A response to Timothy Cavanaugh's "Just Doing My Job"

[MonteLukast]

From the OpEdNews.com editorial

Emphases are mine...

That said one might be inclined to think that a corporation can glean from it's members morality because the true individuals that make up the monster, as only minute segments of the corporate giant, can and so easily do feel that they are not guilty of any of the clear wrongs perpetrated by the corporation as they are only a small piece of the whole. When asked about their participation in what many feel are criminal enterprises these people say things like ‘I'm just doing my job' or ‘I'm just an investor.' At first glance it might appear that these simple phrases relieve these individuals from culpability but upon further consideration these responses effectively amount to the ‘just following orders' defense – now where have we heard that before – Nuremburg anyone? States, countries and even world-bodies have ordered the execution of people who under the false moral security of ‘just following orders' participated in less criminal atrocities then have been perpetrated by many modern corporations. Yet somehow the seemingly honest and good people that make up these institutions feel they are not guilty of the crimes committed by ‘the company' that they serve.

I was waking up to this part, oh, 10 years ago?

The more I think about it, the more I believe that the late 90s and early 00s were real dark ages. We didn't challenge the corporate way of seeing society back then, not like we are now. We swallowed it whole. We built the foundation of our morals, our sense of possibilities in life, on whatever corporations said.

We adopted the corporation's take on what being a good person meant. On what honesty meant. On what empathy meant. On what being a good friend and a strong leader meant. Culminating, of course, in the nauseating attacks on Al Gore's personality in 2000.

What is a company if not a collection of individuals? If not for the people that make up the compilation of departments that comprise any corporation would the institution that they willingly pledge their labor, fortunes and in some cases lives to, even exist? The obvious answer is no.

I comfort myself about the seemingly endless power of corporations, by reciting to myself that first line. Corporations are made up of human beings. It is human choices that make up corporate decisions.

And why exactly IS it that so many corporate decisions seem to be made by ONE person, or by a group of fewer people than fingers on your hand?

I don't know, but can you see how that can send the message to ordinary people that "one person can make a difference"? Can fill them with a perverse sense of hope; that as lowly as we are, we can do big things in the right circumstances?
I don't think that's how the saying was intended...

So how then can these people be separated from the actions of the company they act on behalf of and profit directly from? Is it not individuals that reap the many financial and less quantifiable benefits made by corporations? So why shouldn't those same individuals pay the cost and/or suffer the penalties when their corporation commits a wrong?

You see why we're so distrustful of Tim Geithner? Of Arne Duncan? Of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, because her previous "day job" was corporate lawyer?

Because you can't separate the person from the actions-- and philosophies-- of the companies they act on behalf of and profit directly from. What do you think the increasing intrusiveness of hiring practices in recent years has been for? It's to make sure that you only let people who cheerlead your corporate mission get a foot in the door. It's to make sure that you only hire people who bolster your company's brand.
It's to make sure that you, the employee, fit the philosophy exactly of whatever company you work for... so that everyone who works for them IS that company; that they march in lockstep with promoting the brand. Everyone who works for a company is expected to be a spokesperson now. Diversity of opinion need not apply.

Do you trust a spokesperson to tell the truth? I thought so. If they told the truth, or took a moral stand, they would lose their livelihood.

Look at Sandra Guzman. Fired from the NY Post, for protesting that racist cartoon comparing Obama to a chimpanzee. Her taking a moral stand made her a "poor fit" for the New York Post. She wasn't cheerleading Murdoch enough. She wasn't lockstepping with her corporate culture enough. She was damaging the newspaper's brand.
(I'm not going to go into much detail on the probability that Guzman's being a woman of color also made her too diverse to be a good fit. I'm focusing on the corporate philosophy angle here... I'll let others pick up racial and gender issues.)

And so, we start to distrust people based on their occupation. Because we simply don't believe that all types of personalities and opinions can be found in all companies anymore.

As mentioned this problem is made significantly more complex by the fact that the entire system operates under a cloak of legality. But as we know from history legal does not necessarily mean right or moral.

That's what we have to remember: everything these corporations do is technically legal. Most people in everyday life shrug their shoulders and go, "the boss can do whatever they want". And we suck it up, knowing that to be, on the books, right; and we start adopting the worldview of the corporations. Starting with what professions we believe ourselves capable of doing.

Most people can become skilled at a variety of jobs, even professions, throughout their lives, given support and encouragement. Corporations simply don't think it cost-effective, or good for their brands, to foster this very human propensity.

That is another reason mergers and acquisitions must be curbed, and small businesses must be nurtured. Reducing the number of companies also reduces the number of different corporate philosophies to choose from.
In contrast, the bigger the total number of businesses, the greater the multiplicity of company brands and philosophies to choose from.
It becomes possible again that yes, a quirky person can be a leader; yes, you can be a corporate lawyer (perhaps they should be renamed business lawyers?) and still be a liberal; and no, disagreeing with your co-workers or your boss will not lose you your job.

Because corporations are not alive they cannot be punished in the sense that we understand the term. The people behind them can certainly experience punishment and there in lies the Achilles Heel of the formidable corporate armor. That is why bypassing the artificial person and going after the real people within is the only effective way to hold corporations responsible.We must, to use a legal term “pierce the corporate veil” to get at the human underbelly of these leviathans.

... Reversing the perversion of corporate power – to not only violate laws with immunity but also to shield the responsible real people within from liability – is the challenge of our age. Corporations have grown to such size and reach that they now operate beyond national borders and subsequently outside of many established laws.

That's what Obama and the Congressional Dems need to get into their thick skulls. Corporations are literally big enough and powerful enough to be above the law. They span multiple countries. They can literally BUY some countries.
Just as boycotts don't work when the corporation has a hand in every single business in a region... mere national laws are not going to be enough to curb their power.

The answer to this grave threat to humanity is to approach this problem humanly. Eventually and with a lot of work on the part of progressives and concerned individuals, as seems to always be the case in human events, justice will prevail.

Ending on a hopeful note.
I think this editorial should be required reading for all progressives, just as "Capitalism: A Love Story" should be required viewing.

It should be a call to arms. For our small businesses. For our very concept of rule of law. For our humanity.

[Joe Chi Minh]

1. Yes. They serve both as a vehicle and as a front for their evil.