A Family Company

Let me tell you a story.  This one is about the goals and and so called triumphs of modern business.

There's a company that I want to work for badly.  Or at least did.  Someone I know works at this company so I asked what the procedure was to get hired.  (The company is S.C. Johnson who's mantra is A Family Company)  So first my informer tells me how it used to be. 

Until the last year or so getting hired was no easy task but do-able.  There is an 18 month waiting list to get in to this company because of it's reputation as a good employer and a job for life.  Now in order to get on this waiting list you have to take an aptitude test.  The test includes mechanical skills and overall knowledge and personality.  When a manager of a production line/department wanted to hire some people he told HR his intentions.  HR then generated a list of random names from the pool of applicants with their names and test scores for the manager to pick from.  The person with the best scores as I'm sure you can figure got the job.  This all seems very logical to me, hire the best possible person for the job and move on with life. 

Well this is the way it is now.

First off, they've lowered the passing test score a good deal because the found that minorities weren't scoring high enough to get them jobs.  Second when the manager is handed the list no longer are there names and test scores on it, just random numbers which correspond to applicants in the pool.  The manager then picks a completely random person to hire and life goes on.  Now when I heard this it made me think about a few things.  First off since when does a company lower their standards of entry when there are plenty of people who meet or exceed them?  That sounds to me like a bad idea.  Second of all why can't the manager pick by score?  Wouldn't you want the best possible person for the job that you could find?  It seems to me that this would increase productivity and safety for all concerned.  I asked why they had made the changes and was horrified of the answer.  They did it because they didn't want to be sued.  Now sued for what?  For not hiring people of different ethnic backgrounds and wait this one is better.  They didn't want to be sued for hiring people based solely on ability and experience.  Now if you don't hire people based on that what do you hire them based on?  You hire them based on their lack of ability and worthiness to do the job.  Now before you say now wait a minute that's just one company with a bad CEO, I'm not like that, think about it.  Here are a couple popular sayings these days.  There's more to life than money.  How are the poor/disadvantaged/fill in whatever lobbying group you happen to be associated with supposed to get ahead if you don't give them a chance?  What is the Company giving back to the community?

Ok let's take a look at these a little closer and we'll start to see the basis of the problem.

1.) There's more to life than money:  People utter this phrase constantly and as if it makes them a noble person.  Either they fail to follow the links down the ladder or they chose to ignore the root of money.  Money is a tool of exchange.  Exchange of what?  Production.  It is the modern way of saying I'm offering you the fruit of the best of my production (i.e. your money) for the best of yours (i.e. the product).  Money is a symbol of your production, which goes further down.  Your production is just that, a product.  It is a product of your mind.  You are offering your thought and all that it is capable of as trade for their thoughts.  This goes even further though.  Production is needed for life.  If you do not produce you can not survive.  It is only by your thought being brought forth in a material form (i.e. production) that you live.  So it boils down to this in a simple manner, Yes there is more to life than money, it's called death.  You live off of the money you've earned to the extent of your ability.  If I am able to earn $20 an hour at S.C. Johnson because I'm able to think on my feet and get a job done effeciently then I should do so unless I can do better.  If you are unable to do so, you have no business applying for the job.  You are defrauding yourself, your employer and me.  Hiring someone who doesn't meet your standards when there are better applicants defrauds reality.  You are helping to kill someone who is able to support themselves so that you can support someone who is not.  Money is just a material manifestation of the human mind so saying there is more than money is saying there is more than being human.

2.)  How are the poor, etc. supposed to get ahead if you don't help them?  The same way I am.  By working to the best of THEIR ability and constantly increasing that limit.  There are plenty of jobs available to those who are unable or unwilling to think.  Manual labor and it's brothers are always an option.  If you aren't capable of performing a more demanding task it is your own fault.  There has always been a way to better your position without stepping on the feet of those whose position is better.  I'll give you an example.  Take a job you are able to adequately perform then watch other perform their jobs.  Learn from them.  Ask questions about why they do what they do and what it is exactly they do.  When I started my current job I knew nothing about the workings of a production line and was hired as such, I was hired to labor and not to touch the equipment.  Well I wasn't content with that so I asked questions.  I watched my co-workers operate the machines and learned.  I therefor increased my knowledge and my usefulness to the company.  When something went wrong tha I knew how to fix and was confident I wouldn't cause further harm I fixed it.  This happened a few times and my supervisors took notice.  I was then told I could help on the line when needed but that I still had a lot to learn.  I worked at my normal labor job and kept learning and asking questions until eventually I was allowed to work on the line full time and perform the tasks that would earn me more money and a higher position.  Eventually the company decided to hire me on and raise my salary at the same time offering me a more demanding job because and this is the important part, I earned it.  Never once did I ask for the unearned or a job I was incapable of performing.    That is how they are supposed to get ahead in life, the same way everyone else does.  Offering them handouts does nothing but exascerbate the situation they're in.  If you want to help them offer training or classes.  If they don't take these opportunities than they do not deserve to get ahead in life as they are saying life is not worth the thought required.

3.)  What is the company giving back to the community?  This neccesitates a further question.  What has it taken that needs to be repayed?  The answer nothing.  The idea that a company owes it's community anything is rediculous.  A company pays it's taxes, hires workers who agree to work for a stated wage and pays them for their work.  There is no debt there.  A company does more for the the community just by being there.  It increases the tax base of the area therefor adding money to the city's coffers.  It also makes it a more attractive place to live because there are jobs to found in the area.  Companies work on the principle of trade which is the only rational prinicipal to deal with anything on.  Value for Value.  Why anyone would demand or think it only right that a company give an unearned reward to the community is beyond logic.  This includes unearned jobs.

All the above statements help to illuminate the reason for my story.  No longer are the competent sought after because they don't need help.  The way of the world now is to reward the incompetant because living is no longer the goal of humanity.  Well all I have to say is that good luck rewarding anyone when we stop producing your rewards.  But after all this is a family company, and a family full of the needy must obviously outweigh a singe deserving person, I mean how else would they give back?

Last update: 4/6/2003; 1:06:47 PM.