Army eyes Tyson plant strike
- Thread starter rancher
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
blackjack
Well-known member
...frenchie... i do not recall ever hearing the gainers plant opening again... would need someone from the hog industry for the past history of the plant ... has you are probably aware mapleleaf built a new hog plant in brandon,man ...and olymel(a quebec company)here in reddeer, alta (formerly fletchers) slaughter most of the hogs here in western canada...
...econ101... i too belief govt should stay out of business but we would all be naive if that was the case ...and as you have quoted about enron it is important govts have rules to protect us taxpayers and consumers from fraudulent companies... here in alberta our govt has given tax incentives to certain companies (especially to the petroleum industry) but it has allowed us to have a robust economy... changing the subject a bit ... if every govt had fair rules primary agriculture would not need the subsidies to survive...right...
...econ101... i too belief govt should stay out of business but we would all be naive if that was the case ...and as you have quoted about enron it is important govts have rules to protect us taxpayers and consumers from fraudulent companies... here in alberta our govt has given tax incentives to certain companies (especially to the petroleum industry) but it has allowed us to have a robust economy... changing the subject a bit ... if every govt had fair rules primary agriculture would not need the subsidies to survive...right...
blackjack said:
You are right about that. Your example of petroleum industry is a good example where government can make strategic decisions that are good long term decisions. Too many companies run off of short term decisions at the expense of good long term decisions. Usually this has to do with research that can be done to help solve long term problems. Research is usually too slow to affect the supply when needed so governments do have a role to play in that field. For example, while it may not be efficient for a company to get oil from tar sands at $30.00 a barrel, it may be in the long term interest of the government to sponsor or subsidize technologies that extract the oil even when it is at $24.00 per barrel. That way it can be ready now when oil is in the sixties.
Tax subsidies for companies who have large market share already is just corporate welfare. These distinctions should be made by good governments, not by political influence of well heeled businesses. If we do not make these distinctions we allow large companies to get larger and never spend money on research. That is intuitively counterproductive.
Murgen said:
Sometimes it was, sometimes it wasn't. The packers were under court orders for some of those years due to misuse of market power. Markets are dynamic but they need transparency to operate most efficiently. In agricultural commodity markets excess profits are only made when market power is exerted. The Tysons of this world know that and that is why they are willing to do the things they do to gain market share. It is kind of like a loss leader in a store. The store does not make money on the loss leader but they do get people in to buy other items. Tyson can use its market power in beef to know the timing of the swings in beef and capitalize on that with their "captive capital" they have in the poultry business. Of course in the long run this is not good for the beef industry. The particular mechanism employed also hurt individual feeders and that was in violation of the PSA of 1921.
Did you have something particular in mind?
ptx
New member
Econ, Blackjack,
That free market stuff you alude to is versus anti-trust, whether the tyson plant is locking up the packer market. As to the employees, it is different.
1. Everyone must move up and make more money- and you do this byincreasing your skills and taking higher and higher level jobs.
2. One does not OWN a job, he/she is allowed to perform in one so long as the contribution outweighs the remuneration.
3. So long as Tyson can get all the help it needs at $11 per hour, they should NOT have to pay more. NOW IF THE WORKERS GET OFF THEIR BACK SIDES AND BEGIN TO MOVE INTO BETTER JOBS, THE SUPPLY OF LABOR WILL GO DOWN NATURALLY, AND TYSON WILL HAVE TO PAY MORE TO FILL OUT ITS NEEDS. (Rule 1, the best way to help your fellow workers is to get a better job).
4. On another board a poster said he worked there, it was terrible but significant in his life as it made him struggle for more out of life.
He developed enough desire to get another job. I had such a job in my younger days. I was glad it was there as I needed the money; I was glad it wasn't controlled by the union mafia and easy to enter and exit. The WORST thing would be if you had been paid $50 per hour as you would have NEVER IMPROVED, and would BE THERE STILL. You would have to keep paying the union its extortion to keep the job because without continuing to extort from the company, you wouldn't have the $50.
In short, you wanted more and got off your arse and went to get it.
5. Lakeside foods is a way station for people on their way up. Entry AND EXIT should be simple. It is relatively low skill and should have a revolving door.
MEAT CARVING IS NOT A CAREER. (AND IT SHOULDN'T PAY LIKE ONE).
6. There is very little difference between the extortion of the fat man in the golf cart and the nitroglyceryn bomber. (but most bombers know when to put the fork down).
That free market stuff you alude to is versus anti-trust, whether the tyson plant is locking up the packer market. As to the employees, it is different.
1. Everyone must move up and make more money- and you do this byincreasing your skills and taking higher and higher level jobs.
2. One does not OWN a job, he/she is allowed to perform in one so long as the contribution outweighs the remuneration.
3. So long as Tyson can get all the help it needs at $11 per hour, they should NOT have to pay more. NOW IF THE WORKERS GET OFF THEIR BACK SIDES AND BEGIN TO MOVE INTO BETTER JOBS, THE SUPPLY OF LABOR WILL GO DOWN NATURALLY, AND TYSON WILL HAVE TO PAY MORE TO FILL OUT ITS NEEDS. (Rule 1, the best way to help your fellow workers is to get a better job).
4. On another board a poster said he worked there, it was terrible but significant in his life as it made him struggle for more out of life.
He developed enough desire to get another job. I had such a job in my younger days. I was glad it was there as I needed the money; I was glad it wasn't controlled by the union mafia and easy to enter and exit. The WORST thing would be if you had been paid $50 per hour as you would have NEVER IMPROVED, and would BE THERE STILL. You would have to keep paying the union its extortion to keep the job because without continuing to extort from the company, you wouldn't have the $50.
In short, you wanted more and got off your arse and went to get it.
5. Lakeside foods is a way station for people on their way up. Entry AND EXIT should be simple. It is relatively low skill and should have a revolving door.
MEAT CARVING IS NOT A CAREER. (AND IT SHOULDN'T PAY LIKE ONE).
6. There is very little difference between the extortion of the fat man in the golf cart and the nitroglyceryn bomber. (but most bombers know when to put the fork down).
ptx said:
Labor markets work under the same economic laws with some idosyncracies.
The fact is that businesses in the U.S. and Canada use imigrant (sometimes illegal) labor to reduce the prices paid for labor. There are laws against many of these practices. Businesses break those laws (Tyson has been in federal court over actual coyote-ing of illegal imigrants from Mexico pre-9/11). The industries Tyson and the other meat giants are involved in have some of the highest worker injury rates. Tyson was fined relatively miniscule amounts for workers who are injured and try their darndest to get out of paying for these injuries by stringing the process along. I guess that profitablity at the expense of safety issues is acceptable.
I have no problem with some jobs paying more and some less in an economy. I do have a problem with the mafia like tactics employed by TYSON. Every person deserves respect and humanity, even the ones working in a packing plant in low skilled jobs. It is not in the interest of countries to have a small elite ruling class and an ever-growing lower class. The fact that Tyson understands that labor has bargaining power when they can strike at all of the plants at one time (this issue was mentioned at an earlier post) is what Jason described as a sticking point to the Union's contract talks with Tyson. Is Tyson alone allowed to use these economic strategies while denying them to labor?
I do not know a lot about the working conditions in Canada in the Tyson meat packing plants but here in the U.S. Tyson's tactics have violence and death when they push people too far. Some of their actions border on criminal behavior. This may not be in every plant, but the management that allows these acts to take place are not fired. They are usually promoted or shuffled around to disipate accountability.
Ptx, is your stance that since you do not have to get a job at a meat packing plant that whatever the working conditions are they are okay with you?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Kindergarten,
Nobody is forcing anyone to work at Tyson. If they don't like the working conditions there, they can work somewhere else. Funny how you think Tyson should return more to the producer in one breath, then turn around and claim they should pay their workers more in the next breath. I hate to point out the obvious AGAIN but when you pay your workers more money there is less money too pay producers.
You can spout off the same ol' market manipulation rhetoric over and over but until you can actually back that claim with cold hard evidence, you have nothing.
In conclusion, YOU HAVE NOTHING!
~SH~
Nobody is forcing anyone to work at Tyson. If they don't like the working conditions there, they can work somewhere else. Funny how you think Tyson should return more to the producer in one breath, then turn around and claim they should pay their workers more in the next breath. I hate to point out the obvious AGAIN but when you pay your workers more money there is less money too pay producers.
You can spout off the same ol' market manipulation rhetoric over and over but until you can actually back that claim with cold hard evidence, you have nothing.
In conclusion, YOU HAVE NOTHING!
~SH~
~SH~ said:
I never said anything about Tyson paying their workers more. That is a contract between the workers and the company. When Tyson is the main employer in a town, they have tremendous bargaining power. I just said that it is hipocritical of Tyson to think that it is fine to have all of the bargaining power and not expect the union to want the same thing to protect the worker union members Please do not interpret what I write down any more as I have shown time and time again that you are not able to do that accurately.
The conclusions you draw are the basis of my arguments. Having all parts of the industry go down to their lowest cost by using market power is not in the best interest in any free market. When economic strategies are employed to gain leverage in a contractual bargaining agreement they must be seen for what they are. At least the union was able to identify that one real quick and not sell their members down the river with short sighted gains that give away all economic bargaining power.
Jason
Well-known member
Why should the union have all the power? They would be able to close down the slaughter at 3 seperate Alberta companies at the same time.
Each plant should be able to negotiate seperately, why does the union want to be able to bring ranchers and feedlots into a situation of hurting them instead of just striking at 1 plant, possibly hurting just that company to force them in negotiations? Talk about a monopoly.
The simple fact that 2/3 of the workers are crossing the picket line (interesting name isn't it?) shows that Tyson isn't the evil giant many are making it out to be.
Unions were needed 100 years ago, but now they close more businesses. Gov't has labor laws in place with hours of work mandated and minimum wages. Supply and demand of labor takes care of the rest.
Each plant should be able to negotiate seperately, why does the union want to be able to bring ranchers and feedlots into a situation of hurting them instead of just striking at 1 plant, possibly hurting just that company to force them in negotiations? Talk about a monopoly.
The simple fact that 2/3 of the workers are crossing the picket line (interesting name isn't it?) shows that Tyson isn't the evil giant many are making it out to be.
Unions were needed 100 years ago, but now they close more businesses. Gov't has labor laws in place with hours of work mandated and minimum wages. Supply and demand of labor takes care of the rest.
Jason said:
If unions are able to pass thier costs to all of the packing plants at the same time none of them will go out of business. If they pass costs up in just one, that one could be shut down. There are still limits to the union's bargaining power even in this situation. International costs will come into play for efficiencies of the plants. Given the geographical necessity of the plants, the impact of these costs are not total.
Yes, the Pickett case has to do with economics just like the picket line. In both cases economic concepts are being employed (did you like that one?)
I agree that in the past unions have overstepped their bounds. With a growing chasm between the classes in America this does not seem to be the case now.
I do not think that Tyson is naturally evil. They are using some economic tools that are illegal. They are not being held accountable for the damage they are inflicting. This is due to the inefficiencies in the U.S. justice system as seen in the London case and the Pickett case and the lack of anti-trust type laws and enforcement in Canada. On the labor side, there is not economic enforcement of labor laws. You forget that the minimum wage type laws were enacted because, in part, of these type of economic imbalances of power. While inflation has gone up due to free market mechanisms, most of these wage laws have not. You can not have a static (non moving) price for labor and dynamic (inflation) costs in the economy and expect there to be an equilibrium.
A
Anonymous
Guest
PROVE IT!!!
BACK YOUR CLAIM WITH COLD HARD EVIDENCE!
Yeh, I know, I know, Pickett proved it to 12 jurors......yada, yada yada........ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
Same-O, Same-O!
Keep making statements that you cannot back with supporting proof, cheap talker!
~SH~
Kathy
Well-known member
Things are heating up at Lakeside in Brooks:
SH:
How long did these cases take, SH and how much were the legal bills?
Did the court agree that captive supply was shown to depress prices?
Does Canada have any comparable PSA law and is it enforced?
Answer these questions SH. I already know the answer to them but since I am still in "Kindergarten" and you know all the answers to everything I think you need to answer them yourself. As you have pointed out, you can only be trapped by yourself so I will not even try.
How long did these cases take, SH and how much were the legal bills?
Did the court agree that captive supply was shown to depress prices?
Does Canada have any comparable PSA law and is it enforced?
Answer these questions SH. I already know the answer to them but since I am still in "Kindergarten" and you know all the answers to everything I think you need to answer them yourself. As you have pointed out, you can only be trapped by yourself so I will not even try.
A
Anonymous
Guest
QUIT DIVERTING KINDERGARTEN!
You said:
NOW BACK THAT ALLEGATION WITH THE FACTS THAT SUPPORT IT AND QUIT DANCING!
~SH~
You said:
NOW BACK THAT ALLEGATION WITH THE FACTS THAT SUPPORT IT AND QUIT DANCING!
~SH~
~SH~ said:
Pickett proved it to 12 disinterested, regular jurors. I wasn't at the trial, but in the appellate decision, none of the overturning judges had one scintilla of evidence to support the overturning of the evidence in their briefs. They even got their economic reasoning incorrect and then had the audacity to dismiss the testimony of an expert in the field.
That is kind of like your neighbor over ruling your heart doctor's diagnosis after a whole physical workup with all the bells and whistles.
Where is the beef in the appellate decision?
[/quote]
A
Anonymous
Guest
THE PLAINTIFFS HAD NO EVIDENCE!
THEY HAD THEORIES AND OPINIONS, NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE!
It was not the resposibility of Tyson to prove their innocense. It was the plaintiff's responsbility to prove Tyson's guilt. They couldn't do it. The Judge's did not need evidence to disprove the plaintiff's evidence BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS NEVER HAD ANY EVIDENCE!
~SH~
~SH~ said:
SH, the plaintiffs did prove it to the jury. You believe the "conspiracy of 12". I want more evidence that is the case before I make that determination. I am sorry I do not take your word for it. Those judges have to be a lot more convincing than they were to support their conclusions. They were as "factually void" in their briefs as you are in your posts.
A
Anonymous
Guest
The plaintiffs convinced the jury that their bogus conspiracy theories and opinions had merit. The judge saw through it and so did the 11th circuit. Your packer blaming side lost. Move on!
Nothing would satisfy your conspiring packer blaming mind.
More cheap talk from the king of cheap talkers.
~SH~
A
Anonymous
Guest
Kindergarten,
Quit slipping around backing your allegation. You said Tyson is using illegal economic tools to manipulate markets.
WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?
Quit diverting the question and BACK YOUR ALLEGATION!
You can't, you can only make statements.
~SH~
Quit slipping around backing your allegation. You said Tyson is using illegal economic tools to manipulate markets.
WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?
Quit diverting the question and BACK YOUR ALLEGATION!
You can't, you can only make statements.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
SH to Econ, "More cheap talk from the king of cheap talkers."
Hold it, SH, I thought a while back you said I was the king of cheap talkers! :shock: Econ and I both can't be the king.
I was king first, so I want to be king! Econ, you're not the king, I am! I wanna be king, and if you say I'm not, I'll tell my dad!
Hold it, SH, I thought a while back you said I was the king of cheap talkers! :shock: Econ and I both can't be the king.
I was king first, so I want to be king! Econ, you're not the king, I am! I wanna be king, and if you say I'm not, I'll tell my dad!