Caterpillar+Progress Rail = Middle Class Screwed Again

[Chacal]

450 workers lost their job because the plant wasn't profitable... because they didn't accept a 50% pay cut...
... yet Caterpillar made a 4,9 BILLION dollars profit last year, the highest in its 86 years.
I wonder how big was the CEO's bonus. Did he accept a 50% pay cut?

Harper used this plant as an example, in 2008, on how tax cuts for the rich and for corporations would create more jobs. FAIL.
It has been repeatedly proven beyond any doubt that this is just bull.
Tax cuts only means more dividends for shareholders and bigger bonuses for CEOs.

[johnmckenzie]

I wonder how big was the CEO's bonus. Did he accept a 50% pay cut?

I think we all know the answer to that one.

I own a small business myself. The last 3 years have been really, really rough both personally and financially. Yet I understand fully my responsibility as an employer towards my workforce. I haven't reduced anyone's salary (apart from my own, that is - now less than half what it was in 2008) nor have I laid anyone off yet. Not until it becomes totally unavoidable.

I have nothing but utter contempt for those companies who make huge profits yet decide to shaft their staff.

[glenn68]

A&P since june 1987.

[buzz456]

450 workers lost their job because the plant wasn't profitable... because they didn't accept a 50% pay cut...
... yet Caterpillar made a 4,9 BILLION dollars profit last year, the highest in its 86 years.
I wonder how big was the CEO's bonus. Did he accept a 50% pay cut?

Harper used this plant as an example, in 2008, on how tax cuts for the rich and for corporations would create more jobs. FAIL.
It has been repeatedly proven beyond any doubt that this is just bull.
Tax cuts only means more dividends for shareholders and bigger bonuses for CEOs.

I am curious about your solution to this problem. There is this plant that you admit is not profitable and because the corporation as a whole is profitable you believe they should just keep it going to just employ people? In other words the people that are in profitable divisions should be subsidizing the ones that are losers? Forget for a minute the evil greedy CEO or the evil stockholders, how about the workers at the profitable plants? They should forgo raises so the workers at the division that is losing money should stay open?

Please explain this to me.
Respectfully,
Buzz

[Chacal]

There is this plant that you admit is not profitable and because the corporation as a whole is profitable you believe they should just keep it going to just employ people?

Yes.
Because profitability comes and goes.
When a company makes huge profits, it is thanks to the workers.
The millions that make up the CEO's bonus comes from workers' effort.
All companies say their workers are their most important assets, yet as soon as profits start going down they throw them away like old rags.
When a company makes huge profits, it should put some money aside for the lean days, returning the favor, helping each other to go through the hard times.

[buzz456]

I repeat:

Forget for a minute the evil greedy CEO or the evil stockholders, how about the workers at the profitable plants? They should forgo raises so the workers at the division that is losing money should stay open?

Respectfully,

[mapitts]

I repeat:

Forget for a minute the evil greedy CEO or the evil stockholders, how about the workers at the profitable plants? They should forgo raises so the workers at the division that is losing money should stay open?

Respectfully,

If you read my posts, that is EXACTLY what happened in 2009 within my operating division. One plant was shut down in MO due to it unable to meet EPA emission standards. Those "internal" products were then shifted over to the three other operating plants within the division. Those employees where offered buy outs and transfers.

[buzz456]

I understand what you are saying, I just don't understand Chacal's comment that a employee at a money making division should forgo a raise (my words) so a unprofitable division can stay open.

[mapitts]

I understand what you are saying, I just don't understand Chacal's comment that a employee at a money making division should forgo a raise (my words) so a unprofitable division can stay open.

The first question that comes to my mind is why is "the division" unprofitable? All too often the finger is pointed at labor. Never mind poor management, antiquated equipment, or purchasing new equipment that has proven itself not to work prior to the purchase, poor operations, and 100's of other things that I personally deal with each day. All too often the blame is shifted to the man on the floor. We, as employees, can only do so much. Management mostly slips through the radar in cases like this. At this very time I am watching 2 maintenance supervisors run a plant into the ground, and I am totally hopeless to stop it. I over heard my supervisor 2 weeks ago with a comment about something another maintenance crew needs pretty bad. His exact comment was, "every time I hear about somebody needing something, it automatically goes to the back of my list". How do you over come that and remain efficient?

[buzz456]

All I can say to that is after being in the work force for 40+ years is that there are a lot of dumb A(*'s out there.
Buzz

They are in management and workers. The one's in management do far more damage.

[Chacal]

Forget for a minute the evil greedy CEO or the evil stockholders, how about the workers at the profitable plants? They should forgo raises so the workers at the division that is losing money should stay open?

No, why?

[buzz456]

I think I'm finished with this thread.

[Hawk]

Actually, I think this whole thread's finished, so I'm locking it.