Are Companies moral?

[Tibbs]

I've never really thought that much about the risk of prosecution, as all of my trips in London were on Oyster with a Travelcard - so if I didn't scan in or out, it wasn't a big deal (hence a shed load of incomplete journeys on my history).

But since going to PAYG, I am certainly now conscious of all those times I had problems getting through - and the person behind effectively let me out (and of course, the many times it happened with me letting the person in front out). At peak times, it happened quite a lot and it's not always easy to stop and go back - and how many people want to go and queue at the ticket window to seek assistance (I doubt staff at the gateline can do much)?

I've never quite understood why sometimes a reader will fail to communicate and give the 'seek assistance' when there's nothing wrong with the Oyster card and any credit/travelcards loadsed on. Clearly it fails to send/receive data without some form of error, but could a flag not be marked on the Oyster to show that an attempt to scan was made? If that was done first, including the time/location, then any subsequent failure to complete the interaction wouldn't be so harmful for someone later caught.

Clearly it will still mess up the billing and possibly mean an incomplete journey/maximum cash fare, but it would help disprove intent as surely everyone knows about the problem with people going through gates in a crowd. I also doubt anyone would be able to trigger such an error on an easily repeatable basis to use this as a way of avoiding prosecution.

There's no reason for TfL to do this. They have nothing to gain in helping a traveller avoid a penalty fare.

 

[jon0844]

That would imply TfL is somewhat evil. I don't believe they would deliberately set people up if there's any way to check and confirm that an attempt to scan a reader was made.

 

[Tibbs]

That would imply TfL is somewhat evil. I don't believe they would deliberately set people up if there's any way to check and confirm that an attempt to scan a reader was made.

Not in the slightest. Companies are completely amoral. They have one reason for existance, which is to make profit (which isn't necessarily cash) for their shareholders (whoever they are).

If you could demonstrate that making this happen will result in more people travelling and more 'profit' for the firm then I'm sure they'd do it. If not, then they won't.

TfL aren't deliberately setting people up, but it's not in their interests to disprove their own penalty fare claim.

 

[jon0844]

I totally disagree with you on this. Many companies can and do make a lot of money by operating with morals and benefiting hugely from doing things fairly. I think anyone who has ever run a business will know you don't simply succeed by doing anything to make profit.

 

[Tibbs]

I totally disagree with you on this. Many companies can and do make a lot of money by operating with morals and benefiting hugely from doing things fairly. I think anyone who has ever run a business will know you don't simply succeed by doing anything to make profit.

Companies may behave well but they do it because it makes them money. A company like Waitrose, for example treats its staff very well, with much better T&Cs than most other retailers. Why? Because the staff are the shareolders! Tesco are the biggest retailer in the UK, did they get there by being the nicest? Anyone who has had any dealings with the Tesco buying team will be able to tell you stories of what utter scumbags they can be.

If companies could be trusted to behave well we wouldn't have to have legislation making them do so. TOCs wouldn't have to have regularity targets & compensation for missing because they'd be doing all they could to hit the targets anyway.

Google Bhopal and see what people will do in search of profit. Were the people who perpetrated the deaths of almost 4,000 people doing it because they were evil? No, they were just trying to eke out as much profit as possible.

Firms have figured out that by behaving well they can make money, but they do a disservice to their shareholders if they're nicer than they have to be.

 

[Deerfold]

Not in the slightest. Companies are completely amoral. They have one reason for existance, which is to make profit (which isn't necessarily cash) for their shareholders (whoever they are).

If you could demonstrate that making this happen will result in more people travelling and more 'profit' for the firm then I'm sure they'd do it. If not, then they won't.

TfL aren't deliberately setting people up, but it's not in their interests to disprove their own penalty fare claim.

But then TfL aren't a company with shareholders and are measured by other indicators - including how much they can persuade people to travel by public transport.

That doesn't mean they're perfect, but usually have less incentive to catch someone out than, say, a rail franchisee.

 

[Tibbs]

But then TfL aren't a company with shareholders and are measured by other indicators - including how much they can persuade people to travel by public transport.

That doesn't mean they're perfect, but usually have less incentive to catch someone out than, say, a rail franchisee.

All companies have shareholders. A guy who runs his own Plumbing business has a shareholder. If he's a sole trader he's the shareholder.

TfL's Shareholders are the Government (as far as I know) and by extension the tax payers. Because of that you can't expect any more leniency just because you are a tax payer, TfL has responsibility for making profit for all tax payers. The Government will define what 'profit' is for TfL. It may not be money. Profit for them may be people carried, high levels of customer satsfaction, whatever the shareholders define as success.

 

[CNash]

Wouldn't they be known as "stakeholders" rather than "shareholders", as the latter implies that they hold shares in a publicly traded company? Shades of my old business studies classes...

 

[Tibbs]

Wouldn't they be known as "stakeholders" rather than "shareholders", as the latter implies that they hold shares in a publicly traded company? Shades of my old business studies classes...

No, just because shares aren't publically traded doesn't mean they don't exist. Limited companies or partnerships have shares, they're just held by a small number of people and are not publically available. Even a sole trader has shares, though it may just be one!

Shareholders own the company and directly or indirectly (by appointing a board) control the company and set its strategy. That strategy can be as simple as "Make as much profit in a year as you can" or more detailed.

Stakeholders may have a say in how the company is run, but don't directly own the company.

Patients are often stakeholders in hospitals and sit on boards of trustees etc. but they don't own the business. Banks are often the same when they loan large amounts of money to companies. They don't own the company, so they aren't shareholders, but they have a say in running the business as part of the loan agreement, so they're stakeholders.

 

[transmanche]

No, just because shares aren't publically traded doesn't mean they don't exist. Limited companies or partnerships have shares, they're just held by a small number of people and are not publically available. Even a sole trader has shares, though it may just be one!

No, no, no. Sole Traders do not have any shares or shareholders. Neither do Partnerships.

Not even all limited companies have shares or shareholders - as some are 'companies limited by guarantee', who have members rather than shareholders. Network Rail is a relevant example of a company limited by guarantee.

 

[Tibbs]

No, no, no. Sole Traders do not have any shares or shareholders. Neither do Partnerships.

Not even all limited companies have shares or shareholders - as some are 'companies limited by guarantee', who have members rather than shareholders. Network Rail is a relevant example of a company limited by guarantee.

I'm not talking about shareholders in the legal sense, I'm talking about it in the economic sense of being the people who own the company, and the difference between them and stakeholders, who don't

 

[jon0844]

I fear this is now going way off topic. There's no point picking out good and bad companies to support an argument, as I doubt Waitrose, Tesco or your mate who is a plumber has any bearing on how TfL might operate.

 

[Tibbs]

I fear this is now going way off topic. There's no point picking out good and bad companies to support an argument, as I doubt Waitrose, Tesco or your mate who is a plumber has any bearing on how TfL might operate.

I think the core message is that expecting a company that profits from your mistakes to help you minimise those mistakes is a fool's errand.

The best way to combat this is to encourage the people who make the rules to change them.

 

[transmanche]

I'm not talking about shareholders in the legal sense, I'm talking about it in the economic sense of being the people who own the company, and the difference between them and stakeholders, who don't

So why not just say 'owners' instead, if that's what you mean!

 

[Tibbs]

So why not just say 'owners' instead, if that's what you mean!

Whimsy?

 

[transmanche]

Whimsy?

Obfuscation?

 

[Greenback]

Is the capitalist system moral?

 

[RJ]

It's a written stipulation that an Oyster PAYG Card needs to be successfully validated to validate it for travel. Very simple to understand and I personally feel that public money shouldn't be wasted on providing leeway for people who have failed adhere to this requirement for whatever reason.

Anyone who does not understand how to use an Oyster Card and who are unable/unwilling to seek assistance for whatever reason should use alternatives such as paper singles or Travelcards where there is no chance of failed validations.

The idea that stored credit on its own acts as an indemnification against a failure to pay the fare is a ludicrous one.

 

[Jonny]

Is the capitalist system moral?

Whether the "capitalist system" is capitalist is another matter.

Classical capitalism = free market enterprise, regulation as a last resort.
Socialism = state-owned, non-profit enterprises supposedly working for the public good.

However, there is a third system, high-profit monopolies and oligopolies that owe little to free enterprise and everything to using regulation to maintain their position. It's called fascism

 

[34D]

I think that in general the railway companies have a good moral compass.

Example, the prosecution cases would be a lot easier if RPI's lied in their statements. But they don't.

 

[cuccir]

I think that in general the railway companies have a good moral compass.

Example, the prosecution cases would be a lot easier if RPI's lied in their statements. But they don't.

Presumably, though, that would be illegal. While it can be in a business's interest to do illegal things, it is risky due to the potential failures. Furthermore, to do something so brazen, the company would have to persuade its workers that it was in their interest.

Capitalism is, generally, driven by the fact that the rate profit always declines over time. Therefore a business has to do one of three things:
1. constantly reinvest surplus capital into itself to expand (either geographically, new products, over time etc)
2. surpress raw material costs or wages
3. find efficiencies through technology or closing loss-making bits

This means that, as a whole, capitalists are obliged to generate profit through conflict or through exploitation.

However, in all capialist systems over time, a number of non-capitalist businesses have operated - state owned, charities, not-for-profit, soical enterprises, vanity projects. These aren't driven by the rule of falling rate of profit and therefore have the scope to be moral. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, some businesses can generate profit by attracting customers because of their morality.

Back to train companies - most of them are driven by the need to generate profit. That doesn't prevent them from acting morally in individual circumstances, however. Furthermore, all this presumes that companies are run well ie in their own interests. Many are not run well!

 

[bakerstreet]

Are Companies moral?

If ethics are a cousin of morals...

"ethics are not irrelevant but some are incompatible with what we have to do, because capitalism is based on greed" Brian Souter, Chairman of Stagecoach, the parent company of South West Trains (SWT)

 

[bb21]

Says the devil.