# More corporate greed...



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Looks like another assault on the middleclass.

The one good thing about the industry that I'm in is that they can't move the resources.
They can try and starve us out though.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/0...ut-protest_n_1220794.html?ref=canada-business


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

seems to be the norm lately rather than the exception. i woke up this morning and took the dogs out, found a note telling me to go to market place.com. i went there and they had done a show *on my landlord*. he's probably you're landlord too, if you rent anywhere in canada. we got our problems in the states, but where i live, we don't do this to people: http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2012/troubleforrent/#idc-cover

another topic close to my heart was a link i found at the top of the story you posted. this one is about bandwith throttling and capping, and unsavory billing practices http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...r-bandwidth-getting-so-little/article1899506/


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

When will people understand or acknowledge that the wage you are entitled to has zero zip nada nothing to do with how much the company makes on their bottom line? A more accurate representation is what the marketplace is paying for similar labour. I don't know that market, and so am not commenting on the offer...and I get that a 50% pay cut probably ain't gonna fly....but if there are guys pushing brooms making $33+/hr, well, they sorta have to expect the golden goose is going to die now.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

keto said:


> When will people understand or acknowledge that the wage you are entitled to has zero zip nada nothing to do with how much the company makes on their bottom line? A more accurate representation is what the marketplace is paying for similar labour. I don't know that market, and so am not commenting on the offer...and I get that a 50% pay cut probably ain't gonna fly....but if there are guys pushing brooms making $33+/hr, well, they sorta have to expect the golden goose is going to die now.


This is a correct statement. 50% is very harsh and most likely way out of line. But all major companies have made harsh cuts and they will continue. People must also realize that $30/hour wages are not middle class anymore. That's the elite man. $20/hour today is considered a very high wage.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

I dont see a problem with this thing in London. If the workers are that skilled, and we know the union has the money, why cant they buy the plant and run it themselves? Answer is simple, the particular plant doesnt generate the profits they claim................


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Accept2 said:


> I dont see a problem with this thing in London. If the workers are that skilled, and we know the union has the money, why cant they buy the plant and run it themselves? Answer is simple, the particular plant doesnt generate the profits they claim................


Wait now, do you mean the union who makes money off of the wage earner is telling an untruth? Say it ain't so!


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

GuitarsCanada said:


> This is a correct statement. 50% is very harsh and most likely way out of line. But all major companies have made harsh cuts and they will continue. People must also realize that $30/hour wages are not middle class anymore. That's the elite man. $20/hour today is considered a very high wage.


The strange thing is that $20 is considered a high wage but you can't even buy a house if you make $20 per hour...not unless you have a spouse that works too. The main issue is that when the government decides that they need more money, they always take it from the people who have ther least - there is simply more of them so they can nickel and dime them to death and it always ends up being many, many nickels and many, many dimes.

The corporate heavies always get theirs, and most often, it is an unfair share. Nortel? Yep. It's like that's a blueprint.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Accept2 said:


> I dont see a problem with this thing in London. If the workers are that skilled, and we know the union has the money, why cant they buy the plant and run it themselves? Answer is simple, *the particular plant doesnt generate the profits they claim*................


Unless you know otherwise, it doesn't say that in the article, " a concession that’s particularly tough to swallow as the company’s_* profits mount*_."

I can't see slashing the wages of a whole workforce because of the guy on the broom.

So what is it, the profits have flattened out, still making profit, mind you.
Just not the ever increasing profits demanded by the almighty shareholder.
A lot of this is creative accounting too, I've seen it before.
We projected a 20 million dollar profit last quarter and only made 15 million dollars profit.
That's a loss of five million

So what do we do as a corporation...hmm...do we try to increase efficiency,
communication, cooperation, etc, to increase production? 
Nah! Lets just slash the wages of the workers and easy peasy, 
instant increase in profit without having to think too much about anything.

The top always seems to get their piece of the pie, and then some.​


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

You can tell its not profitable for two reasons. First they supplement their income in that plant with their maintenance staff. Second they locked out all the workers lightning fast. (They didnt lock out their supplementary income people though). If a plant is really profitable, and you are negotiating with a union, management will stall to keep production going, or give concessions. If a plant is doing poorly, the management will do an immediate lock out to mitigate losses. 
Do these protesters actually feel that the PM is responsible to force a company to operate at a loss? Didnt the Nazis do that? Yup..................


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

The rich can wait it out much longer than the hourly paid workers. Strikes and lockouts always favour the rich, the owner(s).


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

I still dont understand the protesters. Who paid for the plant, and built it? Who developed the engine designs and went out to sell it and made a business of it. So some guys show up for work one day to turn a few bolts and now CAT should bow to their demands? Who has the real risk here? Who is responsible for CAT being successful? If it were me, I wouldnt even bother with a lockout. There are workers who actually want to work elsewhere, why the **** would I waste my time here?.............


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

It's an instinctive reaction of course. I know how I would feel if I was facing a 50% cut in income. So the feelings can be understood. But running a business and running it at a profit deemed acceptable by its owners and or shareholders must also be considered. The two viewpoints clearly do not mesh. Depending on which side of the debate your bread is buttered you are going to have nothing good to say about the other side. At the end of the day, as a business owner you have to be satisfied that you are making the expected profit or you are going to have to change some things. I personally think that the company is trying to cut too much fat with one wave of the knife. Perhaps they took that stance in hopes of getting one quarter of it. We will see.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> I dont see a problem with this thing in London. If the workers are that skilled, and we know the union has the money, why cant they buy the plant and run it themselves? Answer is simple, the particular plant doesnt generate the profits they claim................


Exactly right.

This is business, not a social club.

Sorry, but I've been in the same boat and it comes down to responsibility to the shareholders.

If you own stock in the company, you probably want unprofitable divisions and activities discontinued.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

CAT bow to their demands? What? The company is looking to cut the wages by over half!
Who's making those demands? The company is, wow.

This is all speculation that they aren't profittable. It said in the article that they are.

I really hope that they don't expect any intervention from the government, because it won't happen.
It probably shouldn't, didn't happen here and it won't happen there.
The government, especially these PC crooks, are in bed with these corporations.

This isn't much different in what happened here.
The company here hadn't lost a dime in the few years leading up to our last contract.
In fact, they'd been making money hand over fist in that time.
Nickel just so happen to fall under six bucks a pound, still profittable mind you,
then a convenient two month layoff leading into the strike.
Nothing but concessions in the negotiations, on our part.
This is simply pure profit on anything that we had to give up, without them so much as thinking about it.
We were trying to keep what we had, not asking for much else. We ended up with neither.

When's enough enough with these people.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Well, this thread is a slippery slope and could degenerate into a union debate.


But, having been on the management team and having seen the completely different idea of profit and loss on both sides of the table I think it might be more accurate to hear about profitability from the company and not from the union.

If a plant is profitable, nobody rocks the boat. 

Additionally, it's important to consider competitiveness. Is the plant in question competing with plants with lower labour and overhead?

The answer is almost certainly yes.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Well that's one of the veiled threats, that they can relocate the plant to Indiana, Iowa,
where ever, and pay less than what they are offering to the workers.

These threads are always a slippery slope.

I'm not here to try and change anyones mind on anything, not like that would happen anyways.
There are always two, probably three sides to the story. Mine, yours and the truth.

You keep kicking people down and it'll be a lot more than a peaceful protest in some cities park in tents.
There'll be outright revolution the way things are shaping up.

Take some time to watch this documentary...

[video=youtube;SnE8D3tgZ5c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnE8D3tgZ5c[/video]


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

sulphur said:


> Well that's one of the veiled threats, that they can relocate the plant to Indiana, Iowa,where ever, and pay less than what they are offering to the workers.These threads are always a slippery slope.I'm not here to try and change anyones mind on anything, not like that would happen anyways.There are always two, probably three sides to the story. Mine, yours and the truth. You keep kicking people down and it'll be a lot more than a peaceful protest in some cities park in tents.There'll be outright revolution the way things are shaping up.Take some time to watch this documentary...[video=youtube;SnE8D3tgZ5c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnE8D3tgZ5c[/video]


LOL, it's not necessarily a threat. It's a matter of being competitive in the market. Products are sold at a price that the market will bear. Loyalty and compassion don't come into the equation.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

The company had record profits last year. If the plant isn't profitable then they should just close it down. I'd rather be out of work than take a 50% pay cut. That may seem like a drastic statement but think about having 50% of the money that you have now...it's just enough to lose everything that you have and get no help, except that you'll get the GST rebate bnext year.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

smorgdonkey said:


> The company had record profits last year. If the plant isn't profitable then they should just close it down. I'd rather be out of work than take a 50% pay cut. That may seem like a drastic statement but think about having 50% of the money that you have now...it's just enough to lose everything that you have and get no help, except that you'll get the GST rebate bnext year.


Isn't it best to have a choice?


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

I'd take the 50% cut and then look to relocate elsewhere or start my own business. If the workers are as valued as the union claims they should have no trouble finding a replacement job or creating their own business............


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Choice is great.

However, these companies say all of the time that their workers are valued and part of the team and on and on...from day one with the 'welcome aboard' to all of the BS and press along the way.

I'll never understand the mindset that the 'elite' of the organization is entitled to boundless wealth and the ones who actually do the work are barely entitled to earn a living wage. These days, those people who are working seem to be closer and closer to the poverty line.


----------



## rollingdam (May 11, 2006)

I think this is more than mere greed-there is an agenda at work here on part of the owners.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

rollingdam said:


> I think this is more than mere greed-there is an agenda at work here on part of the owners.


That's what I think as well. There is so much of a push downward on labour and I can't help but think that it is partly because they can get people to do anything in other countries for nothing.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

only speaking from my own experience. as a non union worker, i always had a job. i could pay my bills. i had 2 cars and a motorcycle. as a union worker, i'm always needing a job, and barely get by. i hear alot of promises but i have yet to see a single one of them fulfilled.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

It's a new and nasty world out there............ I spent twenty years at the top of the heap (relatively speaking) ............. and the last ten working my ass off to compete for a quarter of what I once made.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

I decided to look at CAT's financial position, and its not as rosy as being claimed by the union. I think all these claims of a strong company have driven their share price up to a way over valued position. I wouldnt touch those shares with a 10 foot clown pole. They aren't doing bad, but they aren't doing that great as well. If you forecast their financial position with some loss of business, the shit hits the fan. I am sure if I can figure it out, they knew a while ago and thats why they are trying to boost their margins, and cut out area where they have a weak margin. It would be nice to see what their internal plant by plant positions are, but that is not released to the public. You can see from their current state, if you remove all the bullshit assets and compare the hard assets to their debt load and current liabilities, they also have a downward trent of margin with an increased load of inventory which usually implies more downward trend in margin in the future, 15% of their operating income is going to interest, there's a lot of things needed to be fixed here to justify this stock price, and the claim that its a strong company. Its not weak, but there are things here that need fixing. Perhaps the union feels that if a company makes $1 in profit thats too much, but profit is very different from projected future cash flows and keeping a company healthy. Thats my 2 minute assessment of their financial position................


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

OK, you can't get information on the internal plant by plant earnings, but on page one of this thread,
you claim that it is an unprofittable plant. lol

Read this...

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120127-700109.html?mod=WSJ_qtoverview_wsjlatest

Profits up 60% in the last quarter, exceeding expectations.
"Company expects records sales and profit for 2012"

No, I think you're wrong again on a union thinking that a dollar profit is too much.
That's just foolishness to even say. 

Making record profits and asking for ridiculous consessions are out of line.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Earning profit doesnt make a company healthy. Just ask Yellow Media. They make $300M of profit each year, after tax, but they will become bankrupt very, very soon. Profit is a very small part of what makes a company healthy. Yellow Media is a perfect example of what happens when you just concentrate on making profits. If all businesses did that, they'd all be bankrupt. You have to look beyond the numbers. Thats why there are a few winners and many loozers on the stock exchange. Most people believe profit means a strong company, and that just aint so..............


http://tmx.quotemedia.com/financials.php?qm_page=63761&qm_symbol=YLO


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

For one thing, you're comparing apples to oranges here.

Yellow Media aquired so much debt trying to take a strangle hold on that particular market that they choked themselves out.
Not to mention that it's an industry in decline. 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...-stock-go-from-17-to-17-cents/article2215954/

CAT isn't in a waning industry. The only thing that has hurt their business, if anything has, is an overall soft economy.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

For as long as I have been of working age, and spending 24 years in the Auto biz on a sales and manufacturing level, company profits have always been a stand-by for unions during negotiations. I have never understood it myself. The profits a company makes should have no bearing on wages. It's not a profit sharing arrangements. The profits are there for the owners and shareholders of the company. The hourly workforce are to receive an hourly wage commensurate with the work performed, based largely on industry standards (which are going down everywhere) and that's about it. Wages are not tied and never should be tied to company profit.

We have another thread going here on tipping. How come nobody is going on strike for the waiters/waitresses. Why is there no protests? There are restaurant owners out there that are rich. Nobody is yelling about the profits these people are raking in. Why? because its always been that way. Same as the unions yelling about company profits. It's always been that way. 

Bottom line is this. A company, any company, is entitled to do what they want with their money. They can make the rules (provided it meets the safety standards etc).

This situation in London is just a sign of the times. Its getting rough all over


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Sure it's getting tough all over, but the original jist is getting lost here.
Would you like your income chopped in half? 

Profits are money made over and above operating costs.
My point is, if you're making better than expected profits, and project record sales and profits in the future,
why does the guy helping you make that profit have to take the hit?

Yes, a company is entitled to do what they want with the money earned.
We aren't even talking about profit sharing here. These are fixed costs, before profits are generated.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

sulphur said:


> Sure it's getting tough all over, but the original jist is getting lost here.
> Would you like your income chopped in half?
> 
> Profits are money made over and above operating costs.
> ...


I never said it was good, nor do I take a side. I am merely pointing out that it does not have a bearing on wages. I feel for these people, I feel for all those I left back at GM in 1994 when I left and have since seen their wages frozen and benefits cut. They are looking at another round of cuts this September. I also feel for the 500 or so that were let go at the last place I worked when they refused to consider wage and benefit reductions and the company built a plant in China and closed two here in Canada. It is what it is. Personally, I would like to go back to the way it was in the 80's and 90's when I was making huge money and golfing 3 days a week and had seasons tickets to the Sabres, Leafs, Raptors, Red Wings, Jays, Pistons and Tigers, I would still be there. It's just not there anymore.

Its not just the hourly workforce getting gouged. The last 4 years I was working I never seen a penny raise or bonus. They cut us so far back we had to have three signatures to put in for a sandwich and bowl of soup.

None of the big three have replaced any salaried retirees with fulltime employees. They are all contract workers who make squat and no benefits, and I mean NO benefits.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Well, obviously I'm taking a side.

These guys were making those profits while paying these employees their current rates.
Profits are being raised here as a sign of prosperity, nobody said anything about having to share them.

They aren't hurting financially, in any way, so why ask for such a huge cut?

I worked in a copper/zinc mine for 17 years. For most of that time, those two metals were in the toilet.
People realized that and come contract time there, It'd pass with little gain on the employees side.
The place ran as long as it did because of the employees and sound management.
I've said it before, at least they can't move the orebody to China.

This is quite a different scenario though.

This 'times are tough" arguement holds no water. 
The inflation rate doesn't seem to care how tough anything is.
So chopping someones earnings would literally devastate that family. 

So were you golfing three days a week at these places that shut down?


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Yellow Media has $2B of debt. CAT added $6B of debt in this year alone. Again, profits are meaningless. You can have tons of profits, but if your cash flow is always negative, all you do is add debt. As for the workers, they can always band together and start their own business. In 2002, a multinational came in and bought our office. 3 of us knew what was coming down the pike, so we bolted and started our own small business to compete with them. All that happened is we grew in size, and made more money. At first it was tough, but now we are spreading more and more. I think unless Canadians find an entrepreneurial spirit again, they will continue to find themselves in these situations. All businesses have to start somewhere. Why are Canadians always saying the only alternative is pogey? Why do they always have to blame others?.............


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

sulphur said:


> Well, obviously I'm taking a side.
> 
> These guys were making those profits while paying these employees their current rates.
> Profits are being raised here as a sign of prosperity, nobody said anything about having to share them.
> ...


Again, if I had my way these people would be making even more money. I am not choosing sides at all. I am merely pointing out the way things have been going for the better part of 12 years now. The devastation has been going on for years now. The writing was on the wall many years ago. We (that were on the inside of the business side of it) knew it was coming. It was only a matter of time. The phrase that was given to it was "global sourcing". I stopped counting the job losses at GM when it reached 48,000 several years back. I watched friends, hourly and salaried lose their jobs to cutbacks, trimming, outsourcing etc. 

When I had buyers start to come to me on multi million dollar a year jobs saying that they could get the same part from Asia at 60% less than we were quoting it you knew you had problems. Its not just in the finished product. It's in the raw materials and purchased components. It all runs downhill. When the auto companies told us that we had to make the part for x amount of dollars or lose it, where did we get that money from? Our suppliers. Where did our suppliers get that money from? Their suppliers... and so on down the line. The next place they go is to the salaried workforce because they don't have a union. They just send out an email and inform you that so and so benefit is now cut. Wages are frozen and possibly cut. You suck it up or leave.

The final place they will go is to the hourly workforce. Believe it or not. The old saying was "go after the low lying fruit". Its easy to go back to a supplier and say "look, either cut the price by 25% or your out". Its easy to send out an email to the salaried workforce and say "this is the new way". Its not easy to take on the union and face work stoppages etc. So it is the last one on the list for most companies. I was bringing in nuts and bolts from China near the end of my career. The suppliers I had just had to suck it up or fold. Many folded. The last few years there were many companies that had been in business for years that just went back to the car companies and said "we are done, we just cant supply you for these prices". What happened to all those employees? 

The golf? it was just part of the game. I never made the rules, I played within them. Personally, I never liked the game and have never played it since I got out of the rat race. BTW I quit, I just recognized that it was a no win situation and got out.

I was a member of the UAW/CAW as well in my previous and early years. I am not pro union nor anti union. I see the positives and negatives of both. All I know for sure is that it aint what it used to be and I am not sure it ever will be again. I see people living on less every year and it sucks.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

You end up shooting yourself in the foot playing around like this though.
I see it happening here and probably continuing to get worse as it goes further.

A year long strike, ninety cent raise over five years, profit sharing cut to a fraction of what it was, pooched the pension for newhires.
They are now losing people at an alarming rate, mostly tradesmen. You can't run much if there's nobody to fix it.
Nobody wants to hire on, especially a skilled worker. Why, when you can make the same, or better cash elsewhere.

Again, the auto industry is another whole ball of wax, including the suppliers.
That's all tied in with the general slumping economy of many nations in recent years, 
and the increased competition from foriegn manufacturers before that and in present day.
The big three had it pretty good in North America for years until they let the market slip away from them.
It's called competition and they didn't compete.

Opening your own business is always an option, sure.
Not everyone has forewarning about any impending black clouds on the horizon.
It's also a bit different to open an office somewhere, as opposed to processing plant in a worldwide market.
CAT is probably a bigger employer in London. With this crap going on, possibility of just moving the plant,
do you really think that it would be a great idea to open up shop there?


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

sulphur said:


> You end up shooting yourself in the foot playing around like this though.
> I see it happening here and probably continuing to get worse as it goes further.
> 
> A year long strike, ninety cent raise over five years, profit sharing cut to a fraction of what it was, pooched the pension for newhires.
> ...


 I agree with most of what you are saying. No arguments at all. But the auto biz is an indicator of all businesses. Remember what I said about raw materials and components. All companies purchase materials. No matter if you are making talcum powder or cars. It affects your bottom line and reverberates right through the supply chain. All these suppliers have employees. Its not just the big maker of the end product, its all the ones that go into making that product and they have all suffered greatly since we went global. It has nothing to do with the financial crisis in 2008. This BS has been brewing for at least 10-12 years.

Honestly, I wish it was back in the old days... how can we get it back there? Thats what we need to figure out. Can it be reversed? These people in London are just the next ones in line. I have been watching this shit for years now. I could give you them names of probably 50 parts suppliers in Michigan that I used to deal with that are gone now. Tons more in Windsor, Sarnia, London etc etc. The jobs that have been lost is staggering.

You want another great example? Guitars... where were they all made at one time? Where were all the components and electronics made? Where did the wood come from? What is Gibson and Fender and PRS doing to cut down on cost? Buying from the cheapest source. Where are those employees that used to work for the component companies in North America? They are gone.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

It all comes down to this: "we are in tough times" and everyone who works will suffer but the elite will still make their money. 

That's the way that it is. That is precisely why a company's profits should be taken into consideration when deciding what the workers make. Otherwise it is just another systemic failure that allows the rich to get richer. Have enough money to have the shares? You're making your money. Executive? You're making your money. Work for the company? Well...times are tough and you have to take a wage cut and a benefit cut and on and on. They hire you and say "you are now part of the *insert company name here* family. So that's how 'family' gets treated.

There are many things 'bad' about unions. There is no sense at all in making a list...but if it were not for unions getting people together to fight for a fair slice then everyone would be poor except the owners and the already rich. We'll go right back to the times of the royals and the serfs. It seems like many people think that they can go it alone but many people who can go it alone are extremely fortunate - that's taking nothing away from the work that they do.

The bottom line is that everyone should get a fair wage and the profits that a company makes is one way to assess the fairness of the situation.


----------



## mario (Feb 18, 2006)

smorgdonkey said:


> It all comes down to this: "we are in tough times" and everyone who works will suffer but the elite will still make their money.
> 
> That's the way that it is. That is precisely why a company's profits should be taken into consideration when deciding what the workers make. Otherwise it is just another systemic failure that allows the rich to get richer. Have enough money to have the shares? You're making your money. Executive? You're making your money. Work for the company? Well...times are tough and you have to take a wage cut and a benefit cut and on and on. They hire you and say "you are now part of the *insert company name here* family. So that's how 'family' gets treated.
> 
> ...


I totally agree with this post. I am in a Trade Union and there have been 7-8 times we have had to take a 10-15% pay cut in order to get the job....not 50% like Electromotive want's to do to the guys here in London. Quite frankly....I think EM had this in their plans when they bought the plant a few years back. I would bet even if the workers would accept the offer EM would still move the plant to Indiana. My heart goes out to these workers and their families.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

If CAT really wanted to reduce costs and continue doing business here in London they would have at least proposed a gradual reduction in wages, perhaps 10 to 15% initally and then see where they go from there. The 50% was nothing more than an offer designed to elicit exactly the response that it did, a strike, It will be followed by a plant closing and lost jobs. What the Union should have done in my opinion was accept the offer. Put the company back on the defensive. They obviously want to close the place but would have to offer some pretty nice incentives if the employees were actually under contract. Better to make $17 - $20 and hour than strike pay. That would at least also buy some time for some of the employees to find other work before the market gets flooded by all of them. 

I work next door to these guys, and it used to be part of our company back in the good old GM days, but I really believe it was always the intent of the new owners to close the place eventually. Deepest sympathy for the workers in this case, they're caught up in a game they can no longer win.

All of this is just my opinion obviously.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

smorgdonkey said:


> It all comes down to this: "we are in tough times" and everyone who works will suffer but the elite will still make their money.
> 
> That's the way that it is. That is precisely why a company's profits should be taken into consideration when deciding what the workers make. Otherwise it is just another systemic failure that allows the rich to get richer. Have enough money to have the shares? You're making your money. Executive? You're making your money. Work for the company? Well...times are tough and you have to take a wage cut and a benefit cut and on and on. They hire you and say "you are now part of the *insert company name here* family. So that's how 'family' gets treated.
> 
> ...


That depends on several factors. In 2012 what do you consider as being rich. I bet you I could find 50 people within a 1 mile radius of where I am at right now that would tell you that making 100K a year is simply a dream to them, and anyone that is making it is "rich". I know many people that would be very happy to make half that. 

Middle management, which you could maybe put down as executive... is not very well paid. My peeps that are still at GM make more than most middle management positions. The "elite" levels are a very few people. So few that I would not even worry about them. Actually, first line management and middle management in most companies today sucks. My son is in his last year of public relations and will end up working for a big agency in Toronto with about 10 accounts and he is hoping to start at about 35-40k a year. With OT you can turn over 80K easy at GM today for screwing a bolt into an engine once every minute. I worked with guys back in the 90's that consistently made over 100K a year with overtime. When I left there back in 1994 I was around 55K but I was never a OT guy and stuck to my 5 days a week. 

Now we all know what it costs to live today, own a home and own a car and gas it. Food etc. Kids etc. most homes have two working and are bringing in 80K if they are really lucky. If you are bringing in 150K plus today. You are the new rich. 

The unions played a vital role in getting working people the basic respect they deserved. Animals were treated better. When my Father first started working for GM they drank out of fountains that had filthy water coming out of them. Bosses would openly call him a ***. You got a job or OT based on how much the boss liked you. They had no place clean to eat and no refrigeration for food, no breaks. You know the score. Those issues have all been resolved. Most of them long before many people reading this were born.

When I was at GM you could show up drunk out of your mind and piss yourself in the bosses office and there was not a thing they could do about it other than call down the rep and have you driven home. There are cafeterias in there that would rival some of the nicest restaurants you have ever been in. we had guys in there that would make 20K a year running a sausage concession on the furnaces out back . So it's far beyond "the union is fighting for our rights". Our Fathers and Grandfathers fought those battles for us long ago, and I thank them all. But it does not compute in 2012. It might in China, but not in Canada. I have been in the locomotive plant in London many times, back when it was London Diesel and ran by GM. You could tell it was bleeding back then. The military side is just as bad.

Who is to blame? Who knows? It seems to me that it is a natural process that I think many other countries have yet to face. These countries that are causing the issues today will be where we are in 15 to 25 years. That's my worthless opinion. Where will we be in the same amount of time is anyone's guess. The only way its ever going to even out and be a level playing field is when every country playing the game is at the point. Meaning that there are no more "low cost countries". Then it becomes a battle between the workforce and quality/delivery/innovation etc. which is the way it should be. Then we can kick some ass

over and out


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Well, I can't argue with much of that post. I just think that there should be a more fair way of distributing the wealth. I'm not saying that we should be communists but we shouldn't be what we are right now either.

People are up in arms about our province's minimum wage going up to $10.15 per hour. At that rate, over half of your income for the month will be rent - and that's for a 'not so nice' place. The number of people who are working in this province for minimum wage is astronomical. The middle income earners are forever NOT getting raises and the clipboard jockeys who LOOK at work instead of doing work seem to get more plentiful all of the time. 

Meanwhile, we have 10 health districts for the province (of 1.5 million people) each with a president and at least 2 vice presidents. There are so many consultants and teachers that make over $100 000 per year (the number has doubled in the last 5 years) that it would make your head spin, and school boards? Holy smokes.

Then our provincial politicians have a pension plan that the citizens pay $7 for every $1 that the politicians contribute.

To top it off, the elites are everywhere, looking down their noses and making money off of other people. It's disgraceful...but that's ok, because our Prime Minister will get all of the people who actually work to work longer. He'll save us with his 'spend more yet bring less revenue in' plan.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

People often criticize countries like UAE, and Saudi for being unfair, but.... They have an interesting concept where the people own the natural resources. Every month citizens get dividend checks as the country sells off their natural resources (oil). I wonder when we will get checks for all our natural resources being sold off..............


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

That's part of the problem here in Canada, selling off of our natural resources to these huge multinational corporations.

Most of these outfits don't give a damn about the people in their own countries,
how do you think that they feel about us?

I've seen this first hand, it ain't pretty.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

But the income/revenue from selling the resources (more accurately, the rights to access the land & resources + royalties based on actual production) goes into government coffers for the benefit of us all. What, you want to have the government go into business exploring and drilling/mining/cutting trees etc? Nationalizing existing production sites (basically, stealing them from current owners) just ain't gonna fly here - we're not Venezuela. I'll generalize and say that places that DO do that, there's more government corruption and theft than we can ever imagine in Canada - the poor people are much poorer and more of them, than what we have. Or not allow any development of the resources? There are standards for pollution/site cleanup etc, not that they're perfect or the enforcement is perfect, but they do exist.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

keto said:


> But the income/revenue from selling the resources (more accurately, the rights to access the land & resources + royalties based on actual production) goes into government coffers for the benefit of us all.


Really? Really? I buy alot of mining and resource stocks, and I dont see that happening. Who are the ones benefiting? Maybe the employees of the government departments in oversight?............


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Accept2 said:


> Really? Really? I buy alot of mining and resource stocks, and I dont see that happening. Who are the ones benefiting? Maybe the employees of the government departments in oversight?............


I think that is because the royalty regime is very low percentage here, not to mention the subsidies likely dwarf the actual royalty revenue anyway.

Back to the workers that they want to take the cut down to $16.50 per hour:

Three years ago our Prime Minister Harper posed with workers to publicize a $5-million break to grease the wheels for sales by the locomotive-maker.

"Ontario is the heart, it is still the engine of the Canadian economy," Harper said then. "There's no reason the Ontario economy can't be as strong as the economy in any other part of this country."

This guy will soon set the BS record along with the hypocrite record that he already holds firmly.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

smorgdonkey said:


> This guy will soon set the BS record along with the hypocrite record that he already holds firmly.


He'll have to push McGuinty out the way first.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

davetcan said:


> He'll have to push McGuinty out the way first.


HAHA!! I laughed hard at that one Dave!!


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

keto said:


> But the income/revenue from selling the resources (more accurately, the rights to access the land & resources + royalties based on actual production) goes into government coffers for the benefit of us all. What, you want to have the government go into business exploring and drilling/mining/cutting trees etc? Nationalizing existing production sites (basically, stealing them from current owners) just ain't gonna fly here - we're not Venezuela. I'll generalize and say that places that DO do that, there's more government corruption and theft than we can ever imagine in Canada - the poor people are much poorer and more of them, than what we have. Or not allow any development of the resources? There are standards for pollution/site cleanup etc, not that they're perfect or the enforcement is perfect, but they do exist.


I never said anything about nationalizing any industry.
Funny you mention pollution and cleanup, that's one strategy of some corporations.
Just walk away and let someone else worry about it, ultimately, the taxpayer.
This is in that movie I posted earlier, The Corporation.

Just after the year long strike here, the government handed over a billion dollars to these weasels.
That's a comfy bed they have there.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

sulphur said:


> I never said anything about nationalizing any industry.
> Funny you mention pollution and cleanup, that's one strategy of some corporations.
> Just walk away and let someone else worry about it, ultimately, the taxpayer.
> This is in that movie I posted earlier, The Corporation.
> ...


I did, along with a couple of scenarios, sorta looking for what you want done about it all.......? "That's part of the problem here in Canada, selling off of our natural resources to these huge multinational corporations." ...and so, you would rather XXXX? Not develop our resources then? And base our economy on what, in that case?

Got a ref on that billion handout?


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> People often criticize countries like UAE, and Saudi for being unfair, but.... They have an interesting concept where the people own the natural resources. Every month citizens get dividend checks as the country sells off their natural resources (oil). I wonder when we will get checks for all our natural resources being sold off..............


The native band south of Edmonton did that for a number of years. Had to stop, it was a direct contributor to gambling/drinking/drug abuse problems, and essentially a 'lost generation', where they now have massive gang problems. Was a large feature about the whole scenario in the Sunday Journal a couple of weeks back.

Old Uncle Ralph sent everyone in Alberta $400 not long before he retired. We appreciated the cash, but looking back it was not a very smart thing to do with the money.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

This deal was made while the company still had workers on strike in Voisey Bay.
That shows support for your own people.
This is to a company that didn't need the cash in the first place. 
Upwards of 20 billion in the coffers and making billions quarterly.
this report is from a third party with no connections to the union whatsoever.

Here's your reference...

http://www.miningwatch.ca/article/vale-s-billion-dollar-bonus-another-example-edc-s-faulty-csr

No, I don't think that the resources should go untapped.
It was a sale of a company, not a whole lot anyone could do anyways.
The government was involved, at arms length. Probably with their palms out.
It is what it is, just have to deal with it, I guess.

The tar sands are another example.
Sell it off to the states and China, while it could have been over a hundred years worth of fuel to Canada.
In Venezuela, due to them keeping their resources, it's under twenty cents a gallon for gas at the pumps.
It's state owned and Chavez booted out the foriegn companies, 
the only reason that the states boycotted them and their puppydog, Canada, followed suit.
Chavez had since been voted in democratically, but they're still banned from trades with NA.
I miss their coffee. 8(


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Thanks for that. I don't really consider a loan to be a 'handout', but if as you say they had tons of cash on the balance sheet, neither do I understand why it would get done.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

The Canadian division 10% of their business worldwide.
That includes six or more mines, a main mill, smelter and several refineries in the Sudbury area. 
Around 2000 employees here in the city.
Then there's Thompson with three mines, a smelter. Another few hundred there.
And Voisey Bay, not sure the numbers there, maybe a couple of hundred employees there.
That would be a big enough outfit on its own.

I think that they run upwards of 100 000 employees world wide.

One reason that they could let us rot on the picket line for so long.
They had their agenda and got what they wanted.
Now it's backfiring on them with people leaving (mostly tradespeople)
and their inability to attract other skilled workers.

You can't run your operation with guys out of the pool hall.

I can see this happening at CAT.
Go ahead, chop the wages and watch the people leave.
Tradesmen are the first ones out because it's easiest for them to find a job,
one that would pay a lot more than 16-17 dollars.
How do you run the plant then? Do you think that you could attract anyone with crappy labor relations record?
No.

Trying not to get too political with this statement, 
but I don't see the point of a union in a province without an "Anti-Scab Law".
I sat on a picket line watching guys drive through the line for over a year.
I doubt that it would have lasted three months if it were only staff going through the gates.

After we did get back to work, our MP tried to get the law tabled again.
Almost a year of effort later and it was shot down again by a couple of votes.
Again, more wonderful support from our lovely elected officials.

The Bob Rae Liberals got rid of the law and the PCs are even bigger corporate whores.

Oh, and I said handed over, not "handout".


----------

