More from our inbox:
To the Editor:
Re “Pakistan Finds Few Options in Its Dispute With India” (news article, Aug. 10):
The most obvious option is for India to loosen its stranglehold on Kashmir and act in the spirit and the letter of international law and United Nations Security Council resolutions.
India, while taking actions consistent with the aggression and repression it has perpetrated in the internationally recognized disputed region of Kashmir for decades, has gone a dangerous step further by totally renouncing those legal commitments and thumbing its nose at President Trump’s offer to Prime Minister Imran Khan to mediate the dispute.
Pakistan stands ready to do what is right for the Kashmiri people, who have suffered enough.
The writer is minister of press at the Pakistani Embassy.
Ethics in Corporate Life
To the Editor:
Re “An Idea: Rein In ‘Sociopaths’ in the Boardroom” (Business Day, July 29):
Jamie Gamble, a retired corporate lawyer featured in your article, suggests that a binding set of ethical rules might rein in the “network of horribles” running America’s companies from so easily putting short-term profits over long-term stability.
I commend Mr. Gamble for his suggestion, but who would write these rules? Answer: corporate lawyers, who have a vested interest in protecting their employers from a lawsuit. And who would approve the rules? The executives they are intended to rein in.
Mr. Gamble cites “key ethical dimensions of corporate life” the rules should cover. Anyone who has worked in corporate America knows that a chief executive will always say some variation of “we take seriously our relationship with [fill in the blank], which is a cornerstone of our mission.”
But as long as executive pay is based on meeting profit goals, regardless of the consequences, companies will have no incentive to adopt any meaningful ethical rules, much less live up to them.
Kathy J. Mills
When Museum Workers Unionize
To the Editor:
Re “A Cry Pierces Museums’ Hush: Raise Our Pay” (front page, July 23):
The news that museum workers are unionizing is music to many of our ears — those of us who work in the “creative” industries and recognize pay injustice. But all the subtle class tropes embedded in the resistance to unionization indicates the need for reflection that goes beyond fair pay.
Someone has to recognize the irony of resisters defending museum heads by saying “these are liberal, progressive people,” one of whom you quote as saying: “I do not want to work with a third party who has very limited experience in the museum field, and whose membership is largely in the heating and air-conditioning and construction industries.”
Ah, yes, the liberals, privileged and white collar, who so easily refuse to mingle with mere hands-on workers. When did those of us in the culture industry decide that our 9-to-5’s (or, 10-to-10’s) are superior work to that chosen by (or open to) other types of workers? And when did actual construction not link to mounting an exhibition?
And we wonder why we are in a country where half the population supports President Trump because they feel the scorn of the intelligentsia.
The writer is professor emerita at the Yale School of Architecture.