VideoCFO welcomes your letters. Send them to: The Editor, CFO, 253 Summer St., Boston, MA 02210
E-mail us at JuliaHomer@cfo.com, or contact a specific author by clicking on his or her byline. You can also post a comment directly on CFO.com by clicking on the appropriate link at the end of any article.
Please include your full name, title, company name, address, and telephone number. Letters are subject to editing for clarity and length.
Your article "The Spitzer Backlash" (March) was interesting, well written, and very informative.
It is well to note the reaction of business leaders to the activist attorneys general. Instead of trying to "clean up their act" and operate within the law and ethical constraints, business leaders are attempting to throw money at their problem by conspiring to put the activists out of office and replace them with compliant attorneys general who will not prosecute businesses for their misdeeds.
The message is clear: they will never change their dishonest ways. Their reaction is to increase the corruption by spreading it from their organizations to the governmental sphere.
Hopefully, the voters will see through this and will continue to place the activists in positions of authority. Also hopefully, the activists will be encouraged by this support and will increase their activism.
Bob Boos
Via E-mail
The Drag of Sarbox
I think Sarbanes-Oxley is a far bigger drag on U.S. industry than your article suggests ("A Tough Act to Follow," March).
Our company develops software for engineering applications. Some of our customers are large, publicly traded corporations. When I call on the engineering managers, I frequently hear that they're tied up in a Sarbanes-Oxley compliance meeting. They also say they've lost their flexibility in budgeting for small capital projects because the accounting department tells them they don't dare shift funds around during the year unless it is an absolute emergency. I don't know if Sarbanes-Oxley requires all of this reporting in engineering departments, but I think companies are too scared to take any chances.
Passing a law that limits competitiveness in U.S. industry at a time of global competition is so brilliantly stupid that only Congress could have come up with it. I would have to lump the President in with Congress for signing the bill. There is nothing like an overreaction law to employ more lawyers and accountants while the rest of us pay the price.
Eric R. Hedman
Chief Technical Officer
Logic Design Corp.
Via E-mail
More Thoughts on Immigrant Workers
Relative to your article "Help Wanted" (March), it would be interesting to know if Ingersoll-Rand and its fellow heavy industrial manufacturers sponsor trade-education programs for U.S. citizens in order to create a skilled workforce for these positions. If not, shame on them.
I feel certain there are many individuals in our country who would be interested in becoming welding tradespeople. The reason I'm convinced is that I see no shortage of other tradespeople, such as plumbers, carpenters, electricians, masons, and so on. I think the companies' bottom lines and "stockholder satisfaction" are of more interest to these companies and their stockholders than creating jobs for our citizens.
Companies, stockholders, and consumers should be willing to contribute to the slightly higher cost of production by absorbing this expense. Believe it or not, there are many of us who live within the top 5 percent income bracket who would be willing to do so. We would much rather help mankind in lieu of purchasing another toy to put in the garage or another expensive knickknack.
I admit this problem is not as simple to resolve as I have described, but I am also convinced that the problem is not as difficult to resolve as Corporate America and government make it out to be. It's amazing how greed contributes so greatly to making various situations seem very complex.
Name Withheld by Request
Richmond, Virginia
Reader Comments» Post a comment