Union workers protest massive wave of job cuts

"Sacrificing jobs to protect profits"

Yeah. What a crazy concept. Better the whole company goes bankrupt than cut a few temporary workers ... No wonder they can't get hired doing anything better. They're idiots.

Shiuu, By your comment, I guess you still have a job. After the "few temporary workers" will be fired, hope it will not be your turn.

“We do not accept job cuts in the name of the economic crisis,” said Kazuko Furuta,

Kazuko is in denial.

Shiuu is right. And Vickman, it doesn't matter if shiuu has a job or not...that's missing the point. The point is most people's jobs are not guaranteed.

In order to survive, a company has to make money. If there is no company, there are no jobs to be had.

Job security IS NOT the same in all fields of work. Some have more, some less. Nobody is irreplaceable...and if you are irreplaceable best to start your own company.

It's up to each individual to decide on the type of job they want. That is their responsibility.

Just wonder how many were "freeters", who made a conscious decision not to become permanent workers?

Their freedom to work with whom they want and when they want has a price...

vickman has an important point. Jobs arent guaranteed in this world but why not? Why is it that when a trend starts by companies to layoff others follow? Companies are making lots of money. The problem is how it is distributed and the amount they are paying out to their staff. We all love money but hey there is no need to be paying some people $40-50 an hour and others $10. Strangely enough the bottom end always goes first too which might be the reason why layoff numbers are so high...Private industry controls the Government dont you know? Thats why there are no strict laws regarding layoffs. Basically its thanks and see you later. Everything is too expensive in this world and a large number of folks dont have the cash to contibute. A CEO should have more intelligence or be more creative in repairing the damage to a company than just lay offs. Itll take more than 200 people to bring awareness or force change unfortunately. More like 2 billion. Time for the bigwigs who want to dabble with politics and control corp to take responsibility...

[quote]We all love money but hey there is no need to be paying some people $40-50 an hour and others $10.[/quote]

Ha. Ha. That's one of the dumbest things I've heard all week. Unless you're willing to let your cleaning lady perform brain surgery, there certainly is good reason to pay some people more.

I'll bet my winter bonus not one of those laid off contact workers were university-trained engineers. Contract workers are generally have low-skills and they know the score when they are hired. Its a shame they lose their jobs, but as some posters pointed out, companies are in business to make a profit, not to run a welfare facility. Want job security, go to Europe where the onerous employment rules have lead to double-digit unemployment for the last 15 years...

“Shame on the Japanese companies that dump their workers like objects.”

So on the whole world. Japan WAKE UP!!! Life employment is gone forever and now it`s dream. Welcome to real world

Jobs arent guaranteed in this world but why not?

Becuase that's why they call it "working FOR someone".

It's true a company can let a worker go. But it's also true that the employee is free to say bye bye to the company as well (better salary/working conditions/security/benefits/opportunity for advancement etc). It's a two way street.

Again, it's up to each individual what line of work they choose for their career. It's their responsibility.

So you guys dont get basic economics? Who pays your CEO's x milion bucks? The consumers. Should you fire them, there really wont be any jobs left. Including your CEO. Ciao

In modern times, unions are more a part of the problem than part of the solution. Just look at the UAW in the U.S. and how it has helped drive the Big 3 into the ground.

Angelo - You are living in la la land.

Right to peaceful protest says they've done nothing wrong. Angelo's right about CEOs; how many workers' wages could a reduction in the salaries and bonuses of management subsidize? That, of course, is the last place a budget-cut touches.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Surely, in the 21st century people can see that. We're not feudal any more.

"No wonder they can't get hired doing anything better. They're idiots"; is this possibly the stupidest, most ignorant post anyone could write?

Shichiman - You are living in la la land as well.

First of all, if you read the posts nobody said anything about them not being able to protest. By all means, go ahead and protest.

While some CEO's salaries might be inflated a bit much, think of it this way...Take 200,000 random people...how many do you think are qualified to be vice presidents of human resources/microbiologists/security guards/chemical engineers/janitors/parking attendants of a multi-million dollar company? Some people's jobs ARE more disposable than others. Get it?

Your argument of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" assumes everyone is the same. We are NOT all the same. We have different skills, different levels of education, different work experiences, different salary demands etc.

The company can fire you at any time...and you are free to leave the company at any time to find work elsewhere.

You're right. All people are different. Some people in this life work hard and go on to achieve great things. Others do nothing and have to be dragged through life, having everything subsidised for them. Those hard workers should not have to pay for the wasters miserable existences.

We're not talking about wasters. We are talking about ordinary working people.

What REASONABLE luxuries could a corporate exec on a million-dollar salary buy that he couldn't on a fifty-thousand-dollar salary. That kind of expenditure I excessive and unecessary. Sure, they worked for it but is their excess salary proportional to their workload? Has their work ethic been proportionally stronger to the redundant workers' to justify that excess?

You really are living in medieval times. Do you think that the current climate, which is in such terrible disarray due to banking greed, is the final step in human development? Evolve! Or are you creationist too?

No I am not living in la la land. This is a society where the overwhelming majority must work in a company to make ends meet. So the needs of the society must be reflected in how companies are operated. So we dont want to operate CEOs but societies. I hope this will clarify you the basics.

UAW was not the problem even if it is considered now a liability. We all like profits but not liabilities, don't we? In that sense providing private jet and million bucks salary for a CEO is also a liability.

Shichiman and Angelo - I hear what you are saying, but it does not reflect reality.

The article states most of the workers are temp contract workers. Ahhhh, that pretty much means low job security, don't ya think? The economy is bad and the company needs to streamline, so they let some people go. That's what usually happens in business. This should not be suprising. Mechanical engineers that have a background in physics are different from assembly line workers.

--"The needs of society must be reflected in how companies are operated."--Well, what the society "needs" in your opinion, might be different from other peoples opinions. And companies are pretty much free to operate how they want to. If you don't like the company, don't work for them.

Try this instead...Since you work FOR someone, the company if free to let you go at any time they see fit (cost cutting, streamline, disciplinary action etc). And you as the worker are free to leave the company any time you see fit (better salary at competitor, don't like work environment, want to change careers, want to retire early etc).

Simply put, life (or companies) do not owe you any favors. It is up to you (and everybody else) to make life decisions, and that includes choice of job.

I give up on you grasping my point on eliminating customers = eliminating your own job. However following your logic that the company owes nothing to its employees, on the contrary, what do we owe to companies? Since it is our own tax dollars they get bailed out from time after time as market cycles repeat themselves. It is tax money taken from the employees so the company owes their employees. They could not survive bad times without government (employee tax dollars). So your logic would be only viable in the stone age. Where the guy in the cave next to mine does not owe me anything and only the strong are to survive.

I'm quite sure that the needs of society are blanket globally; food, shelter and improving quality of life. The disagreement comes when we consider the protocols necessary to achieving this:

You don't think a company owes its workers any favours? How about job security for the SALARY WORKERS that have been let go? A more altruistic redistribution of excess salaries would have kept more people in work meaning more expendable income to the consumer meaning a less damaging knock-on effect to other manufacturers and service providers. That way the impact of the "credit crunch" could have been considerably dampened.

As you said, temporary workers are always the first sandbag dropped. That is the way business works. I'm questioning the morality of diminishing a worker's access to basic needs when such unecessary excess is prevelant in other areas of the company. Business DOES work that way but, in the 21st century, SHOULD it?

Bill Gates is a bad example because of his growing reputation as a philathropist, however he is famous example of wealth and clearly demonstrates my point: Money is a human invention that regulates consumption. Could Bill Gates possibly consume goods and services proportional to his wealth? Would it make him proportionally happier than those on a $100k salary?

One more thing to you about your statistics of who can become CEO. Anyone. Unless you think genetics are involved in the numbers. In that case you should be living in the 1940s...

Angelo and Shi -

--I give up on you grasping my point on eliminating customers = eliminating your own job.--

I agree with this 100%. If a company doesn't have customers it is difficult for them to survive. And your point is?

--However following your logic that the company owes nothing to its employees, on the contrary, what do we owe to companies? Since it is our own tax dollars they get bailed out from time after time as market cycles repeat themselves. It is tax money taken from the employees so the company owes their employees. --

The workers owe nothing to the companies except the work they were hired to do (read above posts). Yes, tax money DOES get taken from not only the employees but ALL the citizens of the country. Again, that's the way business and government usually works. If you don't like it either go into labor policy or move to another country. Welcome to reality.

--They could not survive bad times without government (employee tax dollars). So your logic would be only viable in the stone age.--

My logic is quite current. Just pick up a newspaper within the last couple of weeks (and check the newspaper archives in previous recessions).

--You don't think a company owes its workers any favours? How about job security for the SALARY WORKERS that have been let go?--

No I don't. Salaried workers and temp workers have different job security but BOTH can be let go (see above). Sure you might get a 6 months salary package etc. but again the article states these were temp workers...usually comes with the territory.

--A more altruistic redistribution of excess salaries would have kept more people in work meaning more expendable income to the consumer meaning a less damaging knock-on effect to other manufacturers and service providers.--

You are living in a fantasy land. By all means, start YOUR own company and feel free to pay YOUR own employees whatever salary you want. Again, if you don't like your job (salary, work conditions, you feel more valuable etc.) take yourself elsewhere.

--I'm questioning the morality of diminishing a worker's access to basic needs when such unecessary excess is prevelant in other areas of the company.--

Nobody forced these people to work for this "immoral" company that "diminished" worker's "basic needs". (By the way, who are you to define what somebody else's basic needs are.) Again, if you don't like how the company runs, don't work there. Or if the company is soooooo bad be thankful you are not there anymore.

--Bill Gates is a bad example because of his growing reputation as a philathropist, however he is famous example of wealth and clearly demonstrates my point: Money is a human invention that regulates consumption. Could Bill Gates possibly consume goods and services proportional to his wealth? Would it make him proportionally happier than those on a $100k salary?--

Let me get this straight. You are telling other people how they should spend their money?!? Get real. It doesn't matter if you/I/anyone thinks Bill spends proportionally to his wealth. That is HIS money and he can do whatever he wants with it....just like you can do whatever you want with YOUR money. And by the way, Bill's happiness is not for you to define. You can define YOUR OWN happiness however you want...and Bill will define his.

--One more thing to you about your statistics of who can become CEO. Anyone.--

I suppose anyone COULD be a CEO for some amount of time. But some are better at it than others...don't you think?

This is so incredibly petty but great fun so I'll carry on tearing you to shreds:

Article - "Most of the job cuts have targeted temporary contract workers, but lately they have included full-time salaried workers," so it wasn't just salary workers.

Of course a company is free to offload excess staff but in times like these, when there is excess money elsewhere in the company, SHOULD they? You agreed with Angelo that "eliminating customers = eliminating your own job" so SHOULD companies consider redistribution of profits instead of mass-redundancy to keep themselves afloat?

"Nobody forced these people to work for this "immoral" company that "diminished" worker's "basic needs". (By the way, who are you to define what somebody else's basic needs are.)" - People aren't forced into bad jobs, however people need money. A lot of people can't work in their desired profession for a number of social and economic reasons. Business isn't inherently evil of course, but the legislation that supports a capitalist society naturally creates huge contrasts in wealth and living standard. My question was not whether business DOES work in this ruthless way, rather SHOULD it?

Of course I have the right to state basic human needs, they're not subjective. Try lasting a week without money, food or shelter and tell me I'm wrong! What would you define?

Bill Gates: I didn't tell people how they should spend their money, I suggested that the super-rich shouldn't have that much money in the first place. I said that Bill Gates, amongst thousands of others, has unbelievable amounts of money literally doing nothing. It's a waste. SHOULD this useless money be used to help worthy people in difficult financial predicaments?

I didn't define Bill Gates' happiness but I will now. If you read it properly I again asked you if Bill's money makes him 100 million times happier than Joe the Plumber (on, say, $50k PA). How ridiculous is that?! Does having $56 billion mean that there is 100 million times more dopamine floating around his brain?

Bill is obviously bored of having that useless $55.9 billion sat in his account. The fact it simply exists obviously doesn't make him happy. Spending his cash on other people does make Bill happy, otherwise he wouldn't do it. SHOULD more super-rich tycoons spend their surplus money on providing BASIC income for those at risk of redundancy?

We agree on how the world works; some people work hard and make a lot of money, other don't work quite as hard (on a sliding scale), make less and are now finding themselves expendable to employers. You are of the stance that "what's mine is mine", a principle which, when we're talking about huge sums of dormant money, becomes selfish, petty, impracticle and unfeasable. I think, in a world so removed from our natural instincts, that demonstrating altruism in ensuring a decent standard of living is met by all is not just moral but common sense.

All through this "discussion" I've tried to get you to question not HOW this works but SHOULD it work like this. You haven't answered any of my questions, rather you've dogmatically repeated HOW, which we seem to agree on. When not repeating that you either "give up" (quote) or tell us we're "in la la land".

SHOULD those with a massive excess of money suffer a slight reduction in income to afford those in the unfortunate position of redundancy a chance at survival or do we let them suffer? It's pretty much a yes or no question.

EDIT: Line 2 - "it wasn't just TEMPORARY workers". Silly goose!

Well said Shichiman. medievaltimes: "I suppose anyone COULD be a CEO for some amount of time. But some are better at it than others...don't you think?"

Tell me one job where some are not better at it than others?

Capitalism 0: Common Sense 1