Hi Bob...

>I live in Bethlehem, PA the previous worldwide headquarters for Bethlehem Steel which was one of the premier companies in the world not long ago. They paid artificially high wages (because of a union) that were beyond what supply and demand would support. The employees refused to take cuts in wages and benefits until there were no more employees, I remember when only a few thousand jobs were left and they still refused the cuts.

The corporate world, of which "the media" is a part, have done a great job over the last decades to make unions look like greedy job-stealing pigs.
Just keep in mind that EVERY union contract required 2 sides to sign the agreement.
I heard a former AMC (Nash, Rambler, etc) CEO say that when it came to items like pensioner's medicare and such they never worried about it because that would be a factor only long after they were no longer the CEO!!!

>
>But supply and demand can work against Walmart also. They can reduce demand by ticking off enough customers with their shenanagans to lose their customer base, they would then have to be better corporate citizens to assuage these perceptions. But since people continue to shop there, what's their motivation.

Well WalMart has actually benefitted so far, and will continue to do so for a short while yet in terms of growing its customer base (count) BY HAVING JOBS SHIPPED TO CHINA. This left poorer people here who were more or less forced to get what they needed at WalMart because that's all they could now afford!!!

>
>A lot of people do not realize what a fiduciary responsibility is,
>
>from Wikipedia:
>
>A fiduciary duty is the highest standard of care imposed at either equity or law. A fiduciary is expected to be extremely loyal to the person they owe the duty (the "principal"): they must not put their personal interests before the duty, and must not profit from their position as a fiduciary, unless the principal consents
>
>By law, Walmarts board of directors MUST try to maximize shareholder value!

Yes, corporations have got themselves set up exactly the way they want themselves to be... enshrined in law.
But that doesn't mean the law(s) regarding this are good. Most laws dealing with financial matters (as opposed to criminal matters) are designed ASSUMING MORALS/MORALITY of those to whom the laws apply. Yet the practitioners use the very same law to "justify" immoral and socially harmful activity!!!

cheers (yea, right)

>
>Since this is the arena we are destined to continue to play in, the people must adapt their situation to be in sync with reality if they want to thrive.
>
>Not always easy, but we all must continually adapt!
>
>Bob
>
>>You have described the American way. A cold but ture analysis. I tend to think that in many cases a person has a skill set that is not needed or a lack of opportunity exists. A good number of people are termed “under employed”. That is they work at jobs to survive, as there is nothing better available.
>>
>>Small communities have one type of problem especially when they are dependant upon one or very few types of employment. Large communities have many opportunities but there are employment shifts on a recurring basis. Take Silicon Valley as one example:
>>
>>1. In 1967 85% of the electronics manufacturing in California was done in Los Angeles.
>>
>>2. In 1970 85% of the electronics manufacturing in California was done in Silicon Valley.
>>
>>3. From about 1975 to 1990 IC and semi conductor manufacturing were important to Silicon Valley.
>>
>>4. 1990 saw 60,000 electronics engineers fired (no work). Manufacturing moved to Austin, Texas.
>>
>>5. Besides electronics engineers there were technicians, manufacturing and quality personnel – the exact number of which I do not know.
>>
>>6. Engineers had to train for a different career field or move. That is how I got into programming as a profession.
>>
>>7. Then we have the Dot Com era. 192,000 jobs lost in our area according to state figures. Many of those jobs did not return.
>>
>>You do what you can to survive. Sometimes we make wise choices and sometimes not. :)
>>
>>Tom