"When won't they be able to find another worker somewhere in the world they can hire to work for less? Once you accept their logic, you buy into the never-ending cycle of playing worker and worker, whether across borders, union v. non-union, right-to-work states v. non-RTW (for less) states, native-born v. immigrants, men v. women, old v. young, even one UAW local against another within the same company. The only significant difference is at what pace you will run the 'race to the bottom.'"
In solidarity, Michael E.
At 08:32 PM 6/26/98 -0400, Doug Henwood wrote:
>Michael Eisenscher wrote:
>
>>They manage to sustain a worthless army of managers, not to mention grossly
>>over-compensated executives at all levels. Why question only the viability
>>of those at the bottom of the ladder? If GM can pay millions in salary,
>>stock options, retirement plans, golden handshakes, and all the other perks
>>of exploitation, what's the matter with a wire harness assembler earning
>>enough to raise a family with a modicum of comfort. Besides $44 is total
>>compensation, probably including payroll taxes and employer share of SS. No
>>one bothered to ask the "Wall Street analyst" what s/he earned and what
>>value s/he created in return for that compensation!
>
>As Noam Chomsky once said, that may be true, but it's irrelevant. Mexican
>managers are cheaper than U.S. ones, and executive pay and the rest don't
>count for that big a share of GM's expenses. I'm not talking about what's
>right, I'm talking about what capital will permit.
>
>Doug
>
>
>
>