WaIIy wrote:
Why do you think a ton of Northern companies moved South in the past 20
years?


Your time line is a little off. The past 15 years has seen manufacturing
companies, even the once mighty textile industry, fleeing the American
South. Go about 110 years further back!

DSK

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:00:26 -0500, DSK wrote:

WaIIy wrote:
Why do you think a ton of Northern companies moved South in the past 20
years?


Your time line is a little off. The past 15 years has seen manufacturing
companies, even the once mighty textile industry, fleeing the American
South. Go about 110 years further back!

DSK

Gee, you would have thought the Textile and Clothing Workers Industrial Union
would have saved all those jobs. You reckon the union had anything to do with
the outsourcing of all that work?

I wonder which is better, taking a reduction in pay to $27 an hour (fictitious
number) or a reduction to $0 per hour.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

John H wrote:
Gee, you would have thought the Textile and Clothing Workers Industrial Union
would have saved all those jobs. You reckon the union had anything to do with
the outsourcing of all that work?


I dooubt it strongly, since few textile plants in the South were
unionized right up to the end.

I wonder which is better, taking a reduction in pay to $27 an hour (fictitious
number) or a reduction to $0 per hour.


You're really full of ****. Do you think the average mill worker ever
got anywhere near $27 per hour? What do you think they *did* get, if you
have to pull fictitious numbers out of thin air?

Do you think that American laborers should compete on an "even playing
field" ie no pollution laws, no workplace safety laws, and $1/day wages
such as prevalent in the 3rd world? The only way to compete is through
technology... and intelligent management... both of which require the
application of a little political willpower...

Guess we fell short.

DSK

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:09:12 -0500, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
Gee, you would have thought the Textile and Clothing Workers Industrial Union
would have saved all those jobs. You reckon the union had anything to do with
the outsourcing of all that work?


I dooubt it strongly, since few textile plants in the South were
unionized right up to the end.

The magic words...the end.


I wonder which is better, taking a reduction in pay to $27 an hour (fictitious
number) or a reduction to $0 per hour.


You're really full of ****.

You're probably correct.

Do you think the average mill worker ever
got anywhere near $27 per hour? What do you think they *did* get, if you
have to pull fictitious numbers out of thin air?

I have no idea what they got. The point is that they are getting *nothing* now.
Of course, that's probably Bush's fault.

Do you think that American laborers should compete on an "even playing
field" ie no pollution laws, no workplace safety laws, and $1/day wages
such as prevalent in the 3rd world? The only way to compete is through
technology... and intelligent management... both of which require the
application of a little political willpower...

Of course, political willpower. Whose? Did Bush wipe out all the textile plants?
Does political willpower create the technology and intelligent management of
which you speak?

Guess we fell short.

DSK


John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

I dooubt it strongly, since few textile plants in the South were
unionized right up to the end.


John H wrote:
The magic words...the end.


Do you have a problem understanding plain English, or is your
Clinton-hating gland jazzed up to the point where you can blame the
unions when a non-union plant goes out of business?



You're really full of ****.


You're probably correct.


And have been all along.


Do you think that American laborers should compete on an "even playing
field" ie no pollution laws, no workplace safety laws, and $1/day wages
such as prevalent in the 3rd world? The only way to compete is through
technology... and intelligent management... both of which require the
application of a little political willpower...


Of course, political willpower. Whose?

Who has been running the country for over 4 years now, watching and
doing nothing about the increasing decline of U.S. manufacturing?

DSK

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:33:59 -0500, DSK wrote:

I dooubt it strongly, since few textile plants in the South were
unionized right up to the end.


John H wrote:
The magic words...the end.


Do you have a problem understanding plain English, or is your
Clinton-hating gland jazzed up to the point where you can blame the
unions when a non-union plant goes out of business?



You're really full of ****.


You're probably correct.


And have been all along.


Do you think that American laborers should compete on an "even playing
field" ie no pollution laws, no workplace safety laws, and $1/day wages
such as prevalent in the 3rd world? The only way to compete is through
technology... and intelligent management... both of which require the
application of a little political willpower...


Of course, political willpower. Whose?

Who has been running the country for over 4 years now, watching and
doing nothing about the increasing decline of U.S. manufacturing?

DSK

*When* did all the textile plants leave?

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
John H wrote:
Gee, you would have thought the Textile and Clothing Workers Industrial
Union
would have saved all those jobs. You reckon the union had anything to do
with
the outsourcing of all that work?

I dooubt it strongly, since few textile plants in the South were unionized
right up to the end.

I wonder which is better, taking a reduction in pay to $27 an hour
(fictitious
number) or a reduction to $0 per hour.


You're really full of ****. Do you think the average mill worker ever got
anywhere near $27 per hour? What do you think they *did* get, if you have
to pull fictitious numbers out of thin air?

Do you think that American laborers should compete on an "even playing
field" ie no pollution laws, no workplace safety laws, and $1/day wages
such as prevalent in the 3rd world? The only way to compete is through
technology... and intelligent management... both of which require the
application of a little political willpower...

Are you for or against the Kyoto Protocols?

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
John H wrote:
Gee, you would have thought the Textile and Clothing Workers Industrial
Union
would have saved all those jobs. You reckon the union had anything to do
with
the outsourcing of all that work?

I dooubt it strongly, since few textile plants in the South were
unionized right up to the end.

I wonder which is better, taking a reduction in pay to $27 an hour
(fictitious
number) or a reduction to $0 per hour.


You're really full of ****. Do you think the average mill worker ever got
anywhere near $27 per hour? What do you think they *did* get, if you have
to pull fictitious numbers out of thin air?

Do you think that American laborers should compete on an "even playing
field" ie no pollution laws, no workplace safety laws, and $1/day wages
such as prevalent in the 3rd world? The only way to compete is through
technology... and intelligent management... both of which require the
application of a little political willpower...

Are you for or against the Kyoto Protocols?



I once posted an actual UAW contract agreement showing janitors in one plant
making $80,000 not including benefits and overtime.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:47:03 -0500, "Bert Robbins"
wrote:


"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
John H wrote:
Gee, you would have thought the Textile and Clothing Workers Industrial
Union
would have saved all those jobs. You reckon the union had anything to do
with
the outsourcing of all that work?

I dooubt it strongly, since few textile plants in the South were unionized
right up to the end.

I wonder which is better, taking a reduction in pay to $27 an hour
(fictitious
number) or a reduction to $0 per hour.


You're really full of ****. Do you think the average mill worker ever got
anywhere near $27 per hour? What do you think they *did* get, if you have
to pull fictitious numbers out of thin air?

Do you think that American laborers should compete on an "even playing
field" ie no pollution laws, no workplace safety laws, and $1/day wages
such as prevalent in the 3rd world? The only way to compete is through
technology... and intelligent management... both of which require the
application of a little political willpower...

Are you for or against the Kyoto Protocols?

I'm four square for bombing the whales and Jane Fonda. :)

Later,

Tom

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
John H wrote:
Gee, you would have thought the Textile and Clothing Workers
Industrial
Union
would have saved all those jobs. You reckon the union had anything to
do
with
the outsourcing of all that work?

I dooubt it strongly, since few textile plants in the South were
unionized
right up to the end.

I wonder which is better, taking a reduction in pay to $27 an hour
(fictitious
number) or a reduction to $0 per hour.


You're really full of ****. Do you think the average mill worker ever
got
anywhere near $27 per hour? What do you think they *did* get, if you
have
to pull fictitious numbers out of thin air?

Do you think that American laborers should compete on an "even playing
field" ie no pollution laws, no workplace safety laws, and $1/day wages
such as prevalent in the 3rd world? The only way to compete is through
technology... and intelligent management... both of which require the
application of a little political willpower...

Are you for or against the Kyoto Protocols?

The liebrals still don't get it.......in any labor intensive industry
where local does not matter (unlike building construction) the work is
naturally going to shift to locales with a cheaper labor force, regardless
of technology or management. If they don't, someone else will.......it is
simple economics.