>Peter neither PRO nor Anti business seems to me to be the philosophic
>approach....
>Paraphrasing W. Shakespeare - neither pro business nor con business be.
>
>Bob Lamb
 
To throw my two cents worth into this discussion, it strikes me that to
take a pro-business stance just because we teach in business schools is no
more defensible than the position the Tobacco Institute and tobacco company
executives take with respect to the merits of smoking--it makes us "hired
(PR) guns" and suggests that we ignore the realities of the marketplace. In
short, we could no longer call ourselves academics, let alone lay claim to
legitimacy as a discipline.
 
There is much that is good about business, and we should certainly give the
good its due. But let us return to the issue that started this discussion,
employment law. While sweat shops have obviously vanished, it is still an
unfortunate reality that in certain contexts moral treatment of employees
has not been one of the most successful of business' achievements. Many
managers (of course, not all of them) see employees only in labor market
terms--not as human beings, but as some abstraction such as aggregate
supply; thus, human respect is not part of these managers' personnel
policies. If more liability can help effect an attitude change, then
business law professors should help define the boundries of that liability.
 
 
Why can't we be objective observers of the marketplace and, as Bob Lamb
advocates, "call 'em the way we see 'em"?
 
Keith
 
Prof. Keith A. Maxwell                |  Voice:    206 756 3703
Legal and Ethical Studies in Business |  Fax:      206 756 3500
1500 N. Warner                        |  Internet: [log in to unmask]
University of Puget Sound             |---------------------------------------
Tacoma, WA 98416                      |
                                      |
                                      |