評論
打印
What it is not is No 7 moisturisers, contact-lens solutions, angina pills.
不是7號潤膚霜、隱形眼鏡護理液、心絞痛藥片。
It is not the shop on the high street with the white-coated pharmacist who fills your gran’s prescription,
不是商業街上那些穿著白大褂為你奶奶配藥的藥劑師的商店，
the shop where your mum used to go for your cough medicine.
你媽媽過去常去給你買咳嗽藥的商店。
What it is not, in other words, is Boots.
換句話說，不是博姿。
But Tony’s story isn’t about one man who can’t rub along with his bosses.
但是托尼的故事并不是關于一個不能和老板和睦相處的人。
It is about a radically changed business model that, in the eyes of many of the company’s own staff,
這種徹底改變的商業模式，在該公司許多員工眼中，
appears to suck the care out of a caring profession, harming employees while enriching those right at the top.
似乎從一個關心他人的職業中榨取了關愛之心，傷害了員工，同時也使高層變得富有。
This is the tale of how one of Britain’s oldest and biggest businesses went rogue –
這是一個關于英國歷史最悠久、規模最大的企業如何變成流氓企業的故事-
to the point where its own pharmacists claim their working conditions threaten the safety of patients,
它的藥劑師聲稱他們的工作條件威脅到病人的安全，
and experts warn that the management’s pursuit of demanding financial targets poses a risk to public health.
專家警告說，管理層追求高要求的財務目標對公眾健康構成風險。
(Boots denies this, saying that “offering care for our colleagues, customers and the communities which we serve…is an integral part of our strategy.”)
（博姿否認了這一點，稱“為我們的同事、客戶和我們服務的社區提供關懷...這是我們戰略不可分割的一部分?！保?/div>
At the heart of this story is one of the most urgent debates in post-crash Britain:
這個故事的核心是危機后英國最緊迫的爭論之一：
what large companies owe the rest of us – in taxes, in wages, and in standards of behaviour.
大公司在稅收、工資和行為標準上欠我們其他人的東西。
When David Cameron calls for a “responsible capitalism”, or the former Labour leader Ed Miliband decries “predator” corporations,
當戴維·卡梅倫呼吁建立“負責任的資本主義”，或前工黨領袖埃德·米利班德譴責“掠奪者”企業時，
what both men are grasping for is a way of describing how some of our biggest and best-known businesses no longer resemble the societies they operate in.
這兩個人所追求的，是一種描述我們一些最大、最知名的企業如何不再像它們所處的社會的方式。
Lawfully exploiting the opportunities afforded them by globalisation and new technology,
他們合法地利用全球化和新技術給他們帶來的機會，
they hand over as little tax as possible to the countries on whose infrastructure and protections they rely,
依賴著國家的基礎設施和保護，卻上交著盡可能少的稅收。
squeeze pay and conditions for employees even while handing out lavish rewards to managers,
壓榨員工的工資和工作條件，同時卻給經理們豐厚的獎勵，
and underinvest in staff so as to over-reward shareholders.
以及為了過度獎勵股東，而對員工投資不足。
