10 ms·
Lexmark fires Mexico factory workers demanding $0.35 raise
- exabrial 11y agoI mean, print cartridges are expensive! They're only making ".35" profit anyway
- prawn 11y agoWhat effective alternative would workers in this situation have to improve working conditions other than striking?
- pdq 11y agoThe same way anyone gets a raise: increase your skillset, show your employer how much more productive you are (with numbers), or get work from another employer at a higher wage.
- zardo 11y agoThe whole world does not work like the Bay area. Their best chance for better working conditions is probably illegal immigration to the US.
- dcgudeman 11y agoApply for a job at a different factory, one he or she finds preferable.
- skylan_q 11y agoThey can't. There's tons of cheap labor out there in the developing world and 3rd world. Capital moves quick and labor is everywhere. The best we can do in the long-run to increase working conditions is to increase demand for labor. In the short-term, all they can do is strike.
- skybrian 11y agoThe best we could do, in theory, would be to allow them to work in the U.S. This helps not only the workers but their families at home, though remittances. Unlikely to happen in this political climate, though.
- garrettgrimsley 11y agoThe whole point of Lexmark operating the plant in Mexico rather than the USA is to save on labor costs. It does not make sense for Lexmark to purchase labor in the USA for over eight times what it would cost if they were to purchase it in Mexico.
- gnu8 11y agoLexmark should not be allowed to purchase labor in Mexico for any less than it would cost in the United States. That would solve the problem neatly.
- tonyedgecombe 11y agoThen there would be no jobs in Mexico.
- skybrian 11y agoWell, yes, but why should the workers care if they can get a better job.
- garrettgrimsley 11y agoI think that I interpreted your post differently than how you meant for it to be interpreted. I read your post to be a solution for workers at this particular plant, keeping their jobs but with the Lexmark plant located physically in the USA. You are talking about enabling these workers to seek jobs at other businesses within the USA, is that correct?
- skybrian 11y agoThe most effective way is to work in another country, if they'll let you in. But often it's only a solution for people who are brave and lucky.
- Thetawaves 11y agoI think I'll vote with my dollar and never buy a Lexmark product again.
- alyandon 11y agoUnfortunately, all this story does is confirm what I already knew about Lexmark. I've refused to purchase Lexmark gear after they started using the DMCA to try and prevent third parties from manufacturing compatible toner and ink cartridges for their printers.
- jqm 11y agoI've got you beat by several years....
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- ceejayoz 11y agoI'd expect virtually every product you purchase at a large store - computers, furniture, toys, food - to have a pretty similar labor situation behind it. The shrimp we eat are farmed by slaves, FFS.
- manyxcxi 11y agoHave you ever owned a Lexmark? I had a mid-level color inkjet around 2004, it was my first and only time ever with that brand. That's how bad my experience was. Not that I'm in love with HP or any of the alternatives, I'm really apathetic about them all- except Lexmark (and Xerox, which I only dislike because of how crappy they treat corporate employees and how damn expensive some of their middling hardware is). Side note, I print so little that I switched to a laser printer YEARS ago and I've only used like two toner cartridges. I got a $150 Brother multi-function black and white laser like 6 years ago and share it with my TP-Link router to all the machines on my network with very little issue. First page print time is pretty slow, but I usually don't even pick it up from across the house for a while.
- rubyfan 11y agoYou don't get to be "a world leader in laser printers" by giving out an extra $0.35 to a few dozen workers.
- lips 11y agoThere's a lot to be said for trying.
- funkyy 11y agoI would like a news site, that would actually check both sides of the story. If Lexmark did it just because 35 cents, then that is bad, but if there was more to it, then I would like to hear it.
- ncallaway 11y agoFrom the article: >In a statement Jerry Grasso, company spokesman, told the Guardian: “We take our values of mutual respect and employee satisfaction very seriously. We are committed to engaging in open and honest conversations with our employees to ensure Lexmark continues to be a rewarding place to work.” I doubt Lexmark will comment further on the specific case in any way as it sounds like there will be legal action following the article: >An unfair dismissal complaint will be lodged before the Board this week, said Prieto Terrazas.
- JonFish85 11y agoThey exist, but they're usually at least a few days (if not weeks) behind, mostly because they're doing the exact thing you ask for. But in today's Twitter/Facebook world, a headline plus a paragraph is about all that most people care about. By the time someone does real research into it, the story is old news and people have already made up their minds about it. Places like the New York Times & Washington Post still seem to do research and actually employ real journalists. Unfortunately they get drowned out by the "entertainment news" companies who report things faster, and who really don't care about "facts" so much as condensed snippets of text.
- funkyy 11y agoOften but not always. OK guys, I have idea about cool startup, but since I am working on something else, here it goes - create a "Like" button that instead of liking, will say "Follow" - this will let you follow story. If any news outlet will post follow up, you will be informed. But then if after XX time the outlet will not post follow up - you will be notified to look for the end of the story elsewhere or you will be suggested some other outlets. With proper coding you can get huge thing in your hands. Do it. Do it now, I will use it. Even you Pocket - do it. Whatever do this, just give me 1% stock so I can support some charity with it in exchange of idea.
- venning 11y agoSo, honest question: is that a lot? The workers are asking for the top band to increase by 5.3%, from 114 pesos to 120. They are currently making 163% of the minimum national wage of 70 pesos. I don't have any feel for how livable that is in Ciudad Júarez.
- gaastonsr 11y agoDon't measure by minimum wage. By that measure everything is going to look like a huge rise. Despite Mexico being cheaper than USA. About 50% cheaper I would say. $120 pesos A DAY (about $7.05 dollars) is an small amount to live with.
- venning 11y agoI don't mean to imply that minimum wage is a valid measure, it's just one of the only measures provided in the article. Perhaps, in some places, 160% of minimum wage is decent. My interest is: "What is a lot in (that part of) Mexico?" In Malawi, for example, $7/day would be life changing. Despite being American, I know far more about Africa and Europe and some parts of Asia than I do my own neighbors to the south and I would like to know more.
- guelo 11y agoMalawi is one of the poorest countries in the world. Mexico is nowhere near that poor. It's sometimes called a "upper middle income" country along with the likes of Brazil and China.
- venning 11y agoYeah. That's sort of my problem. I know a good deal about Malawi and very little about Mexico. Do you know what a passable wage looks like in Mexico? Exchange rates, which are the implicit basis of this article's concern, is a much worse metric than minimum wage.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- largote 11y agoOne of the key points that is not covered as widely is that the workers were also demanding the right to unionize. This is a general right in Mexico but a lot of employers use a loophole where it's possible to have a "planted" union that's friendly to the company as the default union, I believe this allows the company to prevent the creation of another union.
- gesman 11y agoRAT Union? :)
- danharaj 11y agoIf unions could compete with each other for workers' influence they would behave better within the market economy. They used to. It was a boon for businesses to be able to make their shops single-union.
- cbd1984 11y ago> If unions could compete with each other for workers' influence ... they might become less corrupt, and more responsive to the wishes of labor, as opposed to union leadership.
- tbrooks 11y agoIs it the principle or the price that makes people upset? If the workers demanded a $1000 raise, is Lexmark just in firing those workers and hiring workers that are willing to work for less?
- peterkelly 11y agoThe price
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- anigbrowl 11y agoMainly the price, although I think there should probably be some good-faith negotiation requirement as opposed to just firing everyone en masse for having the temerity to negotiate.
- jorgeherrera1 11y agoI'm from Mexico and $6 pesos raise is a joke. You cannot even buy gum with $6 pesos. And like the article says, they fired them just before Christmas; leadership at Lexmark must be really fucked up. I'm NOT buying a freaking Lexmark printer ever again. I'm really upset by this.
- tim333 11y agoAlso my last Lexmark printer was awful
- kitanata 11y agoAt 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, with 120 employees, that turns out to just over $87,000 dollars. The fired 120 employees over $87k. Shameful.
- stephenboyd 11y agoThe 0.35 cents raise they asked for was per day, not per hour.
- threatofrain 11y agoWhy is Lexmark obligated to retain these workers? Instead of asking companies to exercise morality out of their own decency, I'd rather be sure via mechanism. Lexmark is paying above minimum wage. Isn't it minimum wage that's the problem?
- jacobolus 11y agoThe real problem is lack of collective bargaining rights and other worker protections, not only in Mexico but around the world. In the US, labor protections have been continuously eroded since at least the 80s, as the US Republican party has worked tirelessly (and overtly) to promote corporate interests at the expense of workers, and the Democratic party has often joined them without advertising it (for both parties, that’s where the money is). On an international scale, international agreements, including both bilateral agreements & large multilateral treaties and various trade deals, erode state sovereignty replacing local worker protections with unaccountable judicial and quasi-judicial arbitrators who tend to side with corporations against consumers or workers, and sparking a race to the bottom when it comes to all sorts of national regulations. For individual companies, there’s no downside in ignoring any unregulated external harms to workers, consumers, the environment, etc., right up to the point where a scandal gets so big that it sparks mass boycotts. The “free market” is utterly incapable of self policing, and as citizens we should continue to fight in our separate republics for systems which clamp down on corruption and abuse. In Mexico in particular, the government is weak and corrupt, relies excessively on oil money for revenue, and has been fighting a war against drug cartels across half the country; enforcing better wages and working conditions is far from their top priority.
- isolate 11y agoWhat, are you some kind of socialist that doesn't believe in the free market?
- jacobolus 11y agoExactly right. :) More concretely, I think the market mechanism has its place, but I think states need a diversity of economic power & political representation, a reasonable level of wealth/income equality (far more than the current USA at any rate), enough enforced transparency to catch fraud and corruption, and widespread civic engagement at every level from neighborhoods on up, so that political discourse stays informed and productive and the interests of the few aren’t able to trample on the basic rights and needs of the many. State supported markets and money and property rights are tools, not ends in themselves. Their purpose is to efficiently allocate resources and encourage innovations, so that the economy continues to produce the infrastructure and goods we need to support human flourishing, not to build feudal empires for wannabe aristocrats. At the point they stop serving their proper purpose, they should be guided back by additional institutional structure.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- FireBeyond 11y agoYour simple math is wrong: 120 employees * 40h * 52w * $0.35 = $87K, not "over a quarter million dollars" And then? To add insult to injury, they weren't asking for 35c/hr more, but 35c per DAY: 120 employees * 5 days/week * 52 weeks * $0.35 = $11K. Ten thousand dollars a year lead to the firing of 120 employees. Hiring and training 120 replacement worker is going to cost a lot more than $10K. EDITED to remove some untoward hostility.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- ramanamit1234 11y agoWell done Lexmark.
- beefcake 11y agoCapitalism is a beautiful thing <3