Posted on 09/25/2003 9:21:58 AM PDT by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
San Francisco blue jeans maker Levi Strauss & Co. said Thursday it would close its remaining North America manufacturing and finishing plants, firing nearly 2,000 employees in the process, or about 11 percent of its global workforce.
The news comes days after the company said it would cut bout 350 salaried jobs in the U.S., with about 300 additional jobs cut in Europe in an effort to reduce costs in the face of reduced product pricing.
In April 2002, Levi Strauss closed six of its eight U.S. manufacturing plants, including its oldest on Valencia Street in San Francisco. The closures pink slipped 3,300 employees, or 20 percent of Levi's worldwide workforce.
The sewing plants closed in three phases and included four in Texas, and one in Georgia.
During that 2002 round of closures, there were 100 layoffs in San Francisco, where Levi had made jeans in its Mission District facility since 1906. The closures were part of Levi's turnaround plan, which involves getting out of manufacturing to focus on marketing. The company has been losing sales and profits for half a decade and has shifted manufacturing to offshore contractors like many of its competitors.
The remaining two U.S. plants were in San Antonio Texas.
It is no supposition but your castigation as follows:
To: ARCADIA
I am not against the facts, of course. But selective attention to them is propaganda. And that what Willie Green does: posts exclusively anti-corporate and anti-capitalist pieces, often from really poor sources.
Other facts? Well, the unemployement is 6.1% which until very recently was considered minimal possible. Great news.
14 posted on 09/25/2003 10:10 AM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Knowlege of these matters is not found in the news, whether good or bad. Courses and books on management and economics are available. If one does not want to avail himself of these, then one should at least suspend jugment.
You cited the news yourself and castigated the poster for what you now admit above is primarily in the news these days.
You premise that bad newpapers "news" must be balanced by "good" false.
Then we won't see any more castigations from you about "selective attention to them is propaganda....often from really poor sources" will we.
I did not, however, do so in my post. You've got to read more carefully.
Aren't you afraid to be accused of envy and class warfare?
No, I am not easily scared. I am much more afraid when members of my family are not well.
Let's move on.
It's nice to know that conservatives think as you do.
ARCADIA's post is thoughtful/facetious.
Your posts all appear to be knee-jerk, present-day Republican.
Half of population has IQ lower than 100. They also should have opportunity to do honest work and make a living. It is a responsibility of government to help it happen.
You are now shifting the allegation from 'all management and all rich', to "the privileged few," the "fat cats," "the rich," which you surely know are euphemisms for the people in control of the decisions which clearly do affect the lives of laid off workers.
Now you may argue those decisions by those few were rational honest decisions, but you can not argue those few did not make the decisions to offshore jobs and lay people off, and you can't reasonably expect people who worked hard and trusted their managers and leaders, to like it. To paraphrase Josey Wales, "Don't urinate down my back and tell me it's raining"
If you want argue management tradeoffs and economic prerogatives, fine. But don't try to waive away the culpability of our business and economic leaders and instead blame FR posters who routinely do wish to discuss the real world problems caused by these leaders, which problems do primarily occupy the employment news.
You confuse criticism of someone's position as socialist --- and demand to be at least honest, if you hold socialist beliefs, then at least say so --- with haste of reaction. Given the time and number of posts I made on this thread, my reaction hardly qualifies as knee-jerk. present-day Republican. Suppose that is true. Help me, then, how should I recognize the "present-day Republican" position? Which documents should I read?
All you said to me therefore is this, "I don't know why, but you, TopQuark, irritate me and I don't like you."
I don't think you youself have any clue as to what you said in your post.
You are a complete idiot or a paid shill. These "simple folk" are invested through mutual funds or pension plans or a combination. They have no more say (and probably little more knowledge) in corp. policy than my little Cairn terrier.
I dare say these "simple folk" are far more truly conservative than you, and, far from being socialists, are "America firsters", whether they are conscious of it or not.
But these threads are far better than Political Humor/Cartoons. Where else do you find praticioners of a, ahem, particular political philosophy accuse their opponents of the same?
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.