In the early 1990s, corporate restructuring was being reported in newspapers and magazines almost daily. In 1995 alone, domestic mergers totaled more than $450 Billion. In just the first week of the second quarter of 1996, merger activity totaled $28. 3 Billion. To name a couple of corporations that were involved were Bell Telephone systems and AT & T. Pros and cons come from such large mergers and acquisitions. A good aspect that came from the Bell merger was that they were able to provide service to 30 million residential and business customers in seven states west of the Mississippi.
On the other hand, a negative aspect that arrived from mergers is that often times, after the merger had taken place, the companies decided to downsize to make their new corporations more efficient. Long-time employees are now being pushed out of the company. Investors and analysts alike, seemed to respect the companies that inflicted the deepest cuts and fired the greatest number of workers. Executive pay rose along with corporate profits and productivity. The compensation packages for those individuals laid-off were tied to job performance. This created a huge amount of hostility.
Mergers also created fear amongst the employees. The fear of job loss eroded the loyalty between employees and their companies. Mergers, however, are sometimes inevitable. The corporations must find ways to stay competitive, not only internationally, but globally. Large corporations are responsible for providing the consumer with a safe and reliable product. They are also legally obligated to ensure what the company is offering the consumer is what the consumer gets. Take the in-class video on U-Haul for example. U-Haul stated that each vehicle is routinely inspected to ensure customer safety.
The inspection log would have a recent date annotating the last inspection. A team of reporters visited several U-Haul subsidiaries throughout the United States. The findings were shocking. It was found after having professional mechanics inspect the vehicles, that most were unsafe to drive. This negligence on U-hauls behalf places the consumers life in jeopardy. It has become a huge issue after several fatalities that resulted from U-hauls vehicle negligence. Laws should become more stringent on companies that provides this type of service to consumers.
The debate over whether nuclear energy is a socially acceptable has gone on for years. Recently, it has become quite questionable from early perceptions. The chaos at Three Mile Island turned passive stakeholders into active opponents of the development of nuclear energy sources. In 1986, the disaster at the Chenobyl plant in former Soviet Union further strengthened the position of antinuclear energy forces, particularly here in the United States. Public interests groups went to court to prevent new plants from opening. They also ensured that antinuclear energy questions were placed on state and local ballots.
Everyone is now aware of the damages that are caused by nuclear radiation. The thing is how to solve the problem. Where is a safe place to dispose of nuclear waste? There is no safe place. The only way to prevent radioactive disasters is to destroy its source. Every company or corporation faces some type of crisis during the existence of the company. These companies have to manage disasters precipitated by people, organizations, organizational structures, economics, and/or technology that can cause extensive damage to human life, and natural and social environments.
One example of a company that experienced a crisis was Dow Corning (a breast implant company). Dow Corning had been in the implant business for 30 years and had received ample warning that a crisis could occur. Japanese researchers had even told them that the silicone implants may cause inflammatory immune diseases. Dow Corning contained the production and surgeries despite the warnings. Task force teams were created to do a study on the safety and effectiveness of the implants. It was ascertained from experimental animals, that after on e week, the animals showed mild to acute inflammatory reaction.
This became a major problem with the people who had previously received the implants. In December 1991, Dow Corning was ordered to pay a woman $7. 3 million in damages because the firm concealed evidence leaking implant ruptures to immune system disorders. Additional suits were pending. In my opinion, extensive research should be conducted before a product hits the market. The implants are not safe and the should be liable for the negligence of not adhering to the Japanese researchers. Consumers want to be sure that the products they are using are safe and not hazardous to their health.