Then they should have considered that when they chose to put their own company out of business. Some of you liberals are shockingly dull. If someone puts a gun to their own head and pulls the trigger, who's fault should that be? Society's? The idiot's parent's? When does individual blame come into it? When do people have to answer for their choices in life? According to you folks, never.
It's not sad when that is exactly what THEY VOTED FOR. It's not like this was unavoidable!!! Modern day unions are nothing more than greedy parasites whose duty is to suck more money and more ridiculous pensions while protecting the lazy and incompetent workers.
Once again, I am not disputing that it is their fault. I just to not see anything remotely funny or something to be gloating about. Each company has employees outside of union as well, usually a decent percentage. All these people also lost their jobs. Are you happy about this as well?
Well I think it goes a long way in teaching a lesson about ,unions=stupid as hell. Hence the thread title "Good example of why unions are stupid as all hell"
I agree this is a very sad outcome for many. I just talked with a very close friend from Indianapolis and he will be out of a job. He did not support the strike. He would have never preferred to join any union, but as times are difficult, he felt he had little choice, and putting food on the table for his family was his ultimate priority. Someone will likely buy the company and its brand, and yes they will hire labor who will do more for less. I pray that my friend will be included in the new workforce, but in the meantime, it will likely be a sad Christmas for his children. Perhaps the silver lining will be that other unions and future companies can learn from the mistakes that are being made right now- but history hasn't proven itself to be a good teacher- at least not in this country.
Is there any chance that we can approach this logically? Has anyone seen, or checked to see if the Income Statements show that by allowing the Union workers they're agreed upon wages that the Company would go bankrupt? Perhaps just make less money? Other outcome, if any? If anyone here negotiated a contract for $50,000 per year, and the company had bad management, or spent money foolishly, or the economy was impacted, and Management asked you to cut back to $35,000, as an example, would you just say OK? Is this just a poorly played game of chess or poker? FWIW, I am not a fan of Unions. None of my business has any Union employees, but I feel that I pay my people well. My feeling is that in many ways they have become what they were formed for initially, bad for overall business. When the Magnates of yore, Rockefeller, Carnegie, and the like were forcing 12 hour days and 6 day work weeks, they were the enemy of the middle class. When Henry Ford paid double wages, started a 40 hour, 5 day work week, he thrived, as did the middle class. Now, we are faced with decisions on where to cut costs, nothing more, nothing less. Comments? Ideas? Thoughts?
There was a time when unions were necessary to stop what was essentially slave labor. However, the pendulum has swung so far to the other side over the last 50 years. Union greed was a lot easier to stomach (or ignore) while housing and stocks were going straight up for decades. Eventually the legacy costs overwhelm the company (or in the U.S.'s case, the entire system).