every employee has an office, every building has a cafeteria, there are break rooms on every floor with racks of free soft drinks. From a visitor's perspective I'll say that they cater very well. People who work at Microsoft spend a great deal of time there, and the company makes an effort to ensure that these employees don't mind being there. The department I dealt with has meetings one Friday afternoon each month where beer is served. No one complains about their salary, or the stock options, etc.
The point is, certainly from a physical comfort standpoint it's quite a nice place to be an employee. The culture is weird and ethically I could never work there, but that doesn't mean its an unpleasant place to spend half a week.
All charities are not created equal... (Score:3)
giving $100,000 to the ACLU which isn't the same as...
giving $100,000 to PETA which isn't the same as...
giving $100,000 to GreenPeace which isn't the same as...
giving $100,000 to the Sisters of Charity...
giving $100,000 to the Sierra Club...
I doubt people can come to an agreement on a valid comparison as to the social-environmental
benefits vs the dollars contributed...
I'd rather see companies spend less on charity so that we can spend more (and get the results we
want instead of what the sleazy charity fundraisers can trick a company into giving)...
Personally I think most of these "charties" spend too much of thier money on themselves rather than
the causes they champion. United way for example, is one of the lower-return-per-dollar charaties.
Environmental contributions aren't much better...
One of the current hot debate topics is the issue of destroying dams in the columbia basin
(NW united states) to restore the original river flow...
The destroy/restore side:
http://www.removedams.org/index.cfm
One would think this is a no-brainer, but more in-depth analysis indicates there's another side
to this debate:
http://www.buchal.com/links/links.htm
Which is right? I won't give my opinion here, but suffice it to say, I don't want any company that
delegates the task of figuring out which one is right to somebody who "unfortunatly, doesn't have
any time to do the legwork today" (to quote a poor unfortuante soul) attempting to figure this one
out for me...
More than just relative (Score:3)
I remember one of the engineers referring to the hazardous chemicals used by these companies as the ``Oh" gasses. ``Oh" as in if you smelled one of these hazardous materials, you'd be dead before you could say the second syllable of ``Oh shit."
The smarter companies that handled these things took extreme care in keeping them under control: they knew that if an accident happened with one of these chemicals, it would make Bhopal look as serioius as a fart in church.
However, I know of one company that has been playing loose with the laws -- not one I mentioned above. This company has several buildings constructed that were never approved by the county inspectors, wherein they store this nasty stuff -- at least when I heard about it around 1990. And if they never bothered to clear it with the county, I wonder if they bothered to verify that the construction was right, & the buildings *are* safe enough to store the stuff in. Unofrtuantley, there is only one way we'll ever find out . . .
I wonder when the day will come that a disgruntled employee -- or ex-employee -- of this copany takes a map of the campus, checks the building records at the county against it, & blows the whistle.
It would be a lot more fun as payback than suing for harassment or lost wages.
Geoff
Re:Independantly? (Score:3)
Pardon me, but you ignored a critical part of his point:
In my mind, a "normal buying decision" includes things like, oh, does this company exploit third-world child labor? Do they try to legally abuse their employees, or use the law to silence critics? Have I ever heard of them being entangled with violations of environmental laws - and if I did, was it a real violation, or some tin-pot beaureaucrat making political hay?
In other words, someone making a "normal buying decision" wouldn't think your murderer's offer of a Rolex for $10 was a good deal. They might end up looking at the same Rolex from a bunch of different companies, none of which was obviously more "socially conscious" than the others, and end up deciding none of them are either socially conscious or socially corrupt, and that saving $10 and giving it to the Little Sisters of the Poor is more worthwhile than spending 3 weeks researching Rolex resellers to determine which one was more worthy of your money.
It's all about the Benjamins - follow the $$$ (Score:3)
Quality costs money. If something is being done in a way that doesn't make sense, figure out who stands to profit from this, and it will make sense.
Quality parts are more expensive to make than shoddy and unreliable parts.
Workers who make quality parts have to work more slowly/carefully, and CARE about what they make. To care about one's job, one has to enjoy it (at least somewhat). Further, to care about one's job, the job must be worth holding on to.
For a job to be worth holding on to, it must be more qualifiably/quantitatively better (lucrative/interesting/...) than the alternative.
High-tech production facilities can not exist in a vacuum, and so are in competition with other industries for workers (even in the Far East, a chip fab must be close to a dock, and Nike factories).
Conclusion: The cheaper the parts, the less a company pays it's workers, the more poorly treated the company's workers are. We can be reasonably sure that workers in hard-disk plants are paid and treated better than those in Kathie Lee's sweat-shops, but I'm sure that people working for Western Digital are treated better than those in the employ of Maxtor.
Re:It's not their *job*! (Score:3)
Unocal says in all innocence they have no idea that <a href="http://jinx.sistm.unsw.edu.au/~greenlft/199
Investors who stick with companies that are socially <b>irresponsible</b> deserve criticism.
----
Ayn Rand novels (Score:3)
I don't know much about her so-called cult, and I'll agree that her novels and characters were terribly unrealistic. But she was right about some important things.
I don't know how it happened, but somehow, by the late 80s, I was a bleeding heart liberal. Too much "We are the World, We are the Children" and "Hands Across America" type mentality exposure, I guess. (Damn, I feel nauseous just thinking about certain aspects of the 80s.) I just couldn't stand the thought of anyone acting purely out of self-interest, and I thought it was the government's job to somehow force a certain set of values (arrived through some sort of democratic concensus, I guess?) upon the economy through the means of taxes and subsidies. Taxes and subsidies -- that was my answer to everything.
Ayn Rand woke me up. And not a minute too soon, IMHO, before I threw my life away on the ridiculous premise that I'm suppose to live for the sake of others, and assume that others will help me if I screw things up.
Ignore the laughable attempt at science fiction through John Galt's magic generator, and the wacky high-handed way that she preaches (the part where she explains how a bunch of train wreck victims deserved to die being the most ridiculous), and the incredible coincidence that Reardon Steel just happened to really live up to its hype, thanks to Reardon's almost mystic insight into metallurgy. Yeah, it was a bad novel. But the message that she preached was a good one: that we're responsible for ourselves and shouldn't depend on "society" to take care of things for us. Now what the hell is wrong with that?
Ayn Rand's dogma is so contrary to what the media tries to pound into us, day after day, that the shock of it makes you (well, it made me) question everything. And skepticism is a damn fine thing. I'll trade you ten zombies for one Rand cultist any day!
---
Socially responsible? (Score:3)
This doesn't mean I don't mind companies dumping toxic wastes...
Still, I find the most socially responsible thing I can think of is for a company to do its best to produce a good product, handle it efficiently, and not waste resources. If they do this, I am likely to end up with more time and money to spend doing the socially responsible things *I* care about.
Open Source? (Score:3)
Re:Depends on the company, mostly (Score:3)
I spent 4 years doing it at AT&T (later called Lucent) and it beats the hell out of construction work or being on a road crew. The nature of electronics requires a controlled environment. Sweat on a circuit board before solder is applied will play havoc with your quality control. I wouldn't bet that foreign high tech factories are as nice as those in the US, but I can almost guarantee that they are better than sweat shop conditions in textile factories.
Re:Seagate and Toxic chemicals (Score:3)
Case in point: my first job out of college was at an aerospace company in southern California that built carbon fiber composites. These are inspected using an ultrasonic imaging technique in which two robot arms squirt a stream of water at opposing sides of the part and the ultrasonic "beam" is propagated through the water. Regular lab-grade deionized water was used in this procedure since you wanted good clean water and didn't want to have to worry about scale buildup, etc.
CA law says, though, that because the deionized water had been "used in an industrial process" (which amounted to nothing more than pumping it through some tubing for a couple of weeks) it was now "hazardous waste" which had to be disposed of at great trouble and expense.
Some of this "hazardous waste" found its way into the drains, as it should have. However - and this is an important caveat - if they had been caught, they could have been charged with "dumping hazardous waste". What a complete and utter racket. I have *no* respect for the enviros and their govenmental thugs after seeing things like this happen in the real world.
Believe it or not, oil companies are among the most ecologically conscious companies on the planet. I worked on an emergency oil spill response network a few years back, and the oil company environmental guys take their jobs *very* seriously. I assure you that at least for the companies I worked with, they will take literally heroic, life-threatening measures to mitigate any damage - like boating into a river of fire in a combined flood/pipeline rupture near Houston a few years back to determine the correct location of the break when all the landmarks were underwater. (This rupture later proved to be due to natural causes from the 1000-year flood scouring the dirt from a few hundred yards of now unsupported pipeline, which finally couldn't stand the strain: it actually broke almost 1/2 mile from the normal river channel.)
Make sure you have some experience with the folks responsible for environmental activities at a company befoer making your decision based solely on the rants of some whiner with a website. This was a company that many people love to hate, and I came away convinced they cared more about the environment where they operated than *anyone* else, including the enviros and especially the gov't flacks.
Sony:hardware::Microsoft:software
CompactFlash: IBM Microdrive, Flash, Ether, Modem, etc.
Re:It's not their *job*! (Score:3)
Re:Ayn Rand novels (Score:3)
If you look further into various philosophies, manifesto's, movements, et al, you will find they most always bring one to question their current perceived reality. This applies across to pseudo-religion, cults, racist groups, some political movements, ad infinitum (e.g., environmentalism, punk rockers, liberalism, communism, nazism, freemasons, scientologists, *gasp* even some religions, et al etc etc). For example, if you go call up the local American communist party - do you think they will tell you that they didn't employ skepticism in shaping their idealogy? I thought not.
You have to make the distinction between that and the thoughts elucidated heretofore in the objectivist philosophy. You might then say: "Why do you feel so strongly about such things as political manifesto's? They are harmless.." Well, I have to admit - I too, had fell in a terrible ism pothole many years ago. I too had found that this had opened me up into a world of skeptical thinking. What I later found at the help of another is replacement dogma based on the seeds of that particular belief system presented.
And that is why I despise those wearing things such as objectivism, or environmentalism etc on their belt. Saying such things are harmless and only books flies in the face of those who are dedicated to these philosophies. Even in situations where the progenitors were revealed as complete frauds who managed to elucidate only one single, clear thought in their entire lives, people have still insisted on turning the happenstance into religions, cults, brotherhoods, movements, and so on. People will be people, no doubt.
Anyway, when glazing over the works of philosophers such as Russell, Godel, Nietzsche, Descartes, etc - do you see them concocting rigid belief systems? I thought not. Bertrand Russell even jokes as to how one would easily herd sheep with simple grains of truth. In Ayn Rand's case, she could barely conceal the fact that her books are really a manifesto. In contrast, Orwell actually wrote books based on the merit of his ideas alone - not some cultish ism manifesto philosophy.
Still, one asks what's wrong [geocities.com] with the objectivist system. Well, as I said in my other post, it's mostly feel-good self-fulfilling blabble. Subjectivity [deja.com] seems to be lost in all this to "objective" selfishness. It's basically a simplistic look at the complex system we call human life. Black and whites are just so conveniently manipulative. If Ayn Rand really wanted you to think for yourself, she wouldn't have built such a rigid philosophy based on interesting grains of truth, but riddled with logical fallacies. "Objectivism"? Give me a break.
Note that my original response didn't say not to read Ayn Rand's books. It was only a warning to the possibly destructive thought systems she is trying to plant in the readers mind. Just take it with a grain of salt like one should take any other manifesto. Belief systems denying the intellectual evolution of the reader are for wussies
Depends (Score:3)
actually not that silly of an example, (Score:3)
Slashdot Employs Illegal Migrant Workers (Score:3)
If nothing else, please post responsibly people- remember there may be a human beinging grueling over the ip header of the packet containing your ill-mannered post. And no, they don't have moderator access either.
Seagate and Toxic chemicals (Score:3)
It was Ceridian, not Seagate (Score:3)
Ceridian was the the disk-drive subsidiary of Control Data Corp - the place where Seymour Cray got rolling( I still remember working on the 6 bit byte, 10 byte word of the CDC cyber ) Eventually, Ceridian got bought by Seagate, making Seagate liable (under Superfund laws) for Ceridian's pollution. Thus Seagate got the cleanup tab and the publicity, even though most (or all) of the dumping occurred before Seagate even existed.
I was a Seagate shareholder at the time, and I still remember the pain 8)
High Tech = high toxic (Score:3)
In Santa Clara county alone, there are 23 EPA superfund cleanup sites -- making it one of the dirtiest counties in America, and number one in superfund in California. In South Dakota and North Dakota combined, there is one superfund site.
As ranked by the EPA, here's the high tech contribution to the superfund sites:
2. FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORP. (SOUTH SAN JOSE PLANT)
4. SPECTRA-PHYSICS, INC.
5. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.
6. NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR CORP
8. TELEDYNE SEMICONDUCTOR
11. TRW MICROWAVE, INC (BUILDING 82)
11. INTEL MAGNETICS
11. FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORP (MT VIEW)
11. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. (BLDG. 915)
11. INTEL CORP. (SANTA CLARA III)
12. HEWLETT-PACKARD (620-640 PAGE MILL ROAD)
12. RAYTHEON CORP
12. INTEL CORP. (MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANT
Notice how AMD and Intel appear multiple times. They make fast chips, but they make a damn mess.
So is the tech industry socially responsible? Not if you care about the environment.
The Santa Clara county data was taken from Scorecard [scorecard.org].
Economist Paul Krugman has a relevant column (Score:3)
Bill Gates (Score:4)
However, he's certainly a generous devil. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has repeatedly received donations from Gates (and other benefactors), towards advancement in many medicinal and health fields - including hunger, cancer, and others.
Recently, Gates has donated:
I could go further back, but you can look it all up for yourself at New.C om [cnet.com]
support your local mom&pop shop (Score:4)
Re:Depends on the company, mostly (Score:4)
afford not to. However, some of the less popular hardware companies (AOPen, and the other really small and unheard of ones
that you can't find at Best Buy) probably aren't as benevolent.
What are you smoking, and where do I get some? Really, have you already forgotten the efforts of Microsoft to abolish time and a half overtime for their hourly contract employees? When they tried to get the state of Washington to exclude "information tech" workers wholesale from that particular benefit?
Please read a little from http://www.vcnet.com/bms/ before attempting to pass this off again.
Re:Social responsibilty (Score:4)
Novell is heavily, though only quasi-officially, involved with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - but the Mormons, unlike the Scientologists, are not considered to be dangerous criminal organizations by several nations.
Do a search at your favorite engine for "dianetics+scientology+criminal". On Alta Vista [altavista.com], you'll get 114 web pages devoted to slamming Scientology and their practices. Look for German language sites and you'll probably find even more!
"Social Responsibility" implies not supporting terrorists or exclusionist religions, in my book.
--Charlie
"I think I should GAIN karma for baiting Xians"
Re:Bill Gates (Score:4)
However, he's certainly a generous devil.
Recently, Gates has donated:
And at an estimated $85 billion [forbes.com] this means:
To put this in perspective, that like me giving
Hardly "Giving till it hurts". Hell, lil' ol' ladies give more money to their church.
Read Cypress CEO's Position (Score:4)
Re:Independantly? (Score:4)
If these are the things you think of when making your normal buying decisions, we are in perfect agreement. However, that isn't what the person I responded to said. What I quoted was :
Make the best deal you can, for the best price that you can, and donate your 'extra' money to the charity or cause of your choice. Using the company as a social proxy is in-efficient compared to making a normal buying decision and having your personal causes a separate and distinct thing.
This was after focusing on the job of companies being to make money and nothing else. "A normal buying decision" here is defined as paying attention only to the product and the price.
Now in a shopping moment, I look at where something is made and if its a company I actually know something about already. I agree you can't be an expert on every company. If I was buying stock in a company, or planning to open a business that would be buying 100 computers, I would look more in depth.
Nutshell, I agree with you pretty much, but I don't think the person I was responding to did.
-Kahuna Burger
Well, after reading the first 75 posts or so... (Score:5)
Okay: we don't know, but surely SOMEONE does. Doesn't anyone have links to related info? Does the United Way have any information about computer company donations? I don't, unfortunately, have time to do the legwork today. :(
Despite the protestations of the A/C above, claiming that any such thinking is a threat to freedom, etc. etc, this stuff matters . Much of the code you write will be thrown away -- the environmental damage you do while writing it will last forever.
One thing we're realizing, in our search of the cosmos with the Hubble, is that planets like Earth may be impossibly rare; there might not be five planets like this in the whole Galaxy. We are probably sitting atop a treasure trove of literally Galactic proportions and using it as a toilet... in fact, we're actively painting the treasure room with feces.
So, again, this stuff matters a lot. Pay attention. Pick this out over the background noise; most other concerns are less important, even if they are more urgent.
Re:Who Really Cares?? (Score:5)
Tell me, how much good does having the epitome of PC power do you when you're dying of cancer caused by the toxins released during fabrication of your CPU?
I like powerful CPUs. I also like being able to breathe the atmosphere. So if manufacturer A is doing a better job of keeping his toxins to himself than manufacturer B, it's in my selfish best interest to purchase from A.
If you don't like to think of it as "social responsibility", think of it as "long term global thinking".
Re:Social responsibilty (Score:5)
Apple also makes its iMac line of computers with polycarbonate plastic. This plastic contains bisphenol A.
Apple acknologies the plastic outgasses enough for people to notice the smell.
A list of links from 'it causes testicles to shrink' to 'everything is ok'
http://www.wwfcanada.org/red uce-risk/questionable.html [wwfcanada.org]
http://www.sciencedai ly.com/releases/1999/10/991021075812.htm [sciencedaily.com]
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/oc/news/seala nt.htm [nih.gov]
http://www.doh.gov.uk/hef/bisphena.htm [doh.gov.uk]
The Pro BPA page telling you everything is Ok, nothign to see here...http://www.bisphenol-a.org/ [bisphenol-a.org]
Now the question:
Is it socially responsible to
1) be making this kind of machine covering
2) have these computers in schools, where endocrine disruption has more of an effect.
Keep in mind that the Good Design (tm) award given out in Japan was NOT given to the iMac. Why? Because of the use of bisphenol-A. (this is how I found out in fact....)
Social responsibilty (Score:5)
Apple has had issues in the past WRT the number of african americans in management
Here on
Digital (now part of Compaq) is rarely given credit for their creation and then NOT getting patents on the citrus replacement for freon solvents.
And Ray Norda gets no credit for his settling the BSD/AT&T lawsuit. (a social issue of importance to the BSD community/OpenSource software)
The simplest metric would be to get the finationals from the companies and see what they list as charties, then do a %age. But what is important to you, say a greenpeace donation, is not important to others (say replacing freon)
Independantly? (Score:5)
Hey, that gives me a great idea! If I started working as a pimp for underage crack whores, I would make a lot more money and could finally have enough disposable cash to donate to the Home for Little Wanderers!
Ehem. To talk about keeping your personal causes (what we sometimes call "ethics") a "seperate and distinct thing" indicates that you may not understand why the poster was asking the question. As a person who also cares about social justice, i can tell you that part of it is personally making an impact, and another just as important part is living your life in an ethical fashion. Part of that, for me, is trying not to participate in injustice.
To put it in simple terms, if a businessman was murdered right in front of you, then the murderer turned to you and said "hey, I don't really want to fence this rolex, You wanna buy it for 10 bucks?" Would you feel ethically comfortable about getting a deal under those circumstances? If not, why should someone who cares about human rights feel comfortable buying a less expensive keyboard that is cheap because of the use of slave labor?
So no, you can't always just buy whatever's cheap then use the money you save to be nice, anymore than I could run a slave brothel and give the money to charity. Everything you do is a choice, and some of us try to make ethical choices part of our daily life, not just a once a year check.
PS I consider part of the job of every human being to be acting decently. Corporate officers who can't do that part of their job won't get my money for the rest of it.
-Kahuna Burger
Depends on the company, mostly (Score:5)
As software programmers go, they have to be nice or they'll all leave, due to the fact that the demand for software programmers is higher than the supply.
The point being, overseas labor allows you to disregard your employees more than if the labor was here. Also, the jobs that require a computer are also going to require an employer to be more benevolent. Oddly enough, there are probably more problems with Asian physical labor than American programming jobs. How would you like to spend all day lining up the same two pins on a resistor to the same two holes on your board. How would you like to spend all week at it? Aren't you glad you get to use a computer at work/school?
"Assume the worst about people, and you'll generally be correct"