[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Yet another union cancer.

Nice edit, Tarlek. How do you know the business' failure isn't management's fault? If management had their shit together, they'd be able to offer COLA to their workers, no?

US Steel does not have a monopoly on the US or Canadian markets. Steel from China and South Korea is being sold in North America at subsidized, less-than-cost prices with the intent of killing off our domestic steel industry.

Our governments are not interested in fixing that issue because they buy so much of the steel for public works projects from both China and South Korea. A glaring example of this is the new San Francisco Bay Bridge that has been built mostly with Chinese steel and pre-fabricated bridge sections that were constructed in China.

You ask why US Steel has to cut costs and I point my finger at examples like the Bay Bridge in answer.

If you tell me that US Steel has to be more competitive with foreign firms then let me answer by saying that what they're doing in Ontario is a necessary part of their trying to remain competitive.

The fundamental issue here is that businesses exist to produce consumer products and to make a profit for their investors. Some people have gotten it into their heads that businesses are first and foremost a jobs program thus they come up with idiotic ideas like trying to require businesses to guarantee jobs.

Only a fool would demand such a promise and only an idiot would expect it to be kept regardless of external factors that are beyond the control of US Steel.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I wish those poor women and girls in Bangladesh had a union.

If they did the union would be as corrupt as the government that didn't enforce its own building codes.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Not back peddling at all. Doesn't matter who's fault it is, the union is stupid pushing for more knowing the financial status of the company; hence "cancer".

You're not entitled to a COL increase and you're especially not entitled when your company is losing money.

Unions are becoming a cancer, advising their members poorly and using their members money for all sorts of BS.

You haven't a clue what the hell you're talking about, which, if nothing else, at least makes your posts entertaining. Thanks for today's giggle.

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

$1:

“Given that the Lake Erie wage rates are already significantly higher than the USW rates in the U.S., and that the plant continues to incur huge losses, the COLA provision must be modified,” the letter reads. “Future wage increases can be discussed as an independent issue in future contracts. No responsible management would do otherwise.”

So the choice was: Keep your job with the same pay and some structural changes, or go on strike asking for more when a company is losing money.

Fail.

Yet another union cancer.

Who cares if wage costs are higher here? As we're constantly being told by big business, it's a different market than the USA.

Further, I'd argue that the cost of benefit plans in Canada are far lower than it is in the US, simply because our of universal health care.

Finally, this was a lockout, not a strike, meaning the union had very little say in the matter.

Your rationale here is somewhat hypocritical, because you sided with NHL players when they were locked out by management and wanting more money, yet here, your attitude is the exact opposite...but why should anyone be consistent, right?

[Lemmy]

Tarzan say "Union bad!" {grunt, grunt, fart, grunt}

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

You haven't a clue what the hell you're talking about, which, if nothing else, at least makes your posts entertaining. Thanks for today's giggle.

And thanks for once again, adding nothing. Your typical swipe and run. We know you're a self-professed genius Lemmy. Your ego has no bounds.

$1:

Who cares if wage costs are higher here? As we're constantly being told by big business, it's a different market than the USA.

Further, I'd argue that the cost of benefit plans in Canada are far lower than it is in the US, simply because our of universal health care.

Finally, this was a lockout, not a strike, meaning the union had very little say in the matter.

Your rationale here is somewhat hypocritical, because you sided with NHL players when they were locked out by management and wanting more money, yet here, your attitude is the exact opposite...but why should anyone be consistent, right?

Keyword: Somewhat. Compare apples to apples.

The most important thing here is the health of the company. Without the company in good shape, there are no jobs let alone the chance to negotiate a contract.

Unions have to start looking at the reality of the situation and not just asking for more without regard. The union had a say, they voted 70% against a new contract offer.....so does the company keep going on paying the workers under the existing contract where they're losing money or lock them out until a new deal is reached?

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I wish those poor women and girls in Bangladesh had a union.

If they did the union would be as corrupt as the government that didn't enforce its own building codes.

Nonsense. Unions kill sweatshops.

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

$1:

Who cares if wage costs are higher here? As we're constantly being told by big business, it's a different market than the USA.

Further, I'd argue that the cost of benefit plans in Canada are far lower than it is in the US, simply because our of universal health care.

Finally, this was a lockout, not a strike, meaning the union had very little say in the matter.

Your rationale here is somewhat hypocritical, because you sided with NHL players when they were locked out by management and wanting more money, yet here, your attitude is the exact opposite...but why should anyone be consistent, right?

Keyword: Somewhat. Compare apples to apples.

The most important thing here is the health of the company. Without the company in good shape, there are no jobs let alone the chance to negotiate a contract.

Unions have to start looking at the reality of the situation and not just asking for more without regard. The union had a say, they voted 70% against a new contract offer.....so does the company keep going on paying the workers under the existing contract where they're losing money or lock them out until a new deal is reached?

Funny, that's exactly what Bettman and the owners said over and over - they couldn't afford the labour costs and many teams were unprofitable - yet again, in that case, you supported the workers and not the owners.

You can say it was apples and oranges, but I don't see it that way at all. In both cases, workers wanted a larger slice of the pie than management wanted to give them and management can see what its competitors are getting in their labour deals and simply want the same deal.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I wish those poor women and girls in Bangladesh had a union.

If they did the union would be as corrupt as the government that didn't enforce its own building codes.

Nonsense. Unions kill sweatshops.

A union in the midst of a corrupt culture will be as corrupt as the culture.

http://www.transparency.org/cpi2012/results

[Zipperfish]

I see your point. Still think they'd be better off with a union, corrupt or not. INdividually, they can't stand up to the companies.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I see your point. Still think they'd be better off with a union, corrupt or not. INdividually, they can't stand up to the companies.

This is not about companies. Bangladesh has a viciously corrupt government and the country itself is populated by people who manage to outdo New Yorkers when it comes to being selfish pricks. The companies are a reflection of the population at large just as is the government that openly tolerates bribery as a means of conducting governance.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I see your point. Still think they'd be better off with a union, corrupt or not. INdividually, they can't stand up to the companies.

This is not about companies. Bangladesh has a viciously corrupt government and the country itself is populated by people who manage to outdo New Yorkers when it comes to being selfish pricks. The companies are a reflection of the population at large just as is the government that openly tolerates bribery as a means of conducting governance.

I agree the government is corrupt. But news report indicate that the building had been ordered closed, and the companies ordered their staff to work there anyway. That was a decision made by certain individuals, not the government. You've go your anti-government ideological blinders on, in my opinion.

[BeaverFever]

Hey, the plant is not making any profits when it's idle to a worker lock-out. And since US Steel took over, this is their THIRD LOCKOUT in their SIX YEARS. Last time, the crown jewel of their Canadian operations, the Hamilton plant, was locked out for ONE YEAR. Maybe idling your operations every other year as a bargaining tactic has something to do with not making their desired profits.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I wish those poor women and girls in Bangladesh had a union.

If they did the union would be as corrupt as the government that didn't enforce its own building codes.

That might be true if a government inspector hadn't ordered the building closed the day before the collapse, but it was the garment companies who ordered their workers to come in.

[stratos]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Hey, the plant is not making any profits when it's idle to a worker lock-out. And since US Steel took over, this is their THIRD LOCKOUT in their SIX YEARS. Last time, the crown jewel of their Canadian operations, the Hamilton plant, was locked out for ONE YEAR. Maybe idling your operations every other year as a bargaining tactic has something to do with not making their desired profits.

I'm very pro business and I couldn't agree more with you BF. In this case it is the company that is messing up. I'm not sure but the artical sounded to me like the Union was wanting things to stay the same. No major incresse or raises. The company is the one harming themselfs in this case. Of course the employees are making more in Canada then the US. Taxes paid by Canadian workers are more then US workers, I assume, thus the actual take home pay is probably about the same. In such a case the workers are IMO are earning basicly equal wages for eagual work on both sides of the boarder.