you transformed into an advertising company serving the "largest corporations?"
you're too dishonest.
here's "grand river printing"
http://www.grpinc.com/grandriver-women-owned.htmlWomen-owned
Grand River Printing & Imaging is a women-owned and operated provider of print media solutions. The company has received its national certification as a Women's Business Enterprise by the Women's Business Enterprise National Council (WBENC) and the Michigan Women's Business Council (MWBC).
At the time of certification, Grand River President & CFO Ann Porster said, "We are pleased to be recognized as a women-owned business by the WBENC. This certification officially confirms our status and is another indication of the progressive character of our company. Accordingly, it will assist us in improving our visibility with corporations and buyers of print media products and services throughout the country."
David North must have partners.
here's david green's speech to a business group after winning "top 10 best workplace" award:
The extraordinarily high levels of employee turnover in the work place exacerbate the general shortage of skilled labor. Print companies—let us say, most companies—find it difficult to retain skilled people. This social phenomenon is also a product of the same policies and approach that have predominated over the last two decades. The once firmly rooted conception among workers that there existed a reliable link between corporate profitability and long-term and stable employment has been drastically undermined, if not shattered, by the experiences of the last 20 years. It is now a widespread belief among workers that their efforts in behalf of the company that employs them will be rewarded, in the end, with a layoff notice. After all, no less a personage than the President of the United States declared a few years ago that the average worker should expect to change jobs eight or nine times during the course of his or her working career. In such a social environment, is it a surprise that workers are tempted to respond favorably to the lure of short-term financial gains—that is, to leave their current employer if someone else, even a competitor to their present employer—offers than more?
Another significant social factor has contributed to the widespread alienation that is to be found among production workers. It is a sensitive topic, but one that deserves mention. It is difficult to make the case that the interests of the workers and their company are indissolubly linked at a time when there exists such a vast disparity between the rewards that accrue to company executives and those that accrue to the production workers. Make no mistake about it: Workers are acutely aware of this income disparity. I came across the following set of statistics in a business journal that I would like to share with you: During the last eight years, CEO compensation among Fortune 500 companies increased at a rate of 535%. If the wages of production workers had risen in the 1990s as fast as the total income of CEOs, the average worker would be earning $114,000 per year and the minimum wage would be $24 per hour.
It is far easier to identify the problems than to provide answers to them. Clearly, the human resource problems that confront the printing industry are the product of a very complex interaction of objective economic forces and prevailing social policy. One is even reluctant to make recommendations for fear of sounding simplistic. But as I quite unexpectedly find myself, without any special credentials, at the podium, I will take advantage of this opportunity to make a few rather modest suggestions.
There are three levels at which we can strive to find solutions to the human resource issue: The first level is that of the individual company. There, we must recognize—within the objective limits set by the competitive economic environment—that there are policy alternatives to the method of slash and burn and a Pavlovian approach to PIA ratios. Companies should strive to develop a broader sense of their long-term needs, and replace the concept of maximum profitability with one of optimum profitability—that is, one in which financial targets allow the allocation of sufficient resources for the consistent improvement of the working environment. The market is a powerful objective force, but company executives do have some control over corporate priorities.
The second level is that of the industry. Those who are in a position of leadership in the vast complex of interconnected corporations of which our industry is comprised should review critically not only their own work place practices, but also those of their vendors. The selection of vendors should include an evaluation of their human resource policies. Let’s be honest with ourselves and each other: the reality of the competitive bidding process all too frequently favors those companies whose low cost structures are achieved through poor treatment of their employees. That tendency could be counteracted if some effort were made, prior to the awarding of a contract, to discover the hidden social content, in terms of working conditions, of the lowest competitive bid.
The third level is that of society. Who can reasonably doubt that the many problems related to the recruitment and retention of workers are inextricably bound up with broader social issues, such as the state of public education? In the final analysis, every company functions within society. But an examination of this social environment would inevitably require far more time than we have here today and is best left to another forum.
http://www.grpinc.com/grandriver-workplace-awards.htmlhttp://www.mehring.com/go peddle some more bank bailouts.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
