 |
| THE ASSOCIATED PRESS/J. SCOTT APPLEWHITE |
| President Bush and friend Roland Betts play the Las Campanas golf course in Santa Fe, N.M., on Sunday. |
Posted on 05/12/2003 5:13:22 AM PDT by harpu
|
Employees of a plastics plant will have to make up the time they're off work while the plant is used as the site of a speech today by President Bush on his economic and employment proposals.
The president, who has been campaigning across the country to drum up support for tax cuts being debated in Congress, will speak to Airlite Plastics Co.'s 575 employees about how his economic stimulus plan would benefit them.
Airlite President and CEO Brad Crosby said workers will be given one of four options during the visit: work their regular shift in an adjacent plant, take the day off and make up the work on Saturday, use one of their vacation days, or take an unpaid day off.
"Right from the beginning, we didn't want to see anyone take a cut in pay. We're just trying to be completely fair," Crosby said
The company added the fourth option -- the paid vacation day option -- after the Omaha World-Herald reported Saturday that at least one employee complained.
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., said he was a little surprised by the company's decision regarding compensation for workers during Bush's visit.
"That could very easily undermine the president's message, but I don't want to be an ungracious host," Nelson said. "If this is Airlite's way of handling it, that's between them and their employees."
Claire Buchan, a White House spokeswoman traveling with the president in Santa Fe, N.M., said Sunday: "All of the employees at the plant are being paid in full."
The Senate was expected to begin debate today on a GOP-backed $350 billion tax-cut proposal, which is less than half of what Bush had sought. Several Republicans see that bill as a starting point, although many Democrats support no more than $150 billion in tax relief.
On the eve of Senate debate, Treasury Secretary John Snow called the president's approach the right fix for "a soggy economy."
"Hogwash," Senate Democrats countered on Sunday, saying that any benefits from the tax cuts will not help most people.
The debate played out on the Sunday talk shows while President Bush got ready to hit the road to encourage public support.
Democrats say the Bush plan would aid the rich but fail to "trickle down" to low-and middle-class Americans.
"I think this whole 'trickle-down' is hogwash," said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D.-La."We in the Senate, Democrats and some Republicans, are going to do what we can to get him to adjust his direction."
Or, an email to their Webmaster to let him (or her) know that their CEO is a jerk! (the CEO's email is unlisted)
Those Democrats really know how to debate an issue with thought provoking ideas, don't they?
I'd venture to guess it's either bcosby@ or bradc@ ........
Oh, so I don't agree with a little Marxist style worker freebie and you think I'm dumb?
Well, here's some more dumb ones over here on this thread:Owner will dock workers for Bush's visit to Neb.
Since when do conservatives want to interfere with how a company runs its business? Since when do conservatives want workers to get paid in return for no work produced? I wouldn't want to work for a company that did business like that. What about the shift of workers who aren't there when the president comes? They have to work in order to get paid while the rest got paid for producing nothing. This company has offered the workers a pretty big range of choices in my opinion.
Thanks for calling me dumb by the way. That's just what I enjoy this forum for.
Have a nice day.
And I suppose that you feel that Mr. Cosby and his firm aren't going to benefit from having the President there, giving him and his firm national attention? In effect he is getting millions of dollars worth of free advertising - broadcast on virtually every television news network in the country.
I suspect that had the President known what the emloyer/employee relationship was going to be, he would have skipped this one. And rightly so.
I simply don't agree with paying a worker to do nothing. This is America not Europe. Workers aren't entitled to a job nor do they have a right to the company's capital if they aren't offering something of value in return.
What if he were giving a speech in a grocery store? People should shop for free? It works out to the same thing- giving capital away for nothing in return.
We're talking about 340 workers here. 170 of them for a full day, 170 of them for a partial day. When I was a manager in a factory we docked people for showing up 10 minutes late even though that was a matter of a couple of dollars. With that many workers we're talking about at least $10,000 here (at least)- just down the tube. The workers simply do not have a right to that money.
It's the company's call. If they can't justify the expense this is the only smart thing to do. These are tough economic times. There are millions of people out there in the big wide world willing to do those workers' jobs for a couple of dollars a day. Competition is fierce. If this is what the company feels like it has to do why should we interfere?
At any rate, what are we going to threaten them with? Boycott? Like that's going to help the working stiff?
I don't have a problem with the way the company is doing it ;-)
You're obviously not am employeer.
Yes, everyone will be paid for the day. However, not everyone will be doing a days work. Some will have the opportunity to stop work and hear the President speak. At that time, the company will still be shelling out tens of tthousands of dollars per hour, with zero production (income).
So, in short, the 75-100 salaried employees will be paid during W's visit (including the Crosby the CEO and his staff Vice Presidents) which - dollar for dollar ($/hr) will be close to what the other hourly employees won't be getting paid. 'Yes, Martha', those big guys (and the folks in the overhead) total compensation probably equals the hourly payroll.
My question; how does the big tuna justify taking his pay (and his staff officers get paid) but not paying the 'worker bees' their pay.
Ultimately, it should be expensed to public relations (the ad budget) for the good will and positive brand recognition that Airlite Plastics should get.
Instead, with the BushBASHING attempt will now get them lots of negative press.
Justify to whom?
'worker bees' their pay.
It's not their pay until they do something to earn it.
You know, my initial post in this thread was a simple question. We should have been able to discuss this in an adult manner. Calling people names almost never enhances discussion.
Back to the matter at hand. If a worker is salaried- well, that's that. They have a contract/salary agreement. If they don't have a salary agreement they're either getting paid by the hour or by what they produce (which is the system I lean towards). If they're not producing anything or not actively engaged in something useful- there's no value in paying them. You have to pay your salaried guys because you have agreed to do so. But there's really no reason to justify it to anyone other than the ones signing the paychecks at this factory- it's nobody's business. There's a democrat in the article quoted as saying the matter is between the company and the workers. He's exactly right...
The company isn't docking anybody's pay. If people want to make a day's pay- they have options to do so. They're just not going to get a freebie- they're still going to have to work for it just like if Dubya never showed up. If they want to treat it as an extra off day they can do that. If they want to get paid for being off they can meet the company half way and use a vacation day. But nobody is telling them they have to lose any money or time over this (as far as I can tell). The media is just trying to stir up the doo-doo pot here and create a controversy where none exists.
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.