tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8231037340068853572.post-41397960570565717752008-05-14T09:44:00.000-05:002008-05-14T09:44:00.000-05:00Mr. Barrett makes several good points in his analysis.<BR/><BR/>I think the one thing that hasn't been talked about is that the area needs to lose part of its union mentality for projects like these to succeed. It's not so much the high wages, it's the rediculous workplace rules and the never-ending benefits. I know that was the problem at what used to be Potlatch in Cloquet. Management didn't have a problem with the wages, it was the legacy costs and workplace rules. An individual I knew that worked there told me stories of how a supervisor couldn't ask an employee to move a box from one side of the room to the other, as they had to call somebody from a different department to do that. If it wasn't in the employee's job description, they couldn't be asked to do it. He basically said the union protected all of the bad employees and prevented the good ones from advancing. As for the legacy costs, I saw an analysis of the employee costs at GM (whose employees are represented by UAW) compared with those at Toyota (which are not unionized). The average GM worker was paid $74 per hour when benefits were included while the Toyota worker was paid $45 per hour. The average hourly wages of the companies were virtually the same, but GM had a pension plan and Toyota had a 401-K. <BR/><BR/>As a native of northern Minnesota (West Duluth) who has moved away, I would love to see the area have a boom. The only problem is that there will be a bust as soon as the price of steel starts to go down again. The only way projects like the ones on the Iron Range will succeed in the long term is if the area realizes that the companies that invest there are there to make money. The employees have to look on the companies as their friend, not their foe.Toddnoreply@blogger.com