Dell and Microsoft ranked among the world's most ethical companies.

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by don_svetlio, Mar 14, 2017.

  1. Fishon

    Fishon I Will Close You

    Reputations:
    7,719
    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    4,845
    Trophy Points:
    281
    Fair enough. It's for each of us to decide when they feel past indiscretions are no longer reflective of a company's modus operandi and when to forgive.

    Failed to mention the browser wars when Netscape had 90% of the market, then Microsoft set out to destroy them by incorporating Explorer into the Windows operating system, so that it was the default browser for every PC sold. This is called price dumping.

    Judge: Microsoft's dominance of the x86-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Software, RealNetworks, Linux, and others."proved, time and time again, to be inaccurate, misleading, evasive, and transparently false. ... Microsoft is a company with an institutional disdain for both the truth and for rules of law that lesser entities must respect. It is also a company whose senior management is not averse to offering specious testimony to support spurious defenses to claims of its wrongdoing.

    Business is a rough and tumble world and I'm not requiring purity, but their business practices were quite shrewd at the time and the courts found them guilty of monopolistic business practices. So after playing dirty and destroying their competition they've now decided to play fair. Why don't they pick a company who has a clean track record? Maybe they should do an honor roll specifically for the cable and mobile phone industry? I'd like to see who tops that list.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2017
  2. Jarhead

    Jarhead Systematic Love

    Reputations:
    4,830
    Messages:
    11,909
    Likes Received:
    2,538
    Trophy Points:
    581
    So now that Microsoft has corrected their monopolistic actions as per the judge's orders, should that case even be relevant now? A parallel would be asking if we should treat people who have completed their prison times as criminals still.

    Anyway, imo (and as you allude to) the only constraint to a business is a legal one. Don't break the law and you're good-to-go. Ethics doesn't really have a meaningful impact here, and if you want it to have one youlll have to implement it in a law or (as a voluntary solution) have the company incorporate it into their charter, policies, etc.
     
  3. Gabrielgvs

    Gabrielgvs Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    1,137
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    156
    It's ridiculous enough that what we're talking about really reduces to little more than a popularity contest. What's absolutely absurd is the fact that there are enough people so unforgivably ignorant such that entire organizations are built upon marketing their own special brands of said contests.
     
    Jarhead likes this.
  4. Mitlov

    Mitlov Shiny

    Reputations:
    2,615
    Messages:
    5,595
    Likes Received:
    763
    Trophy Points:
    281
    If we're talking about what companies did in history, we should talk about how IBM literally facilitated genocide during WWII. Do you bring up Nazi deathcamps every time someone talks about what IBM has been up to lately? Most people don't. And this award isn't based on long-past corporate history, it's based on current behavior.

    You say that Microsoft price-dumped with browsers to destroy a series of companies and dominate the market. But they don't dominate the market (Google does, with Mozilla in second place), and one of the companies they allegedly destroyed in your quote is now bigger than them and, in fact, the most valuable company on the planet (Apple). And Apple currently does the exact same conduct you're complaining of (bundling a browser with an OS).
     
  5. Gabrielgvs

    Gabrielgvs Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    1,137
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    156
    I'm so impressed with Delta. I mean, freaking Mahatma Gandhi incarnate must be running that firm right now given the way they responded to the current customer relations crisis in the industry. Damn those evil SOB's at United. They could really learn something from doing business more like Del. . . Oh i$ht, what I'm saying? It's the same thing $$$$$$$, different day isn't it. Help me; I think stupid might be contagious.
     
  6. Mitlov

    Mitlov Shiny

    Reputations:
    2,615
    Messages:
    5,595
    Likes Received:
    763
    Trophy Points:
    281
    Why do your posts always go straight for the personal attacks and border on verbally abusive? It's really not productive, not to mention not pleasant.

    Fishon and I are able to disagree about Microsoft and this award without attacking each other personally.
     
  7. Gabrielgvs

    Gabrielgvs Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    1,137
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Huh? What are you talking about?

    Regardless, if you'd payed closer attention, you'd recognize that my posts don't "always" do anything in particular. Well actually, they always make sense. Usually perfect sense. Fishon's just a swell guy all around isn't he?
     
  8. Fishon

    Fishon I Will Close You

    Reputations:
    7,719
    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    4,845
    Trophy Points:
    281
    Yes.. We could talk about Bayer and Ford and their connections to the Nazis, and how bad, how much,' different times', etc. A century, a lifetime, a decade, years ago, what was done, how egregious, what was recorded and remembered. Americans have shorter memories and more forgiving than most. Now take what's in my mind. I have many more warm and fuzzy feelings about Bill Gates now that he's done so much in his attempts to better the world. Still, I remember.

    Keeping with the murder analogies... okay, attempted murder. :D


    Sadly, this appears to be the norm now. If you don't technically break any laws, then your business practices are okay and you owe that to your stockholders and yourself. Us older guys remember the days when this was not so. Plenty of gray areas in business, and even for myself, it can be difficult to know what is exactly right and wrong. But anyone can take a step back and ask themselves if it is, and come to an honest assessment. If it feels wrong it is. Period. It's not that hard. This is exactly what is wrong in the world, finding 'justifications' for marginal action. What is legal verses what is the right thing to do are two completely different things and far too many people has lost their moral compass. I worked in the investment banking field in the late eighties and throughout the nineties. One business model is to invest people's money in securities that increase in value, therefore providing lasting relationships and a win win for both the broker and the investor. The other is called 'pump and dump'. Put investors into high commissioned stocks and then find your next victim. I had many a friends who made just incredible amounts of money doing this (and I did for awhile as well), and still do. Great buddies who were fantastic family people, but just a scorn on society. You can't just add a law all the time to patch a whole- the unscrupulous will just find other way to work in the margins. Almost impossible to regulate behavior, and if you do, you'll hurt the honest guy when you do it. And for those who do believe this, they should never ever complain about over regulations then.

    Why thank you! o_O
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2017
    Gabrielgvs likes this.
  9. Jarhead

    Jarhead Systematic Love

    Reputations:
    4,830
    Messages:
    11,909
    Likes Received:
    2,538
    Trophy Points:
    581
    Eh, that sounds more like a business decision than an ethical one. You want your customers to be happy with your work and thus more likely to return to you for further business, thus positively affecting your bottom line.

    As for business morals (or morals in general), who's morals do you follow, and how do you confirm that those morals are more correct than other morals? Outside of biases and other fallacies, I can't see a way to justify a moral absolute, and thus there would not be any clear guide for a business on how to act morally. Hence why businesses will typically follow the letter of the law, and anything else above that is just a bonus.
     
    Gabrielgvs likes this.
  10. Gabrielgvs

    Gabrielgvs Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    1,137
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    156
    What you're describing and what these absurd organizations claim are two very different ideas. It's far easier to establish how to treat a client with respect for their interests in the context of that business relationship than it is to a) establish what, and the extent to which business should concern itself with broad matters beyond the purview of its operations and b) assume that "right" can be determined to any significant degree particularly considering the ridiculous idea that it should respond to the BS laundry list of "stakeholder" interests. The abortion of "thought" currently being tossed around in that regard is phenomenal and represents the epic stupidity to which we owe the founding of organizations such as Ethisphere. Your point however, begs some important questions. Why have "far too many people" lost their moral compass? Why, in light of your comment, do people suddenly need an organization to define ethical behavior? Lastly, and speaking to a portion of Jarhead's comment, what sort of moron actually believes strategic management a flying flip about about said institutional thought save for how they might leverage particular flavors of the month to better develop brand equity with the sole purpose of padding the bottom line?
     
Loading...

Share This Page