OBLIGED TO STOCKHOLDERS
Barbara Riebe complains in her Sept. 30 letter of the amazing crassness and marketing stupidity of Tenneco's half-page ad in which the corporation had the gall to be elated by its earnings.
Not so. Tenneco is not trying to sell any aircraft carriers or double-hulled tankers to the readers of that ad.
The advertisement was placed to sell stock in its company and to tell those fortunate enough to hold its stock that they had made a good choice. As Tenneco has little say in how far the Navy is downsized, the shipyard may well become a liability and be sold off.
A corporation's first duty is to its stockholders, and that duty is to repay them in dividends for the risk capital the stockholders have supplied the firm. A corporation's duty to its employees is to pay them a fair wage for an equivalent effort and comply with governmental regulations. Anything beyond that is a gift from the company as a tax-free substitute for wages as an enticement to keep the employees from seeking another employer.
As Riebe would not continue her lawn service during the winter when the grass no longer grows because she feels sorry for the gardener, likewise, Tenneco is not obligated to employ people for whom it has no jobs. It may sound cruel, but it is true.
Because of my involvement as a volunteer in community service in Hampton, there has been an unusual bombardment of inquiries by individuals calling me asking about tobacco research into the addictive nature of tobacco and a string of requests for support groups in quitting smoking.
This may be the result of the Food and Drug Administration declaring nicotine an "addictive drug" and President Clinton's support of that message to our children. It may be a result of the "fallout of the smokers' disease and death" over centuries of smoking and referred to by the surgeon general as the "brown plague."
Whatever the reason, we welcome the help of the community in overcoming the "tobacco war" for future generations and the quality of life for our children. Research shows a direct correlation between smokers and non-smokers in the levels of education - the less education, i.e., children, young adults, high school dropouts, the more smokers. This makes "dollars and sense."
Ask the tobacco companies who spent over $5 billion this year in advertisements geared toward kids and lobbying fees.
This year, for the first time in a century, there has been an increase in school-age children smoking, minus Afro-American children where there has been a significant decrease. Come on parents, we need some role models and some help.
Nancy A. LaCross
RETIREES HANG TOUGH
I commend the 14,000-plus federal retirees who shrugged off Virginia's paltry offer regarding the retroactive tax matter and instead went to court and apparently won. They displayed guts and tenacity.
On the other side of the coin, however, those 148,000 retirees who reasoned that "two birds in the hand are better than one in the bush" and accepted Virginia's take-it-or-leave-it settlement terms should not be criticized. Many of us felt we might have lost a drawn-out court battle.
The target of those of us in the latter category is not the retirees who went to court. More power to them. Rather, we must take on the commonwealth with every weapon at our disposal.
I seriously doubt that any higher court will permit a state to get by with two different payment levels on a single matter affecting one group.
The contention of Gov. Allen's office that Del. David Brickley's demand for full refunds to all retirees is an "election year move" and that the 148,000 understood the risk when they settled is regarded by many as ridiculous. Virginia's handling of this entire matter has, in my opinion, been sleazy, irresponsible and blatantly unconstitutional.
I think, in the long run, the state will be told to pay the same amount to the 148,000 as it has been ordered or will be ordered to reimburse the 14,000.
Your Monday "Gun control" editorials are simply propaganda pieces consistently devoid of any facts supporting your premise that gun control can save lives. Your Oct. 2 headline, "Flood of weapons consequence of weak restrictions," is totally unsupported. What flood of weapons? I haven't observed any sudden increase in the availability of guns in our area - are they just lying around for anyone to pick up? Are Virginia's near-instant background check and one-gun-a-month law weak restrictions? What facts do you cite to support your statement that existing laws are "pathetically inadequate"? Opinions are fine, but just espousing them doesn't make them true or convincing.
As concerns your weekly carnage list, I'd like to see you indicate in parentheses after each item which gun control measure(s) you think would have prevented the crime. For example, you could write: "A man was shot and wounded during an argument in the parking lot of an apartment complex (waiting period, background check)."
After a few weeks of this exercise, I think both you and your readers would realize how illogical your gun control arguments truly are.
Sensible people support their positions with facts, not rhetoric.
Fact: Since enacting a virtual handgun ban in 1976, Washington, D.C.'s murder rate has risen over 200 percent, with a 300 percent increase in handgun-related violence. Rhetoric: Gun control can save lives.
Fact: Since enacting a more liberal concealed-carry law in 1987, Florida's homicide rate dropped 22 percent while the national rate rose 15 percent. Rhetoric: Gun control can save lives.
Vaccines Might Kick Bad Habits
OBLIGED TO STOCKHOLDERS
Barbara Riebe complains in her Sept. 30 letter of the amazing crassness and marketing stupidity of Tenneco's half-page ad in which the corporation had the gall to be elated by its earnings.
Not so. Tenneco is not trying to sell any aircraft carriers or double-hulled tankers to the readers of that ad.
The advertisement was placed to sell stock in its company and to tell those fortunate enough to hold its stock that they had made a good choice. As Tenneco has little say in how far the Navy is downsized, the shipyard may well become a liability and be sold off.
A corporation's first duty is to its stockholders, and that duty is to repay them in dividends for the risk capital the stockholders have supplied the firm. A corporation's duty to its employees is to pay them a fair wage for an equivalent effort and comply with governmental regulations. Anything beyond that is a gift from the company as a tax-free substitute for wages as an enticement to keep the employees from seeking another employer.
As Riebe would not continue her lawn service during the winter when the grass no longer grows because she feels sorry for the gardener, likewise, Tenneco is not obligated to employ people for whom it has no jobs. It may sound cruel, but it is true.
Because of my involvement as a volunteer in community service in Hampton, there has been an unusual bombardment of inquiries by individuals calling me asking about tobacco research into the addictive nature of tobacco and a string of requests for support groups in quitting smoking.
This may be the result of the Food and Drug Administration declaring nicotine an "addictive drug" and President Clinton's support of that message to our children. It may be a result of the "fallout of the smokers' disease and death" over centuries of smoking and referred to by the surgeon general as the "brown plague."
Whatever the reason, we welcome the help of the community in overcoming the "tobacco war" for future generations and the quality of life for our children. Research shows a direct correlation between smokers and non-smokers in the levels of education - the less education, i.e., children, young adults, high school dropouts, the more smokers. This makes "dollars and sense."
Ask the tobacco companies who spent over $5 billion this year in advertisements geared toward kids and lobbying fees.
This year, for the first time in a century, there has been an increase in school-age children smoking, minus Afro-American children where there has been a significant decrease. Come on parents, we need some role models and some help.
Nancy A. LaCross
RETIREES HANG TOUGH
I commend the 14,000-plus federal retirees who shrugged off Virginia's paltry offer regarding the retroactive tax matter and instead went to court a
nd apparently won. They displayed guts and tenacity.
On the other side of the coin, however, those 148,000 retirees who reasoned that "two birds in the hand are better than one in the bush" and accepted Virginia's take-it-or-leave-it settlement terms should not be criticized. Many of us felt we might have lost a drawn-out court battle.
The target of those of us in the latter category is not the retirees who went to court. More power to them. Rather, we must take on the commonwealth with every weapon at our disposal.
I seriously doubt that any higher court will permit a state to get by with two different payment levels on a single matter affecting one group.
The contention of Gov. Allen's office that Del. David Brickley's demand for full refunds to all retirees is an "election year move" and that the 148,000 understood the risk when they settled is regarded by many as ridiculous. Virginia's handling of this entire matter has, in my opinion, been sleazy, irresponsible and blatantly unconstitutional.
I think, in the long run, the state will be told to pay the same amount to the 148,000 as it has been ordered or will be ordered to reimburse the 14,000.
Your Monday "Gun control" editorials are simply propaganda pieces consistently devoid of any facts supporting your premise that gun control can save lives. Your Oct. 2 headline, "Flood of weapons consequence of weak restrictions," is totally unsupported. What flood of weapons? I haven't observed any sudden increase in the availability of guns in our area - are they just lying around for anyone to pick up? Are Virginia's near-instant background check and one-gun-a-month law weak restrictions? What facts do you cite to support your statement that existing laws are "pathetically inadequate"? Opinions are fine, but just espousing them doesn't make them true or convincing.
As concerns your weekly carnage list, I'd like to see you indicate in parentheses after each item which gun control measure(s) you think would have prevented the crime. For example, you could write: "A man was shot and wounded during an argument in the parking lot of an apartment complex (waiting period, background check)."
After a few weeks of this exercise, I think both you and your readers would realize how illogical your gun control arguments truly are.
Sensible people support their positions with facts, not rhetoric.
Fact: Since enacting a virtual handgun ban in 1976, Washington, D.C.'s murder rate has risen over 200 percent, with a 300 percent increase in handgun-related violence. Rhetoric: Gun control can save lives.
Fact: Since enacting a more liberal concealed-carry law in 1987, Florida's homicide rate dropped 22 percent while the national rate rose 15 percent. Rhetoric: Gun control can save lives.
Vaccines Might Kick Bad Habits