To eliminate Canadian jobs by hiring cheaper temporary foreign workers, igniting an angry firestorm across the country 鈥� or not: that is the question.
And a fascinating one it is, too. With sa国际传媒鈥檚 largest bank in accelerated damage control, the ensuing show has been riveting. Although RBC initially defended its decision to axe Canadian workers and outsource their jobs, the bank has now changed its tune.
When CBC broke the story, RBC鈥檚 defence was that 鈥渘ew efficiencies鈥� would ultimately 鈥渆nhance the client experience.鈥� Then it morphed into a swipe at the media (they never tell the full story, complained RBC head honcho Gord Nixon), and by week鈥檚 end, RBC had taken out full-page ads in the papers to apologize.
The opened can of worms has led to political debate, with government critics charging that Conservative policies have facilitated such questionable outsourcing, a practice that is itself not uncommon. And it鈥檚 also sparked a debate on corporate responsibility.
For example, William Watson 鈥� McGill economics professor, RBC client and conservative columnist 鈥� seems to think the only serious corporate responsibility is making money. Putting human resources on the same marketplace level as wheat exports, he wrote in the Ottawa Citizen that he doesn鈥檛 want his bank becoming 鈥渁n employment agency for Canadians 鈥� If RBC can do something cheaper and better via outsourcing, it would be negligent not to.鈥�
Which I think, with respect, is nonsense. If he鈥檇 had a wonderful cleaning lady for 10 years, one with three kids to support, would he fire her to hire a newcomer who worked for less?
Such positions offend the intelligence because their boilerplate justifications for sleazy behaviours 鈥� they鈥檒l generate jobs, stimulate the economy, or, uh, enhance client experiences 鈥� are obviously transparent euphemisms for 鈥淲ho cares? This means more for our shareholders and bigger bonuses for us.鈥�
More critically, they offend the collective social conscience, sweeping aside the essential moral compass that guides any civilized society. We may not call corporations 鈥減eople,鈥� as the U.S. Supreme Court did last year for all the wrong reasons, but we know they have legitimate, serious social responsibilities.
A corporation is indeed only as ethical as its current management, but it exists in society, makes its money from that society and, thanks to that society鈥檚 elected government, is given tax breaks, incentives and other preferential money-making opportunities.
How could anyone ever believe that business doesn鈥檛 have a duty to the entity that nourishes it? That it must only turn a profit, ignoring the roots that have given it life? That it doesn鈥檛 need to do good 鈥� or even simply no harm?
But here鈥檚 the conundrum. Because they鈥檙e not actually human, corporations do not have a natural soul, altruistic impulses, loyalty, national interest. They take ethical shortcuts because they鈥檙e the shortest route to the prize, exploiting whatever soft spot is available.
Look at your morning coffee. A true Canadian drinks it in a brown cup labelled Tim Hortons 鈥� or so the company wants you to think, trademarking itself as 鈥渟a国际传媒鈥檚 Favourite Coffee.鈥� Tugging aggressively at nationalist heartstrings, Tim鈥檚 promotes itself on billboards across the country with the slogan, 鈥淚t鈥檚 Our sa国际传媒, Our Coffee.鈥�
At least in English. In French, presumably for a market with potential soft-sovereignty leanings, 鈥淥ur sa国际传媒鈥� and 鈥淥ur Coffee鈥� have been rebranded as 鈥渓e caf茅 pr茅fer茅 des gens d鈥檌ci.鈥� The current promotion asking customers about their 鈥淐anadian coffee run鈥� asks in French about 鈥渧otre extraordinaire tourne茅 de cafe Tim.鈥�
So much for 鈥淥ur sa国际传媒.鈥�
None of this is to say that responsible companies don鈥檛 exist. But they don鈥檛 get to be responsible without a lot of regulation, consumer expectation and rigorous social oversight.
If the questionable ethics of money-making are not under constant scrutiny, morally insupportable things happen.
The RBC affair (although RBC is certainly not unique) has been a timely reminder of a recurrent reality. It鈥檚 also been a lesson for those touchingly credulous souls, mostly conservative, who remain squeamish about regulating the marketplace. Put your faith in big business, they say. It can be trusted to do the right thing.
Sure. But as the latest tempest in our Canadian teapot makes clear, it can鈥檛. And without oversight, it never will.
