Deleted
I guess I could say “the shoes on the other foot now”…but I won’t…alot of those jobs that your loosing or lost down south were jobs that workers up here were employed in and the company decided to move south because of better working conditions, lower over head, a more business friendly climate and the usual tax breaks that’s states use an an incentive. Hence the name, the northern “rust belt”.
"Look what’s happening right now in California. Businesses are leaving that state in droves because of it’s business un-friendly attitude. The world’s leading maker of microprocessors plans to create 7,000 jobs in new and expanded plants that will churn out computer chips 30% more powerful than the current generation of chips.
But California-based Intel won’t make them in California.
Instead, the company is expanding in Oregon, Arizona and New Mexico. Anywhere but California, which is now so unfriendly to business, even its home-grown firms don’t want to expand there.
As Intel shows, businesses are struggling to stay and grow in California. In the first 10 months of last year, the state lost 25,000 high-quality manufacturing jobs — and has lost 25% of its industrial work force since 2001, according to the California Manufacturers & Technology Association.
Well-trained, well-educated Californians are leaving in droves — and are being replaced by poor immigrants from Latin America and Asia. Since 2005, there’s been a net outflow of middle-class Californians — and 260,000 people left for other states in 2007.
According to the Milken Institute’s Business Cost Index, California businesses face overall costs that are 23% higher than other states on average.
Taxes are 21% higher, and industrial and commercial space costs more. Even wages in a state that has millions of low-paid illegal immigrants are on average 15% higher than other states’ wages."
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=319938451301950
Maybe we should step back and take a look at why these companies want to move to other, more business friendly locations. Intels move could have just as well have been overseas…
TonyWalsham said:There ya go pointing that finger again, Tony.
Steve only hears what his biases want him to hear. ;)
Ken Brunt said:You are quite right Ken. Some of the jobs indeed were once up north. But many of the jobs originated in the South. Many of the textile plants that have closed in recent years had been in business for well over a hundred years. And Steve, the next time you have to make a phone call about some problem and can't understand the foreigner on the other end..........are you going to blame this on the "greedy union bosses" too? If not for the political clout the Unions once had, my 1981 Chevy truck probably would have been made in China. Ralph
I guess I could say "the shoes on the other foot now"......but I won't......alot of those jobs that your loosing or lost down south were jobs that workers up here were employed in and the company decided to move south because of better working conditions, lower over head, a more business friendly climate and the usual tax breaks that's states use an an incentive. Hence the name, the northern "rust belt".
Not in '81, Ralph.
Who knows, Steve.
You are probably right though. In 81 the Chinese factories were way behind.
But that Chevy could have been Japanese instead.
Ralph
How long since Ford made an F-100 series truck in the United States? In fact, when was the last time that an American car was totally made in the US of A from parts totally made in the USA (probably an '81 Chevvy)? Globalisation combined with multi-capitalism. There are no border boudaries or country allegiances. The bottom line is cost of production!
Boeing fly aircraft parts from all over the world to build (assemble) aircraft in Seattle. How many iconic American companies are still owned by Americans? Business has no racial biasses. The only driving force is to keep the costs down, at all costs. CEO’s and chairmen of the board of companies are only elected for a defined period, say 12 months. In that time they run a business to maximise profits and dividends to both increase return to shareholders and inflate the value of their bonuses. No thought is given long term profitability or even survival. It is all in the now, the present!
Tim Brien said:You are correct. If Hartland can make a reasonable quality train with a reasonable price, why can't Bachman, USA and Aristo? It is bad enough our "toys" are made overseas, but the US can no longer even clothe its citizens. The most basic of our needs are imported. Ralph
No thought is given long term profitability or even survival. It is all in the now, the present!
mike omalley said:
GM's labor costs are ALWAYS explained to us in terms of factory workers making too much. Have you ever seen a breakdown of the labor costs of GM's management? I never have. What does the average salaried employee make? Is anyone calling for management to take a pay cut, and arguing that the salaries of management are too high?No, we blame the Unions, and talk about how outrageous it is that workers make a decent wage. What are the costs–including retirement and health–for their management? It’s management that made the decisions that got the company in trouble.
I could be completely wrong–maybe GM has very few managers, and they make very little. Maybe salaried workers are a tiny percentage of the overall labor costs. I’d just like to see it, and it’s never part of the discussion. Instead, the “problem” is that ordinary guys make a good living.
It does not bother me if the guy collecting the trash makes more than me. It’s a dirty hard job and I get, I suspect, a lot of satisfactions from my job that he doesn’t.
I know it sounds bad, but WE Americans voted already, look at the street and count the foreign cars. The American car industry is sick for a long time and the union, or incapable management is at fault, there is no one else to blame. It is time that we let this old thing die wit dignity.
Regards PJ
US Federal business taxes are near the top compared to the rest of the world, add to this the various state business taxes and it is easy to understand why some companies are escaping to other locations. (Some are returning to the states due to high transportation costs, low productivity and poor on-time delivery.)
I find it ironic that we blame the CEO’s wages for business’s problems, but think nothing of cheering when our favorite sports team contracts with a guy than can hit a baseball 25% of the time for as much or much more money.
To pay an UAW $280,000.00/ year, when a Registered Nurse with a 4 year degree is making $50,000 is ridiculous. I worked for steelmill under the USofA/CIO, they held the plant ransom back in the 60’s (?) until they agreed to pay 13 weeks paid vacation time for workers. How nuts is that?
Unions produce nothing, contribute nothing, have no product. If we weren’t a nation of wusses, we would do our own negotiating. But that is what we have been conditioned to accept.
I remodeled and built an addition on a home in my area for the daughter of the owner of United Parcel Service soon after the strike ended back in 2002 (?). They were very nice folks and we talked about all sorts of things during my months of working there.
I asked about the union demands of UPS, and what was the resolution. Publicly the news reported the “workers” (as if management does not work) wanted fewer part-timeers, since they did not receive full-time benefits and some other minor issue.
What the Teamsters Union actually wanted was full control of the $1.2Billion dollar, fully funded, pension plan UPS had set aside for it’s retirees. They may as well had a gun to the owner’s head, because they robbed them just the same.
Unions are a form of socialism, and I accept them, but have no use for them. All publicly funded contracts need to be open to union and non-union shops equally, with any requirement of prevailing wages.
It’s really fascinating that to me that Unions are regarded as somehow immoral because they bargain collectively, when on the other end, the company that signs their paychecks, but a corporation–a disembodied immortal being made up of thousands of shareholders.
And a union is–a disembodied immortal being made up of thousands of members. I’m not sure why you think there is a huge difference?
The Coca Cola corp. is a collective bargaining entity–it signs your paychecks, not a person; it buys and sells land, not a person; it makes contracts, not a person. It hires persons to act as its agents. But you can’t shake the hand of the Coco cola corporation, or look it in the eye; the shareholders of the coca cola corporation elect managers to represent it, just as the members of a union elect managers to represent them. The Coca Cola corporation bargains collectively just as unions do. Explain to me why one is ok and the other is not?
My 2 cents worth…
Unions, back in their begining were good for the worker, as they had no workers rights, or unified form in which to fight for their rights with a company… Companies back then, were run by ““Barons””, whose only thought was greed… Get all the money and spend as little on making the product… Cheap labor, big profits…
The trouble with unions now, is they are so Huge, they are like the federal government… The UAW made absolutely no points, when it blantently stated that, altho the auto companies were seeking help with finanaces from the federal governemt, at taxpayers expense, the unions were not going to concede on any agreements with the auto companies to help secure their peoples jobs…
Unions have fought for their employees so well, that in fact, the companies have gone bankrupt and closed… So much for helping out thier employees…
Heck, there was even talk about the UAW buying out the automakers, they have so much money from thier union members… If they could do that, why couldn’t they help ““bail out”” the automakers???
I’m not against unions, per say, some are still functioning to benefit the worker, without trying to kill off the company… Like everything in life, there are good and bad… Unions, factory owners, etc, etc…
What does bother me, is the theme ““Land of the free”” for the country… It works well, until you try for a job at a company, with a union involved, then it’s ““no union, no work””…
Hire a non-union company/business, to perform a job for you, maybe, because it might have been bid lower, and voila, you got demonstrators at your entrances, protesting that you decided to no go with a union business…
If a person wants to go union, then so be it, but if a Person wants to go non-union, why should they be hassled???
that ought to stir some things up…
Andy,
Many states, such as North Carolina, are “right to work” states. You can’t be “forced” to join the Union.
This is how it should be.
As for the UAW…they have been “giving back” for years now. The fact of the matter is that the Big 3 wages and benefits are already competitive with the American plants for Toyota and the rest. After this latest round of givebacks…they will probably be making less than the workers at Toyota and Honda.
The problem they do have is pension and health insurance costs for retirees. The foreign automakers with plants here in the states don’t have this burden. Their plants have not been here long enough for this to become a problem.
As for the “greedy barons”, we have now come full circle. Today they just send the jobs to China.
Ralph
Australia lead the world in working condition reform, which most people today, across the world, enjoy the benefits of. For those who blast unions and their actions, then fight for your own rights. Go back to working 12-16 hours a day, six days a week. No shift penalties, no holiday pay, no superannuation, pension and healthcare benefits, dangerous working conditions, unhealthy work conditions. How many coal workers, steel worker and asbestos miners died as a result of their working conditions. Their bosses did not stand up for their rights! So, if you despise unions, then fight for your own benefits and see exactly how far you get as a lone individual. Before you begin the struggle though, go back to the archaic work conditions that existed prior union intervention. Exactly what has driven government conscience as regards minimum wages and safe working conditions that exist today. The management opposes every rise in the minimum wage for workers and resists implementing changes to the workplace to make conditions safer. It takes government law to force management to improve work conditions. Who initiated wage and working condition reform - it was not management?
We find it unbelievable when we hear of the working conditions of developing countries. Well, without unions, that would be us!!!
Deleted
TonyWalsham said:
........and precisely why management sources the production, and therefore the jobs, off shore.If it isn’t the workers being exploited, it is the environment.
Tony,
Are you talking about Aussie politics, or US politics.
Just askin’
Deleted
The Capitalist system may not be the best but its the best the world has ever known.
Now. I work for a set amount of money. I know that if I work harder and do better I will make more money. I kow that in my job if I find a way to save more then once again I get more. This is me, I do it for myself. I bargen for me. Now I work for a small place and can do this. Someone like GM sorry can work it all out with al the workers one on one. So yes a union is a good thing to help the workers. What I dis like about it is that there are NOT ALL some workers that don’t pull there own and still get the pay. Hummmm
So Union member A gets paid 50 a hour and works said buttt off. Union member B does very little and gets 50 a hour. Managers cant fire member B cause its not in contract to do so. So what do you think happends over time?
I still belive the unions can and do do good but they could do better for there members as well as for the indistrys as a whole. Also keep this in mind. The CEO’s are picked by the Board and the Board sets the pay. Take a look at how much stock unions hold in these business. Ya thats right. Unions hold a lot of stock and there for hold seats on the boards.
Case in point. AB just got bought by Inbev. I personaly did not like this. The Union could have stopped this from going thought because it holds or did hold a large chunk of AB stock. Hummmm could it be a case of Show me the money? yes.
So IMO the unions hold as much blame as the CEO’s. Maybe even a little more seeing that the unions get to help pick the CEO’s.
I’m guessing some of you need to check your pension funds. You have stock you get a say.
last thing.
NO CEO in my books is worth 100 million a year.
NO sports person is worth 10 million a year.
and NO elected person in DC is worth what they get.
There is a distinct ‘anti-union’ bias on this site. A union is little more than a co-operative of like minded people who band together to get the best deal for their product (their skill and their labour). We do not hear of anyone lamblasting farmers co-ops do we? What is a farmers co-op? Looks suspiciously like a UNION to me. Farmers banding together to get the best price for their produce - sounds very much like a UNION to me. Anyone likely to verbally lamblast a farmer, the fruit of the earth? Far too easier and more PATRIOTIC to bash the working class. Being working class they are more likely to vote Democrat and thus must be socialists. I bet there are no socialist farmers, are there?
Deleted