Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
EddieBGood, Massey built itself up by buying mining companies whose unions have driven them into bankruptcy, enabling new buyers like Massey, to snatch them up for pennies on the dollar.
EddieBGood, Massey built itself up by buying mining companies whose unions have driven them into bankruptcy, enabling new buyers like Massey, to snatch them up for pennies on the dollar.
What does that have to do w/ anything? Employee safety comes second to corporate profits? Profits never justify sacrificing employees.
Massey willfully chose profit over employee safety, and the ONLY reason they were able to do that was b/c they got rid of the unions that were PROTECTING THE EMPLOYEES.
It means, Eddie, exorbitant union compensation is what allowed Massey to buy that mine, so those lives lost, there is blood on the hands of those former union brothers who created the situation where Massey would own that mine.
A union that bankrupts an employer protects NO ONE. They play an instrumental role in creating companies like Massey, and in so doing, they deserve much of the blame of that tragedy.
PS, No profits = No Jobs. Ask the 63,000 fewer auto workers in Flint how much better their lives are (sar) now that they bankrupted GM and eliminated their own jobs. If you get a paycheck, you get it solely through a little thing called P-R-O-F-I-T.
It means, Eddie, exorbitant union compensation is what allowed Massey to buy that mine, so those lives lost, there is blood on the hands of those former union brothers who created the situation where Massey would own that mine.
A union that bankrupts an employer protects NO ONE. They play an instrumental role in creating companies like Massey, and in so doing, they deserve much of the blame of that tragedy.
PS, No profits = No Jobs. Ask the 63,000 fewer auto workers in Flint how much better their lives are (sar) now that they bankrupted GM and eliminated their own jobs. If you get a paycheck, you get it solely through a little thing called P-R-O-F-I-T.
Again... that has nothing to do w/ Massey. All you're doing is justifying Massey's negligence in pursuit of profit. What other company's did has nothing to do w/ whether or not it's okay for a different company to ignore safety standards and put their employees at risk.
Are you really saying that if the choice is between people's lives and profit, you're okay w/ a company choosing profit?
Most corps are quite safe, and they still profit. What I am saying is, had the prior UNIONS not bankrupted the corps (as union folk like you view profit as evil), there would be no Masseys. So examine the history of ownership of Masseys' holdings; most are failed union corps whose union compensation killed them. That set it up for a Massey to grow.
But w/o profit, there is no safety. there are no jobs.
We're not talking about "most corps" or past corps. We're talking specifically about Massey. Shoot... most people aren't killers. How does that disprove the argument for why we need cops? It doesn't. Just like saying "most corps are quite safe" doesn't disprove the need for unions.
Quote:
What I am saying is, had the prior UNIONS not bankrupted the corps (as union folk like you view profit as evil), there would be no Masseys. So examine the history of ownership of Masseys' holdings; most are failed union corps whose union compensation killed them. That set it up for a Massey to grow.
Entirely irrelevant. Do those workers deserve to work in unsafe work enviroments? Yes or no?
Quote:
But w/o profit, there is no safety. there are no jobs.
First of all, stop misusing "profit." Profit comes into play AFTER payroll & AFTER expenses. Second, back up your point about Massey's holding having gone bankrupt due to unions b/c Massey came up when unions were standard, so obviously they were able to profit while working w/ unions, as were all the other company's.
"Do those workers deserve to work in unsafe work enviroments? Yes or no?"
Its not a yes or no question, because while I'd like the mine to be safe, the fact no other buyer emerged said the true choice in West Virginia was to have Massey own it and run it per their methods, or to have it closed for good. Now the miners would not have died, as they would never have been employed. Massey owns the majority of mines there , from the standpoint of jobs.
So if you rephrase that as (1) Choose safety and unemployment, or (2) Choose jobs, its a relevent question. Its not relevent as a yes no, as coal mining has few interested owners, and Massey is one of the last major ones willing to try.
PS, Massey bought corps whose original union contracts had already been voided/amended severely in Bankruptcy Court. They were not a big player when labor compensation in the industry was lavish, which bankrupted the earlier big players. The industry is a microcosm of the foolishness of organized labor. On another board, another poster said it best "A smart parasite never eats its host". That means, unions should be very interested in insuring their corps are the MOST profitable in their industries. W/O profits, they will eventually go the way of the old bankrupt steel corps and the D3 (2 of whom who needed welfare to stay alive).
"Do those workers deserve to work in unsafe work enviroments? Yes or no?"
Its not a yes or no question, because while I'd like the mine to be safe, the fact no other buyer emerged said the true choice in West Virginia was to have Massey own it and run it per their methods, or to have it closed for good. Now the miners would not have died, as they would never have been employed. Massey owns the majority of mines there , from the standpoint of jobs.
So if you rephrase that as (1) Choose safety and unemployment, or (2) Choose jobs, its a relevent question. Its not relevent as a yes no, as coal mining has few interested owners, and Massey is one of the last major ones willing to try.
PS, Massey bought corps whose original union contracts had already been voided/amended severely in Bankruptcy Court. They were not a big player when labor compensation in the industry was lavish, which bankrupted the earlier big players. The industry is a microcosm of the foolishness of organized labor. On another board, another poster said it best "A smart parasite never eats its host". That means, unions should be very interested in insuring their corps are the MOST profitable in their industries. W/O profits, they will eventually go the way of the old bankrupt steel corps and the D3 (2 of whom who needed welfare to stay alive).
It is entirely a yes/no question. Massey isn't a corp teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. It's a multi-100M/year company. They pay their executives 10s of MILLIONS in addition to BONUSES. Profitability is not at risk when it comes to them obeying safety regulations. They made the choice to MAXIMIZE their profit at the expense of the safety of their workers.
Even if they were teetering, profits are not an excuse for putting people's lives at risk. Is not wanting people to work in a place where they could suffocate to death one of those Liberal "delusions" that your kind makes fun of? I never thought I'd be discussing w/ someone whether or not profits are more important than people's lives.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
