Ormet Warns Of Possible 400 Layoffs

The Intelligencer / Wheeling News-Register ^ | Monday, August 04, 2003

[Willie Green]

For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.

As many as 400 workers at the Ormet Corp.'s Reduction Plant in Hannibal could be laid off within 60 days, according to company officials.

Ormet Primary Aluminum Corp. today announced that market conditions through the remainder of the year will determine whether it will be forced to curtail up to three of the six potlines at its Hannibal Reduction Plant. The curtailments may be necessary due to prolonged weak metal prices, volatility of alumina and energy prices, as well as other rising costs.

As a result and as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, Ormet sent notices to employees Friday advising them that curtailment of up to three potlines is possible after 60 days. The WARN notice gives the company the flexibility to curtail three potlines, if necessary.

However, company officials cautioned that changing market conditions could force Ormet to curtail up to two potlines before the 60-day notification period is over as such a move would note require the notification process of the WARN Act.

Ormet officials today said the number of workers to be laid off will depend upon the number, if any, of potlines that may be curtailed. The maximum number of layoffs for a three potline curtailment would be 400 employees, both hourly and salaried.

Ormet Chairman and CEO R. Emmett Boyle said the layoffs are the result of prolonged depressed metal prices, an anemic economy, rising health care costs, and the volatility of alumina and energy prices. Alumina is refined from bauxite and is necessary to make aluminum. In the past two year, alumina prices have more than doubled on the spot market. Ormet will be subject to inflated alumina costs beginning in January when its contractual agreement with a third-party provider ends.

  "The U.S. aluminum industry has been in a serious economic downturn for approximately three years," Boyle said. "The hurdles facing Ormet's reduction plant are many and great, and they are the same hurdles facing all U.S. primary aluminum facilities.

"In 1978, there were 34 aluminum reduction plants operating in the United States. Today, there are just 13, including the Ormet Hannibal Reduction Plant, and these are all not operating at full capacity." Boyle said.

Last week, Alcoa, the world's largest aluminum producer, issued WARN notices to temporarily curtail all production at its Intalco reduction plant in Ferndale, Wash.

When that plant is curtailed, the number of operating reduction plants in the U.S. will fall to 12.

  Boyle said Ormet officials are hoping market conditions improve and the company will not be forced to curtail any potlines.

"We sincerely hope that recent increases in metal prices continue and then hold at reasonable levels. Ormet will continue to evaluate our plans and make appropriate decisions given all the changing variables," he said.

  Boyle assured that the curtailment would not cause disruptions for Ormet customers. He said Ormet operations will continue to provide the majority of metal necessary to support the company's downstream operations, however, the company will supplement primary metal requirements with outside purchases as necessary. "We currently plan to continue operating billet and flat rolled product facilities at their current levels," he said.

[Willie Green]

ping

[Lazamataz]

Hey, dijya hear? I'm anti-global-economy these days. Of course, you're not talking to me, so you don't get to say attaboy. Which means I get to have a one-sided discussion with you. Ha!

[Lazamataz]

"The U.S. aluminum industry has been in a serious economic downturn for approximately three years," Boyle said.

Ain't we all.

[andrew1957]

Before you go to sleep at night Willie G., do you pray that there will be a big layoff somewhere, so you can post your negative feelings here? When the economy rebounds, and the unemployment rate is very low again; what are you going to post about????

[KDD]

To bad your conversion happened after the anti globalization riots in Seattle. You could have linked up with the leftists there and helped trash Starbucks. See ya at the baricades. I'll be on the opposite side.

Say hi to Pat and Lenora when you meet up with them.

[KDD]

US Factory Orders Higher Than Expected (The Bush Recovery)

[Lazamataz]

Yeah, that's because it's fair to compete against slave labor in China and people in India who live in mud daub houses in fields of pig s**t and who live on 2 pringys a year.

No, no, really, it makes a lot of sense. Beside, George Washington and Alexander Hamilton and Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were just a bunch of dottering old Pat Buchanan wannabees. They probably hated America and wanted to see it fail.

[KDD]

Does Trading With Poor Countries Hurt the U.S.?
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a392eb6bf2a18.htm

In a word...NO!

[Lazamataz]

To bad your conversion happened after the anti globalization riots in Seattle. You could have linked up with the leftists there and helped trash Starbucks. See ya at the baricades. I'll be on the opposite side. Say hi to Pat and Lenora when you meet up with them.

Say, you know something else? When you guys and I were on the opposite side, you were mostly civilized and seemed secure in your knowledge.

But now that I am on your side, my ideological opponents are shrill, angry, and frothing at the mouth, trying to beat down my opinion rather than calmly trying to refute it.

Kinda like liberals.

[Lazamataz]

Straw man. Trading is fine. Tariff-free trading that does not 'tax' nations who disregard EPA-style and OSHA-style regulations, and who employ slave labor is not Free Trade. It is Unfair Trade.

But just pump out another shrill ad-hominum or logical fallacy. Who knows? The next insult or non sequitur might just change my mind!

[dennisw]

BTW You know that website, f*****company.com? Used to be they only posted dotcom and computer company layoffs/closings/internal memos. Now it's any US company




PillowTex has been the largest and most significant layoff in the last month. A very interesting company that owns Cannon, Fieldcrest and other textile labels
_____________

Built on brands
Under another scenario, Pillowtex still could survive as a business entity, though not as a manufacturer, speculates Jack Ferner, management lecturer at Wake Forest University and an expert on the textile industry.
Ferner outlines a situation in which Pillowtex could act as a marketer of its well-established brands. The company's sheets, towels, comforters, pillows and bedroom and bath accessories could be made overseas, where wages are lower, he suggests.
Under that approach, Pillowtex would be a design and marketing company, akin to most U.S. athletic-shoe companies.
"They're dissolving the manufacturing side and (could) source the product overseas, where the labor markets are cheaper," Ferner says.
In that scenario, Pillowtex or its survivor would follow a pattern that company and union officials have complained about for the past 30 years: exporting jobs to third-world countries.


_____

AN OPEN LETTER TO PILLOWTEX EMPLOYEES AND THEIR FAMILIES
From Michael Gannaway, Chairman and CEO, Pillowtex Corporation


There is no easy way to communicate the disappointment and sadness that surrounds our need to close the doors to a Company with a proud and distinguished history. Since joining Pillowtex I have been working with a management team dedicated to finding the best possible outcome for the Company’s future. Our management team and employees have made extraordinary contributions as we attempted to avoid this unfortunate outcome. In the end we are faced with our worst-case scenario. I want to personally thank each Pillowtex employee for years of loyalty and service and assure you that this decision was not reached lightly and without deep regret.

Pillowtex is a large and complex business, and the process of exploring alternate strategies is complicated. We explored various plans focused on preserving Pillowtex as a stand-alone entity by changing our business model, but the costs to implement those changes were enormous and in the end we were not successful in securing the substantial investments needed to carry out any of those plans. We also tried to arrange for a sale of our business to a more financially stable company that could keep some of our employees working, but despite our persistent efforts, terms for a mutually acceptable agreement could not be reached. I assure you that this final outcome was accepted only after an exhaustive review of all alternatives.

The textile industry is facing unprecedented increases in global manufacturing capacity combined with softening demand in a tough retail environment. For well over two decades the U.S. textile industry has been under constant pressure to reorganize while facing fierce competition from overseas manufacturers. Cheap imports are flooding the U.S. market and driving down prices, while global sourcing has created a new business model for textile companies that we are unable to replicate without substantial investments. These trends are being seen nationwide and have created a marketplace where we can no longer offer our customers the merchandise they need at prices that are profitable for this Company.

[KDD]

It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy. The taylor does not attempt to make his own shoes, but buys them from the shoemaker. The shoemaker does not attempt to make his own clothes, but employs a taylor. The farmer attempts to make neither the one nor the other, but employs different artificers. All of them find it for their interest to employ their whole industry in a way in which they have some advantage over their neighbors, and to purchase with a part of its produce, or what is the same thing, with the price of a part of it, whatever else they have occasion for.

What is prudence in the conduct of every private family, can scare be folly in that of a great kingdom. If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage.

Adam Smith

[narby]

What I haven't got an answer to yet from the anti trade people is: If it's such a great idea to erect trade barriers between countries, then why don't we erect them between states?

[Lazamataz]

Tell it to George Washington -- who refused to wear a coat cut of British cloth to his inauguration and signed the Tariff Act of 1789. He believed "A free people…should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent on others…" Likewise, Alexander Hamilton wrote in his 1791 report as Treasury Secretary, "Every nation ought to endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply." Similarly, Abraham Lincoln said, "Give me a tariff and I will give you the greatest nation on earth." McKinley called prosperity the "trophy of a protective tariff." Teddy Roosevelt wrote, "I thank God I am not a free trader."

[Lazamataz]

What I haven't got an answer to yet from the anti trade people is: If it's such a great idea to erect trade barriers between countries, then why don't we erect them between states?

Because states are in this together, whereas nations compete against one another.

[cibco]

WE ARE ALL GONNA' DIE!!!

[Lazamataz]

WE ARE ALL GONNA' DIE!!!

Four exclamation points, and it's "We're", and you gotta capitalize only the first letter of each word.

[Dane]

The Corn Laws

Overview. The Corn Laws were a series of statutes enacted between 1815 and 1846 which kept corn prices at a high level. This measure was intended to protect English farmers from cheap foreign imports of grain following the end of the Napoleonic Wars.

Note: in this context "corn" means grain of all kinds, not simply the vegetable corn.

Background. During the Napoleonic Wars, the British blockaded the European continent, hoping to isolate the Napoleonic Empire and bring economic hardship to the French. One result of this blockade was that goods within the British Isles were protected against competition from outside sources. Farming became extremely lucrative, and farming land was traded at very profitable rates.

When the wars ended in 1815 the first of the Corn Laws was introduced. This law stated that no foreign corn would be allowed into Britain until domestic corn reached a price of 80 shillings per quarter.

Who Benefited? The beneficiaries of the Corn Laws were the nobility and other large landholders who owned the majority of profitable farmland. Landowners had a vested interest in seeing the Corn Laws remain in force. And since the right to vote was not universal, but rather depended on land ownership, voting members of Parliament had no interest in repealing the Corn Laws.

Who suffered? The artificially high corn prices encouraged by the Corn Laws meant that the urban working class had to spend the bulk of their income on corn just to survive. Since they had no income left over for other purchases, they could not afford manufactured goods. So manufacturers suffered, and had to lay off workers. These workers had difficulty finding employment, so the economic spiral worsened for everyone involved.

Reform. The first major reform of the Corn Laws took place during the ministry of the Duke of Wellington in 1828. The price of corn was no longer fixed, but tied to a sliding scale that allowed foreign grain to be imported freely when domestic grain sold at 73 shillings per quarter or above, and at increasing tariffs the further the domestic price dropped below 73 shillings. The effect of this reform was negligible.

The Reform Act. In 1832 the right to vote was extended to a sizable portion of the merchant class through the passage of The Reform Act. The merchant classes were far more likely to look favorably on changes to the Corn Laws.

The Reformers. Several groups arose during the early and mid 1800s to fight for repeal of the Corn Laws amid other social reforms. Most prominent among these movements were the Chartists and the Anti-Corn Law League. The ACLL began in 1836 as the Anti Corn Law Association, and in 1839 adopted its more familiar name. Despite its social reform agenda, the league drew its members largely from the middle-class; merchants and manufacturers. Their aim was to loosen the restrictions on trade generally, so that they could sell more goods both at home and around the world. After constant agitation, the ACLL was successful, and in 1846 the government under Sir Robert Peel was persuaded to repeal the Corn Laws.

LINK

[cibco]

"Four exclamation points, and it's "We're", and you gotta capitalize only the first letter of each word."

It's been awhile. You know what they say about memory. It is the...