Not at the expense of a community organisation that supports disability workers, sorry. If your dumb enough to commit crime and get caught, you deserve to stare at concrete walls all day.
You sound like the type that would rather bring back the gallows of the ol' days and would gladly go to a daily public hanging (don't forget the popcorn).
In a different light, though, admittedly, we spend too much on our criminals.
Just because its cheaper, doesn't mean its right.
Despite what many people/organisations think, sometimes the almighty dollar is not the sole driving force in decision making (and nor should it be).
Of course
I should know - my study looks at sustainability integration, do you want to know how difficult that is without having to argue with bean counters! However there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Some of it is below.
If it was, corporations would never donate a cent to charities.
If one was to really look at the ulterior motive, they'd probably find that this is one of the simplest, easiest pieces of CSR any company could garner. After all, those sustainability and CSR reports don't write themselves very well unless you have something to show for it. A donation to charity is easy, can be done in one bulk drop and doesn't require much effort either at any one time or on an ongoing basis.
Of course, it gets harder to be more cynical when considering other "CSR" type activities that QF (and other airlines in Australia for that matter) participate in, for example supporting junior sport.
I'm confident that if the two options were put to shareholders, they too would vote with a social conscience.
Really? I wish everyone had a social conscience like you did, however...
Perhaps companies should never use the disabled companies since then they will not have to worry about moving away from using them. That QF did support them may have been commercial, may have been for other reasons, but they also have the right to move elsewhere if they choose
To start complaining if companies do just encourages to not use in the 1st place. QF is just a commercial business, nothing more
Here is a person who can successfully completely separate rationalism and emotionalism.
The reasoning is perfectly rational - it may have just been a business based decision and QF never thought of the social aspects of employing the services of any particular company. The fact that the media picked up that the company that lost the tender employs disabled people and that the new "company" is the prison system has only focused on that part of the decision-making process.
Of course, the argument is then if QF never considered the social aspect of the decision (as has been highlighted in the media), then they are still, were and are completely heartless, and moreover emphasises that they are blindly money-driven.
Then the common counter-argument comes along saying that a business is a business. They can do what they need to make a profit; that is their objective. Everything else is peripheral.
Quite a few large call centre operations are run from within corrective services in the US.
That's new to me. Wow.
While they are in prison, most inmates will one day return to society and if we want to give them a chance they need to have some skills. If by sealing QF headphones they then learn the skills necessary to hold down a job once freed I think QF have done a great community service by preventing further crimes.
Yes giving jobs to disabled people is also important but they more than likely will have other opportunities for work which may then teach them new skills.
And here we have a rather sticky problem stemming from a controversial issue, that being the merits of rehabilitating prisoners. In arguing the value of that, we could see the CSR sticking out that way. Mind you, a lot of society would not look at that as CSR and would not look at that as being responsible. Picking disabled employment would be the far "easier" option, since no one can complain about that.
In reality you could be cynical and twist the story whatever way you like so that QF will always be the loser. Let's suppose that QF decided to choose Sunnyfield rather than Corrective Services based on "social" values of supporting disabled employment rather than economics. Let's suppose the news ran an article that way. What might be the response?
Supporters of prisoner rehabilitation saying that the decision was unfairly evaluated even though there may be whatever evidence that rehabilitation through employment is a good thing?
Shareholders complaining that QF is supposed to make a profit so they should do what they have to do to so?
Or people who denounce the humanity in seeing that disabled people are reduced to a role of merely sealing headphone bags which is a menial task when disabled people are entitled to the same rights as others and should have real jobs in real enterprises.
Gee, I could be a journalist.
I’m not a stockholder, but for a publicly traded company I’d expect them to choose the best option to make a profit. It might be more than small change to switch from disabled people to prisoners. I don’t see it as a huge loss though, I’m sure they’ll do other things.
Again, here is a shareholder who sees only the profit side of things.
As much as anyone is prepared to admit it or not, companies are still very, very strongly driven by profit and a lot of that is shareholder driven. Shareholders can be funny people, too. Executive salaries, anyone? Do we like them? If we don't, why don't shareholders actually have some guts to say, "No, you are paid far too much?"
