[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
The approach to jobs and work in general in the US is vastly different from how it’s perceived in Europe.
Is the way your company deals with its employees an exception in your county/state, or is the impression i/we get over here on the current jobmarket situation in the US skewed?[/quote]
The areas where there is massive unemployment are the states where “protection” has been enacted to “protect” workers — resulting in shuttered plants as smart employers get the heck out of dodge.
Texas and other right-to-work states have booming economies.[/quote]
Looks like smart employers wont be able to do that for much longer:
Something had to be done. Boeing tried to address the problem with the machinists, asking for a long-term no-strike agreement, but the union showed no interest, and the idea died.
End of story? Not quite. In 2009, the company had to decide where to open a second production line for its 787 Dreamliner. It could have put it where labor troubles were practically guaranteed. Instead, it built a plant in South Carolina, which is scheduled to go on line this summer with 1,000 non-union workers.
The state offered tax incentives and a hospitable commercial environment. But a Boeing executive said at the time, “The overriding factor was not the business climate. And it was not the wages we’re paying today. It was that we cannot afford to have a work stoppage, you know, every three years.”
That may strike you as a blinding flash of the obviousâ??not to mention a choice fully within the discretion of any company functioning in a competitive marketplace, which penalizes idleness. But apparently not.
Last month, the National Labor Relations Board, a federal agency, filed a complaint arguing that Boeing broke the law by taking account of possible strikes in making its decision. This, it said, amounted to illegal retaliation against the machinists union.