SC's most "evil" companies

[waccamatt]

But then you have companies like GM who are looking at bankuptcy because of their past union agreements, whatever they may be. There was one instance where they needed to relocate one of their old two-story plants elsewhere to build a highly efficient one-storey plant, but they weren't allowed to do that because of the union in that particular plant. If they can't move their plants into a more efficiant setup, even within the United States, how are these companies going to survive? On top of that, how will unions answer to the fact that their own existance was one of the reasons for their own job loss? I see these airliners fighting bankruptcy and the unions arent even willing to cut their own salaries enough to save their jobs. Seems like they're biting the hand that feeds them.

I will say once again that unions had a VERY important place in history, but I think their continued existance is a detriment to America's manufacturing companies.

I find it interesting that the least unionized states are also amongst the poorest. Coincidence? I think not.

[Spartan]

Maybe, maybe not. But I have never seen a ranking or rating of the strength of unions before, so its hard for me to agree or disagree with that.

I don't percieve any other southern states as having particularly strong unions.

[monsoon]

A pension. The modern day term is profit sharing. And you wouldn't have either if that evil company you worked for didn't make money, have stockholders (internal or external) invested in your evil company, and extort your time & energy from you.

This is not correct. Companies wishing to provide plans fund them indepedantly from company profits and pay out regardless of company profits. Pensions exist in companies and for that matter in governments that don't have stockholders, and I don't believe companies are generally evil despite the title of this thread.

What I do believe however is that many companies suffer from incompetant and arrogant management, who are allowed to fatten their own pockets at the expense of the workers and stockholders and this is the primary focus of their corporations. Offshoring is one tool they have been given which allows them to do this. Union busting is another. Suggestions that Unions should be eliminated ignore the fact that places such as Enron exist and a union is one of the few checks out there on bad management which otherwise can run completely amonk.

I find it interesting that the least unionized states are also amongst the poorest. Coincidence? I think not.

Indeed. You hit the nail on the head. If South Carolina had had a different attitude than what is being shown here about unions, and instead unionized the textile mills at the same time the automobile mills were unionized up North, I would say that SC would not have missed out on most of the post-WWII prosperity the rest of the nation enjoyed. The Cotton Mills created a few billionares and everybody else stayed dirt poor and fighting with each other over non-important issues. The billionares, who owned everything, were quite happy to keep it this way.

[upstate29650]

I'm not aware that anyone was FORCED to work in a mill. And if the mills in SC were unionized, I can assure you they would have left our state YEARS before they currently left. Again, I point back to the north, and how years of cow-towing to unions is making a real impact on industry there. Business will always look for less expensive ways of doing things, and that does include payroll. That's a fact of life.

Again, business only exists to make a profitable return for its owners &/or shareholds.

[Charleston native]

I'm not aware that anyone was FORCED to work in a mill. And if the mills in SC were unionized, I can assure you they would have left our state YEARS before they currently left. Again, I point back to the north, and how years of cow-towing to unions is making a real impact on industry there. Business will always look for less expensive ways of doing things, and that does include payroll. That's a fact of life.

Again, business only exists to make a profitable return for its owners &/or shareholds.

Which is a primary reason why some successful companies are able to retain good employees by ensuring that employees themselves buy stock for their company. I can't remember specific companies, but this really helps employees because it places ownership, the value of the company, and the success of the company in their hands. Truly a unique concept...I wish more corporations did it.

And, it eliminates the need for unions. The employees/stockholders help control the administration's decisions.

[Spartan]

Its easy to throw around the names like Enron that have a negative connotiation, but just how may hudreds of thousands of companies are out there now that are not like Enron?

Again, you guys are pointing back towards history. SC may indeed have benefited from unions in the past but in this day and age, they are not needed. We have minimum wage laws, worker saftey laws, etc to ensure that workers are not taken advantage of.

[upstate29650]

^^^ What he said ^^^

[Charleston native]

^^^Uhh...yeah! What he said too! ^^^

[monsoon]

I'm not aware that anyone was FORCED to work in a mill. And if the mills in SC were unionized, I can assure you they would have left our state YEARS before they currently left. Again, I point back to the north, and how years of cow-towing to unions is making a real impact on industry there. Business will always look for less expensive ways of doing things, and that does include payroll. That's a fact of life.

Again, business only exists to make a profitable return for its owners &/or shareholds.

I don't believe you are in a position to assure us the jobs would have left SC if the mills here were unionized. Where were the textile jobs going to go? Off-shoring would not have been possible during this period as trade laws would prevent it and the Communists in China were then our enemies intent on destroying our system. (I'm not sure why we trust them now.)

And, yes if you lived in most mill towns in SC say prior to the early 70s and with few exceptions, you either worked in the mill or you left town. The mills owned the housing, the stores, and dictated almost every aspect of daily life. That was the choice for most poor South Carolineans so I would say that while they were not "forced" to work in the mills, they had no other options if they wanted to eat. I would recommend brushing up on the history of what happened in the mills in SC and the South.

[monsoon]

Its easy to throw around the names like Enron that have a negative connotiation, but just how may hudreds of thousands of companies are out there now that are not like Enron?

Again, you guys are pointing back towards history. SC may indeed have benefited from unions in the past but in this day and age, they are not needed. We have minimum wage laws, worker saftey laws, etc to ensure that workers are not taken advantage of.

Many people would argue the minimum wage law does harm workers because it sets a very low standard that people can't live on this wage. The lack of unions are why so many people in SC are stuck at this level and barely get by.

[btoy]

I personally am not for minimum wage, here is why. And I'll amit you are goig to want to see the numbers and I don't have a link at the moment, but I have heard many times, that most workers that actually work at minimum wage are high schoolers and college students, they are not careers.

And second, raises in minimum wage actually can cost jobs. When I was in HS and I remember working hard for a raise, finally got it and then minimum wage went up erasing my raise and putting me at par with all the new hires again. Plus we had to cut back the number of employees meaning we had fewer people on any one shift and those that still had jobs hod to do more, so it did more bad then good.

Wages should all be cometitive, let the companies pay what it takes to keep emplyees, people are not going to work for peanuts.

[Spartan]

Many people would argue the minimum wage law does harm workers because it sets a very low standard that people can't live on this wage. The lack of unions are why so many people in SC are stuck at this level and barely get by.

Good point, but its those higher wages that unions are demanding that are causing outsourcing American jobs and forcing our companies into bankruptcy. If its too expensive to employ people here, why not go somewhere that it isnt? That is why I'm saying that unions in this day and age are only biting the hand that feeds them.

[waccamatt]

Good point, but its those higher wages that unions are demanding that are causing outsourcing American jobs and forcing our companies into bankruptcy. If its too expensive to employ people here, why not go somewhere that it isnt? That is why I'm saying that unions in this day and age are only biting the hand that feeds them.

Let me see if I get this, since unions want employers to pay a wage that people can actually live on, they are forcing companies overseas. Give me a break.

[Spartan]

Thats exactly right. You hear all the time that companies find it too expensive to manufacture things in the US. Why do you think that is?

[waccamatt]

Thats exactly right. You hear all the time that companies find it too expensive to manufacture things in the US. Why do you think that is?

I think it is because they are moving to countries with NO labor or environmental protection laws. Cheaper labor is certainly part of it, but that's not the only thing. What is the good of having an industry if they don't pay their employees enough to live decently?

[monsoon]

Thats exactly right. You hear all the time that companies find it too expensive to manufacture things in the US. Why do you think that is?

That is an excuse to justify moving their operations to places where they pay people less than a $1/day. The difference in wages are pocketed by the owners of the company not passed on to consumers. This is what globalization is doing to our country. The upstate is highly dependant upon manufacturing and whats to say that in 20 years the area is devastated by every company there, including BMW, moving its operations to South America?

[btoy]

Let me see if I get this, since unions want employers to pay a wage that people can actually live on, they are forcing companies overseas. Give me a break.

When you raise wages the cost to produce goods raises and so does to cost then to purchases them, thus erasing the gains made by an increase in wages. But it doesn't end there, higher prices can lead to further inflation becuase then wages may be corrected again. Then to keep things undercontrol the fed will raise interest rates to slow inflation making the cost of borrowing go up. This slows the economy thus possibily costing jobs. Also, this makes new home ownership more expensive, thus making it more difficult for the working class to own their own home.

[Jerseyman4]

When you raise wages the cost to produce goods raises and so does to cost then to purchases them, thus erasing the gains made by an increase in wages. But it doesn't end there, higher prices can lead to further inflation becuase then wages may be corrected again. Then to keep things undercontrol the fed will raise interest rates to slow inflation making the cost of borrowing go up. This slows the economy thus possibily costing jobs. Also, this makes new home ownership more expensive, thus making it more difficult for the working class to own their own home.

Sounds like a domino effect

[upstate29650]

Anyone watching what's going on in New York? 7 million without transportation to & from work, lost sales at retailer's busiest time of year, potential economic impact in the billions!!??

Yep, the illegal NYC transit strike, brought to you by....a union

[monsoon]

Anyone watching what's going on in New York? 7 million without transportation to & from work, lost sales at retailer's busiest time of year, potential economic impact in the billions!!??

Yep, the illegal NYC transit strike, brought to you by....a union

One could say legal NYC transit site brought on by city administrators who want to unreasonably cut benefits. Its a matter of perspective on who gets the blame here.

[krazeeboi]

I think estimates say that NYC is losing something like $1.4M a day because of this strike. No matter who is really to blame, this thing is really serious.

[monsoon]

No matter who is really to blame, this thing is really serious.

... a strike is always a serious business

[Jerseyman4]

... a strike is always a serious business

This strike is so serious, it will cripple so many small businesses below 96th street similar to how lower Manhattan experienced during 9/11.

[Spartan]

One could say legal NYC transit site brought on by city administrators who want to unreasonably cut benefits. Its a matter of perspective on who gets the blame here.

Not really. Their strike is against the law, so it should not have happened in the first place. They are just shooting themselves in the foot, along with everyone else that lives in New York and anyone who is unfortunate enough to be visiting there.

[monsoon]

Since when is it illegal for people to refuse to come to work because they don't feel they are being treated fairly by management? I don't understand why there is such indignation against workers looking out for their rights yet at the same time, everyone is quite happy for CEOs to pay themselves exhorbant salaries while they send thousands of jobs to overseas locations. Something is really warped about that.

There is fabulous wealth in NYC and I don't really have a problem if some of that prosperity is spent on the people that make it possible.