“This is strictly a business decision” - Oh, that makes it better then.
I wonder how much public subsidy Carrier took from Indianapolis (in the form of tax breaks, etc., etc.) before their decision to relocate.
This right here folks is what upset me the most about the video. The dude actually has the gall to tell people who just learned they lost their jobs to “shut up so I can say this required stuff and get out of here.”
And plaster big “MADE IN THE UNITED STATES” stickers all over their products.
Of course, what they’ll probably do is label them “MADE IN AMERICA,” and hope no one notices.
Please learn the difference between tone-deaf and monotone. I agree that greed sucks. Sometimes the decision is not in the hands of the bearer of the news.
Sometimes it’s okay to shoot the messenger.
And how many of those breaks they will still receive AFTER the move…
What possible purpose of not beating this guy to death immediately after his announcement is there?
The CEO of United Technologies (Carrier’s parent company) took home $27million in salary, bonuses and stock options last year.
There is a point where more equitable ownership, not necessarily across the board, but to the point where the corporate board or one or two of them own the controlling shares. It also still falls into the corporate business model, just that the shares are owned within the company. The biggest point is whether they have a statute that allows majority ownership outside the business, at all. The problem with the corporate model is that it demands ownership by investors, that is counter-intuitive to a worker owned business model.
Having been laid off a few times now, the part of the boilerplate that always makes me irate is the “This was an extremely difficult decision.” The people who made the decision still have jobs. That makes it a bit easier to contemplate. The folks who have to hope they don’t end up living in refrigerator box (labeled Hecho en Mexico) under an overpass have it a bit more difficult.
the most tone deaf thing here is actually rampant throughout Corporate America. Moves like this are rationalized as what is best for the company and its profits (i.e. investors or shareholders) and lower level associates are expected to put their personal impact aside and understand the bigger picture. Yet if asking a high paid executive to take a pay cut, the very same self serving weasel who told everyone to do whats best for the company will justify how their position and compensation ensures the health and future growth of the company.
Didn’t we just do away with country of origin labels? Wasn’t that part of the TPP?
So what’s the takeaway? Don’t be fungible?
So lets build a wall so the Mexicans can’t come here to take our jobs that we don’t want to do. But instead just ship the really good jobs that Americans want to Mexico. Sounds about right.
If the west is pro-democracy (citation needed), why is it that when it comes to employment they prefer “authoritarianism” bordering on “radical authoritarian nationalism”. I added “nationalism” as there is no free speech at work and many require that you never say a bad thing about the company in any way, ever. Some go so far as requiring employees to endorse them publicly whether they like it or not. Add in “Corporate Personhood” and you get right up against the belief that a corporation should indeed be an independent nation, free of foreign domination.
If employers could make you work for free, they would – and regularly do. While the 1938 FLSA established the 40hr work week and I’m sure that before the ink even dried on that bill it was being abused.
Many, many, many .com’s routinely construct their business to take maximum advantage of the workers and view violations of the FLSA as common practice. Then, if they get caught, that’s just the cost of doing business. The “cost of doing business” for the capitalist is paying potential fines for abusing workers – not paying workers a fair wage nor paying workers for time worked. How f’d up is that?
Everything involving employment in the west seems to be aimed at maximizing profit by minimizing worker pay. How is that anything but wealth redistribution? It’s a system designed to extract what little wealth the worker has and funneling as much economic activity as possible into a few as pockets as possible.
But they don’t just screw the employee over when extracting wealth, they screw over everyone when it comes to paying taxes. When a company like google pulls in £5bn in UK sales, it’s “business as usual” when it moves those profits into Ireland (~12.5% corporate tax rate) vs UK (~20%) - I think it actually paid closer to 3% in the US 2015 (of the 35% base rate), did anyone here pay 3% let alone 12.5% or even 20%? I sure didn’t. Yet some companies report paying none. It gets so ridiculous that a Double Irish With A Dutch Sandwich is an actual corporate tax policy.
I don’t know where I was going with this… but I would like to see FDR’s Second Bill of Rights discussed by a president again.
(edit: minor formatting)
I think the kicker here and why the guy foolishly thought it was a good idea to talk about the future of the company is that he’s also asking all these workers to continue doing their job at the same level of commitment for the next year knowing that their job performance doesn’t personally mean jack squat from here on out…
1400 voters for Bernie Sanders, nice job Carrier!
United Technologies, Carrier’s parent company, has around 200,000 employees. It would be great for all of them to rise up as one and buy out Wall Street.
But they didn’t get to be a Fortune 50 company by respecting employees (of which I was one for a few years). They make their money by cutting costs (sometimes to the detriment of safety *coughOtiscough*), undercutting competitors, influencing lobbyists and politicians and defense workers monetarily, and then stashing all that sweet, sweet money in overseas tax havens to be able to overpay clueless execs.