From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: Try it again - RE: Please give me your opinions...
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:47:56 GMT

In article <7438@bigbird.hri.com.hri.com> blamb@hri.com (Bill Lambert) writes:

>The article - as Smittie mentioned - omits any counter
>arguments or examples whereby US-to-US of Japan-to-Japan
>business practices may be shown to be just as - if not
>more so - unfair and/or predatory. A very large ommision,
>from my point of view, is failure to mention two areas
>of business where their ethics seem to have an edge over
>their US counterparts. Those are company/employee relations
>and company/customer relations. In regards to those two
>areas, the typical Japanese business concern excells. In
>my view, these are the two most important areas of business
>ethics, not the aspects of head-to-head economic competition.
>In a dog-eat-dog world, they are wise enough not to bite
>the hand that feeds them.

These are not quite so cut-and-dry as you indicate. 
First, with regard to company/employee relations:

While it is true that large Japanese companies are FAR less likely than their
US counterparts to lay off their permanent labor force, their permanent 
labor force is far more limited than in the US. Examples are numerous. Women,
especially young women are quite often considered "temporary" employees, to
be laid off as necessary. Note that with the projected slow-down in the 
Japanese economy next year, the predictions are that many FEMALE college
graduates may have a hard time finding work. Next, while companies such as
GM own many of their parts suppliers, the Japanese companies typically do
not. Thus, a Japanese company such as Toyota can in effect lay off 'mom-and-
pop' operations without effecting their "permanent" workforce. This is not
considered a layoff. Note, too, that these smaller contractors very often
are required to perform their contract work for a single company only. The
smaller software house at which I used to work had *FIVE* different corporate
entities so that we could do contract work for Mitsubishi, Fuji, Mitsui, etc.,
simultaneously. All of these contracts as tendered by the larger company 
contained specific clauses prohibitting the contracted company from working
with any of the other entities. Third, while it is commonly "known" that
people "retire" at 55, it is quite common for people to continue work, at the
same job, same place, well after 55. This is due to (especially in the manu-
facturing sector) a practice of allowing the "retiree" to continue to work,
though at a reduced wage, after his retirement. At 55, the company gives
the worker a lump sum (about 2 years' salary) and occasionally a small pension.
If he chooses to continue to work, the reduced wage and non-permanent status
make him attractive to the company, as well as the ability to lay him off if
times tighten up a bit. See Peter Drucker's _Management_ for more details.

With regard to company/customer relations:

While department stores especially are famous for exquisite service, and 
service industries as well (restaurants, etc), in other areas things are not
necessarily so rosey. First of all, manufacturers may (and in many cases do)
place conditions of sale on their goods (such as price at which they must
be sold, to whom they may be sold, what other companies' products may be
handled, etc) that under similar circumstances would be considered illegal
here in the US. The distributor, in turn, may and in fact often does, make
similar demands on the retailor. So far as the end consumer is concerned, there
is no real mechanism for dealing with a defective product; in my case, I was
able to get defective products replaced immediately, though I was originally
told that it would take up to *2 months* to send the defective item to the 
shop for repair (in one case, it was an item I had purchased that same say!).
After adamantly demanding either my money back or an immediate replacement, the
managers at each store finally relented (especially after one woman changed her
mind about a purchase because she no longer trusted that the store could 
give her good service if it was needed). Also, there is no consumer protection
law (yet) in Japan: if you purchase the equivalent of an exploding Ford Pinto,
and it "does its thing", there is no legal recourse. Though the item does not
perform in a fashion consistent with the claims for it, there is nothing an
individual consumer can do. Note: the proposed consumer protection bill seems
close to passing. And of course, I have not yet mentioned the price level
of goods in Japan, especially as compared to comparable or identical items 
in the US.

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - I'm only doing what the little voices tell me to do. 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan