Corporate Crime, Corporate Deviance: Why No Outrage - Research Paper Example

Corporate Crime, Corporate Deviance: Why No Outrage? Corporate crime has deep roots in society and is sustained by an American neo-liberalist political agenda, the values of capitalism, and governments around the world. Corporate crime refers to the various ways, illegal and unethical, in which corporations pursue profit without regard for the well-being of employees, communities, or even the company itself, causing severe detriment to health and human rights and even death. This is deviant behavior, however normalized these corporations pretend to be. It is institutionalized deviant behavior. The price of causing severe detriment to the health and rights of employees is astronomical, and borne especially by employees and the community. Industrialization has escalated work hazards, increasing the risk of work injury. Health and productivity losses to US companies, due to employee work-related injury, are in excess of 1.2 trillion US dollars per year (Schnall, 2007). Stress is another major work hazard. Over 40% of workers find their job to be very or extremely stressful, and 25% find it to be the number one stress in their life. Considering the large proportion of our life that is spent at work, this is a life-defining issue. Employees suffer stress-induced anxiety, resulting in health problems (DSouza, Strazdins, Lim, Broom, & Rodgers, 2003). Job stress is more strongly associated with health problems than either financial or family problems, so it is a violation of ethical practice, a type of corporate aggression on the lives and bodies of its employees, and results in decreased production for the company. In the 1970’s, according to the US Council of Environment, 700 new chemicals came onto the market. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health calculated that 880,000 workers were exposed to cancer-causing and other dangerous chemicals at work, during that time period (Federation of Universal Rights, 211). When workers are exposed to toxic chemicals and materials, cancer and other diseases are a result. At the Union Carbide plant, Bhopal, India, more than 200,000 people were exposed to toxic fumes, with 60,000 seriously affected, 20,000 permanent injuries, and 10,000 fatalities (Pearce & Tombs, 1997). Our rivers are toxic waste disposal receptacles for industry. Now we are also polluting outer space. America recently bombed the moon, and even more recently the earth was hit by our own space garbage. There are regulations on the books, to protect individuals and the environment from the effects of corporate crime, but they are not enough, insufficiently enforced, and designated low priority, to protect profit, not people. Governments are complicit in corporate crime and, when a regulation has an expectation of being obeyed, or if a corporate crime effect health scandal occurs, the corporation very easily moves on to another country with fewer regulations, or where regulations can be easily by-passed with bribes. They generally head for a developing country which welcomes the investment, whatever the ethics. Globalization makes it easy to move wealth around, replace used-up employees, and cover up corporate crime (Federation of Universal Rights, 211). Knowing that infant formula will be dangerously over-diluted with contaminated water and kept without refrigeration, due to poverty, in developing countries, still Nestle and other profit-greedy companies heavily marketed infant formula through the 70’s controversy about it and are still doing so today. They do not care about the 1,000,000 or more babies who will die each year, from it, and the many others who will suffer malnutrition from reliance on baby formula, instead of growing healthy on breast milk (Solomon, 1981). This paper is concerned with corporate crime, corporate deviance. Specifically it focuses on how corporate crime is supported by capitalism and a neo-liberalist political agenda, and the experience of its victims, including those who fight back. This paper will use the movie, Norma Rae (Ritt, 1979), as a launching point for this discussion. Norma Rae was released in 1979. This was a critical time period because it was the end of the decade of the 1970’s, in which, as mentioned, 700 new industrial use chemicals came onto to the market. This is the same decade in which the baby formula controversy was introduced, debated, and distribution focus shifted to the developing world. This perhaps acted as a model for companies to come. It was also a time when the hippie ideals of peace and love were being overpowered by entry into a more self-centered generation, the “Me Generation”. Some of the noted characteristics of this generation (people born in the 1970’s, 80’s and 90’s) include: a sense of entitlement, an inability to use criticism to improve themselves, a victim mentality and consequent denial of responsibility, and a cynicism that prevents them from seeking change (Schlee, 2007). The values of this generation have found their way into corporate management, and into the government that supports corporate agenda, and this is a large part of the problem. An intriguing fact about the timing of this film, Norma Rae, is that it was released on the threshold of the 80’s. This is when the close alignment of government and business became a trend. This close relation, demonstrated by government deregulation of business, and the elevation of free-market ideology, went from new trend to gold standard status (Lofquist, 1993). Jimmy Carter was President of the US, at the time, and he used his time to office to establish a national energy policy that included conservation, price control and technology. He created the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. In foreign affairs, his emphasis was on negotiation, treaties, arms limitation, and doing what is ethical. He placed a strong emphasis on human rights and he later won the Nobel Peace Prize (Beschloss & Sidey, 2009). However, America was in turmoil from a volcanic eruption, a nuclear accident, a hostage crisis, an energy crisis, and an Olympics boycott, and soon the Republicans moved in, with Ronald Reagan in the foreground and big business directing the performance. The status of labor unions, at the time Norma Rae was released, had peaked in terms of total union members, and private sector union membership then declined. Although women were among the first to form labor unions, and although their situation was worse than that of male laborers, the unions also discriminated against women, keeping them out of the better positions (Schmoop University, 2012) and, as we see in “Norma Rae”, supporting lower pay for the women. The textile workers, in the film, as in real life, worked extremely long shifts in crowded, hot conditions, with machines that are dangerous. They were treated patronizingly, as was reflected in the film. In 1979, the year “Norma Rae” was released, labor unions helped to sponsor the National Committee on Pay Equity, to lobby for legislation. This was followed by strikes and negotiations in the 1980s. Although women’s pay has risen 24% (adjusted) since 1979, still women are paid less than men (Schmoop University, 2012). “Norma Rae” was modeled after the true story of a labor union activist in North Carolina, Crystal Lee Sutton (1940-2009), although the film was made in Alabama. Sally Field portrayed Norma Rae, a textile mill worker with no real exceptional qualities showing until she met a union organizer and decided to get the union into her factory. The company, run by men, used fear tactics against her and used intimidation to try to keep her from her goal of improving conditions by unionizing. Everyone knew that their working conditions were horrible but nobody wanted to make trouble and lose their job. This threat of job insecurity was palpable in the faces of the workers. But Norma Rae persisted, in spite of damage to her marriage, time away from her children, persecution at work, the fear of her colleagues, and other obstacles. My favorite scene, which I found to be incredibly powerful, was when Norma Rae, having just been threatened and verbally assaulted, then was being escorted out by Security, made an heroic effort. She jumped up onto a work table, wrote the word Union on a white card, stood up, holding it bravely above her head. She was so tiny and had thin arms, but she stood in silence, slowly turning, on the work table, so that everyone could read the card. At first, the clatter of the machinery dominated the room, but then her silent appeal began to dominate, as people read her card. Inspired by her courage, on their behalf, they turned off their machines, one-by-one. The bosses became speechless in the power of that moment, in the face of solidarity and silent confrontation of all they represented. They represented corporate crime. They represented nearly unlimited power and permission to exploit, without regard for fairness, ethical treatment, health, injury and stress consequences. But that tiny woman brought it all to a halt with the power of her recognition of their game, and her refusal, now blaring in silence, to be under their thumb anymore. She refused to stand by and watch the black man, the malnourished, gangly woman, the elderly, balding woman, the young women becoming prematurely old, the many wasted lives, the exhausted and hopeless eyes around her to continue to be victimized in the name of a patriarchal, corporate agenda. She refused to allow corporate crimes of human rights violation, inexcusable working conditions, denial of fair representation to continue, unchecked. She refused to allow the corporation to be normal. She defined their deviance, in that action, and she would not back down. It was a stunning moment that encapsulated the labor struggle beautifully. I have a feeling that the spirit of Mother Jones (Mary Harris Jones) hovered in the silence of that factory. Mother Jones once commented on what motivated her commitment to the labor struggle, saying: Often while sewing for lords and barons who lived in magnificent houses on the Lake Shore Drive, I would look out of the plate glass windows and see the poor, shivering wretches, jobless and hungry, walking alongside the frozen lake front.... The contrast of their condition with that of the tropical comfort of the people for whom I sewed was painful to me. My employers seemed neither to notice nor to care (Women in History). Her sentiment had a lot in common with Norma Rae’s moment I have described. The corporation gets richer and richer, but in the eyes and visage of Norma Rae’s co-workers, there is poverty, neglect, hopelessness, hunger, oppression. One woman was able to ignite the flame that wanted to burn in them but had not found opportunity. Mother Jones was Norma Rae’s soul sister. She was five feet tall, dynamic, passionate and courageous, a survivor of personal tragedy and worker tragedy. She prided herself on being a hell-raiser (Women in History). She would have been so proud of Norma Rae. Another civil activist, who would approve of Norma Rae’s stand, is Linda Chavez-Thompson. Linda understands what it is to work hard for little recognition and pay. From the age of 10 years, she worked 10 hour days with her family in the sun-scorched Texas cotton fields, earning 30 cents per hour. When Norma Rae was released, Chavez-Thompson was serving as the executive director of AFSCME Local 2399. She was involved in legislative and political action, education programs and grievance procedures (Gale Cengage, nd). There are various theories of corporate deviance, but we will consider two of them. One is a socialization theory, while the other one is a theory about power imbalance and inadequate regulation. There are other socialization theories, also, which explain aspects of corporate deviance, as there are other conflict theories, focusing on power and control, but these two theories can stand as genre examples. The first one is a theory of Organi-Culture Deviance. The term, organi-culture deviance refers to social, environmental relationship dynamics within organizations that lead to corporate deviance and social irresponsibility. Basically, this theory sees corporate socialization as similar to gang or cult mentality. It furthermore notes that Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is inverted , by this socialization process, into a Hierarchical Funnel of Individual Needs, in which personal identity is stripped and the individual is dependent on the group for basic needs (Husted & Gendron, 2011). Imbalances in control, power, and supervision lead to group-think. Group-think is characterized by illusions of invulnerability and morality, collective rationalization, excessive stereotyping, pressure for conformity, and self-censorship (Husted & Gendron, 2011). The deviant corporation intentionally isolates itself from normal or less deviant groups. Unquestioning allegiance is required of all members. Those who are inadequately socialized are terminated or shaped toward quitting. Coleman (1987) suggested that wealth and success are central human goals, so competition for wealth and power is considered to be positive and appropriate in capitalist society, and even as defining good character. Therefore, under a capitalist system, rich and powerful people are thought to be hard-working and competent, while poor people are thought to be lazy and deserving of an inferior status. People are socialized in stages, into corporate deviance, motivated by the desire to be successful and to not be seen as lazy or inferior. A second theory focuses on corporate deviance and capitalism. There is a structural relationship between corporate crime and American corporate capitalism. Large corporations pursue profit, restrained by the market and the State, and the State’s regulation efforts are moderated by the need to encourage the accumulation of capital. Large corporations have strong economic impact and control over information and money, so this gives them a lot more power than their victims (Barnett, 1981). The law cements this imbalance, as do regulatory government processes. Ineffective legal restraint and deregulation lead to a context favorable for corporate crime to occur and sustain itself without interference. This should not be surprising since it is reasonable that a complete lack of regulation and supervision, combined with nearly unlimited power, would result in criminal deviance for individuals, as well as for the corporations which contain them. This dynamic is worsened by Neo-Liberalism. The main points of Neo-Liberalism include the rule of the market (free flow market, de-unionizing, elimination of workers’ rights); cutting public expenditure for social services (reducing healthcare and education benefits and the safety net for the poor); deregulation (reduce government controls on occupational safety, corporate profit-making, environmental protection); privatization (putting State goods and services into private hands, thus further concentrating the wealth); eliminating the concept of community and the common good (expecting poor people to solve their own problems with lack of healthcare, education and social security) (Martinez & Garcia, 1997) The Republican Tea Party Contract on America illustrates the above Neo-Liberal agenda. It calls for repealing health care reform; privatizing or phasing out social security; ending Medicare; extending the Bush tax breaks for the rich and big oil; repealing Wall Street reform; protecting corporations responsible for environmental catastrophes; abolishing the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency; repealing the 17th Amendment (Democrats.org, 2011). This Neo-Liberal agenda is clearly aimed at worsening what Morgan and Maskovsky refer to as the eroding social citizenship of the poor (Morgen & Maskovsky, 2003) The Neo-Liberal attack on the poor does not stop with adults, but makes children victims as well. In addition to abolishing the Department of Education, there is a call for privatization of the schools. Yet it is corporate-driven capitalism that has brought decay to the education system, not the schools themselves (Foster, 2011). So with corporate deviance being institutionalized in America, with the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer, and with even our children being targeted by Neo-Liberal agenda, with capitalism sustaining a context within which corporate people are socialized into a group focus on corporate deviance, and with women still getting the short end of the stick in labor, with the safety net collapsing, and with corporate-driven robbery taking place with tax money showered on corporations and withheld from those who are hungry, ill, elderly, and most vulnerable, there is a question that must be asked. It is a question raised by James Grant, an editor. He asks, Why No Outrage (Editors, 2008)? Norma Rae knew how to express her outrage. She was poor and uneducated. She was worn down by tragedy and ill fortune. She was overloaded with responsibilities. She felt afraid but summoned the necessary courage. She faced the situation with unquenchable outrage, loud in the silencing of that factory room, loud in the choices of people who one by one turned off their machines and said it was enough. She is a role model for us. References Barnett, H. (1981). Corporate capitalism, corporate crime. Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 27(1) , 4-23. Beschloss, M., & Sidey, H. (2009). The Presidents of the United States of America. Washington D.C. : White House Historical Association. Coleman, J. (1987). Toward an integrated theory of white-collar crime. American Journal of Sociology, 93(2), 406-439. Democrats.org. (2011). The Republican Tea Party Contract on America. Retrieved March 11, 2012, from Democrats.org: http://my.democrats.org/page/content/tpgop DSouza, R., Strazdins, L., Lim, L., Broom, D., & Rodgers, B. (2003). Work and health in a contemporary society: Demands, control, and insecurity. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Vol. 57(11) , 849-854. Editors. (2008). Notes from the editors. Monthly Review, Vol. 60(4) , 2. Federation of Universal Rights. (211). Corporate Harm and its Impact. Retrieved March 11, 2012, from Equality: http://kranteng.wordpress.com/corporate-harm-and-its-impact/ Foster, J. B. (2011). Education and the structural crisis of capital: The U.S. case. Monthly Review, Vol. 63(3) . Gale Cengage. (nd). Gale Cengage Learning. Retrieved March 11, 2012, from Linda Chavez-Thompson: http://www.gale.cengage.com/free_resources/chh/bio/chavez_l.htm Husted, C., & Gendron, R. (2011). Organi-cultural deviance: Socialization of individuals into deviant corporate culture. Perspectives: AABSS, Vol. 14 , 209-264. Lofquist, W. (1993). Organizational probation and the US sentencing commission. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 166. Martinez, E., & Garcia, A. (1997). What is Neoliberalism: A brief definition for activists. Retrieved March 11, 2012, from CorpWatch: http://www.corpwatch.org_article.php?id=376 Morgen, S., & Maskovsky, J. (2003). The anthropology of welfare "reform": New perspectives on U.S. urban poverty in the post-welfare era. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 32 , 315-338. Pearce, F., & Tombs, S. (1997). Hazards, law and class: Contextualizing the regulation of corporate crime. Social and Legal Studies, Vol. 6(1) , 79-107. Ritt, M. (Director). (1979). Norma Rae [Motion Picture]. Schlee, G. (2007, June 1). 10 characteristics of Generation Me. Retrieved March 11, 2012, from A Class Act: http://classact.prblogs.org/2007/06/01/10-characteristics-of-generation-me/ Schmoop University. (2012). Gender in history of labor unions. Retrieved March 12, 2012, from Schmoop: www.schmoop.com/history-labor-unions/gender.html Schnall, P. L. (2007, May 15). Work and Health - Impact of work on productivity. Retrieved March 11, 2012, from Work Health: www.workhealth.org/UCI%202007/session%207%20part%202.pdf Solomon, S. (1981, December 86). The controversy over infant formulas. New York Times . Women in History. "Mother" Mary Harris Jones biography. Last Updated: 3/11/2012. Lakewood Public Library. Date accessed 3/11/2012 . . Read More