Diminishing Corporate Responsibility
2005.07.08 1:45

As to Marxist Hacker 42's question -Does still a Japanese corporation take care of their employees well to their retirement? I replied as 'yes, overall they look after their employees in response to loyalty their employees kept on showing. Indeed in spite of the labour standard law, it has been somehow taken for granted that people once employed in a company they have to work as much as they can even if it exceeds the limit being regulated in a related law, so any way they have to work even if some are subject to karoshi- death caused by too hard excessive overwork, but they will be rewarded fully in turn.
It was already ten years ago when karoshi was raised as a social problem but for these ten years our society has been in a transit period from what is called Japan type employment to America type employment and still now is the midst of this transit period. In overall social strata in Japan remains in what it calls Japan type employment - almost unlimited dedication to the company in exchange for almost unlimited(?) reward to their employees.
For example, we used to have a minimum wage law that requires least daily wage for their employees that was around 50 dollars, but now this law was abolished. This law allowed employees to have guranty of life at its minimum limit at the same time it required utmost dedication to the companies. Of course in replace of their least guranteed wage, they were considered not being allowed to work more than one company they belonged. This law was at the same time a regulation of which company exclusively they work.
But now least wage goes to hours basis not daily basis. Companies don't have to employ thier workers in full time, obviously companies had to pay minimum wages, so naturally they wanted us to work at least 7 hours in a day fully that at the same time allowed us to earn a minimum wage.
So in sequence we are subject to work more than one company, e.g. in one company in 6 hours in other in 6 hours in another the other company in 2 hours, etc. Regulation of working hours came to be meaningless, we just work as long as we want depend on individuals. At the same time corporate responsibility over individual's pursuit of happiness and succeess came to be so ambiguous, indeed they don't have to think about 'taking care of ' their employees to their retirement instead, we -employees don't have to show our 'loyalty' to our employer. Our responsibility limits in 6 hours so their responsibility never exceeds within our limited working hours.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Diminishing Corporate Responsibility Preferences Top 2 comments Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold: -1: 2 comments 0: 2 comments 1: 2 comments 2: 1 comments 3: 0 comments 4: 0 comments 5: 0 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) Save:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
There is definately something lost(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.07.08 3:50 (#13006296) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.28 6:49)
In the employer/employee relationship in the new way. It's the same thing that is theoretically lost in the change from chattel slavery to wage slavery- a lessening of the "owner's" responsibility to those he has power over. Noblese Oblige is what it used to be called in England- the obligation of the rich to create living wage jobs for the poor, to the extent that feudalism in England evolved from the Lord and Lady in the Castle providing work for the Serfs, to the Lord of the Manor providing work for the community at large. Then capitalism took over- and people rarely got to meet the person signing their paychecks.Without that human connection- there is no incentive to be good to your employees- and in return, there's no reason for your employees to work any harder than the pay you provide for them.--Two chances to become a Dictator- and Bush blew them both!
Re:There is definately something lost(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.07.09 22:04 (#13020098) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.27 11:22)
Some corporation starts the foundation of corporation pension fund that has been thought to be the role of government. On the other hands, the retirement age of their employees has been downwarding to 55 or something, and they are strongly encouraging retirement before 55 in exchange for prior payment of retirement perk, etc. What does these mean?
I think private companies are more prone to privatise for the sake of the few who promoted more than others. They are likely to get more at the expense of other employees who are less benifitted from the company.
Talking of the noblesse oblige, yeah domestic company used to have such kinds of moral responsibility over their employees. But because those kinder companies have been subject to an objective of M&A from both domestic and international giants, some of them just did nothing for it but to let their company go of and throw their employees away. Those 'good an old' days are gone...--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters