When Maggie first posted this in a different thread, I recounted a company I worked for 10 years ago. When I started, they were in the midst of a merger, but back when the company started, all of the employees recieved an ownership stake in it. Stock was part of their compensation. So when the company was bought, they all got a nice "bonus" in a way. Shared success. When the company succeeded, they succeeded. Later, while I was there, there was a lull in business and some people were laid off. Wanna guess how many of them were executives?? Wanna guess if the executives took pay cuts?? There was no Union to blame all their problems on, so it was just what it was. But nobody trusted the executives after that.
The moral of the story is, when the company sets up artificial "us vs. them" walls, the employees respond in kind.
Now if the company closes here, everybody loses in some sense. Does it make sense for the executives to be getting hundreds of thousands and ask for cuts only from the Unions? It's all interconnected. It's all a company's expense. Have you ever worked for a large corporation that's top heavy? It's sad, and when cuts come, who gets cut? Not the executives, that's for sure.
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
it's about either continuing the strike, the company folding, and 18.000 people losing their jobs... Or ending the strike, the company staying open, and workers accepting an 8% reduction in pay and keeping their jobs.
That is the question and I would like to know what you think would be best for the workers and for the American economy?