This does not asnwer my question, which was qualitifed with an "exactly".The entire history of the US labour movement is filled with countless examples of workers striking against plant closures and winning.
Goobieman said:This does not asnwer my question, which was qualitifed with an "exactly".
In other words, you don't know.It depends on the situation, obviously, so I can't answer your question "exactly,"
Goobieman said:In other words, you don't know.
You don't know. I got it. Move on.In other words, you are asking a question that cannot be answered outside of specific historical and material conditions. My answer is not "I don't know" but rather "Your question is unanswerable in its present form."
Goobieman said:You don't know. I got it. Move on.
Red herringHow EXACTLY do you start a business?
Goobieman said:Red herring
Your question isn't relevant to my response, nor does it address the question I put to you.
No its not, as it doesnt provide the information that my question requires as a response.It's completely relevant.
Ah, the ad hom -- the bastion from which those with nothing worthwhile to say do so for all to see.The fact that you can't admit that your question is unanswerable in its present form just shows how dishonest and immature you are.
No its not, as it doesnt provide the information that my question requires as a response.
Fact is, you don't know.
Admit that you dont know, and move on.
I think its pretty obvious that if you had any clue whatsoever as to how a union might stop outsourciing though proper organization, you would have offered it; the fact that you have, several times, refused to do so is a defacto concession of the point.I think it's been sufficiently documented that you're just being unreasonable, so I'm not going to engage in your infantile claims of superiority.
I think its pretty obvious that if you had any clue whatsoever as to how a union might stop outsourciing though proper organization, you would have offered it; the fact that you have, several times, refused to do so is a defacto concession of the point.
How does a stike keep a company from eliminating jobs and sending them elsewhere?This is untrue. You asked me EXACTLY how to stop outsourcing, which is unanswerable. However, an obvious GENERAL answer is through strike action.
This is untrue. You asked me EXACTLY how to stop outsourcing, which is unanswerable. However, an obvious GENERAL answer is through strike action.
The only way to prevent outsourcing is to make it cheaper and more convenient to produce the products here than it is to move operations elsewhere. If unions require a rate of pay so high and a working condition so ridiculous that it's cheaper and easier to move your operation, pay to ship both raw materials and finished product both ways and hire local labor to make your products, why wouldn't *EVERYONE* go offshore who can?
Unions shoot themselves in the foot and then accept no blame for their idiotic actions.
It all comes down to the fact that a global economy creates a global labor market, thus forcing everyone to compete against everyone else for jobs.Good point. Akron Ohio USED to be a prosperous, and decent place to live. BEFORE the GoodYear Union kept striking for higher, and higher wages. The Company shut down, and moved elsewhere.
Now Downtown Akron looks like Beruit...:roll: Thanks Unions.:censored
It all comes down to the fact that a global economy creates a global labor market, thus forcing everyone to compete against everyone else for jobs.
Now, you can unionize and demand higher wages, etc, all you want, but in doing so you increase the risk of the company you work for moving your job elsewhere -- because, as much as you may think otherwise, you really AREN'T all that special, especially when someone else can do the same work for a considerable net savings in cost.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?