HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » WaPo: Beretta to move man...

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 02:27 AM

WaPo: Beretta to move manufacturing jobs out of Maryland, blames state gun laws

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/beretta-to-move-manufacturing-jobs-out-of-maryland-blames-gun-laws/2014/07/22/4e91665e-11eb-11e4-8936-26932bcfd6ed_story.html


Beretta to move manufacturing jobs out of Maryland, blames state gun laws


By Michael S. Rosenwald July 22

Blaming Maryland’s new gun-control laws, Beretta USA said Tuesday that it is relocating its manufacturing operations from Accokeek to Tennessee, a move that will eliminate about 160 jobs in southern Prince George’s County.

The Italian company had disclosed a $45 million plan this year to expand operations to a new factory near Nashville. But Beretta has decided to go beyond that plan because, a senior executive said, the company is “very worried about the wisdom of maintaining a firearm manufacturing factory” in Maryland.

Maryland’s new gun restrictions, pushed by Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn., bans 45 types of assault rifles and put in place tough fingerprint, photo identification and training requirements. Magazines are limited to 10 rounds.

A version of the legislation that passed the state Senate “would have prohibited Beretta ­USA from being able to manufacture, store or even import into the State products that we sell to customers throughout the United States and around the world,” the company said.


My prediction: Gun control advocates will downplay (or avoid discussing altogether)
the economic impact of this move by Beretta, while simultaneously doing nothing
about replacing the lost jobs and tax revenue.

Wonder if Marty O'Malley expects any help from that nice Mr. Bloomberg to
help with the financial impact of this. If so, he'll be sorely disappointed...

46 replies, 3207 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 46 replies Author Time Post
Reply WaPo: Beretta to move manufacturing jobs out of Maryland, blames state gun laws (Original post)
friendly_iconoclast Jul 2014 OP
delrem Jul 2014 #1
krispos42 Jul 2014 #6
blueridge3210 Jul 2014 #9
gejohnston Jul 2014 #10
friendly_iconoclast Jul 2014 #16
NaturalHigh Jul 2014 #2
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2014 #3
safeinOhio Jul 2014 #4
gejohnston Jul 2014 #8
friendly_iconoclast Jul 2014 #15
pablo_marmol Jul 2014 #23
safeinOhio Jul 2014 #25
friendly_iconoclast Jul 2014 #27
pablo_marmol Jul 2014 #28
blueridge3210 Jul 2014 #30
safeinOhio Jul 2014 #33
blueridge3210 Jul 2014 #34
safeinOhio Jul 2014 #35
blueridge3210 Jul 2014 #36
safeinOhio Jul 2014 #37
blueridge3210 Jul 2014 #38
safeinOhio Jul 2014 #39
gejohnston Jul 2014 #40
safeinOhio Jul 2014 #42
blueridge3210 Jul 2014 #41
safeinOhio Jul 2014 #43
blueridge3210 Jul 2014 #44
jimmy the one Jul 2014 #46
gejohnston Jul 2014 #45
merrily Jul 2014 #5
Eleanors38 Jul 2014 #13
merrily Jul 2014 #22
Eleanors38 Jul 2014 #24
ileus Jul 2014 #7
Lurks Often Jul 2014 #11
DonP Jul 2014 #12
Eleanors38 Jul 2014 #14
DonP Jul 2014 #17
Eleanors38 Jul 2014 #18
DonP Jul 2014 #19
friendly_iconoclast Jul 2014 #21
friendly_iconoclast Jul 2014 #20
NaturalHigh Jul 2014 #26
pablo_marmol Jul 2014 #29
DonP Jul 2014 #31
pablo_marmol Jul 2014 #32

Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 03:14 AM

1. Gun control laws have no impact on manufacturing capacity.

It's pure pressure/punishment politics, and Beretta ought to be ashamed.

eta: it ought to be ashamed at how it sacrificed its own employees, to gratify the big stockholders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 05:56 AM

6. Unless it prohibits Beretta from manufacturing or importing guns banned in Maryland...

...even if Beretta sells those guns out-of-state.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #6)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 06:08 AM

9. Well, there you go again,

 

inserting facts into a screaming "hair on fire" rant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 06:14 AM

10. big stock holders?

there are no big stock holders. There are no stockholders at all.
Beretta USA is a subsidiary of Fabbrica d'Armi Pietro Beretta currently headed by Ugo Gussalli Beretta. While the US plant has been around only since 1977, the company itself has been a family owned business since 1526.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #10)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 10:22 AM

16. That lot have never been much on factual accuracy...

...especially when it would get in the way of a pro-forma rant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 03:14 AM

2. Well that sucks.

Good for Tennessee, I guess. Beware the law of unintended consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 04:08 AM

3. Alternate Headline -- GOP picks up votes in blue-state MD during critical election cycle n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 04:27 AM

4. So,,

"Gun control advocates will downplay (or avoid discussing altogether)
the economic impact of this move by Beretta, while simultaneously doing nothing
about replacing the lost jobs and tax revenue."

While gun advocates downplay the economic impact gun violence and offer nothing to replace the cost in dollars and human life lost to it. 160 jobs compared to thousands of lives and even more injuries. But you won't mention that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 06:04 AM

8. because there won't be thousands of lives

or injuries saved. There is no evidence to support that claim anywhere in the world. Europe did not solve its problems with gun laws because it didn't have the problem (in the modern era) to begin with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 10:18 AM

15. The same guns and parts manufactured in Maryland will now come from TN

There will be no gain or loss of life from this move, only the economic loss to a
state that thinks it's just fine for people in other states to buy 'bad' guns,
as long as they're the ones getting the benefit$ of manufacturing said firearms.

I'm genuinely curious as to what good you think will come of this...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #4)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 02:02 AM

23. "160 jobs compared to thousands of lives and even more injuries.


But you won't mention that."

Perhaps we won't mention it because given the fact that numerous studies support high numbers of defensive gun uses, the damage caused by firearms is at least offset by lives protected by them.

But of course, you won't mention that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pablo_marmol (Reply #23)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 02:16 PM

25. I'd bet most all of those

defensive gun uses could be done with registered hand guns and 3 round mags in long guns. I can't see where the laws they bitch about would stop a legal person. Like most large companies, Beretta's only concern is about profits. More gun sales are their only concern.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #25)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 02:44 PM

27. You may be correct- but it's not up to you (or me) to decide for others...

...what their choices should be. You also forget that manufacturing jobs are fungible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #25)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 08:29 PM

28. ^^This.^^ NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #25)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 09:48 PM

30. You're welcome to bet your life on that.

 

You don't get to bet my life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueridge3210 (Reply #30)

Sat Jul 26, 2014, 06:01 AM

33. Not a legal hand gun owner?

You wouldn't be able to register your handgun, as all legal owners could? Registering a handgun would be no problem for legal owners, it would only stop those that aren't legal to have one, like felons and the insane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #33)

Sat Jul 26, 2014, 07:21 AM

34. I was talking about the 3 round magazine limit.

 

But you knew that.

Why should I have to register any of my firearms?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueridge3210 (Reply #34)

Sat Jul 26, 2014, 03:19 PM

35. My shotgun holds three, enough

for ducks, deer and self protection.

Registering handguns would only make it more difficult for anyone that can't legally own one. In other words, it would make it less likely for me to have to worry about being stuck up by a criminal with a handgun. It would make it easier to get a handgun that is stolen back and easier to take away a handgun from someone that later is convicted of a felony or deemed mentally unfit to have one, making it safer for everyone.

OF course some crazy, NRA types think it's all part of Obama's 10 point plan to take away everyones guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #35)

Sat Jul 26, 2014, 07:15 PM

36. And what if there are more than 3 attackers or you miss?

 

Registering handguns would not make it any more difficult for someone who cannot legally own one to get one. Those who cannot legally own a firearm cannot be prosecuted for failing to register the firearm that they possess in violation of the law. They are still free to steal or purchase stolen weapons.

If my firearm is stolen it will be reported to the police and listed in NICS; it can then be returned to me when recovered.

Again, you are free to limit your degree of self-protection; you do not get to limit mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueridge3210 (Reply #36)

Sat Jul 26, 2014, 08:17 PM

37. Seems you are already limited.

What if you had a 100 attackers? You have to register your full auto. If you wish to purchase at a retail store you have to have a background check. If you wish to carry in most states you have take a class to carry outside the house and have a permit. I guess there just ain't no freedom for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #37)

Sat Jul 26, 2014, 08:27 PM

38. Reductio ad absurdum

 

First, the likelihood of 100 attackers is so vanishingly small that it is pointless to raise. You might as well say "What if a meteor is headed directly for your house?"

Second, the requirement for a background check does not limit me as I am not a prohibited person. Is does, actually, serve to restrict the ability of prohibited persons to obtain a firearm by reducing the available sources of firearms. Registration of firearms fails to do this; is does not prevent theft and does not prevent transfer of stolen firearms.

Finally, requiring a class for a carry permit does not restrict me any more than taking a driving test restricts my freedom to drive where I wish. I may drive to any city or state without having to "show my papers" upon entry.

I have plenty of freedom. In fact, given the recent court ruling regarding public carry in D.C. I now have even more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueridge3210 (Reply #38)

Sat Jul 26, 2014, 08:52 PM

39. Registering a firearm

does not limit me in any way.

I think it is absurd to think one will be attacked by any person or group that does not run after one or two shots are fired. It's like deer hunting, if you need more than 3 rounds, you might want to take up fishing. I was attacked by a large dog one time on the farm and one round from a 22 was all it took.

Look, I'm not against firearms for protection by legal owners. The problem is how easy it is for others to get handguns. While one might not be held for not registering a handgun one can be charge with possession of an unregistered handgun. One more hurdle for the bad guy that in no way affects me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #39)

Sat Jul 26, 2014, 08:59 PM

40. actually it wouldn't be a hurdle

since they don't go to FFLs or gun shows to begin with. Also, a felon can't be charged with having an unregistered gun. If it is a federal law, there may not be local charges anyway. See Washington and Colorado and federal pot ban. Personally, I used use pepper spray on a dog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #40)

Sat Jul 26, 2014, 09:14 PM

42. It was a large feral Rot on a foggy night.

I heard it barking and the horses were going nuts because it was after them. Even bear spray sometimes doesn't work on dogs and you have worry about wind direction. I was checking the legs on the horse when it came barreling under the panel at us. My 22 worked. I hear people laugh at a 22 for self defense, trust me they work on a 100 pound dog in a fit of rage.

Registration and background checks are something that can be changed on the state level and I'd be happy with that. The last thing I'd ever want to do is shoot another human. So, keeping handguns out the hands of criminals is the best way to lessing the need to ever have to do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #39)

Sat Jul 26, 2014, 09:03 PM

41. Once again

 

you cannot charge someone who cannot legally possess a firearm with the crime of possessing an unregistered firearm as they would be required to incriminate themselves as a prohibited person if they were to try to register it. Again, requiring legal gun owners to register weapons will do nothing to prevent prohibited persons from illegally acquiring weapons.

The restrictions on the number of rounds a hunting weapon can hold are based on wildlife management, not public safety. Some people just don't intimidate very well and restricting the number of rounds a self-defense weapon can hold does nothing to advance public safety. Cho at VA Tech showed how much carnage could be accomplished with 10 round magazines.

Glad the dog took off after one shot; your anecdote does not translate into how the world will work in every case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueridge3210 (Reply #41)

Sat Jul 26, 2014, 09:23 PM

43. Laws can be changed

Making a person register a handgun when purchasing from an individual at point of sale would stop the illegal transfer of many handguns to criminals. Not all, nothing will stop everything, but it would make it harder and would help. Is there any country that requires registration on all handguns that has a higher gun violence rate than us?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #43)

Sat Jul 26, 2014, 09:30 PM

44. It's not a law, it's in the Bill of Rights.

 

5th amendment regarding self-incrimination. A prohibited person cannot be prosecuted for not registering a firearm.

Most criminals who obtain firearms illegally do not purchase them from the legal owner. They steal them or buy them from a thief. Very few are documented to have used straw purchasers and prison interviews have borne this out.

Countries that require registration of firearms have lower levels of criminal misuse of firearms for other reasons. It does not necessarily follow that the registration requirement causes the lower level of criminal use of firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueridge3210 (Reply #44)

Tue Jul 29, 2014, 12:10 PM

46. catch22

safe in ohio wrote: Making a person register a handgun when purchasing from an individual at point of sale would stop the illegal transfer of many handguns to criminals. Not all, nothing will stop everything, but it would make it harder and would help.
blueridge replied: It's not a law, .. 5th amendment regarding self-incrimination. A prohibited person cannot be prosecuted for not registering a firearm.

A legal catch-22 is what blueridge is referring to, but it applies to only a fraction of what safeinohio is intending.
As safeinohio says, registration of gun buyers would indeed inhibit 'prohibited persons' from buying a firearm at a gunshow. Since they would be asked to register the firearm regardless of whether they would be 'forced' to register it right then & there. What you think blueridge, prohibited persons are going to say 'I don't have to register because I'm a prohibited buyer & protected by the 5th amendment'. Duh. They would tend to avoid a gunshow where registration was mandatory.
Why do you misinterpret what safeinohio intended? How this go over your head? You address a tangential consequence without even addressing the crux.

Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself. --- {CATCH22}
In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshall did not participate in the ruling.
As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration. The National Firearm Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. {which endorses the gun's legality}
The original Haynes decision continues to block state prosecutions of criminals who fail to register guns as required by various state law gun registration schemes..


Somewhat moot, since violent felons can be prosecuted in more severe ways for owning one than simply failing to register a firearm.
PS blueridge, yes I believe it is a law.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #43)

Sat Jul 26, 2014, 09:42 PM

45. If you look at European crime rates in the 1910-1930s

their murder rates are about the same as they are now. Many did not have registration or any laws. It won't stop any,
Is there any country that requires registration on all handguns that has a higher gun violence rate than us?
Mexico, Brazil, Costa Rica, South Africa, for starters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 04:32 AM

5. Deleted by merrily, who posted before realizing it's the gungeon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #5)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 09:59 AM

13. Thought it was GD -- Guns Deplored?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #13)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 07:38 PM

22. No, just any forum other than the one topic dungeons.

I tend to go to Latest Threads and don't always pay attention to which forum they're in.

The fact that you see GENERAL Discussion as an anti-gun forum kind of exemplifies the reason I usually try to stay away from the single topic forums.

I am not a regular in IP, either. Or the special topic forums, like History of Feminism.

Nothing wrong with any of them, if one enjoys them. They're just not my personal preference.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #22)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 05:26 AM

24. My poke at GD's "no exceptions" exceptions.

 

In a way, I agree with you. The dungeons serve a kind of how-to purpose for some, but I find they are too often just echo-chambers. What bugs me about GD, is the guns "exception-to- the-non- exception" is steered heavily toward the gun-prohibitionist side. I have advocated just dropping the meaningless "exception" language so that OPs from across the spectrum can post on all issues. But the language remains as it serves a purpose: "Pro 2A" OPs are unlikely to survive GD's governing council. In effect, there are 2 gun groups (one having open debate) and 1 gun forum (GD), and the controllers have been pushing, with little success, for yet another forum by loading up IP with their OPs.

The bias is obvious, but I guess DU's battle for hearts & minds, however intramural, is not so democratic after all. Have a good day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 06:03 AM

7. Hopefully the will of the people in TN will never be trampled like it was in MD.

It's time for folks in MD to fight to restore their lost rights, and those in TN to assure theirs stay intact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 07:49 AM

11. Gun companies will move or expand in states where they feel welcome

 

by both the politicians and the populace.

New York: Kahr is expanding into PA and will probably move all production there; Remington will not increase production in Ilion, instead it has chosen to move production to NC and TN

Connecticut: Ruger is building a new plant in NC; Mossberg will expand their production in TX; PTR moved the entire company, taking most of it's employees to SC; if Colt expands, it will do so in Florida, not CT; if Stag Arms expands it will not be in CT according to the owner of the company.

Maryland: Beretta is moving to TN

So thanks to the gun control extremists in MD, NY & CT, companies are leaving taking the all money that the company and it's employees contributed to the local economies in various forms, including taxes, money paid to sub contractors and suppliers, wages and money that was spent at local business. A lot of these jobs were union jobs, wonder how those unioins are going to vote in the next election?

And it won't change the crime rate one damn bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 09:26 AM

12. "Good riddance" = standard grabber response

 

When Les Baer and several other companies left Illinois for Iowa a few years ago that's what I heard from "the usual suspects".

"Good riddance, we'll get more jobs because people want to live and work in a safe state".

Of course it didn't happen and the small towns they had operations in are still struggling.

I saw an interview with the COO of Beretta USA earlier this week. He said they originally had planned to just expand their operations into TN, but after last year's attempts to pass some nasty gun control bills that barely failed, he said they reconsidered and will be moving all manufacturing operations to a "more predictable and firearms friendly state". The new laws, if passed, would have made it impossible to manufacture the M9 for their government contracts with the standard magazines.

He said it's eventually a total of 300 jobs, including the expansion, about 175 are high end skilled machinists. Management and marketing will remain, for now, in Maryland.

He also said that a number of other manufacturers in Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York are looking to move too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #12)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 10:08 AM

14. Standard, doctrinaire prohibition. All the hallmarks.

 

chief of which is the notion: out-of-sight, out-of-mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #14)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 10:48 AM

17. Of course Illinois is 49th in job creation so ...

 

I guess the gun control people here just need to get busier in magically creating skilled machinist positions to replace all those evil gun manufacturing jobs that produced good paychecks.

The same magical thinking that wanted the people in Niles to; "fight the new gun store and range" in court if thy have to. But they never quite come up with any money to actually pay the legal bills for it.

Just like gun control in general, talk is cheap and as long as Bloomberg is writing the checks, they can sit on their "half moons" on the couch and cheer other people on, rather than actually do anything in the real world like writing a check, attending a town hall meeting or starting a petition.

I'm guessing the people at Beretta that might lose their jobs aren't going to be pissed at the NRA about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #17)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 11:28 AM

18. I don't know. They're creating jobs for lawyers.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #18)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 11:56 AM

19. True dat!

 

Illinois has certainly helped make Alan Gura a wealthy man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #19)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 04:16 PM

21. Massachusetts may help increase his pile, if a few diehards have their way:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #17)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 04:03 PM

20. Gun control is largely promoted by those unfamiliar with Mark Twain's aphorism...

..."Fine words butter no parsnips".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #20)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 02:31 PM

26. Yes, this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 08:38 PM

29. In situations like this, does anybody know.......


what percentage of the employees tend to move with the company?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pablo_marmol (Reply #29)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 10:22 PM

31. The COO said that all employees will be offerred a job in TN

 

In the interview I saw he said they want to bring their entire staff to TN with them. For obvious cost savings, reducing retraining costs for new people.

That's very unlikely IMHO due to family ties, kids in school etc., but keeping specially trained, skilled machinists is a smart business move for Beretta and a really dumb move for Maryland.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #31)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 11:40 PM

32. Yeah, Don -- I noticed that jobs were offered in TN for current employees,


and of course some won't choose to take the company up on the offer.

I'm wondering how this plays out historically in terms of percentages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread