COMMENTS:
Some unions are nothing more than money-grubbing political engines for sale to the highest bidder. This one, at sounding, seems to be looking out for the best interests of its constituents, while the company, evil rat bastiches that they are, are out to line their pockets. Like the man said in "The Ice Pirates", "May they all end in thirst."
I need to know more facts, details, to be honest. However, this is the nature of business and Im sure most here, if presented with this conflict, would have did the same as both of these groups did.
The employees if they voted in favour of this.
by ABC on Fri Jun 10, 05 4:31pm
[+]
This is always the threat of the big companies. Even more so now with globalization. It is a convenient excuse to not pay the average worker well while paying the CEO and other top execs more and more compensation. In the 60s, for every 1$ the average worker earned, the CEO got $162. Now it is $1 to well over a thousand. Who is to blame? The money grubbing greedy CEO and his cronies.
Immigration: The company wouldn't have moved if there were no illegal Mexicans to work for cheap wages down there.
It seems that the workers got fair warning.
Truth: both groups were out to line their pockets, the company just did a better job of it.
hard to say without knowing all the details.
A matter of perspective, again, Larry. Your answer will generally reflect your position on the food chain. Owners blame the unions, and unions blame the owners. Actual fault: Both. Owners for greed, and unions for greed.
there you go Larry - you commented on another ballot that you didn't know much about Ronnie Reagan - well Ronnie made greed a virtue.
As for who was at fault, it's hard to say - were the union's demands reasonable - what was the company's idea of a "compromise"?
One thing seems clear - the workers got screwed.
|
