Posted on 09/23/2009 7:43:15 AM PDT by Graybeard58
Just about everyone in Connecticut wishes Pratt & Whitney would keep its Cheshire and East Hartford plants open, with their 1,000 good-paying jobs, 3,000 to 6,000 jobs indirectly related to Pratt's operations, lavish tax payments to local and state government, and all of the other benefits such employers bestow on their communities.
But do Connecticut residents really believe it's acceptable and appropriate to chain Pratt to the state? Is this the impression they want to give present and future businesses— once you're in our clutches, you have to stay here or we'll tie you up in federal court?
Worse still, the machinists' union and state officials who are cheerleading for protracted litigation over the plant closings, the second such lawsuit in 10 years, are ignoring the very large bird in the hand, the 10,000 jobs United Technologies Corp., Pratt's parent company, is not putting on the line. Instead, they're concentrating on the much smaller bird in the bush, the 1,000 jobs in Cheshire and East Hartford.
Most of all, those most affected by a decision Pratt has, or should have, every right to make, are hurling their rhetorical missiles at the wrong target.
Pratt is making this move because its management believes it can perform the same operations more profitably in Georgia, Singapore and Japan. The justifying statistics are compelling:
Connecticut's corporate tax rate is 25 percent higher than Georgia's and its electricity costs are more than twice as much.
Average hourly wages for manufacturing employees in Connecticut are nearly 39 percent higher than in Georgia.
Pratt's operating costs in Columbus, Ga., and Japan would be 40 percent lower than in Cheshire and East Hartford; and 170 percent lower in Singapore.
It is perfectly understandable Pratt would find these massive discounts attractive. It is not Pratt's fault the discounts exist. Ignoring Japan and Singapore for the moment, why must energy cost so much more here than it does in south Georgia? Why must taxes be higher? Why must the high cost of living in Connecticut force companies to pay so much more for skilled workers?
It is not Pratt's fault that Connecticut is led by environmental and regulatory extremists and social engineers in thrall to Big Labor, public and private.
The thousands of working people who will be forced to uproot or reinvent themselves after Pratt leaves are not to blame for their plight, and neither is Pratt. Rather, the state's clueless leaders, many of whom have never held a job in business or industry, brought Connecticut to this latest employment crisis.
Consider the nonsense spouted by Gov. M. Jodi Rell on Tuesday morning: "We know it is a bottom-line business decision. It looks like it's profits over people once again." This, from a Republican CEO of a "business" that is mired in long-term debt and operating deficits, with no coherent vision for future viability.
"This is a shameful act on the part of a company that owes our state and its dedicated work force more," said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., a lifelong government employee who has not the slightest understanding of the pressures driving Pratt executives' decision. People in his line of work can run deficits to Doomsday and wrest ever more money from their "customers" under penalty of fines and imprisonment. If UTC ran its shop this way, Connecticut would be out a lot more than 1,000 jobs.
Rather than filing lawsuits, the machinists' union should be going to Pratt with hat in hand, seeking help in relocating as many of its members as possible to wherever the jobs go. And rather than cheerleading the litigation while flinging verbal barbs at one of Connecticut's most valued employers, state leaders and the congressional delegation should acknowledge their own culpability in this economic catastrophe. If they can't or won't change the way government does business, those 1,000 lost jobs will just be the trickle that presages a torrent.
Average hourly wages for manufacturing employees in Connecticut are nearly 39 percent higher than in Georgia.
Why would any business locate in Connecticut? Or any other blue state for that matter. The comparison shows the stark reality of liberalism.
Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.
If you want on or off this list, let me know.
I’m reminded of a little old place called the Twentieth Century Motor Company.
With the real potential of an 8% health care tax coming down the pike for small business owneres, similarly, why would anyone even consider starting a business? I've been toying with the idea of starting another engineering company. When I started running the numbers and looking at real costs I realized it would be a real struggle just to keep up with all the gubmint regulations and taxes as it is. Add another 8% bite out of the bottom line and it becomes near impossible...
I’d want nothing to do with any product being made by Pratt in Connecticut. It’s obvious the corporate culture created by the state and the unions there would result in sub-par work.
ping
How can they be 170 percent lower anywhere?
100% lower would be "free".
It’s a pity Singapore’s such a small island.
A full rebate on all expenditures, plus another 70%, will make them very popular as a place to do business.
Just don’t spit your bubble gum on the sidewalk.
I don't like walking on bubblegum laden sidewalks. Singapore has enforced manners on its citizens. Fewer crimes, vandalism and gangs as a result.
This article should make some liberals foam at the mouth and run in circles. If they read it.
You don't fly aircraft?
Considering the majority of them likely voted for Democrats as their union told them to do so, then yes they are most certainly to "blame for their plight"
This is where the editorial stumbles - - do the authors know how many of these "working people" are the kind of morons who elect Democrats?
OK, Lets say the operating costs in Singapore will be $ 47,000.00 a day. In their present location the cost is $ 126,900.00. The cost in Singapore is 170% lower.
Hell's bells, she could READ the bloody story and STILL not understand the concepts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.