寫出一份優質的演講稿，可在語言的感染力下，讓更多人了解到演講稿內容的重要性。在當今社會中，演講稿成為了表達觀點的重要方式，你會正確編寫演講稿嗎？下面是小編為大家整理的《林肯的英文演講稿》，歡迎閱讀，希望大家能夠喜歡。
第一篇：林肯的英文演講稿
林肯葛底斯堡演講 中英文
在八十七年前，我們的國父們在這塊土地上創建一個新的國家，乃基于對自由的堅信，并致力于所有人皆生而平等的信念。 Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. 當下吾等被卷入一場偉大的內戰，以考驗是否此國度，或任何肇基于和奉獻于斯者，可永垂不朽。吾等現相逢于此戰中一處浩大戰場。而吾等將奉獻此戰場之部分，作為這群交付彼者生命讓那國度勉能生存的人們最后安息之處。此乃全然妥切且適當而為吾人應行之舉
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives to that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. 但，于更大意義之上，吾等無法致力、無法奉上、無法成就此土之圣。這群勇者，無論生死，曾于斯奮戰到底，早已使其神圣，而遠超過吾人卑微之力所能增 減。這世間不曾絲毫留意，也不長久記得吾等于斯所言，但永不忘懷彼人于此所為。吾等生者，理應當然，獻身于此輩鞠躬盡瘁之未完大業。吾等在此責無旁貸獻身 于眼前之偉大使命：自光榮的亡者之處吾人肩起其終極之奉獻—吾等在此答應亡者之死當非徒然—此國度，于神佑之下，當享有自由之新生—民有、民治、民享之政府當免于凋零。
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
第二篇：葛底斯堡演講林肯中英文對照
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
87年前，我們的先輩在這個大陸上創建了一個新的國家。她孕育于自由之中，奉行人人生來平等的信條。
現在我們正進行一場偉大的內戰，以考驗這個國家，或者任何一個孕育于自由和奉行人人生來平等信條的國家是否能夠長久堅持下去。我們相聚在這場戰爭的一個偉大戰場上，我們來到這里把這戰場的一部分奉獻給那些為國家生存而捐軀的人們，作為他們最后的安息之所。我們這樣做是完全適合的、恰當的。但是，從更高的意義上說，我們是不能奉獻，不能圣化，也不能神化這片土地的，因為那些曾經在這里戰斗過的人們，活著的和死去的人們，已經圣化了這片土地，他們所做的遠非我們的微薄之力所能揚抑。這個世界不大會注意也不會長久記得我們今天在這里所說的話，但是，它永遠不會忘記勇士們在這里所做的事。
毋寧說，我們活著的人，應該獻身于留在我們面前的偉大任務：從這些光榮的死者身上汲取更多的獻身精神，以完成他們精誠所至的事業;我們在此下定最大的決心，以不讓死者白白犧牲;讓這個國家在上帝的保佑下獲得自由的新生;讓這個民有、民治、民享的政府與世長存。
第三篇：林肯葛底斯堡演說中英文對照翻譯
林肯葛底斯堡演說中英文對照翻譯葛底斯堡戰役后，決定為死難烈士舉行盛大葬禮。 林肯的這篇演說是演說史上著名的篇章，其思想的深刻，行文的嚴謹，語言的冼練，確實是不愧彪炳青史的大手筆。尤其是其中的第二段，建議加以仔細分析，其語義的承轉，結構的安排，甚至包括其句式的使用，無一不是極盡推敲之作。GETTYSBURG ADDRESS
Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth upon this continent, a new Nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now, we are engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether that Nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who gave their lives that Nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it far above our power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated to the great task remaining before us; that from these honored dead, we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that this Nation, under GOD, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the People by the People and for the People shall not perish from the earth.
87年前，我們的先輩們在這個大陸上創立了一個新國家，它孕育于自由之中，奉行一切人生來平等的原則?，F在我們正從事一場偉大的內戰，以考驗這個國家，或者任何一個孕育于自由和奉行上述原則的國家是否能夠長久存在下去。我們在這場戰爭中的一個偉大戰場上集會。烈士們為使這個國家能夠生存下去而獻出了自己的生命，我們來到這里，是要把這個戰場的一部分奉獻給他們作為最后安息之所。我們這樣做是完全應該而且是非常恰當的。
但是，從更廣泛的意義上來說，這塊土地我們不能夠奉獻，不能夠圣化，不能夠神化。那些曾在這里戰斗過的勇士們，活著的和去世的，已經把這塊土地圣化了，這遠不是我們微薄的力量所能增減的。我們今天在這里所說的話，全世界不大會注意，也不會長久地記住，但勇士們在這里所做過的事，全世界卻永遠不會忘記。毋寧說，倒是我們這些還活著的人，應該在這里把自己奉獻于勇士們已經如此崇高地向前推進但尚未完成的事業。倒是我們應該在這里把自己奉獻于仍然留在我們面前的偉大任務——我們要從這些光榮的死者身上汲取更多的獻身精神，來完成他們已經完全徹底為之獻身的事業;我們要在這里下定最大的決心，不讓這些死者白白犧牲;我們要使國家在上帝福佑下得到自由的新生，要使這個民有、民治、民享的政府永世長存。
第四篇：OB英文案例翻譯版：林肯電氣公司和黃金定律
OB(組織行為學)全英文案例翻譯，嘔心瀝血之作，無論是案例本身還是這個案例背后透露的管理學信息，都是值得好好一讀的!
林肯電氣公司和黃金定律
“您是不是在想方設法地研究如何提高公司的生產率?”這是《福布斯》在1982年7月份的一篇文章中提出的問題，“那么別去日本取經了，去克利夫蘭吧!”
位于克利夫蘭的這家公司名字叫林肯電氣公司，是世界最大的生產電弧焊接設備的公司。這家公司的工人在全美國是生產效率最高、薪酬最好的，很多工人一年可以掙8萬美元之多。早在19世紀30年代，這家公司就開始形成“利潤分享”的制度，且50年代開始就推行了就業保障政策;這家公司的情況被編寫進哈佛大學商學院的案例教材中;通用汽車的執行官們也曾經造訪這家公司，并研究學習他們在管理上的激勵政策。雖然也面臨鐵銹地帶的一些問題(注：曾經很繁榮、現已衰敗的傳統工業區，人們稱之為“鐵銹地帶”，汽車城底特律是美國東北部傳統工業“鐵銹地帶”的代表)，但是這家公司卻做到了連續54年盈利。
然而很諷刺的是，當林肯電氣公司在《福布斯》雜志上嶄露頭角的時候(“這是一家把工人的利益置于股東利益之上的公司，卻使得資產凈值盈利率達到19%”，雜志編輯詹姆斯認為這簡直是一個奇跡)，這家公司卻陷入美國經濟大蕭條后最糟糕的衰退中。能源行業、農場用品行業、汽車行業„„“所有的客戶群都在同一時間陷入低谷”，林肯電氣公司的總裁Donald Hastings回憶起當時的情況感慨萬千，“這是前所未有的!”公司的本土銷售急劇下滑了40%，1981年到1983年，銷售額從3.7億下滑至最低的2.2億美元。此時此刻，要不要顛覆公司一直以來的傳統，林肯電氣公司面臨一個艱難的抉擇。從1958年起，林肯電氣公司就有一個成文的就業保障政策，這項政策保證所有的工人至少可在公司服務兩年，且每周工作30個小時(注：這個翻譯不確定，會不會是：保證在公司服務兩年以上的員工可以每周工作30個小時?)，現在是不是到了該拋棄這項政策的時候了?
慎重的決定
“是的，我們考慮過這個問題，但是我們最終做了一個慎重的決定，我們決定不解雇我們的員工，即便他們在公司服務不到兩年。”在克利夫蘭辦公室接受采訪的時候，Hastings給出了上述說明。取而代之的是，林肯電氣繼續保持每周至少30個小時的工作制度，但是對一些工作進行了精簡，并對員工進行轉崗，一個原來時薪15美元的研磨設備技工轉崗成化工防護員，每小時可掙8美元;很多工廠生產線上的員工被調到銷售隊伍中，其他能打字的人，則轉型從事公關事務，公司加大了廣告的投入，辦公室被重新粉刷，墻壁煥然一新。
“這次的衰退讓公司一貫的原則面臨前所未有的考驗”，一個在林肯電氣公司服務了27年的員工這樣說。被強行塞到銷售隊伍的員工們被戲稱為“SWAT分隊”(注：SWAT原意特種警察),SWAT代表的是“Salespeople Without Adequate Training”，很多人直接從事電話推銷的工作，其他人則走出公司，走上街頭，公司按每英里18.5美分的標準對其車輛和油料使用進行補貼。
那是一段痛苦的日子，Hastings回憶起當時的情況，遭到轉崗的員工經常會覺得他們丟了飯碗，為此公司也投入了不少精力進行心理輔導。
那么為什么林肯電氣公司不通過裁員哪怕是裁減新進員工的措施來應對危機呢?“我們認為，不裁員的措施會對我們的員工產生好的影響”，Hustings解釋道，而且“這些員工中很多都具備豐富的經驗”。
令人感動的是，即便在蕭條期，公司也照常給工人們發放獎金和津貼。在過去的54年里，林肯電氣公司的員工每年都能獲得可觀的年終獎金，數額視公司的利潤而定，介于工資總額的55%到126%之間?！陡２妓埂返膱蟾娣Q林肯電氣公司的工人(非工會成員)平均年收入為4.4萬美元，去年平均時薪為22美元(含獎金和津貼)，高于行業標準。
1987年，生意開始復蘇，公司在全球收入達到4.5億美元，而且林肯電氣公司仍然保持住世界最大的電弧焊接設備制造商的地位。
但是，“我真不想再次遇到那樣不景氣的情況了”，Hastings如是說。 安全感孕育高效率
1895年，林肯電氣公司由一位公理會(注：這是什么宗教組織，不懂!)牧師的兒子創立，此后在漫長的發展道路上，這家公司就一直充當了與眾不同的角色。1965年，創始人的哥哥詹姆斯.F.林肯在執掌企業51年后去世，去世前他的月薪是200美元(當然，他也可從股票分紅中獲得可觀的收入)。林肯在1961年寫了一本書《工業經濟新路》，書中他將自己的管理哲學做了清晰的闡述，他的理念也很簡單，“詹姆斯.林肯認為，除非工人們相信，提高工作效率能讓他們從工作中解脫出來(注：這句不知道怎么翻譯才好，郁悶)，否則他們不會有提高效率的積極性。因為顯而易見的是，在任何活動中，更高的效率意味著需要更少的工時。”他寫道：“如果更高的生產效率(正如林肯公司的工人們現在所做的那樣)會導致工人們更快地丟失飯碗，那么毫無疑問的是，他們會抗拒任何可能提高生產效率的方案。”這就催生了長期雇傭政策(注：這個名詞也翻譯得比較蹩腳，應該是類似日本企業的終身雇傭制度吧)在這家公司的產生。
林肯同時還相信，工人們的才能還有巨大的挖掘空間，所以他允許工人們組建自己的車間，按件計酬，并且在年終的時候將公司利潤與他們分享。這樣產生的結果是，在全美國同行業里，林肯電氣公司的工人們薪酬最高，這半分不假，二戰期間，美國政府還因為林肯公司提供過高的薪水而起訴他們。通過獎金和股票期權，很多人在克利夫蘭退休后成為了大富豪，也有了各種各樣的傳奇故事。董事長助理Richard.S.Sabo告訴我們，一位工廠的工人最近買了一艘價值13.2萬美元的游艇，還有另一個家伙在收集老爺車，而這樣的例子還有很多。
與競爭對手打價格戰
當然，所有的一切都是為了更廣闊的商業目的。林肯公司可以給他們的工人支付更高的薪酬，是因為他們效率更高——達到美國電器機械行業工人平均水平的二到三倍，這最終轉換成更低的產品價格，從而提升了銷量和公司的市場份額。
“當我剛起步的時候，GE是我們的最大競爭對手”，Hustings回憶道，“現在他們這個業務已經倒閉了，在價格上他們無法和我們抗衡。”在美國市場上，日本或者其他地區的競爭者也同樣無法給林肯公司帶來像樣的威脅。林肯公司認為，打敗外國競爭者的武器，不是低勞動成本，也不是壁壘保護政策，而是自己公司的高生產效率。
“這是一家非比尋常的公司”，總部位于紐約White Plains的非盈利機構，美國工作政策研究所的副主席Robert Zager這么說，“我見過很多公司，但這家更像是嚴守加爾文主義的公司(注：加爾文主義很深奧，不懂，屬于非主流的宗教派系),他們不停地工作，氣氛非常嚴峻，但卻很單純，而且生產效率非常之高。”的確如此，公司的董事長Hasting也承認，“無論是在經濟蕭條的時候還是形勢大好的時候，我們工作起來都是一個樣”。
踐行黃金定律
林肯電氣公司也是一家不忌諱公開討論自己道德戒律的公司。詹姆斯.林肯的父親，一位牧師，也曾經是一個熱忱的廢除主義者，他寫道“基督徒所宣稱的‘己所不欲勿施于人’就是人與人之間會產生的所有問題的答案”(注：這段我糾結了很久，哪個高手出來說一下該如何翻譯才好?)，他努力尋求將這種理念擴展到企業經營中，他說：“也許妨礙全美國人潛能發展的最大障礙就是工業家們對工人潛藏的無限可能缺乏理解和信任。”
“我們的管理哲學是基于黃金定律的”，Hastings承認，“對于在外面闖蕩的人，我們真的心存關懷，我們認為對于自己的雇員必須負起責任。”
這家公司認為使人們變得虛弱的不是高負荷的工作，而是無所事事的閑適。經理Sabo在23年前剛進公司的時候在生產車間工作，他回憶：“我父親是煤礦工人，當煤礦被關閉的時候，他的變化如此巨大，讓人難以相信”。林肯公司的工人目前平均每周工作55小時，很大部分都是強制的加班。
“裁員當然是一個道德問題”，Hastings這樣說。其他公司可能會鼓吹建立一個“精簡”的組織架構，堅持認為要提高生產率就必須裁員，但是仍然有很多公司不喜歡這么做。林肯公司會解雇那些偷竊設備或者修改考勤記錄的員工，但是不會因為某些人工作上的不足而炒他的魷魚。
精簡工作，而不是人員。
“整個體系的運作都是基于信任”，Sabo指出，“近30年來我們還沒有解雇過任何人，但是另一方面我們會要求他們對我們做到有求必應。我們在工作上會考慮進行精簡，但是人員上則不會。”
回憶起蕭條期的日子，Sabo說：“我們會請工廠工人們刷洗墻壁，如果在生產線的人有大學文憑或者懂得打字，我們就讓他們做宣傳發布工作，我們在廣告投入上花了更多的錢。在業務量大幅削減的時候，我們的很多做法跟別人的大相徑庭，我們對經銷商進行培訓，以便他們更好地銷售我們的產品。”
公司從生產線上選擇了55個志愿者，然后重新分配到銷售部門，去銷售一款公司新研發的產品。“由此我們產生了額外的1000萬美元銷售額，而且我們之前都不知道有這樣的顧客群存在。”Sabo繼續回憶，“我們讓這55個人們持續為公司創造利潤，并且可能還有另外55個人在支撐他們”。實際上，“其中有9個人工作得非常出色，以至于我們后來為他們提供定期的銷售培訓”。
公司致力于創造平等的氣氛，餐廳簡單樸素，沒有精美的裝飾，工人或者經理都在這里用餐，公司總裁和生產線的工人們肩并肩坐在一起吃飯;采購代表則在開闊的總部大樓頂層與供貨商會晤;所有的崗位空缺都會在全公司進行公示，高級經理在內部選聘;在93年的公司歷史，林肯電氣公司只更替了四位董事長。
宣傳自己
根據Sabo的說法，公司在19世紀80年代初期的時候曾經“因為失去最大的供應商而感到震驚”，一家當地的鋼鐵制造商破產了，而這家鋼鐵制造商為林肯公司“大約90%的產品”提供高規格的鋼材，盡管林肯公司此前對其承諾將在10年里采購這家公司25%的鋼鐵產量，但這家鋼鐵公司還是沒挺住。“這瞬間把我們拉回到現實”，林肯公司意識到，“如果產品找不到買家或者生產原料找不到供應商，對林肯公司都是沒有好處的”。
實際上，林肯公司決定把美國工業復蘇作為他們全局使命的一部分，所以在過去的五年里，林肯公司每年舉行一次管理研討會，以介紹他們的激勵管理體系。雖然林肯相信公司可以在本土市場上與外來的同行競爭，但他還是讓美國成為了電弧焊接設備的純出口國。他們的客戶John Deere和Caterpillar已經度過了蕭條期，“我們希望其他的生意也能一起興旺起來”，Sabo如是說。
在過去五年里，有超過3000個企業的執行官們拜訪了林肯電氣公司，包括十來個來自GM的經理。據報道，GM正在他們新的Saturn(注：土星，是通用汽車旗下的一個品牌)工廠注入激勵管理的概念，嘗試這種理念的還有福特、聯合碳化物公司、麥當勞、道格拉斯電器、John Deere收割機、3M以及其他的公司。
Sabo注意到，雖然林肯公司最早建立了激勵管理體系，但其他公司也有了類似的體系，他舉例說：比如Nucor和Motorola。這些公司與林肯公司在管理體系中一個很大的區別是計件工作制，很少人愿意按照計件制度工作，在某些人腦袋里，這種制度只存在于血汗工廠里。然而林肯公司的2400個工人中，有1300人是采用計件制度的，而且計件工資的細分等級達到了7萬個。
未充分利用的能力
林肯公司的生產設備遠非最先進、最高級的，但是公司正是利用這些設備產生了非比尋常的高生產率，很多生產設備都曾被修理過或者由生產線上的工人們重新組裝過。“我們不是世界上現代化程度最高的工廠”，Sabo承認，“我們能運營得如此之好，全靠我們的員工。”
詹姆斯.F.林肯相信，“我們每個人都有未被充分利用的潛能”，他也曾嘗試提高生產車間工人的才能。公司鼓勵工人組建他們自己的工作場所，并告訴他們“這是你們的工作場所，我只告訴他們要搭建的是什么，標準有哪些，然后我們就讓他們放手去干，”Sabo這樣說。如果一個工人可以設計出更好的工具來完成他的工作，或者找到一個更高效的方法來堆積墊圈(注：翻譯不一定準確，意思應該是一道工作中的工序)，那么公司將直接提高他的計件工資標準，從而使這個工人獲益良多。
員工獎勵方案
獎金占了工人收入的很大一部分，每個員工每半年將會得到一個績效等級，這個績效等級的評定基于四個因素：創意和合作、工作產量、可靠性以及產品質量。如果一個工人提出了一個合理化建議，假設可以為公司節約1萬美元，那么這將在他的績效等級中得到體現。每年年底，員工會有一個全年的績效等級，這個績效等級的分值通常介于80-120之間。
那么年終獎金怎么計算呢?比如說員工一年的工資，包括計件工資和加班工資為30000美元，將其與績效等級(假設該員工的績效等級為105)相乘再除以100(31500美元)，這個結果再乘上獎金系數。獎金系數是基于公司的利潤設定的，每年各不相同，從1965年最高的126%到最低的55%不等(去年為71%)，這幾十年該系數的平均值在90%。假設獎金系數為71%，這就意味著獎金數額為22365美元。由此可算得，該員工全年包含薪資和獎金的總收入為52365美元。
(績效系統關注“持續上升的工作產出、源源不斷的創意和合作，不斷提高的可靠性和產品質量。)
圣誕節放假
無論時局好壞，林肯公司的人員流失率和事故率總是異常低，缺勤率在1.5%以下。“實際上，缺勤已經成為了工人們不愿承受的負擔”，Sabo說，“工人病假時沒有工資，如果一個工人請了病假，那么他的工作將由上一個班次和下一個班次的同事來幫忙彌補，如果你是真的生病了，那么大家愿意幫你。”Sabo繼續說明，“但是如果是工作移交，那么別人就不樂意了”(注：這句不知道怎么翻譯，handover怎么理解?)。公司沒有帶薪假期，“如果你什么都沒做卻能獲得報酬，那么激勵機制怎么發揮作用呢”?但是整個工廠在每年的圣誕節和八月份關閉休息兩周，在那個時候工人們就可以享受假期。
新員工加入公司的時候，在最初的60到90天里，大約有25%到30%的人會離開，因為他們受不了高強度的工作。“要么是他們不喜歡這里，要么是我們不喜歡他們。”Hastings指出，但是如果他們堅持下來了，就很可能在這家公司長時間工作下去。公司的人員流失率非常低，每年是2.5%，這還不包括正常的人員退休;員工在公司工作的平均年限為18年。雖然計件工作制很普遍，但車間仍很好地保持了較高的安全標準，事實也是如此，公司的事故率非常低，以至于“現在我們完全是進行自我控制”，Sabo說。他堅持這樣的觀點，在林肯公司的體系里，“我們沒有任何激勵措施會為了提高工人的收入而增加他們受傷的風險。”
林肯電氣公司還有一個很有意思的伸冤流程，公司的2400個雇員中，任何一個人都可以就自己關心的事情與公司董事長或總裁見面，“董事長曾經說‘如果你受到了不公平的待遇，你都可以來找我’”，Sabo說。
“有冤屈的員工可以向員工咨詢委員會尋求幫助”，Hastings說，“因為有些員工不敢直接到我這里來。”盡管這樣，“我每周還是會有六到八個訪客”，大部分人抱怨的是他們的績效等級。“我們實行的是開放的政策，我們從不設置障礙或對員工的意見進行篩選過濾，當然與我見面還是要經過秘書的安排”。會面過程并不對外公開，“沒有人曾經見過這種會面是什么樣的”。關于道德規范，公司從來沒有將其書面化，Hastings補充說，因為早在這個世紀初，道德準則就已經被固化在實際工作中。
“也常有困擾”
公司的這種管理體系也有不好的一面，“你報酬豐厚，但是也付出了代價。”一個前生產線工人這樣說，他后來轉崗從事銷售工作。在每周55個小時的高強度工作后，“你不會喜歡去除草、讀書或者做其他的事情”。
同時，“你也常有困擾”，Sabo承認道，“因為有可能為了其他選擇，你不得不面對收入減少的代價”。 Sabo在23年前進入林肯電氣公司當了一個車床工人，在那之前的十年里，他干過學校老師、足球教練、保險服務代表等工作。當他在公司拿到第一份獎金時，他發現一年的總收入超過了以前任何時候的2.5倍。當他續簽勞動合同的時候，人們對他說他很可能一輩子就在生產線上工作樂。
“我當時把我的眼光定位在副班長這個職位上，我覺得五年內我能勝任那個工作”。
有一天，他看到一個關于市場崗位的招聘公告，他報名參加了，并且成為了最后的三個候選人。在面試時，他被問到：“你確定想要這個工作嗎?”他很快明白了為什么他們這么問，因為這個崗位的收入與之前相比每年減少2600美元。
沒有工會的公司
林肯公司一直都沒有組建工會，而且也從來沒有人去認真嘗試過這個事情。從1914年開始，員工咨詢委員會就定期與公司高層管理人員進行會晤，這幾十年來各種各樣的行動都由這個委員會發起，包括在1934年引入獎金管理制度，調查CEO的薪資水平(后來的結論是應該付給CEO更多的薪酬)，分析“為什么競爭對手A的價格比我們低了10%”等等，Sabo如數家珍。
當問起工會的事情時，Hastings的回答可以代表詹姆斯.F.林肯的觀點，林肯曾經把集體的討價還價形容成“內戰”，“這個國家的工會源自混亂的管理，源自于剝削人的管理”，Hastings說，“我們卻一直嘗試把人們看成是個體”。
對于那些想引進類似的激勵管理流程的公司，林肯公司的建議是：“你必須問你自己‘這么做的動機是什么’?如果是為了賺更多的錢，那么還是不要灘這股渾水了，但是如果想把員工當做獨立的個人來好好對待，那么一五一十地照抄我們的做法就行了。”
草譯于2010-10-10
第五篇：林肯總統的就職演講
First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln
MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861
Fellow-Citizens of the United States:
In compliance with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President before he enters on the execution of this office."
I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement.
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that--
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause--as cheerfully to one section as to another.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution--to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?
Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?
I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional. It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as acontract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak--but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and Ishall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.
The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.
That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?
Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?
All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.
From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.
Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession?
Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.
I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.
One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive- slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.
Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor.
Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.
By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.
My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new Administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.
In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.
【中文譯文】：
永久聯邦與總統權力
亞伯拉罕-林肯
第一次就職演講
星期一,1861年3月4日
我今天正式宣誓時，并沒有保留意見，也無意以任何苛刻的標準來解釋憲法和法律，盡管我不想具體指明國會通過的哪些法案是適合施行的•但我確實要建議，所有的人，不論處于官方還是私人的地位，都得遵守那些未被廢止的法令，這比泰然自若地認為其中某個法案是違背憲法的而去觸犯它，要穩當得多。
自從第一任總統根據我國憲法就職以來已經72年了。在此期間，有15位十分杰出的公民相繼主持了政府的行政部門。他們在許多艱難險阻中履行職責，大致說來都很成功。然而，雖有這樣的先例，我現在開始擔任這個按憲法規定任期只有短暫4年的同一職務時，卻處在巨大而特殊的困難之下。聯邦的分裂，在此以前只是一種威脅，現在卻已成為可怕的行動。
從一般法律和憲法角度來考慮，我認為由各州組成的聯邦是永久性的。在合國政府的根本法中，永久性即使沒有明確規定，也是不盲而喻的。我們有把握說，從來沒有哪個正規政府在自己的組織法中列入一項要結束自己執政的條款。繼續執行我國憲法明文規定的條款，聯邦就將永遠存在，毀滅聯邦是辦不到的，除非采取憲法本身未予規定的某種行動。再者：假如合眾國不是名副其實的政府，而只是具有契約性質的各州的聯盟，那么，作為一種契約，這個聯盟能夠毫無爭議地由緯約各方中的少數加以取消嗎?締約的一方可以違約——也可以說毀約——但是，合法地廢止契約難道不需要締約各方全都同意嗎?從這些一般原則在下推，我們認為，從法律上來說，聯邦是永久性的這一主張已經為聯邦本身的歷史所證實。聯邦的歷史比憲法長久得多。事實上，它在1774年就根據《聯合條款》組成了。 1776年，《獨立宣言》使它臻子成熟并持續下來。1778年《邦聯條款》使聯邦愈趨成熟，當時的13個州都信誓旦旦地明確保證聯邦應該永存，最后，1787年制定憲法時所宣市的日標之一就是“建設更完善的聯邦”。
但是，如果聯邦竟能由一個州或幾個州按照法律加以取消的話，那么聯邦就不如制憲前完善了，因為它喪失了永久性這個重要因素。
根據這些觀點，任何一個州都不能只憑自己的動儀就能合法地脫離聯邦;凡為此目的而作出的決議和法令在法律上都是無效的，任何一個州或幾個州反對合眾國當局的暴力行動都應根據憎況視為叛亂或革命。因此，我認為，根據憲法和法律，聯邦是不容分裂的;我將按憲法本身明確授予我的權限，就自己能力所及，使聯邦法律得以在各州忠實執行。我認為這僅僅是我份內的職責，我將以可行的方法去完成，除非我的合法主人——美國人民，不給予我必要的手段，或以權威的方式作出相反的指示，我相信大家下會把這看作是一種威脅，而只看作是聯邦已宣布過的目標：它將按照憲法保衛和維護它自身。
以自然條件而言，我們是不能分開的，我們無法把各個地區彼此挪開，也無法在彼此之間筑起一堵無法逾越的墻垣。夫妻可以離婚，不再見面，互不接觸，但是我們國家的各個地區就不可能那樣做。它們仍得面對面地相處，它們之間還得有或者友好或者敵對的交往。那么，分開之后的交往是否可能比分開之前更有好處，更令人滿意呢?外人之間訂立條約難道還比朋友之間制定法律容易嗎?外人之間執行條約難道還比朋友之間執行法律忠實嗎?假定你們進行戰爭•你們不可能永遠打下去;在雙方損失慘重，任何一方都得不到好處之后，你們就會停止戰斗，那時你們還會遇到諸如交往條件之類的老問題。
總統的一切權力來自人民，但人民沒有授權給他為各州的分離規定條件。如果人民有此意愿，那他們可以這樣做，而作為總統來說，則不可能這樣做。他的責任是管理交給他的這一屆政府，井將它完整地移交給他的繼任者。
為什么我們不能對人民所具有的最高的公正抱有堅韌的信念呢?世界上還有比這更好或一樣好的希望嗎?在我何日前的分歧中，難道雙方都缺乏相信自己正確的信心嗎?如果萬國全能的主宰以其永恒的真理和正義支持你北方這一邊，或者支持你南方這一邊，那么，那種真理和那種正義必將通過美國人民這個偉大法庭的裁決而取得勝利。
就是這些美國人民，通過我們現有的政府結構，明智地只給他們的公仆很小的權力，使他們不能力害作惡，并且同樣明智地每隔很短的時間就把那小小的權力收回到自己手中。只要人民保持其力量和警惕，無論怎樣作惡和愚蠢的執政人員都不能在短短4年的任期內十分嚴重地損害政府。我的同胞們，大家平靜而認真地思考整個這一問題吧。任何寶貴的東西都下會因為從容對待而喪失，假使有一個目標火急地催促你們中隨便哪一位采取一個措施，而你決不能不慌不忙，那么那個目標會因從容對待而落空;但是，任何好的目標是不會因為從容對待而落空的，你們現在感到不滿意的人仍然有著原來的、完好元損的憲法，而且，在敏感問題上，你們有著自己根據這部憲法制定的各項法律;而新的一屆政府即使想改變這兩種情況，也沒有直接的權力那樣做。那些不滿意的人在這場爭論中即使被承認是站在正確的一邊，也沒有一點正當理由采取魯莽的行動。理智、愛國精神、基行教義以及對從不拋棄這片幸福土地的上帝的信仰，這些仍然能以最好的方式來解決我們目前的一切困難。不滿意的同胞們，內戰這個重大問題的關鍵掌握在你們手中，而不掌握在我手中，政府不會對你們發動攻擊。你們不當挑釁者，就下會面臨沖突。你們沒有對天發誓要毀滅政府，而我卻要立下最莊嚴的誓言：“堅守、維護和捍衛合眾國憲法。”我不愿意就此結束演說。我們不是敵人，而是朋友。我們一定不要成為敵人。盡管情緒緊張，也決不應割斷我們之間的感情紐帶。記憶的神秘琴弦，從每一個戰場和愛國志上的墳墓伸向這片廣闊土地上的每一顆跳動的心和家庭，必將再度被我們善良的夭性所撥響，那時就會高奏起聯邦大團結的樂章。