Yeah, the "holding government accountable" meme feeds into the Reagan frame of "government is the problem" frame. I have nothing against government accountability, and we have that when there's not a GOP rubber stamp in DC. So the problem is not a broken system of government so much as a broken GOP that cares more about party than good government. As a matter of fact, they seem determined to prove Reagan correct by corrupting government at every chance.

I agree with Nathan that corporate accountability is a much bigger issue. As a matter of fact, I would very much like to see the issue of "corporate personhood" revisited and suspended. No way to effectively punish corporations, no personhood. Simple.

Now for my biggest beef with the DLC. Let me be totally clear. Any political entity that whores for corporations and corporate money will never have my support. Doing so in order to counter union influence in the Democratic party simply adds another layer of egregiousness. Until that attitude and action changes, the DLC can forget about me and mine.

Corvid

I second the final comment about the DLC. It should have no place in the Democratic Party.

As for corporate accountability, correct me if I'm wrong, but corporate charters are supposedly granted so that corporations--having been endowed with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men--can work to benefit society. Why shouldn't we, as workers and citizens, have the means to periodically sit as juries and judge whether or not corporations are meeting these obligations? How about that for a policy?

Try this frame; There is a market-based critique available for the energy, environmental, healthcare and foreign policy status quo that promotes both Democratic and populist ideals. That critique, that the Republican corporate agenda is aimed at corrupting markets while they claim to be market fundamentalists, is consistently reframed by the corporate media in socialist terms.

Mr. Ford, where do you stand? The economy as a whole has consistently done better during Democratic administrations because corporations understood that they could grow the bottom line of their profits as well as the economy by competing in fair and well-regulated markets instead of trying to game those markets with corrupt Republican and faux-democratic politicians. "Holding governments accountable" is the language that corporations have used to create global trade deals that regulate governments to prevent them from holding corporations accountable. The result has been unregulated, unaccountable, predatory and exploitive markets and an end to regulated markets with the potential to raise everyone's boat.

Unfortunately, the concept that corporations are chartered to benefit society is a bit of an antiquity.

Certainly, it has been out the window entirely since the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. See ReclaimDemocracy.org for a brief history of the corporate charter, and many more educational materials.

The first step in restoring the proper primacy of the human citizen must be overturning the principle of corporate personhood so blithely established by that ruling, and the currently-established principle that the only responsibility corporate officers have is to their shareholders, and that responsibility is to generate profits for the benefit of their shareholders.

--

"There's no telling what new harm Bush might do
if he ever gets back up off the mat.
You have to keep your knee on his windpipe
until the danger is past." -- Garry Trudeau

I struggle with your notion of "family friendly" since families rely on people working for them to satisfy their needs. My doctor, for example, when I was a kid offered to get up at any time to take care of my asthma. If I were a business owner, I wouldn't want to revolve my business, and customers' needs, around being "family friendly."

Also, if higher wages led to higher prices, how is the family helped?

The best things for family? I think keeping our libraries top notch and making sure the internet is available so people stay literate and then achieve beyond their dreams.

I understand this is a challenge for businesses, and cause them some headaches. But so long as all business have the same challenge, don't we at least have a level competitive playing field?

Perhaps, though, there is something that can be done to help out smaller businesses, who have higher marginal costs for staff additions.

I really have a problem with the way this is being framed. Yes corporations should be accountable, yeswe need a comprehensive regulatory system so that economic profits don't compromise our environmental standards, and yes, there's no reason someone should have to lose their job if their child gets sick.

But, all these goodies we want. If we really want them, than WE should be paying for them thru taxes & administering them thru the state. The same way other advanced social democracies do. To demand a higher, more luxurious standard of living, and then sticking politically unpopular corporations with the bill is pretty blase in my book.

I want to be able to take time off from work if neccessary, perhaps aid in raising anewborn child without being fired from my company and I would love the government to secure that ability for me. But I don't think my company owes me healthcare or she forced to provide for it. That's what the state should be for.

That's a good point. If ever there is such a thing, it should just be a generalized system of leave. I really don't want my country subsidizing breeding, as that's unfair to the childless.

but for a sick child, a mom or Dad staying home with them is more important.

My sister, who initially was a stay at home mom, found a day care center that had an "offsite facility" for sick kids and it boasted an onsite nurse-- which is better than what most schools offer these days.

So the question that remains in my mind is: "if career advancement is a priority then how can those problems be solved to accomendate that priority?"

staying home with them is more important...

and every choice has its tradeoffs...

when I was at the University of Minnesota, my "professor," who was a woman, had her kids sitting outside the classroom and "checked in with them" every so often. Overall, the class was terrible and, knowing her, she wouldn't want somebody filling in for her because "out of sight is out of mind" and she doesn't have tenure yet.

I think that she chose the option that reduced her worry about competitors.

I think that employers-- if they "temporarily" replaced you with someone who "worked out better," would want to "make a change."

When the Republicans pushed through "Marriage Tax Penalty Reform" didn't they create a "Single Persons Tax Penalty" by default?

I think Harold's idea to discuss all this "tomorrow" (ie today) was another example of bad DLC strategy. How on earth is he going to read through four separate articles about his post (each with comments of their own) on top of the 200-some comments on his introduction?

methinks Mr. Ford is walking into a good old-fashioned shitstorm.

I was struck by your title, holding corporations responsible.

How about holding government officials responsible for their words and actions?

How about holding the fourth estate, so-called journalists, responsible for their words and actions?

And yeah, corporations, too.

oops, how dumb of me! thanks for pointing out that newton was F = ma and einstein was e = mc.

but these formulas sort of make me think that the amount of money in the universe if fixed and we're just fighting over our share of it.

humans are a wasteful bunch and a lot of our effort and consumption seems fruitless.

I truly believe in democracy and if this system really wasn't that great, we'd change it.

rather than making laws and demanding "responsibility," could we just start behaving differently like, for example, no longer watching TV.

I used to be angry at Bush and wanted him impeached but then I realized that he was robbing me of my energy and it was time to take my life back and, after that day, I feel freer than ever!

since then, I've lost 70 lbs and have a V02 max that would allow me to seriously train for a marathon.

my life is now about empowering myself and letting my light shine.

maybe i'm a bit optimistic, but if the pessimism of "not having" because "they have" disappeared from our "internal soundtracks," wouldn't folks like Bush be pushed out of the way because he no longer fit in?

both scrooge and "the grinch" repented and I think the rough edges of our society can too, if we poor our hope and happyness-- our magic potions, into it.

I'm only familiar with one example, but for example in Sweden I know that 90% of the paid maternity leave is paid by the state, plus a state provided monthly paternity allowance and state-provided daycare. That's the alley I'm looking up.

Employers gain the benefits from healthy workers, so why shouldn't they provide the benefits needed to keep those workers and their families healthy?

A: It's not like they have much choice, is it? and B: isn't that a bit circular?

A big part of the problem comes from the fact that most corporations don't look at their employees as any kind of sustainable resource; it's just another metaphor for the whole energy independence movement. Corporations refuse to invest anything in their employees so they don't stick around, then they refuse to invest in their employees because they don't stick around. Hence our race to the bottom.

The expected turnover rate at some jobs is extremely high, so they're wasting huge amount of time and money constantly retraining new hires who have no incentive to stick around. The whole thing is a giant meat grinder.

If corporations were willing to invest in their employees, then employees would be more happy to stick around. You get what you pay for, and right now corporate America ain't paying a whole lot.

If issues like health care and child care could be taken out of the employer-employee government and be taken care of to some extent through the state, with subsidies or whatever, it could potentially free up cash for higher pay, more family leave (maybe partially subsidized by the state), or whatever.

As it is, few CEOs have a responsibility to anything but their own wallets and are barely answerable to their own shareholders anymore. This is what has to change.

"Today, parents who stay home with a sick child for even one day can be fired on the spot."

This is not the norm in government or in large organizations, as you well know, or ought to.

In any setting where your statement is true, it is also true that the employee can be fired any reason, or for no reason, just so long as it is not an illegal reason. "Nothing legally protects their right to their job" period.

Finally, you act as if the Family and Maternal Leave Act, whose basic provisions are found at

http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/fmla/#faq

Synopsis of Law

Covered employers*** must grant an eligible employee up to a total of 12 workweeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for one or more of the following reasons:

* for the birth and care of the newborn child of the employee;
* for placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care;
* to care for an immediate family member (spouse, child, or parent) with a serious health condition; or
* to take medical leave when the employee is unable to work because of a serious health condition.

does not exist.

***An employer covered by FMLA is any person engaged in commerce or in any industry or activity affecting commerce, who employs 50 or more employees for each working day during each of 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year. Employers covered
by FMLA also include any person acting, directly or indirectly, in the interest of a covered employer to any of the employees of the employer,
any successor in interest of a covered employer, and any public agency. Public agencies are covered employers without regard to the number of
employees employed. Public as well as private elementary and secondary schools are also covered employers without regard to the number of employees employed.

http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/ESA/Title_29/Part_825/29CFR825.104.htm

First, thank you for being here now. By participating in the give-and-take, you distinguish yourself from the drive-by shooters that overpopulate this front page.

You discuss a theoretical possibility that rarely occurs (getting fired on the spot for staying home with a sick child, and for no other reason). In fact, most employers' recognition of the value of their parent/employees will prevent this, even if they don't have an official policy to that effect. So we should frame the issue with some reference to the actual incidence of the problem, and not pose it as an unquantified theoretical bogeyman.

Also, your discussion of the notice provisions is inaccurate because incomplete:

If 30 days notice is not practicable, such as because of a lack of knowledge of approximately when leave will be required to begin, a change in circumstances, or a medical emergency, notice must be given as soon as practicable.

http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/ESA/Title_29/Part_825/29CFR825.302.htm

I do not think the FMLA adequately covers the issues, and I agree that all employers ought to be required to offer sick days, preferably paid ones, but let's at least discuss the thing fairly.

Major employers should promise parents who leave to raise a child that their job will still be waiting for them any time over the next five years.

So none of the risk should be placed on the employees? You know as well as I do that fully half of employees who are off for three or more years will not return.

How about this:

At the beginning of employment, the employee makes a choice, revocable at any time, to accept or reject the Working Parent Option (WPO). Those who accept the WPO are eligible, after working for some qualifying period, to leave their jobs for some number of years, and return, more or less on the same basis as, say, National Guard members are by state law. WPO members will have some percentage of their pay deposited into an interest-bearing account under their name. When the WPO employees take their time off, some percentage (at least fifty) of what is in their account, including interest, will be paid to them as they direct (lump sum or monthly).

When they return to work, the remaining percentage of their WPO account, including interest, will be added to their monthly paychecks over a specified period.

If they fail to return to work after the company has held the job open for the specified time, or if they return and then quickly quit, the unpaid portion of the WPO account is forfeited to the company. Finally, an appeal mechanism will allow repayment of the remaining WPO money to the employee in cases where the employee is unable to return to work, or who must quit soon after doing so, but only for specified reasons that are crafted to avoid the usual loopholes for upper-income parents acting in bad faith.

Employees who wish to revoke their acceptance of the WPO get their money back, plus interest, and revert back to the pool of non-WPO employees, who have only the minimum amount of family leave provided for under existing law.

There would obviously have to be a minimum employer size for this to be workable, but minimum employer size is well established in other laws providing remedies and entitlements, and so should not be an insurmountable problem.

Fair and simple. No pay inequality, single or childless employees have less to complain about, and only welshers forfeit any money.

Damn damn damn the DLC and all the threads and blogs that have sprung up here to discuss them, virtually drowning the soon to be forgotten threads on organizing, which were so much more interesting.  It's sick how these threads have sucked the air out of other issues.

But in the interest of keeping hope alive, I hereby enclose a link to Nathan's OTHER good post this week, soon to scroll off the front page.

duplicate

rather than making laws and demanding "responsibility," could we just start behaving differently like, for example, no longer watching TV.

Well thats so enlightened of you to say. Your parents must be proud of you.

But really such banal and self-serving tripe has nothing to do with corporate responseibility or lack thereof that Mr.Newman is discussing.

First, FMLA does not cover short term illnesses.  See this advisory by the Labor Department

The legislative history also states that the term "is not intended to cover short-term conditions for which treatment and recovery are very brief" and "minor illnesses which last only a few days and surgical procedures that typically do not involve hospitalization and require only a brief recovery period.

If the flu lasts more than three days with treatment by a physician, it has been covered by the FMLA, but that means a day or so of bad flu leaves you legally vulnerable.  And remember, anyone who is not a long-term employee or works for a small employer has no FMLA rights at all.

Being fired only for staying home to care for a sick child appears to be quite rare. The article below, an argument for the extension of the tort of wrongful discharge to workers fired for taking time off for parental duties, found only two such instances in reported cases. Obviously, there are probably a more significant number of other instances which either did not end up in court, or did not make it to an appeal, but I see no epidemic. If you have any reliable statistics, I would be interested to see them.

And in an employment-at-will regime, a narrow prohibition against such firings can be easily wired around by the employer. Unless and until some of the article's suggestions are implemented to unwarranted extremes, taking unpaid and unauthorized sick leave will never confer tenure on the employee.

http://www.alsb.org/proceedings/employment/Family_Values_Pamela_Gershuny.pdf
(delete the space before the capital F)

Corvid

There's nothing stopping us. For instance, how about starting a private organization that funds randomly selected citizen juries whose members, for modest but significant compensation, would weigh the merits of a certain corporation over a given period (maybe 3 months) and then rule whether the corporation is serving the public interest? The juries would have no power to invoke charter forfeiture, but publicly shaming companies would be a big step in the right direction. The key would be credibility, and the RANDOM selection process in turn would be the key to this. No activists or ideologues of any sort would be allowed on the juries.

and it's hard to kill them since union and government pension funds as well as 401k's are invested in them... so how do you keep those things floating and alive while killing the cancer? it's a hard thing and one of the dark sides of using the stockmarket as a place to store wealth you want back in the future.

The DLC's policies seems tailored to dump the costs of the capitalist economy onto taxpayers -- while not demanding that the corporate sector pay its fair share of taxes -- while leaving profits of that economy in the hands of society's winners in an increasingly unequal society.

Whatever else would one expect from the Democrat half of the DC political establishment politicos in thrall to corporate bucks? Democracy and the consent or will of the governed is the last on the mind of the denizens of DC. They are perhaps better than their Republican cohorts, but only marginally and seldom where the rubber meets the road.

"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Thomas Jefferson

well, as I've said many times, I've lost 70lbs in the last year and I'm pretty built up now so I guess I think it's possible for everyone-- the doctors told me that my asthma would keep me down.

as I told one of my friends tonight, who also stopped watching TV: how peaceful things are now?

I started playing the piano and exercising and he does other things. however, we're both happy that our eyes and ears are free from the terrible, violent, covetous, revenge seeking, materialistic stereotypes that are shown on TV.

It's not what other people do that matters, it's what I do.

it's amazing how insignificant corporate america becomes when I see that my own soul has so much more value.

I watched my mother die of cancer last year.

Sometimes a positive attitude doesn't make a difference.

That's very romantic and touchy feely. I respect that a lot, I really do. You're obviously a superior human being and I'm sure that you'll meet the death of those close to you without any particular emotional involvement. Who knows, you may come to your own death without rancor.

As to what its really like... Cancer hollows a person out. You sit there with someone you care about, and every day there's less of them. It's almost indescribable, they're there, all the dimensions, height, breadth, personality and mind. But there's less of them, a hollowness as if they were diminishing in some dimension we could not perceive.

Want to know something special about death. There's no small talk with death. It's like a silent presence in the room. There's nothing else to really talk about, and nothing to actually say about it.

There wasn't anything anyone could do but put the call out and wait. We did our best to make her as comfortable as we could, to make sure she was never alone. But we all knew it was small human things.

She was on morphine for the pain. After a while, the cancer progressed to the point where she was only semi-conscious. She didn't recognize any of us. Her body was visibly wasting away. She slipped into a troubled unconsciousness, her body writhing when the pain mounted. You could time her writhing by the schedule of the morphine. We spoke to the nurses about improving the schedule. It helped a little for a while. Then it didn't help.

We spoke to her. But she no longer heard. We spoke anyway, hoping she'd find some comfort at some level in voices. We rubbed moisturizer into her hands, swabbed out her mouth to keep her tongue from drying out. These were pathetic, tiny things. Meaningless comforts, done against the inexorable and inevitable. You did them because if there was a millionth chance it might make the tiniest difference on any level, then you did fucking well did it. Because that was all anyone could do. Period.

Her urine turned dark. The skin under her fingernails went yellow. Her eyes jaundiced. The cancer reached her kidneys. Her body was going into organ shutdown. She writhed continually. Sometimes her lips would move. Sometimes her eyes seemed to flutter, as if some part of her was trying to wake up, trapped in this house that was decaying all around her. Maybe it was just rem sleep. Cancer poisoned dreams. What do you think cancer poisoned dreams are like? What do you think its like to be trapped in your body as it disintegrates steadly, eating away at you, your blood turning to poison, pain messages continuous, not enough function left for full consciousness. What sort of dreams does that produce. We spoke to the nurses about morphine, turns out the dosage was pretty strictly regulated because they were afraid she'd become addicted.

Her skin turned yellow. Her breathing was slower and slower. You could see her diminish as you watched. There was no sign at all of anything that might be a response or awareness on any level. When it came, we were all there.

And then... there was nothing. An entire lifetime, dreams and sorrows, pain and laughter, moments used well, and moments wasted. And it was gone. There was just nothing there. No spirit rose up, there was no new star in heaven. There was none of that comforting bullshit, none of the euphemism that we use to lie to ourselves to pretend that there was something. What there was... was nothing. Just nothing. The end.

For the rest of us, there was a big hole in everyone's life, a wound that came from the fact that there had been someone who had been part of our lives, and suddenly, that was done with. It was ended, gone. Not moved, not relocated. Stopped.

This is what death really is, shorn of all the sanctimonious bullshit. I've sat by hospital beds waiting, seen it come from violence. Saw a baby once with its brains dashed out from a traffic accident.

There's nothing beautiful about it, nothing transcendent. There's no meaning, or peace or ultimate happiness. These are all positive things. These are 'things.' Death is nothing. Death is absence.

If there is anything, then we won't know and can't know until we go there. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Personally, I don't find it fun to debate. If you do, hey, good for you, but I think I'll just take a pass.

So there you go. My personal take on it.

Not that you should take any of this as being in any way critical or dismissive of your comments. You've chosen to approach this discussion from the framework of your personal experience, and I certainly respect that. I respect it enough to share my personal framework. We are two distinct individuals, and I think it says something that we can exchange these viewpoints. Everyone has a viewpoint.

I suspect that mine is bleaker than yours. But I'd view it as more realistic. You're clearly a superior person, but most people do not have the advantages that formed you, or the forces that shaped you. For the most part, most people are raised badly by people doing the best they can. We fumble our way through life without answers, and the answers that are offered are almost always inadequate. We are driven by circumstance, creatures of an artificial world created around us, like Plato's shadows.

You've found a path that works for you. Don't imagine it works for everyone. Don't imagine that its even possible for everyone. A working class Mom shops at the Wal-Mart that is destroying her town... because she feels that she's got no other choices. She's only got a few dollars, and she needs to stretch them no matter what. Principles, if she's even got time to think of them, are simple luxuries. That's just how life is.