"The door of Scrooge’s counting-house was open that he might keep his eye upon his clerk, who in a dismal little cell beyond, a sort of tank, was copying letters. Scrooge had a very small fire, but the clerk’s fire was so very much smaller that it looked like one coal. But he couldn’t replenish it, for Scrooge kept the coal-box in his own room; and so surely as the clerk came in with the shovel, the master predicted that it would be necessary for them to part. Wherefore the clerk put on his white comforter, and tried to warm himself at the candle; in which effort, not being a man of a strong imagination, he failed."--Charles Dickens, "A CHRISTMAS CAROL IN PROSE, BEING A Ghost Story of Christmas", 1843.
NORTH AMERICA--A "tentative deal" (Meaning not finalized, or not validated or agreed-upon) has been reached between the United Steel Workers union and Goodyear, states Reuters in a piece from this early-morning. Getting a smooth-transition seems hardly a "good-deal" at all, and the article seems to be more a matter of wishful-thinking on-the-part of the corporate sector, the owners of the mainstream media. What does it mean? No lump-of-coal for Bob Cratchit's stove, naturally. Ho-ho-ho. Reuters reports:
The agreement calls for the largest U.S. tire maker to give a one-year period of transition for workers instead of an immediate closure of a Tyler, Texas plant. The closure of that plant had been one of the principle obstacles to an agreement. Goodyear is in the process of exiting unprofitable private label tire production in a bid to boost profits. (Reuters, 12.22.2006)
The "agreement" doesn't offer much, and is admittedly being done simply to "boost-profits", a raw-deal-at-best. If I was an intelligent union leader, I'd tell them to shove their deal up-their-ass, and look to the long-term consequences of said "deals." Goodyear also wants to make all new-hires non-union, at non-union pay. This is also unacceptable, and should be roundly-rejected with further walkouts, and should be echoed in Canada as well. Don't buy Goodyear, I won't until there is some reasonable solution to this, meaning keeping the plant and future-hires union.
This is hardly over, and should be viewed as a highly-suspicious news release that favors ownership/major-shareholders. Also curious are the numbers quoted for strikers--one release says 12,500 (excluding Canadian strikers?), 15,000 in today's, and 16,000 in others. This is reminiscent of public opinion-polls for President Bush, as well as on social concerns, exit polls, and election-results. Watch the counters, and watch them well.
It would behoove currently unionized workers to go wildcat on their national unions and the NLRB (http://www.nlrb.gov/) when they aren't watching-out for their interests and the long-term picture. They should also be working-hard to get Hispanic workers naturalized and unionized, something only the daft would oppose. What do they have to lose? Their future? That's already being decided by the company and union hacks. Unannounced work-slowdowns are also a powerful-tool in driving-down the stock of companies that view workers as disposable. The only rule in this game is winning, and losing means social-chaos that would make a General strike seem tame in-comparison.
The agreement calls for the largest U.S. tire maker to give a one-year period of transition for workers instead of an immediate closure of a Tyler, Texas plant. The closure of that plant had been one of the principle obstacles to an agreement. Goodyear is in the process of exiting unprofitable private label tire production in a bid to boost profits. (Reuters, 12.22.2006)
The "agreement" doesn't offer much, and is admittedly being done simply to "boost-profits", a raw-deal-at-best. If I was an intelligent union leader, I'd tell them to shove their deal up-their-ass, and look to the long-term consequences of said "deals." Goodyear also wants to make all new-hires non-union, at non-union pay. This is also unacceptable, and should be roundly-rejected with further walkouts, and should be echoed in Canada as well. Don't buy Goodyear, I won't until there is some reasonable solution to this, meaning keeping the plant and future-hires union.
This is hardly over, and should be viewed as a highly-suspicious news release that favors ownership/major-shareholders. Also curious are the numbers quoted for strikers--one release says 12,500 (excluding Canadian strikers?), 15,000 in today's, and 16,000 in others. This is reminiscent of public opinion-polls for President Bush, as well as on social concerns, exit polls, and election-results. Watch the counters, and watch them well.
It would behoove currently unionized workers to go wildcat on their national unions and the NLRB (http://www.nlrb.gov/) when they aren't watching-out for their interests and the long-term picture. They should also be working-hard to get Hispanic workers naturalized and unionized, something only the daft would oppose. What do they have to lose? Their future? That's already being decided by the company and union hacks. Unannounced work-slowdowns are also a powerful-tool in driving-down the stock of companies that view workers as disposable. The only rule in this game is winning, and losing means social-chaos that would make a General strike seem tame in-comparison.
Tons of United Steel Workers Stories You Aren't Seeing:
http://news.google.com/news?q=United+Steelworkers+union+update&hl=en&lr=&sa=X&oi=news&ct=title
http://news.google.com/news?q=United+Steelworkers+union+update&hl=en&lr=&sa=X&oi=news&ct=title
A CHRISTMAS CAROL IN PROSE, BEING A Ghost Story of Christmas:
"Goodyear also wants to make all new-hires non-union, at non-union pay."
ReplyDeleteThis is completely false. I don't know where you got this information but I would encourage you to check your facts right away.
Here ya' go, it was Reuters:
ReplyDelete"Akron, Ohio-based Goodyear said that the contract will help lower labor costs and boost productivity, in part by redesigning incentive schemes and starting all new hires with market-based wages and benefits."
And here's the link:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-12-23T004050Z_01_N22319779_RTRIDST_0_GOODYEAR-LABOR-UPDATE-1-REPEAT.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna
If I'm wrong, Reuters is wrong, and we have a bigger problem. Excuse me, but this is a BLOG, not the New York Times. You wanna give me money to finance investigative journalism?
Your union didn't accomplish too-much. What the hell do you think "market-based wages" means? It means shit-poor pay, thank-you. This was what Reuters was reporting yesterday, bitch at them.
It's funny, I would normally side with you, but I think your big unions have fucked all of us anyway with their honey-deals with management and ownership.