General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: "If We Did Not Share in the Prosperity, Why Should We Have to Share in the Sacrifice?" [View all]calimary
(81,565 posts)Salutes to you, JohnnyRingo! This is something else that almost never gets mentioned in the same breath as the lead point. It's always farther down the list. It should be first or maybe second. EVERY contract in the last few years with few if any exceptions has involved workers making concessions. It's either wages, rate of wage increases, or benefits of some sort. Workers have always had to give back.
Once upon a time, workers were paid well enough that one paycheck WOULD take care of a family of four. Mom wouldn't need to work to help make ends meet and she could afford to stay home, make cookies, and vacuum in her shirtdress and pearls the way June Cleaver did. That union worker who supported his family of four made enough so he could afford to buy the cars he helped manufacture. Little by little, the so-called "job creators" were only interested in how cheap they could get away with paying their workers for the same or even more work, and that trend continues to this very day. Penny-wise/pound-foolish. Get the pirates' deal for now. Never mind the longterm ramifications. When all you want to do is get it on the cheap, pretty soon your whole operation is cheap. And not as desirable in the marketplace, and certainly no longer competitive.
THIS IS NOT A GOOD PARADIGM! Look at Hostess! The workers took it in the shorts, the company went bankrupt, and yet the CEO and all the vice presidents parachute outta there with nice fat bonuses with which they were rewarded - essentially for having tanked their company. I mean, sit back and consider objectively - what do we all learn from this?
And why isn't this making a bigger difference to our legislators and so-called representatives?