Tad
Dimensions' loiterer
(mostly just venting here)
A small city/large town (twenty thousand people) near me is losing one of their major employers. Proctor & Gamble is shutting a plant that they just recently called their most productive North American plant. They aren't ending product lines -- we'll all still be able to get Swiffer clothes and so forth, they are just moving production.
The new plant will apparently be more automated, so even more productive/ efficient. But if they really felt they needed a brand new facility, there is no doubt that the town the existing plant is in would have bent over backwards to get them serviced land to build that new plant. Maybe P&G wanted to have less small plants by bringing things together, but in that case wouldn't it make more sense to have built around what is already your most productive plant, and try to extend that quality? (not to mention that the existing plant is on the St. Lawrence seaway so has access to more low cost shipping than the new, inland, plant)
So I don't think it is any surprise that the new plant is way south of here, where wages, worker rights, and environmental protection are all lower. And of course, with free trade it doesn't matter much where things are made.
I guess I understand that companies have a duty to their shareholders to maximize profits. I wasn't on the inside to know all the data that went into these calculations, so they made sincerely believe that this is their most profitable strategy. But I wish that they would then be open about it. "The difference in wages and regulations is simply too substantial for us not to take advantage of. If you want to keep your factories you need to either lower costs here or get other jurisdictions to raise theirs -- but frankly we'd prefer the former."
There was a lot of other weasel words about how this will be phased in over a few years, some workers might move to another plant a couple of hours away, and so forth, again instead of just saying "We know this is devastating to our workers here, but sometimes that is business. We'll work to give people as many opportunities as they can, but ultimately most of the workers will be laid off."
In short, if you have to be a bottom line driven business, we can understand that. But don't try and pretend that isn't what is going on. And we need to decide if we are ticked enough to try and avoid their products
A small city/large town (twenty thousand people) near me is losing one of their major employers. Proctor & Gamble is shutting a plant that they just recently called their most productive North American plant. They aren't ending product lines -- we'll all still be able to get Swiffer clothes and so forth, they are just moving production.
The new plant will apparently be more automated, so even more productive/ efficient. But if they really felt they needed a brand new facility, there is no doubt that the town the existing plant is in would have bent over backwards to get them serviced land to build that new plant. Maybe P&G wanted to have less small plants by bringing things together, but in that case wouldn't it make more sense to have built around what is already your most productive plant, and try to extend that quality? (not to mention that the existing plant is on the St. Lawrence seaway so has access to more low cost shipping than the new, inland, plant)
So I don't think it is any surprise that the new plant is way south of here, where wages, worker rights, and environmental protection are all lower. And of course, with free trade it doesn't matter much where things are made.
I guess I understand that companies have a duty to their shareholders to maximize profits. I wasn't on the inside to know all the data that went into these calculations, so they made sincerely believe that this is their most profitable strategy. But I wish that they would then be open about it. "The difference in wages and regulations is simply too substantial for us not to take advantage of. If you want to keep your factories you need to either lower costs here or get other jurisdictions to raise theirs -- but frankly we'd prefer the former."
There was a lot of other weasel words about how this will be phased in over a few years, some workers might move to another plant a couple of hours away, and so forth, again instead of just saying "We know this is devastating to our workers here, but sometimes that is business. We'll work to give people as many opportunities as they can, but ultimately most of the workers will be laid off."
In short, if you have to be a bottom line driven business, we can understand that. But don't try and pretend that isn't what is going on. And we need to decide if we are ticked enough to try and avoid their products
