The Question: is there a point where a company is making sufficient profit so that it becomes immoral to abandon its workers

and go to a third-world country to make even more money? Does the company, if the plant is "sufficiently" profitable, owe those jobs to longtime employees?
Is it immoral for a company to relocate to a foreign company to make more money, no. I think the words, morality/immorality, get tossed around with high frequency and applied to companies who seek larger profits. I would offer that the acts of a company relocated simply for larger profits than what they have been earning in this country is unethical, but not immoral. The theory of owing someone his or her job on the basis of longevity is highly debatable. One could argue that loyal service should offer a certain right to the job or even a percentage of the company as a reward for assisting in the success of the business. However, a person on the opposing side would argue that a job is not promised to anyone regardless of longevity. Additionally, longevity doesnt imply great work from said employee. Since longevity doesnt imply great work, why should the employee deserve the right to a job or a certain percentage of the company?

QUESTION: Say you own a house. Can you do whatever you want with it? Don't you have to get a permit to add a second story? Doesn't the government in fact place many restrictions on what you can and cannot do with your house (you can't, for example, establish a lead smelting plant in your backyard)? You cant hire illegal immigrants to work on your property. And so on. Why not place tighter restrictions on a business ability to move operations outside the country?

It is a good theory to place tighter restrictions on businesses. The government police the actions of citizens in regards to their private property as the case states, so why not businesses who would have a larger impact on society if they relocated factories out of the country. As I am sure people may mention, political figures may benefit from larger profits of businesses that relocate as they may have stock in said companies. I do not believe that this country could place tighter restrictions on companies as they do its citizens. Because companies have the resources and financial ability to persuade the government not to pass any legislation against such restrictions, companies will be able to relocate without issue.

QUESTION: One argument one of your authors this week gives is this: EAW benefits the employees just as much as the company. In the free enterprise system, so he says, when one company leaves a city another one is likely to come in (especially as the factory/office infrastructure is likely more-orless ready). So the employees who've been let go will likely find opportunity at the new company. What do you think of this argument?

I think that statement of opportunities still being present if the company leaves a State is relative to what State they leave and also how strong/weak the economy of the country is in when they leave. For instance, when the majority of GM left Michigan, other companies were not racing to establish a new hold on Michigans economy. Jobs were not available in other companies and Michigan has suffered a loss in many aspects, not only manufacturing, but also transportation, engineering, construction, and even education. I think the argument is as valid as it once was and that the reality of companies relocating outside of the U.S. is quite detrimental to the future of our economy.

QUESTION: It's typical that governments offer significant incentives to companies to stay or locate in their cities. Pfizer, with a large facility in Ann Arbor, announced some years ago that they were going to build a very large research facility. But where? It amounted to a call to local governments to begin the bidding--how much would they offer to the company in order to come there, or stay there in the case of Ann Arbor. Ann Arbor offered them huge concessions on property taxes and other items in order to win the bidding. That's our tax dollars being given to the company, the employees' tax dollars being given. This creates a moral contract of sorts between the company and the city. Now it's not simply a case of an owner and her private property. The owner hasn't acted autonomously, the owner instead has combined, in a sense, with the city. I would say in this case the company is then not free to move when it wishes. For how long this obligation exists is more difficult to say. Of course Pfizer left the city several years ago. I have not followed the situation closely, but I have read nothing about the company returning any of the tax incentives given in that first decade (which were predicated on the company remaining in the city for a much longer period. Should these arrangements with states of cities affect a companys obligation to its workers?

Most definitely; the company should have an obligation to the city or State if they agree to stay for a certain period of time in order to receive any financial incentives. The obligation is not just a handshake deal, but a legal agreement with substantial financial incentives tied to the agreement. Why would the city and State not sue over breach of contract? They would definitely had to have signed some legal contract as the city had to offer a formal bid and Pfizer need documentation of the deal to satisfy their own legal obligations to shareholders and the IRS. Too many companies take advantage of financial incentives and after awhile, they hold additional bids to cities with the agenda to relocate in hopes to receive additional financial savings to increase their bottom line.