OldSchool wrote:TxRVer wrote:I read about this on another board. Looks like they already had plans to move. Illinois politicians have been trying to keep them from moving since August. Possibly the company made demands the union members just couldn't live with, making it easy for the company to make the move.
As I understand it, Olin requested a wage freeze for seven years, which is pretty much the expected duration before we're out of this depression (unless QE2 really does happen -- in which case it will be longer). The union refused, saying that the firm "is still profitable." This was similar to the problems with the Chicago convention center (except Olin still has revenue coming in, while the convention center is being shunned due to extreme cost of booking). As wages and jobs decrease, there are millions of people right now who could use those "frozen" wages.
The Union's declaration that they refuse concession because the firm is "still profitable" can easily be translated as, "we're not done squeezing it until it is no longer profitable." They would kill and eat the goose that lays the golden egg. They deserve their fate. No sympathy for the unions here.
OldSchool wrote:The Illinois politicians said they had successfully brought in Federal contracts for Olin (read: "earmarks"), but those look to me to only bring in revenue on the order of the cost savings of moving out of Illinois (remember the new taxes that state just voted into existence).
The Illinois politicians forget that those earmarks are
mostly paid for by taxpayers in other states. The population of Illinois is 12,910,409. The population of Texas is 24,782,302 — or nearly twice that of Illinois. In other words, Texans contribute TWICE what Illinois residents contribute to those earmarks. In fact, a little more than 8% of all those monies come from Texan taxpayers. Illinois politicians can go blow up for all I care. They've already lost the respect of the nation. They need to lose their jobs to boot. Remember....
Obama is an example of an Illinois politician. I don't want one single penny of my taxes used to keep union jobs alive in Illinois.
OldSchool wrote:Olin can go wherever they feel is best, and the deep south is in the ascendancy; I'm just wondering what their plan is for keeping production going, in the short term, without a union contract in Illinois. Will they immediately start up in MS, with a temporary operation? Will there be another ammo availability challenge? Will Olin's quality suffer (I just rediscovered how good it really is)? Will John find Marsha?

I imagine that they have adequately capitalized the move such that they will have stood up the plant in Mississippi and will have started up production there
before completely phasing out the plant in Illinois. I helped move a printing business from California to Texas. We made arrangements to have a large part of our production underway in Texas before shutting down our facility in California. In the end, part of our production capacity was offline for about 5 or 6 days, so the lag in customer delivery was small and easily caught up with. 10 days after moving, we were fully up to speed and running like we'd never left. And we were a small, struggling, arguably under-capitalized company. A large corporation like Winchester Olin will have made sure that the closing of one plant and the opening of another will not affect to any measurable degree the availability of their product to their distributors, and ultimately, the consumers.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT