The article provides insights into a new trend which goes beyond corporations working to reduce the environmental impact of their business operations. As Spors writes,
"It irked Greg James to see some of his employees roll up to work in hulking, gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicles -- often driving more than 40 miles a day round trip.
So in 2005 he finally did something about it.
The chief executive and founder of Topics Entertainment Inc., a Renton, Wash., DVD and software publisher, Mr. James established an incentive program that offers its 55 employees $1,000 to trade in their automobiles for one with fewer cylinders in the engine. Buying a hybrid or biodiesel vehicle earns them $2,500, while car pooling at least three days a week pays $300 annually split between the ride sharers.
Ten employees have claimed the auto-purchase bonus so far. Mr. James estimates that by getting those new vehicles and boosting their gas mileage an average 10 miles per gallon, employees cut last year's gasoline consumption during commutes by 2,400 gallons."
It sounds pretty harmless, doesn't it? A well-meaning small-business owner does his bit to further his own environmental beliefs by rewarding employees who follow his own precepts?
But wait. Isn't that unfair? What about a handicapped employee who can't drive? Shouldn't s/he be entitled to some offset for not being able to buy a car and earn that bonus?
What about a struggling single mother of a handicapped child who can't afford a new car? Or carpool?
What about employees who live next to the plant and walk to work? Should they be denied eligibility for the carpooling bonus?
Call the Labor Department!!! Call the union!!!!
Spors continues by noting,
"Many companies, large and small, have become greener by reducing office waste and pollution or buying so-called carbon credits, which companies purchase to offset the impact of their pollution. But a growing number of small companies like Topics also are seeing value in encouraging employees to make environmentally friendlier choices as well -- at home, at work and in their commutes.
Among the incentives: giving bonuses to employees who buy more fuel-efficient vehicles and outfit their homes in more energy-efficient ways, as well as helping employees support environmental causes. Even low-cost measures, such as letting employees purchase energy-efficient light bulbs at the employer's bulk price, are making a difference in employees' behavior and energy use.
In an era when more young workers are seeking out employers with a socially responsible mission, such green incentives can help bolster recruitment efforts and foster goodwill. At small companies especially, green benefits can be an easy and effective way to ingrain a workplace's eco-friendly mission."
When I read this, I felt vaguely uneasy. Recollections of being taught about the personally intrusive methods of the late Henry Ford came to mind. And company towns in the coal fields of Kentucky and West Virginia.
Didn't Walter Reuther and company fight large corporations in the 1930s to stop corporate America from controlling employees' private lives?
Wasn't society eventually repulsed by Ford's in-home audits of the families of his employees, whereby his auditors assessed the extent of a family's abiding by a code of conduct of Ford's own making? If I recall correctly, employees were paid extra for scoring highly on the assessment.
The article mentions near its conclusion,
"Some companies find that the participation of even a few employees can have an impact. Green Mountain Energy Co., an Austin, Texas, renewable-electricity provider, lets employees buy renewable-energy credits to offset their carbon-dioxide emissions. It also matches donations to environmental groups made through payroll deduction, up to $10 per two-week pay period.
In addition, the company hands out prizes like gift certificates based on points that employees rack up by finding alternatives to driving to work, such as biking or taking public transportation.
Though only about 25 of Green Mountain's 150 employees participate in the commuter program, the impact has been substantial, with those people collectively driving about 21,000 fewer miles in 2007, says Gillan Taddune, the company's chief environmental officer."
As I read this example, I was reminded of our current healthcare mess. Didn't we get into this dilemma by creating, somewhat recklessly, in retrospect, third-party payers for necessities?
Do we really want transportation costs of employees twenty years hence dependent upon the whims of employers? What if employers secure a deal for mass transit for their employees, forcing them to commute via bus, and discriminate against those who wish to drive?
Why, in God's name, can't employers just pay employees cash, shares or options, and have done with it? Haven't we learned over the past 100 years that paying employees in kind eventually creates distortions in consumption, improper influence of the corporation into the private lives of its employees, and suspect values impositions?
What if Topic Entertainment's owner was a racist or anti-Semite? What if he awarded bonuses for employees sending their children to single-race schools? Or contributing to the Aryan Nation?
What if the owner of a firm was a Southern Baptist, and provided cash bonuses for every employee who attended a Southern Baptist church each week?
Would we think that such an imposition of values by a business owner on his employees was proper?
Who is to judge when an owner's values are appropriate, and when they are not? What is laudable mobilization of society's members for a desirable goal, and what constitutes improper manipulation of workers by their employer in an illegal manner?
I loved the article, and found it important in a very unexpected manner.
In 2008, after nearly 100 years of an organized labor movement in this country to protect workers' rights, we still see business interfering in the private lives of its employees. Creating yet more entanglements between workers' consumption patterns, affordability of choices, and employer funding.
Will we ever learn?
No comments:
Post a Comment