WAS IT THE UNIONS FAULT OR THE COMPANY?

user ballots

choices :

WAS IT THE UNIONS FAULT OR THE COMPANY?


[+] ballot by larrynelmira
created Fri Jun 10, 05

we had a very large food plant in our area, employed over 3000 people.

The union asked for more money and benifits for their members, but the food plant said no and if the union and it's members did not compromise they would simply move to area where the people would work for lower wages and benifts.

An area in Alabama offered to give tax breaks if the company would move there, the union did not compromise and the company moved, leaving 3000 people without of a job.

Who was wrong in this situation?

the union
the food plant
alabama
the employees
The Bush Administration
Everyone


Ballot #74979 : SEE RESULTS

Comment:

show your vote with comment?

v 2.0 © BESTANDWORST.COM
smile bank:









similiar ballots:
77963. 4 major unions are boycotting the AFL-CIO meeting. Does this signify the beginning of the end for the grossly corrupt labor unions in the U.S.A?
56684. Why doesnt fault ever fall on the one in charge anymore? The head of our Govnt is NEVR at fault!
68902. Phone company VS Cable company
102980. NLRB ruling to undermine unions?
55854. Civil Unions for ALL Legally Recognized Couples?
117244. Hey, it’s not my fault
82340. Unions aren't the backbone of American Industry but rather they are creatures of the Public Sector?
14329. Whose fault would this accident be?
2481. Whose fault is it that Bush is president?
125587. Who Is At Fault In The Forclosure Crisis?


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."
by Truthseeker013 on Fri Jun 10, 05 4:02pm [+]

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.
by CletuSlackedJawYokel on Fri Jun 10, 05 4:05pm [+]

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.
by FiddleFaddleOnLSD on Fri Jun 10, 05 4:56pm [+]

Immigration: The company wouldn't have moved if there were no illegal Mexicans to work for cheap wages down there.
by Grapost on Fri Jun 10, 05 6:41pm [+]

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.
by herzog on Fri Jun 10, 05 9:15pm [+]

hard to say without knowing all the details.
by JohnnyReb on Fri Jun 10, 05 10:18pm [+]

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.
by xxxxxxxx on Fri Jun 10, 05 10:29pm [+]

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.
by lightreaper on Sat Jun 11, 05 8:34pm [+]






About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy | Contact
© 2002-2008 BestAndWorst.com All Rights Reserved