Replies

In addition, any public company needs to continue to show profits and pay dividends or you will not have shareholders. Without shareholders you will never be able to remain competitive and you will end up losing the company. So yes, these profits benefit all investors, many employees are investors. However, most union members don't think they get compensated unless they see it on the check stub.

An extra $100 per year in dividends to a laid-off machinist doesn't compare to the loss of a $35,000/year job, sorry. And it won't salve any wounds that will still be smarting inside the voting booth, either. Like it or not, these happenings bode ill for conservatism in America.

Does the company have a real problem? Yes. But the solution is to stick it out and hammer congress for a more business-friendly environment in the US, not cut and run with the jobs. Running away with the jobs is a capitulation to liberalism, which only fuels it more.

"An extra $100 per year in dividends to a laid-off machinist doesn't compare to the loss of a $35,000/year job, sorry. And it won't salve any wounds that will still be smarting inside the voting booth, either. Like it or not, these happenings bode ill for conservatism in America."

That $35K a year job may or may not be worth that to the employer. That job may or may not even be necessary. I don't think many manufacturing jobs exist that are unionized and they are only paying $17.85 an hour. Maybe if the machinist were really willing to work for $35K a year, the company would not need to move. If the company isn't able to pay the $100 per year, then they won't be able to pay any wage to any employee. They would be gone anyway.

So, you say that we should support liberal ideas and restrict businesses in order to protect republican votes? That makes no sense to me, I say let people see the benefits of booming business and they will see that our philosophy is superior to the restricters.

"Does the company have a real problem? Yes. But the solution is to stick it out and hammer congress for a more business-friendly environment in the US, not cut and run with the jobs. Running away with the jobs is a capitulation to liberalism, which only fuels it more."

I agree that companies have problems beyond unions. Unions are not 100% to blame for moving manufacturing to lower labor cost areas. Add to much government shackling, to many regulations and in many cases overall inefficincies in the business model and we have a 4 pronged problem. This discussion was about unions, so I am discussing unions. If I get a chance to discuss the other items I will do so.

I am supportive of some government meddling, just enough to make sure that all foriegn markets represent a "true" cost to business. In other words, if a foriegn government subsidizes an industry, we should have tarrifs to balance that subsidy. However, I don't consider low labor costs to be a subsidy.

How long should a company "stick it out"? Should they wait until they are already losing money, until they have lost $100K how about a mil, how about 10 mil? At which point do we say it is acceptable for them to change their location?