News Flash: Big Business Seeks More Regulation
The really do care, right?
We must be in an alternative universe because it was reported over the weekend that big business is actively seeking more government regulation. When did big business suddenly get a conscience? Do you think it is possible for corporate interests to give a flip about consumer safety? Well, think again, because they’re recent pleas for more safety regulation is not all that it’s cracked up to be. What is really behind their recent change of heart, is that they suddenly realized that product recalls and potential legal backlashes from unsafe products just may not be good for the bottom line … to hell with the consumer. Now they have jumped on the regulation bandwagon. So, what are they really up to?
In a September 15, ‘07, article from the New York Times, after flourishing under the “hands off” policy of George W. regarding industry regulation, big business has suddenly decided that they want more government regulation after all. Why? Well, they will try to spin it as becoming more proactive about the needs and wants of the consumer. And, at the same time, they will expertly polish their corporate image through cleaver public relations campaigns. But what they are really looking for is to get protection from devastating liability lawsuits, preempt tough state laws that were passed due to the laissez-faiare Bush policies, and secure recourse against growing competition from expensive imports. As is the classic condition of the corporate conglomerates, self-interest rules every single action they take. And, their high-end, sophisticated and loyal lobbyists are standing by to push the agenda forward at all costs.
So what do we have to look forward to with the big interest, corporate influence peddling now? What may be ahead is lobbying that on the surface looks to get the government more involved with federal safety oversight calling for additional federal health, safety and environmental mandates. But when you pull the covers back what we may be seeing is sneaky back-room language that includes provisions that block consumer lawsuits in state and federal courts.
Such pre-emption clauses have been included in the past to protect big business. This was the case in a 2006 FDA ruling that involved drug labeling rules and in a new fire prevention standard for mattresses imposed by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Remember, these are the same governmental agencies that are supposed to look out for our interests but end up only protecting the interests of the very people they are supposed to regulate. So, again what ends up happening is that mandated government standards will fall well short of what consumer advocates want or what tougher state rules require resulting in inadequate safety and the inability to litigate negligent corporate actions. The consumer loses again.
With George W. in power, there seems to be no end in sight for the consumer. The consumer is always out of the loop and unrepresented even when it appears that things may change for the better. Edmund Mierzwinski, the consumer program director at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group in Washington, says of big business…”I don’t thrust them. Their ultimate goal is regulation that protects them, not the public.”
5 Comments so far
Leave a reply
New Scientist
The Onion
Media Matters
Newsvine
Associated Press
Haven’t you noticed?
We’re not “consumers” or “citizens.”
We’re “the stupid mob” in their mentality.
Mattel Toy Company Example: Hey, Unum, here’s a concrete example for your above article: “News Flash: Big Business Seeks More Regulation.” What a new wrinkle: Self-interest-only companies that pull their switcheroos for more, yet such sham, regulations. New toy safety regulations have to be written anyway due to the extensive toy recalls and this is a bad time for many, many doublespeak new toy-safety regulations. Bad for the consumer.
Mattel, the world’s premier toy company, needs to regain market lost due to the recent China recalls.
Just why does a big biz like Mattel want stiffer regulations — in this case it’s to advertise that their toy stuff meets new State and Federal regulation specs and are now tots-okay-safe. And because, of course, Mattel wants its market share back. And its good brand name back.
The company is also trying a second, self-scapegoat tactic: “China didn’t do it; We did it.” Mattel now blames itself for the “little magnetic bearings” toy snafu. //“So sorry, China, for the recall”//”Our own U.S.A. in-house design-engineers were the bad culprits, not you manufacturing guys”// i.e., toys made in Mattel’s “factories,” especially in all those “factories” located in China that are exported in huge quantities to the U.S. to Mattel for distribution //for this Christmas// are…Now!…safe because Mattel’s toys…Now!…meet strict regulations and industry safety standards. And…their “factories” in China were Okay all along.
Mattel’s Intended Motive: Government regulations and Self-regulations. And the Mattel people are responsible people.
Mattel’s Intended Results: Mattel’s stock market shares will return to/surpass their original dollar value.
Mattel’s Intended Bottom Line: Self-Interest, of course. Profits, profits, profits. Big-Bucks profits. Again!
Watch for their next marketing tactic: Mattel sells all-you-parents a 24-7, live-in, “Tots-at-Play OverWatcher” guy //a live human being (jobs for the homeless?)// guy to constantly watch over Mattel’s bought toys to assure your kid’s safety. OverWatcher’s Bed&Board not included. Presently, Mattel’s legal are stumped on regulating the overwatcher: how to bypass modern slavery laws and how to avoid extramarital affair lawsuits.
Gawk, Gawk, Gawk!
-30-
There’s more to that China recall than we are seeing here in the U.S. … and I believe Mattel was responsible. As a matter of fact, a lot of shoddy manufacturing blamed on China is really from the Western companies who are outsourcing to them.
Betcha anything China threatened to blow the whistle on Mattel unless they made a public apology.
Now, what were they going to blow the whistle on them about is what I’m wondering.
You need to look at this perspective … particularly with the way everyone wants the cheap labor market in China…
You give them specs (or a recipe) and they do it … usually to the letter.
Betcha…
What a moneymaker for lawyers! And law schools too who will need to enroll and crank out beaucoup lawyers to handle beaucoup mounds of more and more and more regulations. I pity the lawyers; all that beaucoup fine print to read. But, by Gawk, beaucoup paychecks. Beaucoup bonuses, too.
-30-