| Author | Message | ||
     P_squared |
Corporations, which includes the employees, have to make a profit to survive. So, if you're an employee, the best way to stay employed is to help ensure your corporation is profitable. Shareholders expect a profit based upon a return for their investment. How is it greedy to expect a return on the money you invest in a company? Everyone here who is complaining about shareholders being 'greedy', please let me know how much money you have invested in companies with NO EXPECTATION of a return. Consumers expect an 'affordable' product. The can & will shop around for the 'best' price. Why do you think so many folks shop at Wal-Mart? It isn't because their products are the 'best' now is it? Government expects a revenue stream from everyone in the form of taxes. It's not so simple as placing the 'blame' on 1 single part of the parties involved. We ALL play a part in it. Unless you've been buying you're fair share & then some of Hershey's products, investing in their company, etc., I think it's a bit lame to be angered over their actions, IMO. | ||
| Just_ziptab |
"How is it greedy to expect a return on the money you invest in a company?" Define greedy. 1%,5%,15%,25%? | ||
| P_squared |
You tell me. If you invest your own money into a company, are you not expecting a return on that investment? If you're not expecting a return, then why are you investing it? How many folks invest only in companies with a 'modest' rate of return? Most folks who invest do so in the hopes of getting the best return they can. If you don't agree that EVERYONE owns some responsibility in this, that's fine. I just don't see it that way and refuse to castigate a single group as 'the root of all evil'. Time 4 a ride now. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
In fact, Henry Ford shifted things on the exact opposite way things are shifting now. How many competitive brands were there in 1914? Guys, when was the last time you ate a Jolly Rancher? Guys, when was the last time you ate a Peppermint Patty? 5th Avenue? Zagnut? These were not front line products. Must companies grow to survive? Yes. Why is this? Because the costs of production increase each year. If a company grew at only a 4-5% rate, it wouldn't be growing because of the increases in the consumer price index. Labor expects an increase in wages each year. Energy costs go up each year. Raw materials go up each year. Benefits costs go up each year. If a company isn't growing, it is dying. Additionally, products, production facilities, and companies go through a life cycle: inception, growth, maturity, decline. Do you remember when Cadbury Eggs came out? At "inception" they were new and in high demand. You could ONLY get them at Easter. They were advertised on TV. Then you could get them throughout the year. They "grew" in popularity and added caramel egs and peanut butter eggs. When was the last time you saw them advertised on TV? Cadbury Eggs are now a "mature" product. Hershey will continue to produce them as long as there is a demand. As the demand declines, they will keep the line as long as possible cutting costs where possible (facility costs, advertising costs, labor costs, etc.). The lines this plant produced were in the process of decline. The options were to downscale the production or pull the line. Either way, the plant in Redding was closing. Facilities have a life cycle too. The plant in Redding was one of the oldest plants. It was one of the least efficient with capacity that outstripped the demand for the primary products it made. Hershey, as a company is a mature business and, unless it can curtail costs and expand its market share. Candy sales are declining in the US. Hershey's is loosing market share to competitors. Hershey's is working to slow it's decline, but as a company it, like all other businesses, is on its way out. There will be more companies to replace it as long as there is an industry. Now you can demonize the "executives" and claim that corporate greed is to blame, but it isn't true. You can boycott Hershey's and hasten the decline. Hershey's will close more factories, lose more market share, lay off more people, outsource more jobs, and eventually go out of business. You must also look at what is coming down the line. Over the last four months, we have spent $2T in taxpayer funds. Where do these dollars come from? Corporate tax rates have been promised to increase. This means that companies like Hershey's will have to make more money per item sold to pay for the taxes. What are the state corporate tax rates in PA? If you ONLY view circumstances at companies like Hershey's through the lense of labor, you miss the big picture. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Define greedy. 1%,5%,15%,25%? What is the profit margin on Zagnut? 5th Avenue? Jolly Rancher? What would YOU say is a fair rate of return? | ||
| Old_man |
It's obvious the lens that you use. You must be very rich. | ||
| Bill0351 |
"How many competitive brands were there in 1914?" There were dozens of car manufactures who were competitive with Ford at one time, but that isn't the point I was trying to make. There are always going to be competing interests in business. The corporation needs to (at a minimum) break even after paying all costs associated with doing business. Stock holders want a return on the money they invested, and they want it NOW. It's a natural impulse. It just doesn't always seem to go hand in hand with the long term health of an industry. When times are good, they want money out, and when times are bad, they want to move on and find another company that is on the rise. If a corporation can get them a better return by sending jobs to Mexico, they are fine with that. Then you have the workers, who need a healthy business (not in the sense of share price, but in the sense of plenty of work to go around). If everything is in balance, and everyone is seeing the big picture, you have a healthy industry. When any one part of the equation starts drawing too much away from the company, or starts making unhealthy compromises, the whole industry and the whole economy suffers. The moving parts are incredibly complex, but the principals are amazingly simple. If too much working capital is pulled out as "profit", and not enough money is spent for product development, research, and quality control, you will have a company making things nobody wants. (Everybody eventually loses.) Shipping jobs overseas increases short term returns on investment, but slowly kills the ability of people to afford the products. Eventually you have a company making things nobody can afford.(Everybody eventually loses.) Employees, from the top executive to the guy who sweeps up the cafeteria expecting more in wages and benefits than the company can reasonably pay, will win in the short term, but they create the pressure that gets jobs shipped overseas. (Everybody eventually loses.) Right now, it seems that everyone is doing their own part to kill American industry, and they are doing a good job at it! | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
You must be very rich. I wish. My not being rich isn't a result of "the man", though. I do wonder, though, if there would be as much concern about loss of jobs if those worried spent as much time looking toward the horizon trying to keep themselves marketable as they do worried about what company is outsourcing what factory where. I spend about 30% of my time in work education and job training. All of that time is "off the clock". | ||
| Ducxl |
I quit a job that sucked 6 months ago.And got a better one a week later."I aint fraid of no ghost". I just wish more of my fellow Americans,Rich ones especially,sought to employ their fellow American MORE. The only answer is to employ us WORKING and MAKING stuff people need. Otherwise there'll be MILLIONS of us sitting around a drag on society.May be we should use that cool bus the Chinese just developed? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The only answer is to employ us WORKING and MAKING stuff people need. How about working to make stuff that is difficult to off shore? Do you think for a second that the folks in Redding were caught completely unaware that the plant was going to close? Do you think that there wasn't a conversation or 2 or 15 over the last year, two years, three years about the future of the plant? Over the last year to three years (even before the recession hit) do you think these folks could have looked to train doing a different job? I know that were I working for a company where I had an idea that the plant was closing or that my job was being phased out, I would be working to change skill sets, retool, and retrain to do something different. I've done it before myself. I have to do it now. If I'm not more competitive, more marketable than the next guy I get phased out. My job gets sourced elsewhere. I don't blame "those damn executives". That's just the way it works. The 100% American Labor utopia never existed and won't exist in the future. | ||
| Old_man |
The trouble is, train for WHAT job? WalMart greeter? The options are all quickly disappearing. The computer jobs seemed safe a few years ago. Now going to India. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The computer folks became network administrators. Why? Because you can't outsource them. Maybe you leave manufacturing. There are other jobs besides manufacturing jobs. There are manufacturing jobs outside of PA. You wouldn't believe how many transplants TN has from MI and CA for the auto industry. Canton, MS almost doubled in size. Chattanooga will swell when the new VW plant opens. I'm sure that the industrious members of the United Buggy Whip Makers Local 824 found something else to do when the last buggy whip company closed. Hitching your wagon to a candy company probably isn't the best career move for the long term future. | ||
| Just_ziptab |
"What would YOU say is a fair rate of return?" I don't really know,but I would say if you can double your money in seven years....that would be fair. (?) | ||
| Paw |
So Caterpillar, ~12 yrs. ago? "Those guy were on the picket line for well over a year..." And a year long strike had nothing to do with that decision? There's always at least 2 sides to every story, and I'm yet to be convinced it's JUST the 'evil/greedy' corporations, or the 'innocent' workers that are the root problem. It takes 2 to tango. OK mr. know it all. I personally knew guys who worked there then...The reason they were out so long is the company wanted them to take benefit cuts... That all boils down to the big boys up stairs making a bigger profit and get their bigger bonuses...It sucks any time an employer want to take away what they gave to you in good faith and signed on paper with a hand shake to boot. Now what do you think about Caterpillar and the CEO they had 12 years ago!!!!! Guaranteed if GE wanted to take what the gave to us in good faith agreement i would picket as long as i had to to keep what i earned and they agreed to give me. But i don't have to worry about that, As GE know how to manage a factory...Only 6% of the total cost of the product going out the door is from direct labor. GE is making money hand over foot on us guy and gals on the shop floor. | ||
| P_squared |
Thank you for validating that I know it all.  From Wikipedia based on a quick search: "Labor problems Caterpillar came close to bankruptcy in the early 1980s, at one point losing almost $1 million per day due to a sharp downturn in product demand as competition with Japanese rival Komatsu (who at the time used the internal slogan "encircle Caterpillar"  30]) heated up. The company also suffered when President Ronald Reagan declared an embargo against the Soviet Union after they invaded Afghanistan, causing the company to be unable to sell millions of dollars worth of pipelaying equipment it had already built. The impact of the embargo on the company was about $400 million.[31] The results were layoffs and massive labor union strikes, primarily by the United Auto Workers against plants in Illinois and Pennsylvania. Several news reports at the time indicated that products were piling up so high in facilities that temporary workers hired to work the lines could barely make their way to their work stations. Caterpillar suffered another long labor disagreement, locking out union workers in the 1990s and hiring what it termed "permanent replacements." Caterpillar's response to these labor conflicts was to "farm out" much of its parts production and warehouse work to outside firms: rather than fighting the union, Caterpillar has made itself less vulnerable to the tools traditionally available to organized workers. Caterpillar also made effective use of office staff during the disputes, suspending research and development work to send thousands of engineers and others into their factories to fill in for striking or locked out union members." Based on that, I don't believe your story of the events. I believe there's a LOT more to it, which you are either unaware of, or choose not to acknowledge as it doesn't fit your personal view. Again, a year long strike & you expect the company to bend over & cave in to labor's demands? I'd call that a self-inflicted injury, not the 'big boys' upstairs being greedy. Or let me guess, everyone has to play by YOUR rules, and any disagreement is forbidden? What's so hard to understand? If you want a good paying job, you HAVE to be part of the solution for making the company profitable. If they're not profitable, you are out of a job. Where does this entitlement mentality come from? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I don't really know,but I would say if you can double your money in seven years....that would be fair. (?) That very well may be true. My point was the premise of this WHOLE thread. The gauntlet was thrown that the closure of the Hershey's plant was due to "greed". The problem is that there was never, and still isn't, any idea of the profitability of that particular plant in the determination that seeking a higher profit margin was being greedy. Was the plant being run at a loss? If so, should the company continue to run the plant at a loss? We don't know and neither does the OP. I am simply tired of the same old straw man arguments being offered that corporate greed is to blame. The company has no obligation to anyone but those people who have invested their money into the company. Period. The employees are a mechanism of production. If the demand for the product declines, market price for the product declines, or the costs of production grow to such an extent that the rate of return of that operation falls below the expected return on investment that the investors expect, the deal changes. The factory closes. The factory moves over seas. Does anyone sincerely believe that Hershey's would move these jobs overseas if they didn't HAVE to to survive? | ||
| Danny_h__jesternut |
Em, Um, I think its jest GREED plain and simple. Yes thats right its only GREED and GREED alone. All parties involved are guilty. The workers, all the managers, the CEO, the owners, the investers, all are guilty. Me included. Everybody wants more pie, and when you get more pie its still not enough. If I had 10 I would want 100. 10 mill, nope not enough yet. Rember whats in mans heart is eveil? GREED is part of eveil, they go hand and hand. Guilty. You have to change whats in there. You have freedom of choice, you only have two choices: right(good) or wrong(bad), pick one. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
It is Hershey's. I am greedy when it comes to Reese's Peanut Butter Cups. I would kill your Grandmother for one. | ||
| Paw |
Caterpillar suffered another long labor disagreement, locking out union workers in the 1990s and hiring what it termed "permanent replacements." Read this part real close...better yet just the first 6 words...I see the article did not go in depth of the labor dispute...The people I knew who worked there where looking at losing major benefits...They would not budge for what Cat wanted to take and give to them so the greedy pricks locked them out!!! Shut your mouth and do some real research and talk to the guys who were on the picket to keep what the company wanted to take...ENOUGH SAID!!! Now squash this bull$h!t...corprate greed and mismanagement is the biggest problem...You or nobody will tell me any different...I went threw something like that at York international the company wanted us to take a 20% pay cut and other benefit cuts. So with the threat of moving operations to Mexico and Texas. The Union found other ways for the company to save money with out taking 20% from us they agreed on it. Then stuck it right up our butts and still went to Mexico, when NAFTA got signed in...What would you call that? GREED | ||
| Paw |
Everybody wants more pie, and when you get more pie its still not enough. Or in the famous word that Rockafeller said when asked by an interviewer...This was when he was the richest man in the world. Interviewer: How much is enough money? Rockafeller: There is not enough. I will always want $1 more. GREED | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Your "benefits" are not guaranteed. Your job isn't guaranteed. It doesn't matter how many handshake deals you have. | ||
| Court |
>>>I am simply tired of the same old straw man arguments being offered that corporate greed is to blame. You and I both. I've owned several companies, always had lofty goals, sought to be "socially responsible" but the bottom line, owing largely to two growing boys with big appetites headed to college and my lust for motorcycles, airplanes and such, was always operating at a PROFIT. More was always better but I had a sliding scale I worked out with my employees. If we met our goal . . it all went to the company, above that they participated in exponentially increasing proportion. Once we beat our budget number by 20% it was all theirs. Greed, eh? Anyone asking why autoworkers continue to get paid something like 85% of the 40 hour week when they are laid off? Part of the problem is the "greed" for "justice" from corporations and to make the companies some sort of parent substitute. . we in America have fallen victim to a "you owe me" mentality. We don't like to see things die . . .if you don't believe me . . . look at Chrysler. . .ever seen a company that needed the axe more? | ||
| Rfischer |
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, intelligent analysis and discourse is a pointless waste of time when dealing with the entitlement crowd, aka PAW et al. They represent a regrettably large and growing segment of America that views everything through a class [in the Marxian sense] prism. An "US/Them" logic system which is immune to reason. Give it up. | ||
| Slaughter |
We USED TO BE represented by a union and were so disgusted by its demands and fostering of inflexible working relationships with our managmenent - we could SEE how bad it was for our long-term employment. We actually TRIED to see if there could be a competition between different unions who COULD represent us... guess how THAT went over??? Think that COLLECTIVISM is the best way to get job security??? Think that having competitions between unions to represent workers is even an option?? After 52 years of short-sighted repressive limitations imposed on us by the union, WE VOTED OUR UNION OUT. LA Times article (click) IT can be done but you MUST have the ability to get information TO the people. IF the ONLY source of information IS the union, an election to CHANGE your union or to END union representation is just not going to happen. We're still working, we're NOT being oppressed by "THE MAN" and yes, we're still "empowered." It can happen but IF and ONLY IF your priority is job security - and not the orgasmic dollar-per-hour number. Having sat through the bitter arguments in our case, I can see how these things all too often have the feel of religious arguments. (Message edited by slaughter on February 23, 2009) | ||
| P_squared |
Paw, it seems everytime when we infrequently cross paths, you go out of your way to be a richard cranium to me. All that pent up anger & frustration can't be good for the ticker.  If you want to tell me to 'shut your mouth', call me a 'know it all', etc., that's fine. It's no skin off my nose. You obviously have a belief/view that is very much opposed to mine. Again, I question the accuracy & full truthfulness of your version of the events. You have offered me no FACTS, only “my friends”. Sorry, but I don’t know your friends, so I’m not convinced of the truthfulness of their statements, nor of your recounting of them. If you choose only to believe in an “Us vs. Them” mantra, that’s your choice. Just don’t be surprised when not everyone else jumps on your bandwagon. If you can’t debate a topic politely, WHY would I choose to listen to what you have to say? It’s very easy to point the finger of blame when you are dealing with emotion. I’ve yet to see you support your argument with FACTS though. Go ahead. I’ll wait. In the meantime, reread my ENTIRE posts. I didn’t say anyone was ‘innocent.’ I stated it is MY belief that EVERYONE involved shares some responsibility for the results. Instead of trying to belittle me, why don’t you politely discuss it? (Countdown to Backfire Board clock restarted...3...2...1...) | ||
| Rfischer |
"....why don't you politely discuss it?" See above.  | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
In order for the "greed" argument to be valid, two components (missing from this discussion) must first be established. First, how much profit was the company making in their current operations. Second, how much profit does it expect to make after the change. I would say that goal was to keep the lower demand products profitable. The alternative was more than likely to terminate the long established lines represented. | ||
| Court |
I've got a question about "greed" although elements of it may relate to pure dishonesty. I'm not sure I'm ready to blame the unions involved but they are, for the sake of discussion, the common thread in these 3 cases that have made news over the last week.
I've got no opinion on this. But then I don't mind when a person working in a hedge fund makes $2M a year or when Jimmy McCaslin makes $2,155,146 as the President of Harley-Davidon. Tell me what greed is? I think there is a concept of value that gets lost. I will never forget the line worker at Harley-Davidson, around 1989, who told me that Rich Teerlink was "underpaid" at $2,700,000. I tend to agree. | ||
| Slaughter |
Besides, Chocolate is unhealthy and fattening. | ||
| 99savage |
Wish there were any surviving labor leaders of the caliber of G. Meany. This Sweeney guy is a useless D***. None of this is going to get any better until the people in China & India are living about as well as we do. There is just too much energy there & stuff moves too easy now. – IT slides down wires, borders can’t stop it. Sweeney is so comfortable being a lapdog for the Democratic Party I see no hope for any of us. George Meany had no problem inviting himself to Regan’s White House. They worked together & made it a priority to support labor movements in South America, Eastern Europe & Japan. Back then everybody said Japan was going to eat our lunch. Now Japan is a high cost labor market. Back then all agreed Marxism was the future. Now the Soviet Union is dead due in large part to organized labor in Eastern Europe. Historically labor has sought to restrict immigration (less labor = higher wages). This Sweeney d***head is busy organizing illegals making beds in hotels, not IT workers. The Democrats want cheap maids & pool boys + a captive block of dependent voters & Sweeney smiles & says “Yass suh”. Easy to throw rocks @ corporations but either they make money or they go out of business – That is all there is to the story. |
