Kodak CEO Antonio M. Perez puts himself first

Michael Markey said:
On the few occasions when the EU has tried to demonstrate its democratic credentials it has simply called for another vote when it didn`t like the result of the first.
Click to expand...

This says more about the pointlessness of referenda, in general, than about the EU.

We continually hear calls for a referendum on EU membership from certain quarters. If a referendum were held - and were they to get a result in their favour - they would, I suspect, suddenly lose their enthusiasm for any further referenda for continuing/renewing the democratic mandate. "The matter is now settled" would be the likely response.

It seems to me that (and this is irrespective of the actual subject matter) herein lies the fundamental problem with referenda... the people who "lost" the most recent one want another, and the people who "won" it, don't want another.
 
sevo said:
There is no one "the EU" that can follow or ignore democratic votes, it is the commission and the parliament - the former elected indirectly, the latter even elected immediately. I know that the British tabloids feel that the EU ought by rights be something like a small version of the British Empire, with the Queen the sovereign ruler of the EU - but that is rather a unpopular notion in the rest of Europe...
Click to expand...

Ha ... "elected indirectly" what a marvellous term, I'm no fan of the British red-tops, but really it is that type of slippery language that has allowed this state of affairs to exist here in the EU and in in Rochester ... I imagine Mr Perez would be happy to use it in his annual report
 
tbhv55 said:
Bold highlight above: It's difficult to see how this particular aspect can be rectified, as voter turnout tends to be notoriously (and stubbornly) low. Look at the recent UK Police Commissioner debacle: turnout 14.9%. It seems that people want to grumble amongst themselves about governments, public institutions etc., but can't be bothered to turn out in numbers to have their say. No-one can seriously claim that such tiny-minority turnouts provide a "democratic mandate".

I take a rather different view on the EU from yours. I see the EU as a potential force for good. It's certainly still a good distance from realising that potential, but I MUCH prefer it to the alternative.
Click to expand...

It's not fair to use the bungled and wrong-headed UK Police Commissioner elections as a benchmark, it was and remains a stupid idea that has more to do with justifying all those junkets that politicos take in the US than any need to start electing a local sherif in the UK ... let's all just hope George Osborne hasn't spent too much time with Kodak's finance director eh?

Have you considered that absence of war in Europe is just a coincidence, or is in fact just plain old national interest and will end now the money is running out?
 
sevo said:
I know that the British tabloids feel that the EU ought by rights be something like a small version of the British Empire, with the Queen the sovereign ruler of the EU - but that is rather a unpopular notion in the rest of Europe...
Click to expand...

Dear Sevo

You appear to have been misinformed .
Most of the British public (outside of the metropolitan elite) have no interest what so ever in the EU apart from the fact that it costs us £53 million a day.

However given the degree of suspicion that exits I`m confused as to why the EU is still so keen to have us as a member.

I wonder as to the motives in such circumstances.
I`m sure that everyone will have a perfectly good time without the pesky UK :).

But this leads back to my original point that, given that is the situation, and I belief what you say ,then continuing membership is just as likely to be a cause of friction as not.

However my real point about all this is how I see parallels between this and the sort of behaviour exhibited by CEOs.

Best

Michael
 
Michael Markey said:
However given the degree of suspicion that exits I`m confused as to why the EU is still so keen to have us as a member.
Click to expand...

If there was any legal option to vote a EU member out, the UK probably would long have been kicked out. It certainly is not popular...
 
They look like film to me (at lest a couple of them do), I think those might be Spanish tomatoes in the second shot posted (EU) if that's the case lets hope for support for Kodak and Spain ;) (from purchases of their respective products)
 
Isn't this what the market wants? A top-paid CEO knows that 47% of the population is getting gifts, so he's exercising his unregulated power making one for himself. Tax-free. Only fair.


Disclaimer for the Sarcasm-Impaired (trust me, without it some would absolutely believe I am serious): it's sarcasm.
 
Roger Hicks said:
But equally unattractive. I am not quite clear on why he felt the need to do this. Lack of rational arguments, maybe?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

To be honest Roger, I think it was a rather charming way of stopping the thread in it's tracks as it had gone miles off topic.

Unusual over here, what?

:)
 
Sejanus.Aelianus said:
But will you still be European if the SNP wins that vote next year?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well yes, I will ... but I'm unsure as to Scotland's status, disappointed that the rest of the UK isn't getting a vote and wondering if we will get back the money we paid as settlement at the inception of the act of union should they decide to go it alone ... sorry I didn't understand your use of that particular smily, was that sarcasm?
 
Kodak as a corporate culture has always been like this and always made it's decisions based on concept over compensation to senior management. Kodak never cared about how they were losing the film market over the last 25-40 years. The hidden profits that were diverted in accounting and never passed forward to Kodak shareholders was criminal. Many public pension funds dumped Kodak from the list approved investment stocks for the same reasons. When Kodak went out of it's way to Kodachrome 2...when there were several lucrative investors willing to pay a strong royalties and build a new factory which would have resulted in also saving the film and actually resulted in lowering the real cost to produce....Kodak refused all offers.

Kodak was robber baron mentality company from day one...when it could not have a monopoly in the photography industry they holding retailers and consumers hostage with ever higher costs, and margins to retailers that were a joke. The dividends were always manipulated down as much as possible...the senior management take compensation that makes "wall street" investment banks look like sweet shop wages.

A company I worker for was a key supplier to Kodak and I was also involved with watching the incompetence of European operations....for 20 plus years. A total sense of denial....there was never any acknowledgement of market forces, or willingness to build factories in locations where product could have been made around the world. So in the end Kodak is just another company that should have died a long time ago. They actually helped kill the film industry by the cost and problems they created.

At Kodak the joke was...."When the name goes on the price goes up and up and up"!!

Sad but true.
 
Roger Hicks said:
There are, after all, two questions here. One is how to deal with the current excess of supply over demand in 'young academics', and I'd suggest that 'academics' is essentially a red herring. After all, why should it matter whether someone without a job is an academic, a labourer, or a qualified hairdresser? All three still need a job. The second question (much simpler, in my view) concerns what we should do about the surfeit in future. The answer, surely, is to stop feeding young people the lie that formal education or even training is the sole route to success, and to stop wasting their time and stealing their money by forcing them to study at universities and colleges if they don't want to. Or indeed, failing to warn them that if they study certain subjects, they may amuse themselves for a few years but they will not be doing anything that necessarily leads to employment.

R.
Click to expand...
Someone without a job is 'someone without a job'. They may aspire to be an academic or whatever, they may previously have been employed as a labourer; but their future employment, if any, is a matter of what job is possible and on offer. Selling academic education on the basis that there was once some correlation between it and later success is a fraud: "past performance is no guide to the future".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top