Richard Zenobio

Hotel Vanity Specialist LLC

Stone Industry Consultant, Aaron Crowley, wrote an article (From CEO to CEEO) in the June 2012 publication of the Slippery Rock Gazette (pg. 27) that caught my attention on multiple levels.      

First Level: I thought it was strange that the article appeared in the Slippery Rock Gazette because the content was completely unrelated to the stone industry, and was simply an advertisement for the author’s own political viewpoint.

Second Level: I thought it was bizarre that Mr. Crowley would use his position as a stone consultant columnist to advocate that company CEOs dedicate time to educating and explaining economics and politics to their employees as self-appointed CEEOs (Chief Economic Education Officers).

Third Level: I found the content misleading and not fact-based.

On the first level, should freedom of speech extend to the content expressed by guest writers, or should their content be monitored by the publication? This is really a matter for Slippery Rock Gazette to address since they control the topics discussed and the magazine is not an open forum blog. Maybe other readers, since it is an election year, will want to weigh in if political opinion has its place among technical articles. It seemed odd to me.

On the second level, perhaps Mr. Crowley would better serve his employees by focusing the training of his employees on the craft and skills relating to stone. Even if his employees “are starving for the truth,” based on Mr. Crowley’s comments, I think his employees will reach a more meaningful conclusion if they do their own research away from the workplace and his (bias) influence. Advocating that business owners educate their employees to their own personal political ideology, besides bringing hubris to a new high, is a slippery slope with questionable benefits to any company.

Hmmm, I am trying to envision one of these education seminars.... While educating employees that the economy will improve only if millionaires have more money to hire workers, will employees be allowed to ask the CEEOs questions and discuss whether or not trickle down economics has worked historically, whether deregulation of industries really leads to higher profits and more hiring, or more disasters like the BP oil spill and the financial sector collapse, and more CEOs getting huge bonuses in their pockets and no new jobs?

I am curious if  the CEEO is supposed to pay his employees when they attend these “education seminars,” or will the workers be asked to voluntarily attend these influential sessions.  Are the CEEOs going to tell employees that it is their opinion, or a proven fact, that if we allow taxes for the top 1% to rise, this is going to prevent wealthy people from buying granite, so we need to avoid taxing the rich at all costs?   Is Mr. Crowley also going to educate his workers that President Obama was not born in the USA, that he is a Muslim not a Christian,  that he is really a Marxist, the anti-Christ, etc?  Will all employees be instructed to only listen to news media that are fair and balanced? Where do you draw the line when trying to influence your employees beyond the workplace?Or would the CEOs be better off not going there?On the third level, there are the three myths that Mr. Crowley mentions he wants to deconstruct.  

Myth #1: Millionaires and billionaires buy a lot of granite, so if we do not extend the Bush tax cuts to millionaires, this will hurt the stone industry. I guess I stand corrected. Mr. Crowley does mention the stone industry in this article. But, I have a hard time imagining Donald Trump putting in Formica countertops when he remodels The Towers next year because of the financial burden placed on him when his tax rate is rolled back to the pre-Bush level of 39.6 percent from the current 35 percent rate. The question is: should workers be left to figure this out on their own, or is it the place of employers to influence their workers’ politics?

Myth #2: I think the bottom line of this section of the article is that if company profits go to pay higher taxes, that leaves less money in the coffers to go towards higher wages and better benefits.  That is a valid point to me. But, historically, this has not always yielded a quid pro quo result, so there is no guarantee where the money will go (back into inventory, to equipment, to pay the owner a bonus, etc...) and I think most workers can figure this concept out without a CEEO explaining the “basics of business economics” to them.  FYI correction– Please note that most small businesses are not S corporations as stated in this section of the article.  Most small businesses are sole proprietorships, by about 4:1, so it is not even close.  

Myth #3: “Successful entrepreneurs should be ashamed of their success. Hogwash!

”I am curious if Mr. Crowley plans, as CEEO, to teach using the method of stating a false premise, attributing it to the party you oppose, and then criticizing the false statement never made by your opposition.  The question to me is not where does Mr. Crowley draw the line when writing technical articles for the Slippery Rock Gazette, because it is clear he has no issues with crossing the line with impunity, as he distorts the truth and promotes his politics.  My question is: should the Slippery Rock Gazette draw a line and monitor the publication’s content? Obviously they didn’t with this article. Is this a harbinger of what’s to come, or an anomaly that sneaked through? 

If you would like to comment, please send an email to publisher@slipperyrockgazette.net or just simply go online to www.slipperyrockgazette.net, click on the “contact” button, then leave a comment with your contact information, in the boxes provided.