Complexity in Global Warming: On the Imprint of Pride

It would be incorrect to claim that the planet’s atmosphere and oceans are both getting warmer in a linear, across-the-board way. The existence of exceptions, such as the slightly cooler average summers in some places in the interior of North America, no longer allows for credible claims of climate-change denial, an agenda that was financed and promoted in part by fossil-fuel companies in the U.S. and E.U. before being totally repudiated by science. Indeed, the credibility of natural science vastly exceeds that of corporations with vested financial interests. Rather than discuss those, which have become better known to the public, I want to describe the sheer complexity of a generally warming planet, which is rarely adequately grasped by non-scientists, and delve into the sordid self-love that I contend is ultimately behind global warming. 

Comparing summers of the past 30 years as of 2025 with the 1901-1960 average, the 48 contiguous American States showed “large changes I some regions, especially the West, and very muted ones in the central and southeast” States.[1] The “limited warming and even slight cooling in some locations” was “strikingly apparent.”[2] For example, Tuscaloosa County in Alabama cooled 0.6F since the first half of the twentieth century.[3] Lest this fact be taken as a rebuttal or counter-fact to “global warming,” Joseph Barsugli, a climate researcher at the University of Colorado cautions, “There are not too many places on the planet that are showing this, honestly.”[4] In fact locations in the interior of North America that have shown slight cooling are “an oddity amid a warming climate, as the general pattern is that the world’s land areas are warming up more quickly than the oceans. Europe, for instance, is one of the fastest warming land areas on the planet.”[5]

“According to the ERA5 dataset of the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S)” in 2025, Europe, rather than North America, had achieved the honor of being the fastest-warming continent; in fact, it had been warming by “approximately 0.53C per decade since the mid-1990s,” and the Arctic was “warming even faster—around 0.69C per decade.”[6] Even the linearity in “0.53C per decade” is an over-simplification and thus it should not be projected out from 2025 to even 2035.  Although not directly impacting the summer heating, the Gulf Stream, an ocean current that brings relatively warm water from Florida to northern Europe, was still active, albeit slowing down, during the winter of 2024-2025. Should that conveyor-belt cease to function due to the influx of cold fresh-water from melting ice in the Arctic, European winters would be much colder, and that would lower the overall warmth of Europe annually and could even have an impact on the summer heat—which way, I do not know; the complexity easily surpasses my ken as I am not a climatologist.

My point is precisely that the complexity, including feedback loops that have already been set in motion by warming that had already occurred before the mid-2020s and are entirely natural and thus cannot be stopped, still eludes even the grasp of the scientists who study the phenomenon of climate change. The E.U.’s southern States in particular were extraordinarily hot during the summer of 2025, and no one could then predict if or when the Gulf Stream might shut down in the Atlantic Ocean. The human impact on Earth’s atmosphere and oceans had already gone beyond what human minds or computers could project in terms of the future. The negligence on population growth and pollution by business around the world during the 20^th century came with the convenient implicit assumption that the impact would not compromise or even extinguish our species, including homo sapiens being able to think its way to counter such wide-scale effects. In fact, the inherent or innate underlying human problem goes beyond cognition being limited relative to human prowess.

The preeminence of the self, in a narrow self-love according to Augustine, is pride, “the beginning of all sin.”[7] In other words, “’the love of personal pre-eminence’ (amor excellentiae propriae) . . . means not simply ‘love of money’ but that ‘general avarice’ which makes a [person] seek for ‘something more than is fitting’, ‘for the sake of [one’s] own pre-eminence and through a kind of love of possession (quemdam propriae rei amorem)’.”[8] Whereas Aquinas would contend that greed is the prime sin, Augustine hung his hat on pride as the root of all evil, from which greed, or the desire for more sans limit, as evinced by not only the executives and shareholders of fossil-fuel companies, but also consumers who refused to constrain their use of electricity and gas/petro for driving cars rather than taken buses, trolleys, and subways in the last half of the 20^th century and the first quarter of the next century. The impulse preferring instant gratification for the self over the public or common good was continuously given enough rope even to possibly choke the species eventually. 

The strategic use of regulation and contributions to political campaigns for influence rendered not only people running corporations culpable, but also elected representatives and appointed regulators in government. The comfortable, mutual back-scratching relations between people in business and government could easily betray even the medium-term general good. 

In other words, allowing a lower good to surmount a higher good, which Aristotle called misordered concupiscence, for private and thus narrow immediate gain, is incredibly short-sighted and humanity even in the mid 2020’s was coming to realize that time was catching up and it was already time to begin “paying the piper” for all the accumulated political, economic, and social/cultural lapses that had contributed to excessive CO2 emissions. 

To be sure, the extent of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere relative to a human being could easily give people the misimpression of not being able to significantly alter the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans; but humanity should also have been sufficiently concerned about the exponential increase in the human population through the 20^th century, even with two world-wars to grasp the necessity of constraining that increase as well as the consumption of energy by individuals and the pollution of companies geared to supplying the greatly expanded population’s consumption.

---

1. Chris Mooney, “The Strange Divide in How Americans Experience Summer Temperatures,” CNN.com, August 19, 2025.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. The E.U. Climate Change Service, “Why Are Europe and the Arctic Heating Up Faster than the Rest of the World?” 14 July, 2025.
7. Augustine, De Gen. ad litt. XI. 18ff, as quoted in John Burnaby, Amor Dei: Study of the Religion of St. Augustine (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1938), p. 120.

8. John Burnaby, Amor Dei: Study of the Religion of St. Augustine (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1938), p. 120. Burnaby quotes from Augustine, De Gen. ad litt. XI. 18ff.

 

 

Bad Management as Unethical: On Reckless Bus Drivers in Boston

The corruption of an individual manager or non-supervisory employee, or even a government official can be distinguished between the collusion of multiple levels, as I contend has been the case at least as of 2023 in Boston, Massachusetts in regard to the government and the Commonwealth’s most populous region’s mass transit system—in particular, its bus service. I contend that the government has been looking the other way as the management of the local bus transit has held off from firing reckless bus drivers, who thus sordidly feel entitled to ignore the training—assuming it is not deficient—by driving recklessly by riding the accelerator pedal before stomping down on the brake pedal at the last minute, literally, in stopping. With positions to fill, the company’s management treats such driving at best with a slap on the wrist, with the government looking on rather than divesting the management of its disincentive to fire even dangerous drivers. Such corruption is systemic in nature, and thus is much worse than the corruption of an individual. Ultimately, it is the public—which includes the electorate—which goes unprotected while bus riders have to put up with jolting rides.

With a pay rate of $30 per hour, a signing bonus of $7,500, paid commercial-driver’s license training, health benefits, and $10,000 for tuition reimbursement for college being the new labor contract for Boston’s bus drivers in 2023, better bus driving would theoretically follow as better candidates apply. In her State of the Commonwealth speech in early2024, Governor Healey announced that 2023 had been “the best year of hiring the T has ever had.” But the T includes subway and light-rail operators too, and as of the end of 2023, 415 bus-driver positions were still unfilled, and that is relative to the 1,452 bus drivers currently working—a net increase of only 2 since that August. 

The tan areas indicate the number of bus drivers working

 and the red areas indicate the number of unfilled positions.

The better compensation package seems not to have made a dent, and I suspect that the company's mechanics would probably admit in private that too many buses continued to make dents (as well as wear out brake pads, from braking hard, and even shocks, from driving too fast on roads in need of repavement). In general, aggressive driving means higher maintenance costs than need be the case. 

In other words, the “in theory” consequence of better driving failed to materialize. This in spite of Governor Healey having told bus drivers in a press conference announcing the labor contract, “We’ll be looking to improve working conditions as you improve the safe and effective operation of our public transportation system,”[1] the drivers were able to take the raise without improving the safe operation of the buses. Perhaps this was due to not only incompetent supervision by the management of the mass-transit of its bus drivers, but also enabling by the government. “Today you see a demonstration that we have your back,” the head of state of Massachusetts said during her press conference.[2] To be sure, the incentive that the management of the “T” has serially had not to increase the number of unfilled positions by firing even reckless drivers is likely the real driver here, with the government looking the other way rather than looking out for the public’s interests by providing a countervailing force to the bus company’s disincentive in getting rid of bad drivers, who in turn doubtlessly have felt both entitled to drive however they want with the air of impunity. This is literally dangerous.

On the evening of November 29, 2024, I was riding on a route 71 bus, having boarded the beginning of that route, at the bus/subway station underneath Harvard Square. In spite of the fact that I had submitted a complaint concerning the driver’s aggressive driving, which was uncomfortable to passengers and a risk to pedestrians and people driving near the bus, he still felt entitled to floor the bus’s accelerator, even in the tunnel out of the terminal at Harvard Square, where the speed limit was 6 mph, and to slam the brake pedal despite the harsh jolt felt by passengers. After speeding through the tunnel out from the underground station, he proceeded to ride the accelerator pedal on the street that winds through the crowded square so excessively that he had to stomp hard on the brake pedal to avoid back-ending the car that was stopped in front of the bus at the red light. Then the driver honked the bus’s horn at the car’s driver, who did not react to the now-green light fast enough for the harried bus driver working to extend his break at the end of the route. He proceeded to accelerate so excessively that had braked hard not to hit the three pedestrians who were in the middle of a designated cross-walk. Because they looked like they could have been three undergraduate Harvard students, I wondered whether the university administration might have some words for the mass-transit’s management. I immediately called the transit’s customer service line while the driver was once again riding the accelerator pedal only to brake hard at the first bus stop in spite of the fact that he could see several people well ahead waiting at the stop. At the very least, his judgment concerning how much to accelerate in a given distance and how to stop a bus (including some coasting seemed beyond him) was warped.

On the phone with a customer-service employee, I hurriedly exclaimed, “The driver almost hit three pedestrians who were in a crosswalk! And now he is quickly accelerating again! I have called in a complaint on that driver’s driving before, and yet he is still driving recklessly. I’m getting off and will wait for the next bus; he is too reckless.” So, I got off at the first bus-stop and will wait for the next bus.” In spite of the customer-service employee telling me that she would notify operations at “the garage” as well as her immediate supervisor, I had the sinking feeling that, like my prior complaints, that one would fall on conveniently deaf managerial ears.  

The bus driver continued fast as the bus approached a red light even though an ambulance was making its way through the intersection and thus caution was just common sense. 

Sure enough, the driver was driving the same route on the next night. He tailgated another bus part way through the tunnel out of the station, and then was able to easily surpass the speed limit by accelerating until just before he had to stop before turning onto a road. Then he accelerated on that road, and braked hard at the first bus stop. Somewhere in the middle of the route, he accelerated until a minute or so before braking behind a stationary car at a red light intersection even though an ambulance with lights flashing was trying to make its way through the intersection. Passing through the intersection, the bus driver applied a series of “fits and hard stops,” and this pattern continued when he approached two or three bus-stops ahead. 

The bus driver pushed his foot down on the brake pedal too hard just before stopping, without having coasted so the sudden braking would not have to stop so much motion. This can be seen by the standing passenger's loss of balance. Were he to have fallen and broken a bone, he could have sued the company.

The customer-service employee on the night before had said that the procedure when that department is closed and safety is at risk from a driver’s reckless, aggressive driving, is that I should call the company’s transit “police.” When I called that department just after I got off the bus, a stern woman stated, as if she could not be wrong, “No, you need to call customer service.” I told her that customer service was closed on Saturdays and that that department had informed me that transit police should handle cases of safety issues when customer service is closed.” “No!,” she exclaimed, “you have to call customer service when they are open.” I was stunned because I had told her that the driver had almost hit three pedestrians in a crosswalk the night before, and he slammed on the brake pedal just fifteen minutes ago behind a car at a light that had been red for some time. “We have to witness the incidents to do anything about them,” the corrupt woman said. Knowing this was incorrect (I had already stated that I was a witness) and thus that the "police" employee was corrupt. The pathetic excuses she used clearly indicated that she was willing to dismiss a report even of pedestrians almost being hit. Her crime was more than being inept and corrupt; she didn't care whether the aggressive driver might kill a pedestrian between that Saturday night and Monday, when customer service would reopen. So, I ended the call as she was obstantly denying that she was refusing to take and act on my reports. I called 911 emergency to speak with the local police department not only to report the driver, but the transit "police" employee too! Even though I told the employee of the local police department of the driver’s reckless driving both that night and the night before, and that he was still driving even though I had notified the transit company’s customer service department the night before that the driver had almost hit three pedestrians—likely Harvard students—he told me I had to contact the transit “police,” which prompted me to relay the last conversation with the control-freak who presumed that she could not be wrong and utterly dismissed my claims gained from the transit company. “The transit police would rather risk pedestrians being killed than follow the transit company’s policy that the transit “police” handles such reports when customer service is closed. It’s really just common sense not to wait two days before reporting (and the company therefore acting on) a report of reckless driving where safety is being compromised. He said he would call the transit police, but I did not believe him. I gave up. A report against a bus driver was being blown off yet again, and the driver doubtless was breaking traffic laws with a sense of impunity, which made him especially dangerous.

This is the bus driver who had almost killed three Harvard students in a cross-walk and, on the following night, braked hard behind a car at a red light. On both nights, he had enough time at the end of the route for a personal break, as shown here.  I contend that this is why he was speeding and waited to the last minute, literally, to apply the brake pedal before stopping so as to shorten the time of the route. 

Not a full week before that weekend, I had called in a complaint on a driver, also a Black male, who had been riding the accelerator and hitting the brake pedal hard when stopping, rather than coasting to a stop—as that would mean less break-time at the end of the route for him. “He almost hit a car standing in front of the bus; that car had its left-turn signal on, and that could be seen at a distance as it was dark outside. But the driver kept acccelerating until he got very close to the car. What if he had misjudged on where to come to a quick stop by slamming on the brakes? He is a reckless driver!” That driver might have been the same one. I had also called customer service to report a young black woman whose stomping on the brake pedal had rendered rides very uncomfortable. Yet she was able to continue driving without any concern for the comfort of the paid customers on the bus.  

I had never ridden on a transit bus in which the driver slamed on the brake pedal so hard (and even after I had asked him not to do so). Again, the pattern is the same: customers, and even company policies on driving don't matter. After I had called customer service to report him, I rode again on a bus he was driving, and his driving was just as hard and reckless. A bus is not a toy, and we are ALL subject to the law--even those people who disrespect rules and laws, yet while demanding respect from everyone else in spite of having a selfish and inconsiderate attitude.

It bears repeating that after I had called customer service a few weeks before and said, “One of your coworkers told me to call the transit ‘police’ to report reckless driving when your department is closed, but your company’s transit “police” have insisted to me that I call customer service. Apparently, they are just fine with letting a reckless bus driver continue to drive through a weekend and have riders wait until your department is open, which could be a day or two away.” Although the customer-service employee told me that I had followed procedures correctly, and thus that the transit “police” dispatcher had been wrong, and I asked the customer-service employee to have her supervisor contact the transit “police” supervisor, but, as I have already stated, there was no change in the script of the transit “police” when I called the transit police to report the driver who had almost hit three Harvard students the night before and could easily have misjudged when to stomp on the brake pedal behind a stopped car at a red light. 

In addition to the bus company having a disincentive to terminate even bus drivers whose driving could terminate people in cars and in cross-walks, the refusal of the company’s transit “police” to contact “the garage” to intercede on behalf of the public (and bus riders) to get a reckless bus driver off the streets until the driving could be investigated by an operations supervisor points to bad management not only in the transit “police” department, but also higher up, to the manager who is over both that department and customer service and was thus responsible for making sure that reports of dangerous driving do not fall between the two departments, as when customer service is closed and yet the transit “police” insist that customer service be contacted when it opens.

Whether because my paternal grandfather rose from being a trolley driver to being the president of the Milwaukee, Wisconsin (then Des Moines, Iowa) mass transit company, or because I have worked in public accounting and have a B.S. and M.B.A. in business (with an emphasis on organizational studies because systems theory intrigued me), I have called the customer service (and transit “police” departments) to report uncomfortable and even reckless bus driving even though most riders would not bother, or even suspect that the problem is systemic both among the bus drivers and even including their supervisors. So, in response to one customer-service employee, who had told me that the company looks for reports from many riders before taking action, I said, “It is a fallacy to assume that there is not a problem unless many people report it, because, frankly, most people figure, why bother, nothing will happen, and some people may even expect bad driving because it happens so much.” Yet how many companies stick to this fallacy! The macro-culture of democracy may be erroneously projected on business management in assuming that a majority is needed for a complaint to be valid. The assumption ignores the fact that few riders may actually be able to “connect the dots” and be willing to call in a complaint. The assumption of political equality of voters—one person, one vote—does not hold in complaints to a manager about an employee. Even in terms of political democracy, Donald Trump only received the votes of 34% of the eligible voters (and Harris received 32%) in 2024, so it is not really true that majority rules. I for one am more interested to know why eligible voters did not vote (or voted for other candidates, who could not be expected to win) than in why voters voted for Trump or Harris.

Individuals have insights, and, for any given subject-matter or domain, some people have more insight than do others. I might even venture to claim that some people are, whether genetically or by effort in formal education, more intelligent than are other people. Herds, however, walk only when a general shift is occurring. Waiting for a herd to complain for the substance of the complaint to have merit and thus value and credibility, can be reckoned as foolish management. Nietzsche contrasted herd-animals, who are weak, from the strong, who act out of self-confident strength if they are not beguiled by the weak to be ashamed of being strong, as if it were unethical. In actuality, weakness even in not standing up to corruption is unethical even in feckless non-action, and the corrupt are themselves obviously unethical in being so.

I contend that the transit “T” company and the Massachusetts government with respect to that company comprise layers of negligence, beginning with the dangerous drivers themselves and going through the customer service department and the transit “police” department to upper management, and finally to the Massachusetts government: none of which are looking out for the public and the bus riders (as even accelerating even just until the point of stop by braking hard is very uncomfortable).

Once I conducted a small experiment to find out if the bad bus drivers had been trained badly or have been knowingly driving badly. I asked one bus driver to stop slamming on the brakes, and he complied, which told me that at least some of the reckless drivers know that they are driving badly and yet are doing it anyway. I believe they do so in order to rack up minutes at the end of a route to take a personal break, or else because they are late due to traffic and the company pressures its drivers to reach the end of a route on time. But this does not explain why many drivers depart the beginning point of a route early. A longer break at the end or insuring an on-time arrival is likely the motive. Creating a longer break could be called gaming the system. I know that the driver supervisors know this is happening, yet they conveniently allow it.

Finally, notice that I have not had to resort to claiming that the drivers’ union is protecting even reckless drivers. I suspect that is also in play, but the sad point is that I have enough without even bringing up the pressure from the union on the management. I would not be surprised to learn that the upper management has told the union’s head, We’ve got your back. After all, it is what the governor told the drivers when she announced the sweet labor contract in 2023 that was, according to that governor, supposed to make the operation of the buses safer.

Collusion upon collusion upon collusion can make for collision, collision, and collision when aggressive bus-driving is involved, and this is obviously at the expense of customers and even the public, not to mention the innocent pedestrians and car-drivers who are injured or even killed as a result. The banality of narrow, bureaucratic managerialism and oblivious, duty-free politics is none other than corruption writ large. This means that that the system itself, which spans the domains of business and government, is corrupt and thus is in need of reform. Generally speaking, furtive though obvious unaccountability can become so banal as it becomes so common that it renders bad management itself as unethical. 

In the present case before us, the expectation of harm to innocents may be eclipsed by a narrow, self-centered fixation on enuerated departmental tasks (e.g. by the transit “police” department), and willful gross negligence (e.g., many of the bus drivers). The harm may be an implicit byproduct of the incentives and disincentives that are operative in the system, including the bus company and the government that is supposed to oversee the company. Aside from the refusal or sheer inability of elected government officials and regulators to adequately oversee the Boston metro area's mass-transit, known as the "T," the aggressive bus-driving and the transit company's management can be so bad that both can be said to be inherently unethical. 

Even the ongoing momentum of the inertia of such a dysfunctional system can be said to be unethical, such that inaction is culpable. In such a case, the status quo does not warrant pride of place; rather, warrants should be issued for the drivers who believe that the traffic laws do not apply to themselves. 

Indeed, an attitude can be determined to be unethical, as can the consequences when innocent people are injured or even killed and human customers are driven like cattle. Ironically, the toxic "herd animals" depicted by Nietzsche that are too weak to master their instinctual urge to dominate are at the wheel, as they are too weak to experience the richer pleasure that comes from power derived from mastering one's own most intractible urges. If this verdict seems overly harsh, you might imagine the jolt from a foot stomping down on a brake pedal immediately after having ridden the acelerator without allowing the bus to coast at all, all this without any concern for the paid passengers or for pedestrians and people driving nearby.

In the seventeenth century, a European Jansenist priest, Pierre Nicole, wrote that even though self-love (over loving God) can have unintended beneficial consequences and thus be reckoned as enlightened self-interest, self-love is still a sin. Although Augustine wrote that sin can have unintended beneficial consequences, it is important to remember that self-love is still a sin. In moral terms, which has been my vantage-point here, it can be said that selfishness negligent of any possible resulting harm to other people, is unethical. Selfishness can be extended to an organization's managers as well as to government officials who look the other way. Unfortunately, the human nose can become accustomed to a bad odor if it hangs around long enough to become the atmospheric norm. 

---

1. Christian MilNeil, “MBTA Adopts ‘Historic’ New Labor Deal with Carmen’s Union,” StreetsBlogMass, August 2, 2023.
2. Ibid.

Starbucks Bucks Its Workers’ Labor Union

Even though more than 500 Starbucks shops had unionized by the end of 2024, it seems that the company’s management did not respect the new union very much. Unfortunately for the company, one implication that can be drawn is that the company’s management didn’t respect federal labor law very much too. For in not respecting its union enough to negotiate it on reducing employee work hours, the company violated federal law. The “smoking gun,” I submit, was that the management used dissimulation to respond to the government, rather than address the complaint directly.

On October 10, 2024, the “general council of the National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint . . . alleging that Starbucks made the scheduling changes in late 2022 and early 2023” without consulting and negotiating with the union.”[1] The complaint reads in part that Starbucks changed workers’ hours “without prior notice to the Union and without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain.”[2] As per federal labor law, Starbucks was required to give prior notice to the union and give it a chance to bargain, as well as to tell the union how the change in hours would impact the paychecks of the workers affected. In its written response, the company’s management ignored this requirement and instead defended a practice that was not against the law and the government was thus not in the government’s complaint.

Starbucks stated, “We continuously review operations decisions to optimally address business needs and customer expectations, consistent with the law.”[3] Indeed, doing so does not in itself violate federal law, but the statement does not address the complaint. Next, the company tried to obviate the complaint, again by not addressing anything that was illegal, by pointing out, “our decisions were made across our system, in unionized and non-unionized stores, and they were made without regard to organizing activity at Starbucks.”[4] Even if that were true, it does not address whether the management had informed the union and given it an opportunity to bargain in the cases of the unionized stores.

By not addressing the violations specified in the complaint, the company’s managers may either have been dissimulating by changing the terms of the dispute or trying to avoid lying by denying the specific charges. Either way, the mentality is sordid, and this in itself can be interpreted in line with the old adage, Where there is smoke, there is fire.  Where there is a devious mentality, there is likely to be a crime.

As a result of the violation, some employees lost the benefit of health insurance because they no longer worked enough hours per week. Therefore, the union’s lawyer said that damages could be more than merely the wages for the lost hours. A conservative estimate could be “north of $30 million.”[5] Lest this seem like enough of a disincentive for the management to begin to respect the union (and federal labor law), I submit that it is extremely difficult to change a company’s organizational culture.

Today, I went to buy a product at a Target store. The shelf was empty so I went to customer service, which the linguistically opportunistic management calls “guest” services. The employee was incorrect that I could not order the product online and have it delivered to the store; she was even wrong that the product was not in the back of the store. I went to a manager, who assured me that she would “coach” the employee.  In a tone of “you’re not getting it,” what I actually said was, “It was not just her mistakes; her mentality—her attitude—was terrible, and that can’t be coached away.” The manager didn’t say anything, but her facial expression was one of dismissiveness. Starbucks’ management at the corporate level needed more than coaching from the government.

1. Dave Jamieson, “Starbucks Could Owe Millions to Baristas Who Unionized,” The Huffington Post, October 11, 2024.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.

On the Birth of Corporate Social Responsibilty in 1869

Referring to the speculation in gold that was engineered by Jay Gould and others in 1869 to enrich themselves and the Erie Railroad, Henry Adams (1838-1918), a grandson of John Quincy Adams and great grandson of John Adams, wrote at the time:

“For the first time since the creation of these enormous corporate bodies, one of them has shown its power for mischief, and has proved itself able to override and trample on law, custom, decency, and every restraint known to society, without scruple, and as yet without check. The belief is common in America that the day is at hand when corporations far greater than the Erie [Railroad] — swaying power such as has never in the world’s history been trusted in the hands of mere private citizens  . . . — will ultimately succeed in directing government itself. Under the American form of society, there is now no authority capable of effective resistance.” (1)

Gould had wanted the price of gold to rise not only because he had bought some to sell at a higher price, but also because as a stockholder of the Erie, he would benefit from the railroad transporting more wheat from the Midwest to the east coast for export. A higher price in gold meant a lower dollar. Wheat being based in dollars, a lower dollar meant more exports. The strategy was essentially to devalue the dollar, which Gould assured President Grant would be in the national interest economically. As the price of gold rose to $165 in 1869, Grant, fearing a bubble, pulled the plug by having the Treasury sell $4million in gold.  The collapse in the gold market triggered a drop in the stock-market. Even if it might have been in the short term interest of the speculators and railroads, the manufactured bubble was not in the national interest after all. Gould’s bribes of administration officials had been in vain.

Henry Adams saw the imprint of corporate power eviscerating both societal norms and democracy in the scandal.  In other words, the new-found corporate power eventuated in the birth of the need for corporate social responsibility amid capitalism eclipsing democracy. In academic terms, corporate social responsibility and (corporate) business & government, although discrete fields, were both first publicly recognized in 1869.

The corporate power occasioning Adam’s recognition was a novelty at the time, according to Brands, because the large corporation had only come into being as the railroads incorporated in the 1850s. Looking back after the Civil War, Henry Adams observed, "The last ten years had given to the great mechanical energies — coal, iron, steam — a distinct superiority in power over the old industrial elements -- agriculture, handwork, and learning." (2)  The power of steam in particular translated into large, publicly-held, corporations first in the railroad industry.

On account of their size and scope, and the associated equity capital requirements given the risk faced by lenders, the railroads were the first large American corporations to be publicly traded. The diffusion of ownership — a consequence of the large capital demands — led to a separation of ownership from control and to a new ownership interest: that of the short-term-oriented speculator. A short-seller, for example, seeks lower corporate earnings in the future, while a long-term investor hopes for higher dividends, and thus profits. Managers can exploit this difference in order to pursue their interests in the name of the corporation at the expense of societal norms and democratic governance.

Undergirding the managerial basis in skill, the railroads were the first companies to develop the methods of corporate administration. For example, there were supervisors over supervisors—in other words, multilayered organizational charts. Furthermore, dovetailing with the need for safety and efficiency (given the competition), the railroads developed precise management of their operations, including the development of standards for measuring performance. In short, the railroads were the first to develop a cadre of managers specialized in administration in the particular industry. (3)

Regarding the private power based on technique (i.e., managerial power), Henry Adams announced in 1869 that there was no authority, whether in society or government, capable of resisting it. The normative call for corporate social responsibility and the political call for a resurgence of democracy amid the encroaching capitalism were born. In other words, with great power came a recognition of a need for great responsibility. The corporate social responsibility movement began as precisely this recognition even as the modern large corporation was in its second decade.

Punctum Saliens, the large corporate type of commercial organization itself is inherently powerful relative to societal norms and even potential governmental or regulatory restraints. That is to say, the invention of the large corporation may have been inherently problematic, essentially involving systemic risk to the republic itself on account of the private power of the managements. To paraphrase Nietzsche, power cannot be but powerful. To unleash an inherently powerful feeding machine and expect it not to eat the grass is naive, if not patently irresponsible. To expect the managements of extremely wealthy corporations to be willingly socially responsible when their economizing and power-aggrandizing nature is to run through such non-constraints is simply ideological, if not fanciful. Fundamentally, the problem with corporate management is its inherent proclivity to bristle at any external constraint. It is the underlying maximizing egoism that is innately antithetical to the limiting natures of government regulation and corporate social responsibility.

Endnotes:

1. Henry Adams, “The New York Gold Conspiracy,” in Charles F. Adams, Jr. and Henry Adams, Chapters of Erie (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1956), pp. 135-36.

2. Henry Adams, The Education of Henry Adams (1907; Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961), p. 238.

3. H. W. Brands, American Colossus: The Triumph of Capitalism 1865-1900 (New York: Doubleday, 2010), pp. 22-23.

Bucking Starbucks’ Star

Common sense would perhaps dictate that a company sporting a managerial culture of pathological lying as the default way of dealing with stakeholders must inevitably go under at some point. Kant’s categorical imperative insists that mendacity is unethical, for it violates the non-contradictory law of reason. What would the Prussian Kant say, however, to the good Germans who lied to NAZI Jew-hunters about hiding the enemies of the state? As laudable as such lies are, unsavory business managers seem instinctually wired to take advantage of the slippery slope by ignoring the rationale of avoiding extreme harm. What begins as a trickle can become a deluge. Perhaps that is what happened at Starbucks.

In late October, 2022, the director of the U.S. National Labor Relations Board “accused Starbucks of threatening to withhold benefits and wage increases from workers if they unionized; selectively enforcing work policies against union supporters; disciplining or firing workers who were activists; and failing to bargain in good faith.”[1] Starbucks had closed a store in Ithaca, New York. The lack of good faith can be seen in the Congressional testimony of Howard Schultz, Starbucks’ CEO, in 2023. He sanctimoniously “admitted” that people he had spoken with could erroneously infer intimidation. In other words, it’s on the other guy. Such toxic pomposity easily belies a mere patina of portrayed honesty.  

NLRB officials claimed in 2022, The “company has repeatedly broken the law by firing pro-union employees, cutting their hours and offering pay hikes and other benefits to those who decline to unionize.”[2] Least the company’s management’s denials of these claims be believed, fast-forward to April, 2023, when it was revealed that the company had lied that negative publicity and a related strike played no role in the company’s decision to permanently close another store in Ithaca.

The story begins back in April, 2022, when Starbucks’ public-relations firm notified its client that employees “went on strike due to repeated grease trap spills that caused an unsafe environment and lack of action from management.”[3] The lack of action regarding a known safety hazard at a store that the company had written had the “strongest real estate trade position in this area” such that “any relocation would be inferior” points to a single-minded and expedient orientation to money.[4] Such a mentality is ripe for pro-union votes. A managerial culture of mendacity just adds fuel to the flames.

Andrew Trull, a company spokesman, claimed, “Media attention had no bearing on our decision to close the store.”[5] In an internal email, however, Denise Nelsen, senior vice president of U.S. operations, wrote, “We have to solve these condition issues because we also keep getting media on the store condition there.”[6] A direct contradiction! In symbolic logic, A and not-A cannot both be true. A barista at the store at the time said regarding the closing of the lucrative store, “It was retaliation for the strike we went on because we were being forced to work in unsafe conditions. They didn’t care [before]. They cared all of a sudden now when we’re making national news.”[7] Admittedly, negative publicity can hurt the bottom-line. I venture to say nonetheless that the instinctual urge to retaliate, which Nietzsche claimed is out of control in the weak who seek to dominate, trumps the otherwise-hegemonic money-orientation in Starbucks’ managerial culture. The propensity to fabricate rather than tell the truth serves both the power-aggrandizing and economizing motives, especially when they are extreme urges out of control (i.e., not mastered, or channeled by the individual).  

The culture of mendacity in Starbucks’ managerial cadre reaches even the store-manager level. I know this from personal experience. At a Starbucks’ store in April, 2023, a store manager pointed to the last remaining seat. “It’s right below an air-duct that blows cold air.” I had been there in January. “We can adjust that for you,” the manager lied. “I though the temperature of stores is centrally controlled,” I countered. “Yes, it is; it reduces our carbon footprint.” He gave no outward sign that he had just contradicted himself, which can be construed as a lie on top of a lie. Perhaps he was assuming that customers are idiots and would not be likely to put two and two together. Well, I did, but I was polite enough not to tell him that I knew that he had just lied to me. Instead, I went after the accuracy of his claim that centralized control is environmentally friendly. “Well, I have lived in Phoenix, Arizona, where your stores are generally known to feel like refrigerators even when it is 116F degrees. I’d say that’s a pretty big footprint, wouldn’t you?” He stood there silent, like an idiot. The dumb shoes were on a different foot.

Meanwhile, employees of that store kept to their script—that they like their store manager so they would not vote to unionize. When on one occasion I overheard a shift-manager say that the company’s management had lied about giving the employees an additional day off, he was silent when I asked him if he still liked the management so much he would not vote to strike. He pretended like I had not overheard him, which itself is a kind of a lie. Even the employees, who are in no sense of the word “partners” as the company’s head management pretends and publicizes, lie to customers.

Lastly, when I was living in Arizona, I went to a Starbucks in area of Tempe north of the Salt River, which the city of Tempe lies is a lake even though it looks like any other river. Six police employees on their break on the 4^th of July will wandering around the customer area between tables. I approached a Starbucks employee to complain, as I was not used to looking up from my laptop and seeing so many guns passing by at close-range. She refused to act. Then when the group of guns were blocking the counter where drinks are available, I reapproached her and she finally decided to do something. She politely asked the police to hang out away from the bar. She was met with bloated egos, one of which, with his back to the customer area, kept turning his head to give us suspicious looks.

My thought was: if the guy feels such distrust for the public, perhaps he and his coworkers would feel more comfortable spending their breaks somewhere more comfortable. Somewhere more out of the way rather than front and center. This would also spare us, the taxpayers, from being subject to even the tacit intimidation of seeing bullet-proof vests and guns at such close range as we enjoy our coffee. No, I was not over-caffeinated, though maybe the police were, given all their pacing around the tables. Not that the police employees would have recognized their hyperactive state; after all, fish cannot see the water that they breathe, for they are always in it. I contend that such a blindness is conducive to literally and figuratively taking liberties, whether through intimidation or outright lashing out. 

I do contend that liberty includes freedom of the innocent from intimidation. It can be quite difficult to perceive, yet unconsciously it is surely felt. Notice, for instance, the policeman intently looking at me as I took the picture shown here. Is taking a picture suspicious enough to warrant such rapt attention as a hunting dog might have upon seeing a rabbit? As the youth of today would say, the guy needs to chill. Not that I would have walked over to him after taking the photo and say, Hey dude, just chill out a bit, huh? You're on your break. He would have sternly dismissed such an accusation and turned on me (hence proving my point for me) even though it was, after all, a holiday. July 4th, Freedom from Intimidation Day in the U.S.A. By the twenty-first century, the British Red Coats had all but been forgotten, even, I suspect, in Boston Massachusetts. In Arizona, the Red Coats are homegrown.

Fortunately for all concerned, the police huddle-formation soon broke up and the disgruntled cops left the store. I discovered only days later that the head of their local union had been broadcasting that Starbucks had demanded that the police leave the store, which was a lie. The egos were two degrees of separation from realizing that my complaint had some validity, and they felt the need to retaliate against the company just for being asked to move out of the way. Interestingly, the barista had refused to ask the police to stop wandering through the tight-knit customer area yet decided to act when the police were near her.

Laura Ingram of Fox News had decided that I must be a criminal. For its part, Starbucks sent in a vice president, who directly or indirectly told The New York Times that I must be “anxious” and that police of any number whatsoever are welcome in any Starbucks store. Considering the retaliation against employees, or “partners,” who have held strikes or sought to unionize, it is interesting that the vice president capitulated to the local police union—even scapegoating a customer in doing so. I wonder how many customers trust the company and its management; any such trust would surely not be deserved.

The esteemed Starbucks experience, which the company advertised at the time, apparently includes being thrown under the bus (i.e., sacrificed) for making a request that might upset the company’s cosy relationship with fellow power-aggrandizers. Mendacious birds of prey often fly together, for they understand each other, just as alcoholics and drug addicts do. Using people, whether for retaliation or more money, violates Kant’s moral imperative that rational beings (including us, even as we irrationally over-populate and, in doing so, risk even our own extinction) treat other such beings not just as means, but also as ends in themselves. Kant was insistent and adamant: Telling lies violates this moral requirement of what it means ultimately to be human—to partake in rational nature.

Furthermore, as Nietzsche emphasizes in his Genealogy of Morals, an unmastered and excessive instinctual urge of resentment, especially of the strong, and indeed of the ensuing retaliation too, is a mark of being weak. The strong are advised to keep their distance from the new birds of prey. Hence, job-seekers should avoid toxic managerial cultures if possible, and at the very least be on the lookout for the telltale signs—the red flags. A pattern of telling lies is such a flag, hence it is significant when a direct contradiction can be exposed. (Potential) customers should take notice too, though the want of local alternatives can make it difficult, practically speaking, to avoid the chain. Unfettered choices require a competitive market, which as the activities of companies such as Standard Oil, Walmart, and Facebook demonstrate, can be difficult to be maintained even in a republic.

See the booklet: "Bucking Starbucks' Star."

See the essay: "Starbucks Capitulates to an Overzealous Police Union in Spite of In-Store Intimidation."

---

 1. Dave Jamieson, “Starbucks Broke Law By Closing Unionized Store In Ithaca, Labor Officials Say,” Huffington Post, November 1, 2022.
 2. Ibid.
 3. Dave Jamieson, “A Starbucks Closed Abruptly—And Its Workers Say It Was Retaliation,” The Huffington Post, April 29, 2023.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.

Corporate Social Responsibility or Increased Market-Share: The Case of Juul Labs on Youth Vaping

If the beneficial consequences for a society or the world are what externally validate corporations being socially responsible, does it really matter whether or not such benefits serve as the validators within the corporations? In other words, how much does the motive matter if stuff is getting done such that society is benefitting? To be sure, the motive can influence how much is getting done and for how long, but if the societal results are the same, would the nature of the motive really matter? I lay to the side the perfectly valid point that providing goods and services of value to customers benefits a society because consumers are, after all, a part of society. The interesting cases tend to be those in which profits can be expected to be negatively impacted from a socially responsible policy or program. Of course, a corporate management may announce the expectation of reduced revenue even as the management has carefully calculated how acting responsibly will be likely to be a profit-oriented strategy in the long term (including the related enhancement of reputational capital from appearing to have been self-sacrificial. The case of Juul Labs, Inc., the vaping industry leader in 2019 with a market share of 64 percent, shows just how difficult it is to get to corporate motives, even though the beneficial consequences to a society are arguably more important.

In 2019, Juul “voluntarily pulled its sweet, fruity and mint-flavored refill pods from the U.S. market.”[1] The company’s CEO pointed out in a meeting at the White House that flavors can help adult cigarette smokers switch to a less harmful alternative, so the company “would defer to the science-based approach of the Food and Drug Administration.”[2] President Trump had announced his intention to ban all flavors except that of tobacco. In refusing to follow Juul’s lead, NJOY and Reynolds American, Inc., makers of the second and third most popular vapers, kept selling all of their respective flavors, including those especially popular with teenagers.

Joseph Fragnito, a manager at Reynolds, said at the meeting, “We believe we can market flavors responsibly.”[3] At that meeting, President Trump, fearful of banned flavors being sold on the street and thus unsafe, was coming to the same stance. So had Juul gone too far in having taking kid flavors off the shelves if even those flavors could be marketed responsibly? In other words, had Juul lost revenue when the company could have changed how it marketed the inflammatory flavors? On the other hand, can flavors so attractive to teenagers be marketed in such a way that teenagers do not vape? In such a case, responsibly market may be an oxymoron, especially given that NJOY and Reynolds supported raising the minimum vaping age to 21. U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney, also at the White House meeting, supported Juul’s ban on certain flavors. “Putting out cotton-candy flavor and what is it, unicorn poop flavor?,” he said in reference to Juul’s competitors. “Look, this is kid product,” he added. “We have to put the kids first.”[4] Therefore, I submit that Juul applied responsibility better in banning such “kid product” than NJOY and Reynolds did in applying the concept to marketing the kid flavors.

This does not, however, absolve Juul with respect to its motive. At the White House meeting, the company’s rivals claimed that Juul’s management had voluntarily pulled its flavored products because it could sit out and wait for authorization from the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) as smaller companies went out of business. Then Juul would be able to come back with even more market share. Juul’s CEO countered that the company had banned its flavored products to address the problem of youth use. Whether or not the company’s socially responsible action was ultimately designed to increase market share or reduce the youth use of vaping—that is, to increase profits in the long-term or reduce teen vapers—the question is: Does this make any difference if the benefit to society in terms of less youth vaping is the same? I contend that the difference is ethical in nature, except from a consequentialist standpoint. In other words, an ethical basis exists—that of consequentialism—that essentially treats the question of motive as a non-issue.

Of course, if the societal benefits differ according to motive, the motive would matter even from a consequentialist ethical basis. If the motive of Juul’s management was to increase market share rather than see fewer kids vaping, then should the market-share strategy become compromised or fail, the societal benefits could be expected to be less than had the company’s management been intending to reduce youth vaping, which in turn could be expected to result in less government intrusion and greater reputational capital.  

Regarding the market-share strategy, could not young Juul customers simply start buying the sweet flavors from the other companies? Although they would have to justify their flavors to the FDA, the president was inclined to allow the flavors to be sold because otherwise kids might get them on the street. Would not Juul eventually go back to competing in those flavors? The other companies would not have gone out of business because the FDA would have approved the flavors. Juul’s management had pulled its flavors when President Trump was inclined to ban them industrywide. The changed politics, likely influenced by industry pressure (and perhaps campaign contributions), may have taken the wind out of the market-share motive, in which case the societal benefit would be less than had the motive been that of reducing youth vaping.

In conclusion, motive can matter even from a consequentialist standpoint because the amount of benefit to society can differ. In cases in which such benefits are the same even if the motive is one thing or another, the motive does not matter from a consequentalist standpoint. Even so, we want to think it does, ethically speaking. We want to assume that a management acting in a socially responsible way values doing so, rather than merely using social responsibility to earn more profit even in the long term. The field of business and society looks at the degree of fit between societal and company values, norms, or policies (as the corporate values may not matter), whereas business ethics delves into the ethical basis of a management’s motive. For example, is it enough that society benefits? Shouldn’t a company’s management want that consequence even if it comes with some financial loss (or opportunity cost)? These two fields are typically conflated at this point of contact. To say that Juul’s motive was in line with societal values is not to say what the motive should be. More than description is needed to get to normativity: the matter of should. We want to believe that Juul’s motive was the right one, but this is an ethical point that may not be relevant from a consequentialist standpoint. In terms of the degree of fit between corporate policies and societal values, the extent to which a society benefits is the litmus test.

---

1. Jennifer Maloney and Alex Leary, “Trump Warns of Dangers in Banning Vape Flavors,” The Wall Street Journal, November 22, 2019.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

General Electric: Tax Avoidance with Former IRS Employees In-House

The name of the game in all too many corporate tax departments is to minimize the tax due as much as possible. No countervailing notion of “corporate citizenship” or even “fair share” exists in that economic world of single-minded minimization of what is to be paid out. Put another way, responsibility does not compute in the business calculus. Advocates of corporate social responsibility got this wrong for decades by naively assuming that people who work in management roles cannot compartmentalize. Whether due to the strictures of a job description or financial pressures on a company, managers themselves may regret having to compartmentalize in order to keep their respective jobs. Sadly, all too often, a manager faces internal and external pressure to sign off on something that is admittedly unfair or too greedy. That the playing field itself may be slanted in the financial interests of large businesses goes beyond a manager's pay-grade, and even that of a corporation itself. For one to speak out in order to make the tilt explicit in society would deny the operative role of compartmentalization. Managers, even CEO's, may personally want a level playing field wherein corporations cannot yield an undue amount of wealth at the expense of other entities or persons, such a desire is outside of the business calculus. 

One manifestation of the tilted field is the ability of companies to bring IRS agents in-house as employees. In the debate on whether to end the George W. Bush Tax Cuts, the nominal (or statue) tax rates were salient. Much less was said of the effective rates, which are calculated by dividing the actual tax paid by total income (individuals) or net income (corporations). The New York Times reported in 2011: Although “the top corporate tax rate in the United States is 35 percent, one of the highest in the world, companies have been increasingly using a maze of shelters, tax credits and subsidies to pay far less.”[1] Although perfectly legal, the undue advantage means that the U.S. Government has had to look for other sources of revenue to make up for the lost revenue or do without the revenue, using debt to compensate. The "perfectly legal" aspect points back to the tax laws, and, more particularly, at the undue or even improper influence of the business sector in Congress. In fact, lest it be concluded that the business calculus is the reason for the tax avoidance (which is legal, unlike tax evasion), the financial power of business tilts the field not only by having too much influence in the crafting of tax legislation, but also in being able to hire ex-IRS employees to get "the inside scoop" on avoidance tactics. I now turn to the case of General Electric (GE) in 2010. 

General Electric reported global profits that year of $14.2 billion, $5.1 billion of which came from operations in the United States. Rather than owing any federal income tax on the $5.1 billion, however, the company claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion. Behind the “fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enable[d] [the company] to concentrate its profits offshore,” the company’s tax department was led at the time by a former U.S. Treasury official, John Samuels.[2] Moreover, the department included “formal officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress.”[3] G.E. had essentially brought the tax-writing and enforcement skill of the U.S. Government “in house.” As paid employees of G.E., the former government expertise was put under the aims of the private company, an organizational machine solely oriented to maximizing profit, whether short term or long.

Generally speaking, companies of such enormous financial wherewithal that annual profits are in billions of dollars can appropriate and harness governmental machinery for the sake of private gain. The issue here is not simply the existence of too much tax avoidance, hence at the expense of fairness; rather, the underlying problem is whether the existence of such large and powerful private enterprises is compatible with a democratic form of government. It is certainly not in the interest of the business sector that this question be interjected into public discourse. So the vested powerful interests, working through political stand-ins and the media, which itself is largely corporate, preoccupied with secondary issues, such as nominal individual tax rates, off-shore factories, and NAFTA. NBC, for instance, was owned by G.E. before being bought by Comcast. 

To be sure, the mantra well-known to many Americans in the 1950s, What is good for GM (or GE) is good for America, was supported by the notion that economic prosperity benefits everyone and a profitable company hires more employees than does an unprofitable company. What if the societal absorption of the value of this ideology made it possible for the business sector to have so much influence in Congress that the corporate taxpayers have practically been able to write their own tax laws? What if a pro-business society is too vulnerable to the rule by wealth (i.e., a plutocracy) that this underbelly can even keep itself hidden from view? Flaws exist in the assumption that what is good for GM or GE is good for America. Abstractly speaking, the good of a part is not necessarily the good of the whole. Private gain is more limited than is public gain. So if some of the parts come to dominate the whole and even define it in their own terms or image, the other parts and even the whole can be taken advantage of on the tilted board.

1. David Kocieniewski, “G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether,” The New York Times, March 24, 2011.
2. Bonnie Kavoussi, “General Electric Avoids Taxes By Keeping $108 Billion Overseas,” The Huffington Post, March 11, 2013.
3. David Kocieniewski, “G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether.”

Off Target: Corporate Spending as "Speech" against Gay Rights

In a 5-4 decision on January 21, 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that federal restrictions on corporate spending in elections constituted a violation of free speech. Critics called it wrong to equate corporate “speech” with individual speech and said the ruling would allow special-interest money to flood election campaigns. The bipartisan nature of the opposition to this ruling is striking in these largely partisan times. The court’s ruling is opposed, respectively, by 76, 81 and 85 percent of Republicans, independents and Democrats; and by 73, 85 and 86 percent of conservatives, moderates and liberals. Majorities in all these groups, ranging from 58 to 73 percent, not only oppose the ruling but feel strongly about it. Even among people who agree at least somewhat with the Tea Party movement, which advocates less government regulation, 73 percent oppose the high court’s rejection of this particular law. In addition to overwhelming opposition to the decision, there’s also bipartisan support for Congress to try to reinstate restrictions on campaign spending by corporations and unions.

So when Target sent a check for $150,000 to MN Forward, a Minnesota-based political group backing a gubernatorial candidate with penchant for opposing gay rights, people wondered what business Target has in taking sides on that issue, even if the group was also pro-business. MN Forward endorsed and was paying for ads for the Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. On Emmer’s website he defines marriage as a “union between one man and one woman” and he has come under fire for his $250 contribution to a Christian rockband that has been known to speak harshly of gays. Emmer told the Minnesota Star Tribune that the controversial rock band “You Can Run But You Cannot Hide,” were “nice people,” following band member Bradlee Dean’s reported comments that Muslim countries that support execution of gays are “more moral than even the American Christians.” To be sure, the managers of Target were not spending their companies’ “free speech” in defense of such a view, but that the wealth qua free speech was nonetheless being spent on a candidate who had made such a comment makes the Target CEO an unwitting accomplice.

Rather than viewing Target managers distancing themselves from Emmer’s view of gays as corporate social responsibility, I contend that the problem lies in taking spending as speech. Put another way, Target would have better stores if it sticked to its knitting, as it were.

Diverting money even to political campaign groups that further a pro-business agenda is off from the business’s main business, which in the case of Target is to sell retail. Besides the collateral damage from unwittingly helping campaigns on issues that are not even pro-business, diverting cash reserves to political campaigns puts corporations in the business of electoral politics, which is another sort of retail. In the case of Target, it is not as though the stores could not be improved from a business standpoint.  Once I accompanied a foreign friend of mine to a Target to return the coat he had given his wife for Christmas. Because he had paid by check, he had only the option, according to the “customer service” employee, of exchanging it. He could not get his money back—though he could have had he paid cash or by credit card. The “reasoning” of Target’s managers was that a check is “like kind” to an exchange voucher.  My friend and I left the store committed not to return, and I have not. Even in terms of influencing electoral politics in a pro-business general direction, Target’s management has plenty else to do closer to home—if indeed it is a home.  Rather than being socially responsible, a company ought to focus on its knitting.  That—doing business well—is the responsible thing to do because it is what a business’s owners expect from the managers of their property. Rather than being able to influence electoral politics beyond their expertise, managers ought to be restrained more by stronger corporate governance. To be sure, managers have a tendency to over-reach. Treating their spending decisions as “speech” only enbles them.

Sources:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2010/02/in-supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-finance-the-public-dissents.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/target-best-buy-fire-campaign-contributions-minnesota-candidate/story?id=11270194