Will corporate power evvvveeeeerrrrrrr be reined in?

[Jimmy Higgins]

The right to breath.

The right to live.

It's going to be harder to live in the world being created by corporate power with it's desire to consume resources as fast as possible and pollute to the greatest extent possible.

Corporate power is a power that no human presently can stop. It controls governments. It controls the US government. It controls the media and what messages appear in it.

Something the witless have no problem with.

No problem with unchecked human power. No, never been a problem.

It was much much worse in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. And due to that crap, the Government slowly got involved. Government (OSHA) has helped dramatically lower work place accidents and deaths. Oddly, it is the US Governments insistence to do otherwise that keeps employment attached to health care, not corporations themselves.

How did you determine that OSHA had a dramatic impact?

Nice chart! Your chart makes a really good point. In the 36 years before OSHA, workplace deaths dropped by about 50% (from '33 to 69). After OSHA started to exist, it has only dropped about 70% (from '69 to about '07) all the while the work force doubling in size. That 70% drop just isn't dramatic ​at all.

 

[dismal]

How did you determine that OSHA had a dramatic impact?

Nice chart! Your chart makes a really good point. In the 36 years before OSHA, workplace deaths dropped by about 50% (from '33 to 69). After OSHA started to exist, it has only dropped about 70% (from '69 to about '07) all the while the work force doubling in size. That 70% drop just isn't dramatic ​at all.

Well, since corporations control the government they get credit for it either way.

 

[untermensche]

How did you determine that OSHA had a dramatic impact?

Nice chart! Your chart makes a really good point. In the 36 years before OSHA, workplace deaths dropped by about 50% (from '33 to 69). After OSHA started to exist, it has only dropped about 70% (from '69 to about '07) all the while the work force doubling in size. That 70% drop just isn't dramatic ​at all.

Well, since corporations control the government they get credit for it either way.

Corporations opposed it.

It was created in 1970 by Richard Nixon.

That known communist.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Why can't they get the same volume of government contracts without the war given all the corporate power they have? You didn't address my point at all!

You can't build huge shoddy overpriced facilities in Iraq without a war and occupation of Iraq.

You can't build that shit for that price in the US.

If all you are doing is ordering supplies there will be questions.

But if it is war it is full steam ahead.

You have billions before you've arrived.

You're missing his point. Government write check for X billions of dollars for the overpriced facilities, and those that built the facilities keep a portion of X. They also spend a portion of X on the overpriced facilities.

Why not simply the government write a check for X billions, and those that receive the check simply put it in their private accounts, and never bother Iraq? That way they get to keep ALL of X instead of SOME of X. No need to go anywhere, do anything, destroy anything, kill anyone, just a cool lump sum payment from the government to the corporations without any extraneous or unnecessary details.

 

[ruby sparks]

How did you determine that OSHA had a dramatic impact?

Nice chart! Your chart makes a really good point. In the 36 years before OSHA, workplace deaths dropped by about 50% (from '33 to 69). After OSHA started to exist, it has only dropped about 70% (from '69 to about '07) all the while the work force doubling in size. That 70% drop just isn't dramatic ​at all.

I also read that the OSHA has come in for criticism for not doing enough:

"Over a span of two decades, from 1982 to 2002, OSHA investigated 1,242 of these horror stories -- instances in which the agency itself concluded that workers had died because of their employer's ''willful'' safety violations. Yet in 93 percent of those cases, OSHA declined to seek prosecution, an eight-month examination of workplace deaths by The New York Times has found. What is more, having avoided prosecution once, at least 70 employers willfully violated safety laws again, resulting in scores of additional deaths. Even these repeat violators were rarely prosecuted. OSHA's reluctance to seek prosecution, The Times found, persisted even when employers had been cited before for the very same safety violation. It persisted even when the violations caused multiple deaths, or when the victims were teenagers. And it persisted even where reviews by administrative judges found abundant proof of willful wrongdoing."

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/22/us/us-rarely-seeks-charges-for-deaths-in-workplace.html?mcubz=1

Complying with H & S regulations often/usually means less profit.

 

[dismal]

Well, since corporations control the government they get credit for it either way.

Corporations opposed it.

It was created in 1970 by Richard Nixon.

That known communist.

That's just what the corporations who control the government want you to think.

Obviously, if the corporations that control the government didn't want it, the government wouldn't do it.

 

[dismal]

Complying with H & S regulations often/usually means less profit.

Well, no it doesn't. In the long run. I sometimes wonder if people here have ever been out in the real world.

 

[ruby sparks]

Complying with H & S regulations often/usually means less profit.

Well, no it doesn't. In the long run. I sometimes wonder if people here have ever been out in the real world.

The actual picture, as to whether H & S reduces profit or enhances it, is very varied. It may possibly be the case for a variety of reasons that, looked at long term, there are more instances when it can be and is, profitable, partly because of the reputational aspect of complying with regulations imposed, not volunteered. Unfortunately, most businesses think short term.

Think about it, if it was generally otherwise, why would H & S Agencies have such a hard time pestering so many businesses to comply? Why would so many factories in underdeveloped countries not be paragons of health and safety?

By the way, amongst other things, I'm a qualified Site Health & Safety Officer in the construction industry.

 

[untermensche]

Well, since corporations control the government they get credit for it either way.

Corporations opposed it.

It was created in 1970 by Richard Nixon.

That known communist.

That's just what the corporations who control the government want you to think.

Obviously, if the corporations that control the government didn't want it, the government wouldn't do it.

Nixon actually believed workers should have protections.

The world has changed.

I doubt Trump does.

 

[dismal]

By the way, amongst other things, I'm a qualified Site Health & Safety Officer in the construction industry.

And in your experience companies don't take environmental, health and safety seriously?

I have worked in the energy business for 20+ years and I can tell you it's taken very seriously. By companies interested in staying in business, anyway.

 

[untermensche]

Corporations generally do the right thing.

When it is the law.

The problem is too many laws are written by corporations.

 

[ruby sparks]

By the way, amongst other things, I'm a qualified Site Health & Safety Officer in the construction industry.

And in your experience companies don't take environmental, health and safety seriously?

I have worked in the energy business for 20+ years and I can tell you it's taken very seriously. By companies interested in staying in business, anyway.

My guess is there are varied reasons for that. Some of them will have to do with compliance with regulations or standards imposed and possible costs associated, sometimes financial penalties, sometimes, given greater customer/public awareness, to do with reputation. Some may have to do, especially in larger companies, with realising actual savings in terms of productivity, fewer costs arising from claims, lower insurance premiums, etc. But by and large, improved H & S has had to be imposed, usually by governments.

Part of the problem, that I see, is that unless there is some sort of monitoring, firms tendering can lose out to less H & S-conscious firms.

I also think that part of the reason some businesses source or manufacture in underdeveloped countries is to save costs and part of the value obtained is because H & S standards are lower, or in some cases, non-existent.

So you get situations where Joe Bloggs can get a shirt in Matalan for £3 just after the Bangladeshi factory it was made in collapsed and killed 300 workers and Jenny Bloggs can get a dress in Primark for a fiver just after the factory in Bombay burned down taking 200 badly-treated (even before the fire) workers with it.

 

[Underseer]

I ask from the American context but the question does have ramifications globally as well. So how and when will it get done short of the extinction of the human race or at least the transformation of the US to look like a whiter version of Haiti?

How dare you question the right of our rightful masters to rule over us? What's the point of having an aristocracy if the dirty commoners have much say in what happens?

 

[Axulus]

Why can't they get the same volume of government contracts without the war given all the corporate power they have? You didn't address my point at all!

You can't build huge shoddy overpriced facilities in Iraq without a war and occupation of Iraq.

You can't build that shit for that price in the US.

If all you are doing is ordering supplies there will be questions.

But if it is war it is full steam ahead.

You have billions before you've arrived.

The US has military bases and all over the world in non-war zone areas. Why couldn't they build and operate shoddy overpriced facilities in non-war zone areas under government contract? Why would they need a war when the money flows readily even when there aren't any wars?

 

[Axulus]

How did you determine that OSHA had a dramatic impact?

Nice chart! Your chart makes a really good point. In the 36 years before OSHA, workplace deaths dropped by about 50% (from '33 to 69). After OSHA started to exist, it has only dropped about 70% (from '69 to about '07) all the while the work force doubling in size. That 70% drop just isn't dramatic ​at all.

I don't see any meaningful impact to the trend before OSHA and after. The doubling of the workforce is meaningless since the chart is a rate per 100,000 workers.

 

[ZiprHead]

Why can't they get the same volume of government contracts without the war given all the corporate power they have? You didn't address my point at all!

You can't build huge shoddy overpriced facilities in Iraq without a war and occupation of Iraq.

You can't build that shit for that price in the US.

If all you are doing is ordering supplies there will be questions.

But if it is war it is full steam ahead.

You have billions before you've arrived.

The US has military bases and all over the world in non-war zone areas. Why couldn't they build and operate shoddy overpriced facilities in non-war zone areas under government contract? Why would they need a war when the money flows readily even when there aren't any wars?

When the government purchases bombs that cost $100,000 a piece but never use them, they don't need to pay for replacements. I never really thought of you as someone so obtuse.

 

[Axulus]

The US has military bases and all over the world in non-war zone areas. Why couldn't they build and operate shoddy overpriced facilities in non-war zone areas under government contract? Why would they need a war when the money flows readily even when there aren't any wars?

When the government purchases bombs that cost $100,000 a piece but never use them, they don't need to pay for replacements. I never really thought of you as someone so obtuse.

Your obtuseness is not understanding the logic of the corporate power being claimed. Why wouldn't the corporations be creating and selling loads of useless weapons and getting the government to endlessly stockpile them? They could hire contractors to guard the stockpiles and build the facilities where they are stockpiled = bigger corporate profits. If they have the power to start a war, such a task would only require a small fraction of the power they possess. No need to start a war to do any of that and still make loads of money.

 

[Harry Bosch]

What was the US terrorist attack of Iraq in 2003?

A corporate war to feed the military industrial complex.

Corporations are not our friends.

The corporate mentality is not safe for humans.

I have to say that I've grown to like Bush more since Trump has taken office! However, there is no doubt that the Iraq war is solely the fault Bush and his administration. It's extremely clear that Bush wanted to invade Iraq before 9-11. 9-11 was just an excuse. I've read extensively about the decision has been made. There's no doubt in my mind that had Gore been elected, we would not have invaded Iraq. There was no need. So again, you're looking for a scapegoat.

 

[untermensche]

What was the US terrorist attack of Iraq in 2003?

A corporate war to feed the military industrial complex.

Corporations are not our friends.

The corporate mentality is not safe for humans.

I have to say that I've grown to like Bush more since Trump has taken office! However, there is no doubt that the Iraq war is solely the fault Bush and his administration. It's extremely clear that Bush wanted to invade Iraq before 9-11. 9-11 was just an excuse. I've read extensively about the decision has been made. There's no doubt in my mind that had Gore been elected, we would not have invaded Iraq. There was no need. So again, you're looking for a scapegoat.

Doesn't follow.

Bush had no desire to invade anything before 911.

Rumsfeld and Cheney did.

They were part of the military industrial complex wanting war. They had their reasons, others within the complex had different reasons, like greed.

And when 911 occurred the corporate media machine rang the bells of war non-stop.

Phil Donahue was fired because he questioned the sanity of invading Iraq. The last voice of sanity in the mass media.

The nation was driven to war by corporate malfeasance with the help of former members of the corporate world in government.

 

[bilby]

By the way, amongst other things, I'm a qualified Site Health & Safety Officer in the construction industry.

And in your experience companies don't take environmental, health and safety seriously?

I have worked in the energy business for 20+ years and I can tell you it's taken very seriously. By companies interested in staying in business, anyway.

My guess is there are varied reasons for that. Some of them will have to do with compliance with regulations or standards imposed and possible costs associated, sometimes financial penalties, sometimes, given greater customer/public awareness, to do with reputation. Some may have to do, especially in larger companies, with realising actual savings in terms of productivity, fewer costs arising from claims, lower insurance premiums, etc. But by and large, improved H & S has had to be imposed, usually by governments.

Part of the problem, that I see, is that unless there is some sort of monitoring, firms tendering can lose out to less H & S-conscious firms.

I also think that part of the reason some businesses source or manufacture in underdeveloped countries is to save costs and part of the value obtained is because H & S standards are lower, or in some cases, non-existent.

So you get situations where Joe Bloggs can get a shirt in Matalan for £3 just after the Bangladeshi factory it was made in collapsed and killed 300 workers and Jenny Bloggs can get a dress in Primark for a fiver just after the factory in Bombay burned down taking 200 badly-treated (even before the fire) workers with it.

Or where Union Carbide can make cheap pesticides for US soybean farmers, after killing 16,000 and injuring half a million at Bhopal. Which makes the garment workers look pretty safe, as they are only dying in their hundreds...