Search results

Looks at the decline of unionization in the USA, and its future prognosis, with regard to the labour laws. States that a conservative ideology now favours capitalistic interests over workers’ rights, which divert negotiations with regard to unionizing with free collective bargaining.

The questions posed for the national reporters for this International Seminar demonstrate the wide range of issues that can be included as part of an analysis of corporate social responsibility. Even limiting the discussion of corporate social responsibility to employment issues covers a broad scope, represented by the three general questions posed for this Seminar: (1) hiring policy; (2) personnel management policy; and social protection policy. Before entering this discussion of the three questions, though, it may be useful to step back to an even broader question of the meaning of the term, “corporate social responsibility” (CSR). The term, itself, carries an underlying assumption of the legitimacy of a particular economic system and its central actors; that is, corporations are central, legitimate, and functional actors in social relations within a capitalist economic structure. The concept of CSR does not question the existence of corporations and their role in maintaining a system of private ownership and control over capital. The fundamental goal of capitalism and corporations to maximize market control and profits remains intact. Policies favoring CSR, rather, seek to shape the conduct of corporations to increase socially responsible corporate practices, but do not challenge the legitimacy of corporate power. Such social responsibility may range from curbing human rights violations by corporations, such as violence against union organizers, to influencing corporations to provide decent wages to employees, to pressuring corporations to carry out business with out harming the environment. The recent attention to CSR may be understood as an expression of concern over the reduced effectiveness of individual nations to maintain the integrity of social welfare policy within current conditions of global power exercised by transnational corporations (TNC).

Discusses US use of drug testing in the workplace, screening employees for smoking, AIDS, genetic traits and reproductive hazards. Attributes this to the costs employers face in insurance, litigation and compensation. Points out that the purpose of drug testing is to circumvent management responsibility for: accidents in the workplace, stress, bad management practices, and disregarding health and safety initiatives. Acknowledges that the tests are harmful and indefensible. Reports that 81 per cent of members of the American Management Association in 1996 conducted drug testing. Claims that screening is the alternative to monitoring – that is screening out individuals who are seen as high risk in some way – yet that misses the point – the focus should be on making hazardous working conditions safe. Indicates that companies may use drug testing as a means of deterring drug users from gravitating towards their organization. Mentions that workplace‐induced stress can lead to substance abuse and that, therefore it is management driven, rather than being a problem the worker brings to the workplace. Quotes a number of company physicians who object to policing drug use. Indicates that drug testing has diverted attention away from health and safety issues and hazardous working conditions.