21 Aug 2015, 2:34 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Humanaut wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Were it up to me, if a community's well being depended on a major corporate employer, then that employer should not be allowed to leave by force of law.
Spoken like a true totalitarian.
No, I just happen to know that the elites of capitalism leave whole communities devastated when they pull up stakes - and not just their former workers now left jobless, but every small business that had depended on those workers as customers are also wiped out. What about them? Am I a terrible person because I consider the welfare of whole towns, cities, and regions to be more important than the profit margin of some soulless corporate entity? Seriously, you people on the right hold property rights above human rights, especially if that property is owned by the wealthy.
Nope.
That attitude is the essence of totalitarianism.
It's not à la carte; you either embrace freedom or you don't. The freedom that allows same sex marriage is the same freedom that allows private companies to move wherever and whenever the situation warrants it or just for s**ts and grins. And yes, I know you're reading this. You can't help it.
(Sigh) If you reread my previous post, you will see I wrote "If it were up to me," making it clear that that's just my opinion, but that it probably will never happen (as who in their right mind is going to follow my advice?
). But just because a company has the freedom to pack up and leave, devastating the community that had been so dependent on them is legally right, but that hardly means that it's morally right. As already pointed out, a great many American companies don't even pay taxes, and make more money than any other of their counterparts worldwide, it's obvious that their desertion of the American labor force for the third world is entirely a matter of greed. If the right has such a hard on for cleaning up immorality (what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms, women wearing thong bikinis in public, abortion, etc) why aren't they doing something about corporate greed? Oh, yeah, because they think selfishness is a virtue - silly me for even bring up that point!
The way they make it sound you almost feel sorry for these billionare corporations...you know the poor little things, despretely having to flee to china and abandon ship because all the ingrates depending on them for an actual wage in the U.S aren't satisfied with the left over scraps and would prefer a living wage...I mean clearly if they don't move to china they'll go entirely broke...I mean these corporate people up at the top of financial food chain are such a persecuted class. I mean I almost want to shed tears at the injustice of these corporations having to pay taxes in the country they live in....clearly they should have no civic responsibilities, its just not fair. lo
Poor babies! And to think, me a heartless liberal believing they should part with just a little more money so their employees can actually live comfortably.
The rot extends into government and the unions also. To say that the evil corporations are doing what they can to screw us over and the government and unions are protecting us is hogwash. All those so-and-sos are screwing us over and they're all in cahoots.
AceCadet
Snowy Owl
Joined: 19 Aug 2015
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 137
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
21 Aug 2015, 2:38 pm
21 Aug 2015, 5:03 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Poor babies! And to think, me a heartless liberal believing they should part with just a little more money so their employees can actually live comfortably.
The problem with your fantasy is that workers only want to take part in the upside.
You see billions $$$ in profit and think, "Let's get some of that".
But when there are billions $$$ in losses you are no where to be found.
For example, the CEO of Hostess (maker of Twinkies) tried to keep it open if the union would cut back on pay. Workers response: HELL NO will take less pay. SHUT IT DOWN!
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
21 Aug 2015, 5:14 pm
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
21 Aug 2015, 5:18 pm
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
21 Aug 2015, 5:21 pm
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Poor babies! And to think, me a heartless liberal believing they should part with just a little more money so their employees can actually live comfortably.
The problem with your fantasy is that workers only want to take part in the upside.
You see billions $$$ in profit and think, "Let's get some of that".
But when there are billions $$$ in losses you are no where to be found.
For example, the CEO of Hostess (maker of Twinkies) tried to keep it open if the union would cut back on pay. Workers response: HELL NO will take less pay. SHUT IT DOWN!
What where they being paid? What would their pay have been reduced to, would it have still been a living wage...and also was the CEO of hostess actually going broke because of how much he had to pay employees. Or is he still filthy rich and even more so now that he doesn't have to pay employees since closing Hostess? Those are all important details.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,215
Location: the island of defective toy santas
21 Aug 2015, 5:46 pm
21 Aug 2015, 6:06 pm
21 Aug 2015, 7:23 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Poor babies! And to think, me a heartless liberal believing they should part with just a little more money so their employees can actually live comfortably.
The problem with your fantasy is that workers only want to take part in the upside.
You see billions $$$ in profit and think, "Let's get some of that".
But when there are billions $$$ in losses you are no where to be found.
For example, the CEO of Hostess (maker of Twinkies) tried to keep it open if the union would cut back on pay. Workers response: HELL NO will take less pay. SHUT IT DOWN!
What where they being paid? What would their pay have been reduced to, would it have still been a living wage...and also was the CEO of hostess actually going broke because of how much he had to pay employees. Or is he still filthy rich and even more so now that he doesn't have to pay employees since closing Hostess? Those are all important details.
The company fired its 18,500 employees and liquidated its assets.
The assets were sold, and some employees got new jobs at the new company for lower pay. Many did not.
I am sure the CEO is still filthy rich.
It's a sad story about America to see such greedy workers, so out of touch with reality.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,215
Location: the island of defective toy santas
21 Aug 2015, 7:42 pm
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
21 Aug 2015, 8:01 pm
LoveNotHate wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Poor babies! And to think, me a heartless liberal believing they should part with just a little more money so their employees can actually live comfortably.
The problem with your fantasy is that workers only want to take part in the upside.
You see billions $$$ in profit and think, "Let's get some of that".
But when there are billions $$$ in losses you are no where to be found.
For example, the CEO of Hostess (maker of Twinkies) tried to keep it open if the union would cut back on pay. Workers response: HELL NO will take less pay. SHUT IT DOWN!
What where they being paid? What would their pay have been reduced to, would it have still been a living wage...and also was the CEO of hostess actually going broke because of how much he had to pay employees. Or is he still filthy rich and even more so now that he doesn't have to pay employees since closing Hostess? Those are all important details.
The company fired its 18,500 employees and liquidated its assets.
The assets were sold, and some employees got new jobs at the new company for lower pay. Many did not.
I am sure the CEO is still filthy rich.
It's a sad story about America to see such greedy workers, so out of touch with reality.
I fail to see how they where 'such greedy workers' if the CEO managed to remain wealthy and is still wealthy, after having paying them their horribly ridiculous wages. Seems like a sad story about another CEO that was too greedy to pay his employees a living wage.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
21 Aug 2015, 8:33 pm
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Poor babies! And to think, me a heartless liberal believing they should part with just a little more money so their employees can actually live comfortably.
The problem with your fantasy is that workers only want to take part in the upside.
You see billions $$$ in profit and think, "Let's get some of that".
But when there are billions $$$ in losses you are no where to be found.
For example, the CEO of Hostess (maker of Twinkies) tried to keep it open if the union would cut back on pay. Workers response: HELL NO will take less pay. SHUT IT DOWN!
In fact, the union at Hostess had made concession after concession, till they and their members couldn't give anymore.
And yes, unions make more than enough concessions for the f*ck ups made by management.
30 Aug 2015, 12:29 am
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,215
Location: the island of defective toy santas
30 Aug 2015, 12:35 am
if the outcome were not so critical, I'd wanna big ol' bowl of popcorn right about now 
30 Aug 2015, 1:17 am
30 Aug 2015, 7:09 pm
