said by FFH5:
... but overall they are better than many corporations in their community support(no matter how self serving some would say that is).
What is your metric for comparison? For example, in my community, we have two cable companies. One company has lower complaint levels (per capita) but returns less to the community in donations (both financial and in-kind). The other company has higher complaint levels but returns more to the community in donations. Which is a better corporation? Are corporations that make no donations inherently bad? What is your metric?
I do a lot of volunteering. My employer does not take credit for my volunteering. They don't give me awards for it. They don't give me compensatory time for it. Should they suffer by comparison with companies that spend gobs of money on community relations?
quote:
And they do hire staff all over the country and have drastically reduced their outsourcing to foreign countries.
Ok, that's a metric (although I'm pretty sure you were referring to donations earlier). To take this as a metric, it would be helpful to know to what degree they have reduced their outsourcing. Do you have any figures? I don't. On what basis do you use the term "drastically"? Where I live, I'm not aware they they've changed their outsourcing policies at all.
It would also be helpful to know on what basis they employ people in the US vs foreign countries. According to the reps at Comcast to whom I've spoken, they see certain improvements in quality when they hire locally that more than make up for the increased cost. In other words, they're doing it for practical business reasons - it improves their bottom line.
I have seen no evidence that Comcast does anything unrelated to their bottom line. I have no complaints about that. In fact, I think that's a great way to run a business and I respect Comcast for it. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it.