I struggle with the concept of "corporate greed." It implies that corporations, or rather those that run them, should inherently be more focused on what is best for others rather than what is best for themselves. Flip it around and consider this - does the average union worker fight for what is best for the corporation, or do they fight for what is best for themselves? I don't know, but I'd speculate that it's the latter. And that's certainly not limited to union workers.
My view is that employment should only continue as long as it is a mutually beneficial relationship. Once it no longer is for either party, then there should be no obligation to continue in that relationship. My employers retain my services because I add value - when that changes, I expect to be let go. While I would be disappointed, I would have no real reason to be angry. I am not a proponent of corporate welfare. On the flip side, if I decide that I will be happier elsewhere, my employers will likely not be angry when I leave. They owe me nothing, and I owe them nothing. They have paid me for services rendered. "Playing fair" (such as not firing people days before retirement benefits will be earned) is more of a long-term vision, in that corporations know that people will have zero loyalty to a company that exhibits none itself - and no corporation will survive long if no one is willing to work for them.
Well, I don't know that the relationship between corporations and labour is on equal terms. As long as there are more workers than jobs and the corporation controls the purse strings, it's inherently unequal. That's what prompted the union movement in the first place.
I realize that a corporation's first loyalty is to it's owners - the shareholders. However, seeking the lowest wage location they can find, is not necessarily good for those owners, in the long run. If wages are driven as low as possible, it's a cannibalistic situation. The corporation is just biting the hand that feeds it. It's consumers who keep an economy going. If those consumers don't make decent wages, who is going to buy the corporation's products?
Sure, Joe Blow isn't in the market for a locomotive, but the products bought by Joe Blow are dragged across the country by said locomotive. If Joe Blow can't buy those products, who needs the locomotive to drag them across the country?
If corporation "A" figures "let corporation "B" pay its workers decent wages and we'll sell our products to "B" employees, while paying our employees dirt", who's to say that "B" isn't thinking the same way? Henry Ford, who I think we can agree, was a pretty successful capitalist, paid his employees twice the going rate based on the logic that paying well simply generated more customers. I think that's called "enlightened self-interest".
What do you mean by "corporate welfare"? Where a company pays its employees more than it can possibly get away with? Or, where corporations receive government bailouts, tax-incentives, etc?
I don't know what the "correct" resolution to the situation at hand might be, but from an overall perspective, if this is the pattern for the future, God help us all - including the corporations...
