Can you threaten to blow up your factory?

33 posts / 0 new

Desperate French workers are threatening to blow up their factory for extra pay after bosses announced the closure of the plant. They have primed a 5,000 litre gas tank to explode at the entrance to the Sodimatex car parts plant near Paris. One worker said he was offered to be re-located to the company's factory in Tunisia on a salary of £110 per month. He added: 'I earn that in two days here. What kind of idiot do they take me for?' These workers fear that once they lose their jobs they will not be able to find another one, which is a pretty legitimate fear. The difference between France and the US? In France, most citizens think that a company doing what made Mitt Romney a millionaire - buying companies and moving their jobs offshore - is immoral, and the people largely support even extreme acts like threats of violence against companies that behave that way. In America, in the 30 years since Reagan began his war on American workers by busting up the PATCO union and the Milkens and Romneys and Fiorina's of the country began aggressively sending our jobs overseas, we've become a nation of sheep, and those who do protest - the Tea Partiers - seem to think that we should just let the Romneys of our country have their way and instead protest against our government helping us with health insurance.

Thom's picture
Thom
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Comments

Interesting.

While I certainly think blowing up the factory seems a bit extreme, its pretty fascinating that what motivates the French worker is salvaging his/her own job and lifestyle, while what seems to motivate the American Tea Partiers is protesting against government interventions which most of them actually utilize (and will benefit from).

Well the French educational system is miles better than the American system, so that may begin to explain the mindset. The media is much better also.

So basically smarter, better informed individuals are more likely to act in ways which benefit them, not someone else.

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote meljomur:

Interesting.

While I certainly think blowing up the factory seems a bit extreme, its pretty fascinating that what motivates the French worker is salvaging his/her own job and lifestyle, while what seems to motivate the American Tea Partiers is protesting against government interventions which most of them actually utilize (and will benefit from).

Well the French educational system is miles better than the American system, so that may begin to explain the mindset. The media is much better also.

So basically smarter, better informed individuals are more likely to act in ways which benefit them, not someone else.

I agree. Blowing up someone elses stuff for my benifit demonstrates how smart I am.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 10:12 am

But the French think that stealing someone's "life" or "livelyhood" or a community's way of life is way past blowing a factory. This company is packing up and moving to a "cheap labor" place and this area could look like Detroit soon.

"Blowing up someone elses stuff for my benifit demonstrates how smart I am"...it just doesn't seem that simple.

Should they just wave goodbye to their jobs....their way of life.....their community?

louisehartmann's picture
louisehartmann
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote louisehartmann:

But the French think that stealing someone's "life" or "livelyhood" or a community's way of life is way past blowing a factory. This company is packing up and moving to a "cheap labor" place and this area could look like Detroit soon.

"Blowing up someone elses stuff for my benifit demonstrates how smart I am"...it just doesn't seem that simple.

Should they just wave goodbye to their jobs....their way of life.....their community?

This is what I was commenting on, which I disagree with.

So basically smarter, better informed individuals are more likely to act in ways which benefit them, not someone else.

The military industrial complex act in ways to benefit themselves, so does Wall street, so do corporations, etc... If a person or group decides it's intellegent to firebomb a factory, I think they are domestic terrorists....not "smart".

I see a problem with how the French view a company that they work for. They may view the moving of the company as "theft" of life or livelyhood from them, but they do not own the company. If they want true ownership and decision making ability, start a new company that makes plenty of money and doesn't feel the need to move. Since they are far more educated, that should be a cake walk.

The options for France are: They could impose such huge taxes on any company moving, that it would offset the costs to stay. They could subsidize companies that can't make a profit and stay in business. They could increase taxes on the taxpayors to fund failing businesses.

Frankly, if my employees were psycho enough to consider arson as a reaction to job loss, I'd probably want to move my company as far from France as possible.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 10:12 am

Blowing up the factory will show the company how wrong it was to close it down. Once the lesson is taught, the people will have a nice pile of rubble with which to entice another employer.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The operative word in Thom's post was "threatening." IOW, they probably don't really want to do that but threatening pushes the issue up another notch and gets more attention. Unfortuantely the current war on the middle class pushes the public into a corner where they have to choose between violence or slavery.

captbebops's picture
captbebops
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

So,

if a company is on the skids and can't make payroll, or pay its taxes, rent, utilities, etc... and in order to stay in business, makes the decision to move operations to where they can afford to stay in business, it is a righteous, educated, and very acceptable thing to threaten the company with arson.

Keeping with that theory, Timothy McViea's only crime was that he should have threatened the manager of the building he blew up, before he actually did the crime. The threat would have been righteous. The actual bombing could be excused due to Tims only decision - Violence or slavery.

I always thought that bomb threats were illegal and a form of terrorizing others? Silly me for not recognizing the brilliance of the French..

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 10:12 am

Somehow I don't think Timothy McVeigh would have gotten the death penalty for threatening to blow up a building...

But that's really not the point of this thread, now is it? Its about how the French worker is motivated to preserve his way of life, while his American equivalent is motivated to preserve someone else's profit margin.

Education, non?

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote meljomur:

Somehow I don't think Timothy McVeigh would have gotten the death penalty for threatening to blow up a building...

But that's really not the point of this thread, now is it? Its about how the French worker is motivated to preserve his way of life, while his American equivalent is motivated to preserve someone else's profit margin.

Education, non?

Should we all start threatening to blow up other peoples buildings using the excuse that we're just preserving our way of life? Jesus H Christ......are the French that loony?

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 10:12 am

The protest is over the size of the severance packages, not over keeping the plant open. And the protesting employees lit the plant on fire on Saturday causing estimated hundreds of thousands of pounds in damage. A bit more than a threat.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The French workers would probably do better just to keep running the factory themselves. They operate it now, don't they?

Shipping the factory outside of France isn't just a theft of jobs....it's a theft of a portion of the French economy.

When the U.S. outsourced clothing manufacturing...it didn't just outsource garment making. It shut down textiles, equipment mfg, etc. Every supporting industry that fed into it. Its effects rippled into many sectors of the economy.

As Ricardo noted, a country that outsources its labor costs will impoverish itself. And a few will do very, very well. It's sort of a form of treason. The French seem to have a sense of that. Americans don't.

Retired Monk

"Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote stwo:

The protest is over the size of the severance packages, not over keeping the plant open. And the protesting employees lit the plant on fire on Saturday causing estimated hundreds of thousands of pounds in damage. A bit more than a threat.

It's OK stwo,

lighting the plant on fire is justified. They had no choice, as it was either violence or starvation. They have a lifestyle to uphold afterall.

Anarchey and mayhem should rule all decisions regarding severence pay. That's what really smart people do. Maybe next time, throw some looting in for good measure.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 10:12 am
Quote slabmaster:

[Should we all start threatening to blow up other peoples buildings using the excuse that we're just preserving our way of life? Jesus H Christ......are the French that loony?

Execpt that is exactly what our mission was and is in Afganistan and Iraq. We blow up their buildings, homes and factories, so that they will allow us to come and build pipelines and drill for oil. We are only doing this to preserve our way of life--conspicious consumerism.

When America blows other countries up it's called patriotism, when others do it it's called terrorism.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Anarchey and mayhem should rule all decisions regarding severence pay. That's what really smart people do. Maybe next time, throw some looting in for good measure.

unless you are a tea partier....

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote polycarp2:

Shipping the factory outside of France isn't just a theft of jobs....it's a theft of a portion of the French economy.

So, if I shut down one or both of my businesses, I would be accused of theft of jobs and theft of a portion of the U.S. economy? WTF?

Christ, what planet did I land on this morning thinking I was commuting to work?

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 10:12 am
Quote Choco:

Execpt that is exactly what our mission was and is in Afganistan and Iraq. We blow up their buildings, homes and factories, so that they will allow us to come and build pipelines and drill for oil. We are only doing this to preserve our way of life--conspicious consumerism.

When America blows other countries up it's called patriotism, when others do it it's called terrorism.

Not to sway too far off topic with you, but, you voted for the guy that is dumping more and more troops into both countries. Are you railing against the Obama admin for their crimes? Pakistan is next.

(back to the topic,) Next time your Christmas bonus is not what you expect, I'd suggest burning the building. That'll teach 'em.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 10:12 am

I can't even believe this is a topic.

Sawdust's picture
Sawdust
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Sawdust:

I can't even believe this is a topic.

You'd better start profiling your employees for frenchies.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 10:12 am

Slab wrote; "So, if I shut down one or both of my businesses, I would be accused of theft of jobs and theft of a portion of the U.S. economy? WTF?"

---------

Shutting down a company, and shipping it offshore are two very different things. Shutting it down would leave the structural components intact...to be sold/used within the U.S.... perhaps even bought by a competitor.

Not quite the same thing as shipping a nation's economic infrastructure to another nation.

Retired Monk

"Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote polycarp2:

Shutting down a company, and shipping it offshore are two very different things. Shutting it down would leave the structural components intact...to be sold/used within the U.S.... perhaps even bought by a competitor.

Not quite the same thing as shipping a nation's economic infrastructure to another nation.

Retired Monk

"Ideology is a disease"

Maybe not importing goods from another country would solve that problem. Build a wall. Make it illegal to move any business as it might change the economy.

If I thought the midwest would be a better place to produce and ship my product, as I could offer 3 day shipping/delivery to all parts of the country from there, you would object because I "stole" jobs from the northwest and shipped them to Kansas.

Locally, Boeing moved a major operation to South Carolina. As much as I hate to see the jobs leave this area, I understand why the move was made. WA state is not business friendly and is pushing jobs away. The politicians don't get it. Kinda like California.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 10:12 am
Quote slabmaster:
Quote Choco:

Execpt that is exactly what our mission was and is in Afganistan and Iraq. We blow up their buildings, homes and factories, so that they will allow us to come and build pipelines and drill for oil. We are only doing this to preserve our way of life--conspicious consumerism.

When America blows other countries up it's called patriotism, when others do it it's called terrorism.

Not to sway too far off topic with you, but, you voted for the guy that is dumping more and more troops into both countries. Are you railing against the Obama admin for their crimes? Pakistan is next.

(back to the topic,) Next time your Christmas bonus is not what you expect, I'd suggest burning the building. That'll teach 'em.

How do you know who I voted for? And as for the Christmas bonus comment, WTF?

Slab, I suggest you stay away from the gun range for some time, the constant recoil is taking its toll.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Slab wrote: ""Maybe not importing goods from another country would solve that problem. Build a wall. Make it illegal to move any business as it might change the economy."

----

What you do is....make it unprofitable to ship the jobs off-shore....and then re-import the products to the home country under the guise of free trade. That's best done with tariffs. Tariffs can be highly selective.

Ricardo noted a long, long time ago, that a country that exports its labor costs will impoverish itself....even though the exporter of labor may do very, very well as an individual.

I see impoverishing one's country for private gain to be a form of treason.

Retired Monk

"Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Too many people don't understand the relationship between high wages for workers and business success. In Slab's world, all businessness should be able to shop around the globe for the cheapest labor, disregarding the fact that people with higher wages have more spending power and will be able to purchase the products that the businesses produce.

That's why Henry Ford raised the wages of his factory workers, so they could by his cars.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Henry Ford did not increase pay so that the workers could afford the product. He increased pay to fend off the union, increase productivity, and decrease absenteeism and turnover.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote stwo:

Henry Ford did not increase pay so that the workers could afford the product. He increased pay to fend off the union, increase productivity, and decrease absenteeism and turnover.

The traditional textbook meaning [Say's Law] has referred to the circulation between producers and consumers, from wage payments by industrial companies to their employees, who use their wages to buy what they produce. This is why Henry Ford famously paid his workers the then-towering $5 a day. This was Say’s law: Income paid for production finds its counterpart in consumption to maintain equilibrium in a way that enables the economy to keep on growing." - Michael Hudson

Michael Hudson is a former Wall Street economist specializing in the balance of payments and real estate at the Chase Manhattan Bank (now JPMorgan Chase & Co.), Arthur Anderson, and later at the Hudson Institute (no relation). In 1990 he helped established the world’s first sovereign debt fund for Scudder Stevens & Clark. Dr. Hudson was Dennis Kucinich’s Chief Economic Advisor in the recent Democratic primary presidential campaign, and has advised the U.S., Canadian, Mexican and Latvian governments, as well as the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). A Distinguished Research Professor at University of Missouri, Kansas City (UMKC).

http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson09222008.html

Retired Monk

"Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote polycarp2:

I see impoverishing one's country for private gain to be a form of treason.

Retired Monk

"Ideology is a disease"

So when the government buys products from other countries instead of U.S. built, they are treasonous?

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 10:12 am
Quote Thom:

Desperate French workers are threatening to blow up their factory for extra pay after bosses announced the closure of the plant.

Gee, that sounds like something those Michigan Militia people or Tim McVeigh would do.

PeeWee Returns's picture
PeeWee Returns
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Day by day it becomes clearer and clearer that the rich are out to destroy the middle class. They want their feudal slaves back. PeeWee, given the choice of slavery or violence, which would you choose?

captbebops's picture
captbebops
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote captbebops:

Day by day it becomes clearer and clearer that the rich are out to destroy the middle class. They want their feudal slaves back. PeeWee, given the choice of slavery or violence, which would you choose?

I'd have a better understanding of your argument if I knew what "the rich" was, as you state.

What exactly is "rich", and what "rich" people want to destroy the middle class?

If you are referring to "rich" as anyone who has more money than another, than that would include all of us. If it is business owners or anyone that doesn't fall in the middle class wage rate as determined by .....someone, how exactly are they destroying anyone?

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 10:12 am

Slab, do you actually listen to Thom's show? If you do you wouldn't be asking the question as you would know I'm referring to the 1% who won 90% of the weath in US. You would also know "how" and "why" these rich are trying to do away with the middle class. In some cases it may be accidental and not intentional but still driven by their own greed. So go read some more posts and listen to Thom's show and then come back and discuss. In the meantime you just sound like another blunt headed conservative troll.

captbebops's picture
captbebops
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote captbebops:

Slab, do you actually listen to Thom's show? If you do you wouldn't be asking the question as you would know I'm referring to the 1% who won 90% of the weath in US. You would also know "how" and "why" these rich are trying to do away with the middle class. In some cases it may be accidental and not intentional but still driven by their own greed. So go read some more posts and listen to Thom's show and then come back and discuss. In the meantime you just sound like another blunt headed conservative troll.

Sorry,

My mind reading skills of what you are "referring to" are a little rusty. I'm not sure when Thom's show is on in Seattle. It used to be on in the AM and I'd catch it driving to work. Thats changed. During the day, I have more time to read than to listen to the radio, but that is sporatic at best.

The top 1% wage earners make approx $400K AGI. They also pay over 1/3 of the taxes.

In 2007, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 40.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.8 percent of adjusted gross income. Both of those figures—share of income and share of taxes paid—are significantly higher than they were in 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.

The top one tenth of the top 1% pays 20% of the taxes. That is from only 141,000 people. I thank them for their contribution.

I know alot of guys that make well over 400K and they aren't out to destroy anyone. Most of them employ the middle class worker and want to keep them happy and healthy.

The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $66,532) earned 68.7 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.6 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $410,096) earned approximately 22.8 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 40.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid more in federal individual income taxes than the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.

I'd prefer to see tax cuts for all taxpayers and less spending by the government as everyone contributes a substantial amount. To ramp up senseless rehtorec and class warfare about who pays what and somehow that translates to the evil "rich" destrying the middle class taxpayer is silly.

In the meantime, a few facts would worth reading so you don't sound like a blunt headed troll.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 10:12 am

It's all about percentages, Slab. As a percentage, the super wealthy pay a much smaller portion of their income in taxes. It seems to me, the conservative would like to just see a head tax....where everyone pays an identical amount....like they do in such countries as Chad..the worlds's 2nd poorist country.

That would of course, lead the working poor into borrowing the money every year to pay their equal amount head tax. Their incomes wouldn't cover it.

The far right economy has fallen into the pit. Every wonder why?

"The traditional textbook meaning [Say's Law] has referred to the circulation between producers and consumers, from wage payments by industrial companies to their employees, who use their wages to buy what they produce. This is why Henry Ford famously paid his workers the then-towering $5 a day. This was Say’s law: Income paid for production finds its counterpart in consumption to maintain equilibrium in a way that enables the economy to keep on growing." - Michael Hudson, economist.

http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson09222008.html

When incomes for a few are so high it isn't spent, it's extracted from the productive/distribution economy and thrown into financial markets...where it contributes nothing to real economic functioning.

The $1000 trillion in global derivaties doesn't produce one drop of oil, one grain of wheat, one plastic trinket. It's money taken from the real economy and thrown at the phantom one...for nothing better to do with it..and the real economy begins grinding to a halt. Some just can't seem to wrap their heads around that.

Retired Monk

"Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

A Warren Run Would Change Everything

Over the past few weeks, Elizabeth Warren has emerged as a leader of progressives on Capitol Hill. She led the charge against the part of the CRomnibus that gutted our financial regulations, and she is still fighting the White House over its nomination of bankster Antonio Weiss as Undersecretary of Domestic Finance in the Treasury Department.

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system