Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NY Times 'Ethicist': When Layoffs Are Immoral
NY Times ^ | May 26, 2009 | By Randy Cohen

Posted on 05/27/2009 11:05:43 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer

Caterpillar, the heavy equipment manufacturer, is moving to lay off more than 20,000 workers. These days such mass layoffs are sadly unsurprising, but are they ethical?

If Caterpillar is to relegate legions of employees to the care of the public, it may not simply echo Ebenezer Scrooge: “Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? Is there no COBRA?” Instead, it must use its considerable political clout to ensure that those programs are robustly funded, hardly a priority either for Caterpillar or its confreres among the Fortune 500. That is, if Caterpillar is to deprive thousands of people of a livelihood, it must either provide for their basic needs or see that the public can do so. To do neither is to dodge a moral obligation.

(Excerpt) Read more at ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: caterpillar; dinosaurmedia; ethicist; jobs; layoffs; nytimes; oldgraylady; pravdamedia; randycohen; socialism; tisapityshesawhore
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last
To: Oldeconomybuyer

Maybe the problem here isn’t Caterpillar. Maybe the immorality lies in government. Maybe a government that steals so much of its citizens’ resources has a moral obligation to see that those resources are well spent. And spent in accordance with the constraints of law.

Ask not what obligations citizens owe government, but what government owes its citizens.


21 posted on 05/27/2009 11:21:33 AM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheWasteLand

You have to read to comments on the article.
Caterpillar has some of the lowest paid senior execs for a fortune 500 Dow Jones Industrial companies. Much of their pay reported comes from options. Most Cat shares are owned by institutions that need the steady modest dividends and benefit millions of individuals. Cat has pursued a limited expansion plan to minimize ups and downs of employment, but there was a boom of demand for their products world wide for about a decade. But when things turn down..they turn down by an order of 50%..there is no choice but layoff’s,salary cuts, early retirment, performance related firings, etc. The NYT has targeted one of the most respected, conservative and honest companies in the world..one that is universally respected world wide.


22 posted on 05/27/2009 11:23:58 AM PDT by Oldexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

The New York Times has spent years pushing for government spending on stuff like this. The partisan hacks are now claiming that this is only “ethical” of them since they sometimes don’t provide jobs for everybody.

But I think it is unethical for the New York Times to only provide for people they choose to hire. What about the rest of us?


23 posted on 05/27/2009 11:24:00 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Hey, Randy: no one owes you a living. Get over it. Do you think the New York Times should care for your family if you are laid off? They won't. The ability of some to create businesses and wealth does not oblige them to support you. Socialism fails precisely for this reason: when producers lose the right to own and control everything they create, they stop producing as much. When they lose all such rights, they stop entirely, as they morally should.
24 posted on 05/27/2009 11:24:20 AM PDT by andy58-in-nh (You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheWasteLand
But people are not machines. Many ethical systems mandate that you do not treat a person like a thing. You must regard other people as full human beings with the same moral rights as you. And that must include the right to make a living.

Who is doing the dehumanizing here?

Is it the individual who stands by the right of thinking persons to make contracts and agreements amongst themselves, for their mutual benefit, and expects each person to abide by the agreements made?

Or is it the individual who catagorizes people as boss and worker, exploiter and exploitee, and seeks to interfere in the right of people to arrange their own affairs and make their own agreements?

Employment is an agreement between an employer and an employee. It is not "moral" for some third party to stand in the middle of that transaction and tell one side or the other that they have to do things that are not part of that agreement. That will create uncertainty on the part of the employer and keep him from hiring people in the first place, and it will convince the employee that he need not take responsibility for his own maintenance by setting aside a portion of his pay for a rainy day.

This kind of destructive behavior should never be permitted to don the mantle of "morality"...

25 posted on 05/27/2009 11:27:33 AM PDT by gridlock (Barack Obama is Kristy Yamaguchi and Dick Cheney is the Zamboni.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

If they are meeting all contractual obligations, they are acting morally - but I doubt any human being actually enjoys laying people off; it would haunt me to get rid of people for no fault of their own. I’d make an exception for cutting union workers we never wanted to retain in the first place because of performance issues, but can now cut because the required dire fiscal conditions outlined in the contract have been triggered.

Now, layoffs may not always be wise for the company (long-term), especially in areas where lots of training has been invested (in some jobs, a worker must be trained for years before they contribute to the bottom line), and/or where obtaining highly skilled workers is necessary and normally difficult. I am surprised furloughs and other job-neutral cost-containment strategies are not in more widespread use in skilled industries.


26 posted on 05/27/2009 11:29:36 AM PDT by M203M4 (A rainbow-excreting government-cheese-pie-eating unicorn in every pot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mort56

I thought odumbo the socialist gave one of “his great speeches” a month or two ago and the company would be hiring because of the stinkulus hmmmmmmm


27 posted on 05/27/2009 11:30:12 AM PDT by italianquaker (We went from a country that hates the president to a president that hates his country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
His image of the American people:

His image of President Barack Obama:


28 posted on 05/27/2009 11:32:47 AM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldexpat
The NYT has targeted one of the most respected, conservative and honest companies in the world..one that is universally respected world wide.

Caterpillar has embarrassed President Obama, because they refused to throw out their multi-year business plan in order to comport with The One's off-the-cuff statement. Therefore it is only right and proper that they be excoriated.

And don't even get me started about Rachel Corrie...

29 posted on 05/27/2009 11:33:26 AM PDT by gridlock (Barack Obama is Kristy Yamaguchi and Dick Cheney is the Zamboni.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Oldexpat
Didn't Obama do a big photo op with the Caterpillar folks and claim they weren't going to lay people off because of his pork bill? And then, didn't Caterpillar turn around and say "Ahem, that's not actually the case Mr. Obama"?

I'd guess that's why Caterpillar is getting the 2 minutes hate from this wacky NYT "ethicist".

30 posted on 05/27/2009 11:36:33 AM PDT by TheWasteLand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: M203M4
...but I doubt any human being actually enjoys laying people off....

I've worked for some whom I pretty sure did enjoy it. But then again, I'm also using the term 'human' somewhat loosely.

31 posted on 05/27/2009 11:38:37 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

What a retard. If the company could provide for these workers, they’d still have jobs. And didn’t Caterpillar pay into their unemployment insurance all the time they were employed?


32 posted on 05/27/2009 11:42:14 AM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
The author of this article is infantile.

When is it time to start blaming Obama?

33 posted on 05/27/2009 11:43:12 AM PDT by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boiling Pots

“The purpose of a company is to make a profit for its owners, PERIOD.”

(I’m not defending the article’s position.)

To state that “The purpose of a company is to make a profit for its owners, PERIOD.” is pretty much a wholesale rejection of the protestant work ethic which is the very foundation of the free market.

If there is no greater good served than “making a profit” then them marketplace will eventually descend into a orgy of thievery.


34 posted on 05/27/2009 11:43:22 AM PDT by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

0bama attacking caterpillar via the press


35 posted on 05/27/2009 11:50:00 AM PDT by sten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

That second one is an incredible picture.


36 posted on 05/27/2009 11:54:49 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer; All

A few years ago I succeeded in naming this jerk Enemy of the Week at American Spectator. He said it was immoral for honest customers to alert super-markets to shop lifting in progress.

Question: is it immoral to hope the NYTimes dies?


37 posted on 05/27/2009 11:59:23 AM PDT by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

let em work then. But there ain’t no dough to pay ‘em. I agree it is demoralizing to fire them. “Laid off” is a sheety euphemism. Let the ones that want to work, work. It’s better than sitting home feeling worthless and taking it out on the wife and kids.


38 posted on 05/27/2009 12:00:22 PM PDT by yldstrk (My heros have always been cowboys--Reagan and Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
That's it. Time to nationalize Caterpillar and guarantee lifetime employment and “green” D-9’s.
39 posted on 05/27/2009 12:00:23 PM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus

Making a profit in and of itself IS the “greater good.”

Do you understand how business profits benefit nearly everyone in society, even the non-owners?

Without profits, businesses have no reason to exist.


40 posted on 05/27/2009 12:02:21 PM PDT by Boiling Pots (Barack Obama: The final turd George W. Bush laid on America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson