Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Have you submitted your nominations for worst comapny in America?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
35 replies to this topic

#1 kd7tck   Members   -  Reputation: 719

Posted 10 March 2013 - 02:11 AM

The website consumerist dot com is still taking nominations for worst company in America and you have until march 12, 5pm ET.

 

http://consumerist.com/tag/worst-company-in-america/

 

I have my favourites for this year all picked out, all three deserve to get golden poo.

EA Games, Monsanto, Directv



Sponsor:

#2 MrDaaark   Members   -  Reputation: 3555

Posted 10 March 2013 - 02:33 AM

Those are a bit of a stretch. Those guys aren't evil, they are just delivering poor service.

They should look towards companies committing actual acts of evil, like Coca-Cola in some third world countries. I think the documentary (The Coca Cola Case) on that is still free to view online somewhere.

#3 kd7tck   Members   -  Reputation: 719

Posted 10 March 2013 - 02:39 AM

The Poo award is not for being evil, just poor interaction with customers.



#4 Stormynature   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3417

Posted 10 March 2013 - 02:40 AM

It's a pity the US Government is not a company.



#5 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 31852

Posted 10 March 2013 - 04:19 AM

They should look towards companies committing actual acts of evil, like Coca-Cola in some third world countries.

Even here in Australia, they blackmail the state governments into not introducing recycling laws. One of the states recently dared to defy them, and is now being sued by Coke for introducing a system where the state will pay you 10c to return empty bottles.

WTF Coke?



#6 MrDaaark   Members   -  Reputation: 3555

Posted 10 March 2013 - 06:13 AM

If you rank the top 500 things in order of severity, that would be the one of the lowest things.

They pretty much own the water supply in one South American country. You can't collect rain water off your own roof and drink it. It belongs to Coke.

They are accused of telling people to quit their unions or be killed, and then further accused of actually following through with it. ther e is more than one case of this, in several south american countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Coca-Cola#Bottling_plant_murders

They are accused of using highly polluted waste water (to cut costs) in some of their over seas bottling plants.

They had Nazi ties.

I could go on listing stuff all day, and of all the stuff I am aware of, it seems to not even scratch the surface.

Using polluted water, killing people, making coke cheaper than water in some countries, lawfully owning every drop of water, etc, etc, is qualified as poor interaction with customers.

#7 Bacterius   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 9286

Posted 10 March 2013 - 02:34 PM

^ This may finally get me off my coke addiction. As in cola, I mean. WTF.


The slowsort algorithm is a perfect illustration of the multiply and surrender paradigm, which is perhaps the single most important paradigm in the development of reluctant algorithms. The basic multiply and surrender strategy consists in replacing the problem at hand by two or more subproblems, each slightly simpler than the original, and continue multiplying subproblems and subsubproblems recursively in this fashion as long as possible. At some point the subproblems will all become so simple that their solution can no longer be postponed, and we will have to surrender. Experience shows that, in most cases, by the time this point is reached the total work will be substantially higher than what could have been wasted by a more direct approach.

 

- Pessimal Algorithms and Simplexity Analysis


#8 Bubsy   Members   -  Reputation: 407

Posted 10 March 2013 - 05:16 PM

If you rank the top 500 things in order of severity, that would be the one of the lowest things.

They pretty much own the water supply in one South American country. You can't collect rain water off your own roof and drink it. It belongs to Coke.

They are accused of telling people to quit their unions or be killed, and then further accused of actually following through with it. ther e is more than one case of this, in several south american countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Coca-Cola#Bottling_plant_murders

They are accused of using highly polluted waste water (to cut costs) in some of their over seas bottling plants.

They had Nazi ties.

I could go on listing stuff all day, and of all the stuff I am aware of, it seems to not even scratch the surface.

Using polluted water, killing people, making coke cheaper than water in some countries, lawfully owning every drop of water, etc, etc, is qualified as poor interaction with customers.

 

This I didn't know ... :(



#9 TheChubu   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4766

Posted 10 March 2013 - 07:03 PM

If you rank the top 500 things in order of severity, that would be the one of the lowest things.

They pretty much own the water supply in one South American country. You can't collect rain water off your own roof and drink it. It belongs to Coke.

They are accused of telling people to quit their unions or be killed, and then further accused of actually following through with it. ther e is more than one case of this, in several south american countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Coca-Cola#Bottling_plant_murders

They are accused of using highly polluted waste water (to cut costs) in some of their over seas bottling plants.

They had Nazi ties.

I could go on listing stuff all day, and of all the stuff I am aware of, it seems to not even scratch the surface.

Using polluted water, killing people, making coke cheaper than water in some countries, lawfully owning every drop of water, etc, etc, is qualified as poor interaction with customers.

Pretty much every international company had free reign in latin america in the 70s and 80s. There have been many scary stuff going on in conjunction with the military governments. The only thing they had to do is point their finger and people be missing the next day.


"I AM ZE EMPRAH OPENGL 3.3 THE CORE, I DEMAND FROM THEE ZE SHADERZ AND MATRIXEZ"

 

My journals: dustArtemis ECS framework and Making a Terrain Generator


#10 Khaiy   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1342

Posted 10 March 2013 - 08:42 PM

Don't forget the Coca-Cola child labor scandals either, which are not from the 70s or 80s.

 

I'd cast my vote for Bank of America, or CountryWide, or UBS as worst companies.



#11 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 10 March 2013 - 09:14 PM

The website consumerist dot com is still taking nominations for worst company in America and you have until march 12, 5pm ET.

 

http://consumerist.com/tag/worst-company-in-america/

 

I have my favourites for this year all picked out, all three deserve to get golden poo.

EA Games, Monsanto, Directv

I get that EA isn't exactly the most loved company, but the fact that they're even in the top 50 in these rankings really shows how those polls are just a big giant 'first world problems' show.

 

edit: Monsanto too. Monsanto is really not as bad as it's made out to be. People think they just go around suing farmers for shits and giggles, but afaik they've never lost a case and they're all publicly available. The affect they've had on the food supply is a tremendous boon a lot of people take totally for granted.


Edited by way2lazy2care, 10 March 2013 - 09:16 PM.


#12 MrDaaark   Members   -  Reputation: 3555

Posted 10 March 2013 - 11:38 PM

I get that EA isn't exactly the most loved company, but the fact that they're even in the top 50 in these rankings really shows how those polls are just a big giant 'first world problems' show.

Yep, just a bunch of spoiled kids crashing the ballot.

We also have companies do any combination of hiring young workers, paying below living wage, and building camps for their employees to live in. Why pay an employee at least a living wage, when you can build him a 10$ hut and put a cot in there for him to sleep on? He doesn't need living wage then, he's basically a prisoner doing labor so you can get your product a few dollars cheaper. Employees committing suicide? No problem, install a 5$ net, so you can catch them when they jump, and send them back to work instead of treating them better.

#13 Luckless   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1887

Posted 11 March 2013 - 09:57 AM

edit: Monsanto too. Monsanto is really not as bad as it's made out to be. People think they just go around suing farmers for shits and giggles, but afaik they've never lost a case and they're all publicly available. The affect they've had on the food supply is a tremendous boon a lot of people take totally for granted.

Isn't this the company that ended up settling with a number of smaller farmers who were forced under due to legal fees, after their seed crops were contaminated by modified seed spreading naturally from neighboring farmland?

 

It is kind of like inventing a new kind of fire, getting a patent on it, setting your yard ablaze, and then suing your neighbor when their house burns down because they 'stole' your new fire.

 

But really, my problem isn't with the companies pulling BS like that, but rather with the court and legal system that supports such things.


Old Username: Talroth
If your signature on a web forum takes up more space than your average post, then you are doing things wrong.

#14 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 11 March 2013 - 11:37 AM

Isn't this the company that ended up settling with a number of smaller farmers who were forced under due to legal fees, after their seed crops were contaminated by modified seed spreading naturally from neighboring farmland?

Most of my knowledge is second hand, but to my knowledge they've only really sued when the farmer's have taken active action to procuring on some fashion Monsanto seeds without paying for them or in violation of contracts they have previously signed.

A quick google has this site, admittedly biased because it is Monsanto's, but I don't see anything glaringly incorrect about it.

 

The problem is that a lot of the farmers used the 'contamination' defense when the reality was that they knowingly got contaminated or bought seed they knew was contaminated, planted it, then sprayed it all with roundup in order to kill all the non-Monsanto seed, and collected the remaining seed to reuse. It's essentially the agriculture equivalent of online piracy.



#15 wintertime   Members   -  Reputation: 1878

Posted 11 March 2013 - 02:38 PM

Oh please, dont start comparing poor 3rd world farmers who since beginning of time replanted the seeds that had grown on their land by their work to pirates, just because that company patented plants which is crazy when you think about how everything of such plants comes from nature and they just insert a single gene into it to make it resistant to their poison that makes the soil unusable for anything else so those poor people are trapped.



#16 Khaiy   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1342

Posted 11 March 2013 - 07:33 PM

Oh please, dont start comparing poor 3rd world farmers who since beginning of time replanted the seeds that had grown on their land by their work to pirates, just because that company patented plants which is crazy when you think about how everything of such plants comes from nature and they just insert a single gene into it to make it resistant to their poison that makes the soil unusable for anything else so those poor people are trapped.

 

Farmers can keep replanting naturally husbanded seeds for as long as they like. They lose out on lots of modern agricultural practices, like pesticides, which dramatically increase the amount that can be harvested (though there are other, bad effects from a lot of modern practices). There are also seeds that grow better in poorer soils and under worse conditions, which farmers are also free not to use.

 

And "just insert[ing] a single gene" is the culmination of billions of dollars of research and half a century of dedicated study, and is still an inadequate description of the work. That's worth a patent. Dickish as they often are at enforcing their patents, the reproductive capacity of plants means that without patents Monsanto would go under immediately.

 

I'm not saying that Monsanto's a great company or that they're super cool to their customers. But a lot of criticism that they draw I find to be focused on the least objectionable things that they do.



#17 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 11 March 2013 - 07:53 PM

Oh please, dont start comparing poor 3rd world farmers who since beginning of time replanted the seeds that had grown on their land by their work to pirates, just because that company patented plants which is crazy when you think about how everything of such plants comes from nature and they just insert a single gene into it to make it resistant to their poison that makes the soil unusable for anything else so those poor people are trapped.

3rd world farmers? Monsanto likely doesn't give half a crap about them. It's the large production farms they care about.

And no it's pretty much exactly like online piracy. You aren't actively taking something from someone. You are copying it and using it without their permission. It's pretty much identical.

#18 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 31852

Posted 11 March 2013 - 10:04 PM

..bad stuff..

Oh yeah, I didn't mean to imply that Coke's 1st world problems compare at all to their death squads -- just adding that they are also evil in the parts of the world where they can't get away with murder, and where evil is measured on a different scale.

BTW, Fanta is probably the best thing that came out of the Nazis! laugh.png

You are copying it and using it without their permission. It's pretty much identical.

Except in one case we're talking about duplicating a creative work within a system where humans have decided to reconcile capitalism the need to reward people who propagate culture, and the other case we're talking about a living being that is designed to reproduce by it's very living nature. Pretending that they're at all comparable requires you to completely disconnect yourself from reality.
 
Selling someone a dog and suing them when it has puppies using copyright law is absurd. Refusing to sell someone a dog unless you first remove it's reproductive organs is a pragmatic solution to achieve the same means, but is morally questionable.
 
Doing the same with plants -- removing their ability to reproduce naturally just so that farmers are dependent on buying your seeds, so that you have a viable business model is also morally questionable.
 
 

.....means that without patents Monsanto would go under immediately

I don't find "argument via capitalism" to be valid in the slightest.
The statement "It's ok to do this because otherwise capitalist enterprise would collapse" isn't at all valid. It's an argument against capitalism, not an argument for the moral validity of the activity in question.

Edited by Hodgman, 11 March 2013 - 10:10 PM.


#19 Khaiy   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1342

Posted 12 March 2013 - 12:01 AM

I don't find "argument via capitalism" to be valid in the slightest.
The statement "It's ok to do this because otherwise capitalist enterprise would collapse" isn't at all valid. It's an argument against capitalism, not an argument for the moral validity of the activity in question.

 

*shrug*

 

It's certainly an area that's ripe for serious philosophical debate. However, if the capitalist end weren't there, the products wouldn't exist. Farmers are never required to use a single Monsanto seed, ever. It's not like the world food supply would collapse without them, though there would be somewhat less food and it would therefore be more expensive. If you want a world with no Monsanto-style agricultural results, that's a totally defensible position. I personally don't mind living in a world with Monsanto in the market, particularly because they don't have any sort of a monopoly or oligopoly on seed, just their special deluxe seeds.

 

There are some more extractive elements to Monsanto's business, specifically their pesticide/herbicide and pesticide/herbicide resistance lines of products. Farmers aren't required to buy those either, and Monsanto may be riding a short wave with them anyways. What Monsanto has not done, but a lot of people seem to imagine they have, is to corner the market for seeds, make no genetic changes other than to make them non-reproductive, and then make only the modified seeds available in perpetuity to extract massive rents.

 

I personally like publicly funded research for agriculture (in Minnesota, where I live, our state university has been incredibly successful in this field and it has amply paid back the investments). It's not much cheaper, but it's not as rapacious. The Monsanto bargain doesn't seem like a good one to me, and if I owned a farm I doubt I would take it. But for those who would, it doesn't seem fundamentally unreasonable to me that a person can freely choose to engage in a highly restrictive deal to access the fruit of a billion dollars' worth of research. Outside of their designer lines their deals aren't so oppressive, and they aren't the only vendor around.


Edited by Khaiy, 12 March 2013 - 12:03 AM.


#20 samoth   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 5035

Posted 12 March 2013 - 05:25 AM

I wonder why people seem to object to Coca Cola, but not to Kraft Foods or Altria. In addition to the usual "exploit" crimes, those not only kill a few hundred people in south America, but millions worldwide every year. And, they do it in a systematic and most vicious way.




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS