Local 7 Ironworkers Union

[Swimmer]

I wonder if someone building a structure in Boston or somewhere nearby laid off or fired all the union iron workers because they got another company, non-union more than likely, to do it cheaper, if Deval would come out and ask everyone he knows to boycott that particular non-union company.

I know this question could be construed as racist in nature because all of the fired Hyatt workers were people of color and most of the iron workers are white. But I wonder if any of the people who worked at Hyatt and were fired realize how Patrick is pandering/using these hard working people for thier vote.

[Fly Rod]

I think that a better comparison is Pratt & Whitney in Connecticut(union) where they are going to be laying off 2000 workers. So far no public official such as the mayor or govennor has stepped forward to denounce the layoffs. And you haven't heard from that other crook, Chris Dodd.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

So far no public official such as the mayor or govennor has stepped forward to denounce the layoffs. And you haven't heard from that other crook, Chris Dodd.

Denounce the layoffs? What if the company needs to make the cost cutting measures in order to stay afloat? Companies exist to make a profit, not to provide jobs - they hire the number of people necessary to get the job done any more than that is a waste of expenses.

Layoffs are an unfortunate necessity of reducing costs in a down market. They are closing the plants down. If the work doesn't exist, how exactly would they keep the people on board? I wonder if the plants that will be receiving the work from CT are non-union.

Also, they're laying off 1000 people, not 2000.
http://www.cheshireherald.com/node/1417

[Fly Rod]

I'm not denouncing the lay offs. It is only a comparison of a situation.
I agree with you, if a company needs to lay off to stay afloat, make a profit, then layoffs are inevitible. If we look at the hotel deal it is differant in that the hotel was training new people to take another workers job, Pratt & Whitney is not.

Why do union members feel that a struggling company needs to keep them working. The union is going to sue to try to keep their jobs.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

I'm not denouncing the lay offs. It is only a comparison of a situation.

The quote from your post demonstrates that you think someone should.
"So far no public official such as the mayor or govennor has stepped forward to denounce the layoffs."

The state offered at $100 million incentive to the company to stay in Hartford and the union offered almost that much in concessions, yet P&W is still closing shop. The cost savings from closing the CT plant must be massive. It also implies that orders that need to be fulfilled using that plant have decreased exceptionally.

I'd like to hope the Union is suing as a last-ditch effort to keep people's jobs, but I still find it disgusting.

We're a Capitalistic society. Layoffs occur, it's part of Capitalism.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The quote from your post demonstrates that you think someone should.
"So far no public official such as the mayor or govennor has stepped forward to denounce the layoffs."

The state offered at $100 million incentive to the company to stay in Hartford and the union offered almost that much in concessions, yet P&W is still closing shop. The cost savings from closing the CT plant must be massive. It also implies that orders that need to be fulfilled using that plant have decreased exceptionally.

I'd like to hope the Union is suing as a last-ditch effort to keep people's jobs, but I still find it disgusting.

We're a Capitalistic society. Layoffs occur, it's part of Capitalism.

I think you're missing the point. Swimmer's post was asking if the Governor should be advocating a boycott of a private business for what many would see as a legal business practice.

I read up on this story and am not sure it's so clear cut, certainly a messy situation. Perhaps the governor is justified in publicly being critical of Hyatt, but threatening a boycott would be going too far.

-spence

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by spence

I think you're missing the point. Swimmer's post was asking if the Governor should be advocating a boycott of a private business for what many would see as a legal business practice.

I read up on this story and am not sure it's so clear cut, certainly a messy situation. Perhaps the governor is justified in publicly being critical of Hyatt, but threatening a boycott would be going too far.

-spence

Exactly Spence, thank you.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

Exactly Spence, thank you.

Been away in San Francisco on work and just got back. Haven't really been following the news, outside of 5 minutes here and there from the WSJ.

Didn't know this was a reference to a current event.


Edit: Just found it. http://www.boston.com/business/artic...hyatt_boycott/
Deval is a clown. Sorry Fly Rod. My post should be directed at Deval.

[Swimmer]

John your comment didn't bother me. I just appreciated that it was understood in the context that I wrote and not misconstrued.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

John your comment didn't bother me. I just appreciated that it was understood in the context that I wrote and not misconstrued.

Absolutely. My misunderstanding of the topic. Haven't opened a Globe or Herald in two weeks.