We both have strong debating points.
Companies exist to provide product to the customer base. The company may also be the consumer of the product. Profit doesn't always drive corporations because there are some who strive for quality, even at a loss. Money losing start-ups like Uber and Snap raise capital base on quality with the hope that quality will turn the flow of cash from the drainpipe into a dragon's mountain of gold. Amazon survived the dot.com crash of 2000 not due to good management but by luck, securing capital from Britain and Europe countries as bonds payable at a high rate and soften currency conversions. In other word, desperation. A month after acquiring the funding, the dot.com crash occurred. Without that funding, Amazon would gone vanished from the scene like so many others. Unfortunately, the tyrannical personality of Bezos is reflected in the predatory actions of the company unlike Uber that continues to respond to social media complaints in a positive fashion.
Companies are a group of people and the personality of the company, its humanity is guided by the personality of the upper management. So, I do believe that companies like Disney can strive to please, pushing profit down the priority list. Do we not protest when government fails to address issues? Why should we not protest when corporations fail to address issues?
Bob
It's funny. The entire idea of someone espousing the virtues of a company and saying, "But they really care. See what they do!? I can tell I really matter to them. They're not like the others" strikes me as analogous to when a prostitute's customer says, "But she really cares! See what she does?! I can tell I really matter to her. I'm not like the others."
No. She really doesn't. Put your wallet back in your pocket. Snatch back your life.
It's all about the money honey, no matter how you dress it up, no matter how good it makes you feel, no matter how much you've invested or how much you care--it's all about the money. It doesn't matter if they gave you a turkey during the holidays, whether you got a good bonus, or if they understood when you had to be out extra long because your father was sick. They care about the money.
Somewhere there is a amortization sheet ass deep in formulas estimating the cost of each employee versus not only the expense of that employee over time but their expense in view of certain life events and circumstances. I promise you, that formula is sop. Employees are ASSETS. Treating an employee well over time only lasts as long as the company's expense (and estimated expense) in relation to profit remains in the green. Employees are viewed as objects, not unlike desks, or computers, or electricity.
So, yes. You may have felt like you were treated as a human being. Successful companies objectify people and consider them assets. Part of taking care of the human asset means convincing the employee they matter. Given the information that certain things convince the human asset that they matter, the corporation will then extend those things to the human asset.
There is a term for internal expenses which I can't remember right now. Something like green money. Brown money. Something.
Anyway, the reason I am trying to remember it is this ... all corporations assign a dollar value to their resources, external and internal. I find it odd that you don't appear to show any awareness of this fact. It isn't a new practice. If one department creates a tool for another, there's a charge. All of it becomes part of expenses and profit. Oddly enough, it's often in a corporation's best interest to make it appear as though they lost money when they gained money. This is particularly true with internal profit and losses. This money is not actually real, only made to look real. This is where most of the do-gooding and the 'look what the company sacrificed' nonsense comes from. You're only limited by your imagination!!
And you're serious about Disney? Where are you? OMG--the world I live in has been vomiting Disney stuff for decades. It never ends. Disney owns the world and is not a philanthropic enterprise. It's purpose is not making people happy. Not in a million years has Disney pushed profit down their list of priorities. Although, it may be how they might explain an occasional failure.
If you want to tilt at windmills, ask a corporation to change it's ways for the greater good. I suggest explaining to them how changing their ways will benefit their bottom line in the long run if not the short run as an 'in'. Otherwise, expect lackluster and possibly non-existent interest.
I honest to god find it fascinating that even those who want nothing more to do with corporate america or corporate uk insist on believing businesses are more than they seem. You might have an amicable working relationship with people. You might like your boss. But it is a mistake to think they're there for your greater good or even the greater good of their employees. Because, addressing the greater good at the expense of their bottom line does not ensure their continued health as a corporate entity. You see companies like Disney making broad sweeping inspirational and public gestures because for them, it does serve their fiscal health in the long run. They're in the business of sentiment for god sakes. But they've monetized it. It isn't free.
...and... what? Uber = quality? What is Snap? Do you mean Snapchat? I'd have to disagree with any reports of quality and I would certainly disagree that they treat their customers or their employees well. If that matters. At all. I've talked to Uber drivers. I don't know anything about Snapchat but ...
Uber is doing well. It does well because it makes money. Their drivers often don't make any money. As employees, they gamble every time they decide to go out for a shift. To them its a good tradeoff but very few of them will say they are treated well. Instead, they say it doesn't matter how Uber treats them, given they don't have to see Uber leadership every day. They've made a tradeoff. It's interesting that often employees no longer care to be treated--AT ALL... and will choose to work for a company like Uber. It's also totally inappropriate to infuse a company like Uber with attributes it doesn't have. The independence they offer their employees has nothing to do with the goodness of their hearts but instead its a means of decreasing their own investment and risk (see amortization sheet). Not once have I spoken to an Uber driver who was ONLY an Uber driver. Also, WTF -- another rating system. I'm not even going to get into that. Also, it's next to impossible for an individual to get a response from Uber.
So, if they don't respond to requests from help initiated by individuals on their account--and I know they don't--then.... why would they respond to something on social media? What is the difference between me being logged into my account and someone logged onto social media airing a concern. One is public.
Why would they be more responsive to complaints made in public than ones made within their app? It's not because they care about me or you or anyone.
Also, either Bezos is a tyrannical diabolical monster or he's a lucky sod. Make up your mind.
Truthfully, we don't know him. But odds are good he's competitive as hell and can't stand losing. Is he a jerk? He might be perfectly charming. He might have really good relationships in his life. Is he a ruthless businessman? Clearly. Does this mean he's a monster? Maybe. Maybe not. Unlike the rest of the people in the world, he might understand the difference between work and play, business and family.
Does he have a responsibility to do anything but operate within the law and continue to grow Amazon? No.
This started with a discussion about how Amazon has changed publishing, how it's more difficult for writers to get noticed. It's not Amazon's job to make the world a happy place for writers. It's not even their job to make things fair. It's their job to follow the law and make as much money as they can. When we insist on assigning virtues where they don't belong, we get confused. This often leads to disappointment and stupid behavior.
So, you can protest whatever issue you want to in regards to Amazon. You were unclear as to what that might be. I suspect that's on purpose. What issue or wrong can Amazon be blamed for?
Its a waste of energy to lay the blame at Amazon's feet for how the world is turning out. That's so tiresome. If you want to change the world or even your little corner of it, take more personal responsibility and don't shuffle around like a victim.
There are plenty of well-written, well-edited books on Amazon.
