Comments:French workers use threats in compensation demand
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
These workers have no respect for the property or rights of others
[edit]The corporation had discretionary authority to discharge workers that were no longer in its interest to employ. For all the supposed moral infractions of the company, I can not find any real ones even alleged in this interview. The workers, however, are fond of using extortionate threats of damage to other people's property, which are frankly immoral. Morality and law, unlike politics, are not responsive to how many labels like "fat cat" you can attach to something, but to actual conduct. In this case, vilifying the faceless corporation for (surprise) seeking its own economic interest doesn't grant anybody the right to interrupt its property or other reserved rights.
The "reasons" given for the tension are all nonsense. If the workers did not want to employ their labor in the creation of wealth belonging to some other entity, they did not have to accept that entities' wages or its offer of employment in the first place. They apparently want to have their cake and eat it too by being paid for their labor and still owning its fruits. 209.30.170.213 (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- All the major European manufacturers, and some of the more enlightened ones in the UK have bent over backwards to keep their skilled workers, sharing pay cuts and unpaid sabbaticals equally. Part of the dispute is that the management did not share equally in the pain. There is a thing called enlightened self interest and the corporation has not shown it, this current credit crisis will end, and the economy and the building industry will pick up. There will again be a market for its products, for machinery of all kinds, and when this happens there will be a premium for skilled manual workers. Kowing how it has treated its workers in the past if you were a worker with a choice of jobs to choose from would you opt to work for JLG? Of course you could argue that you'll have your pick of workers if the wages are right, but how much more over the market rate will you have to go? People are not just another piece of machinery to be switched on and off, as has been shown in work places through out Europe they will take pay cuts and reduced working out of loyalty and camaraderie to each other and the company. But to work loyalty has to run both ways.KTo288 (talk) 09:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)