Toyota moves from Ca to Tx: When are bluestates going to actively fight job poachers?

[whatthehey]

69. I'm not only unsure of the means, but also the assumptive reason.

I have no dog in this fight. I have no bias for or against either state, while of course preferring CA's typical EC results. But I personally don't see how any state or city has any more claim to a plant or HQ than any other beyond any contracts between the parties. What exactly makes CA have a greater right to these jobs than TX does? Precedent? I've lived in more than a handful of states. Did the first have a greater claim on my taxes than the most recent or those in between? What besides quantity is the difference?

Presumably at some point CA themselves granted some kind of tax relief or aid to have such a large facility located there. I don't know for sure but either they did or did not. If they did, has Toyota fulfilled the obligations detailed in that agreement? If so there is no remaining claim on CA's part. If not then the courts can handle remedy. Furthermore if they did offer benefits, by what principle can they claim unfairness now TX has simply bettered their offer?

Perhaps though CA either stood on principle or by chance needed to offer no benefits in the first place. But then what does Toyota owe them, having employed thousands of CA residents and generated millions in taxes for many years? Should companies be loyal to geography? Again a self-defeating proposition, since if they should be, Toyota would not be in CA in the first place, but rather in Toyota City.

Loyalty to workers? Surely a nice idea, but do we know yet what relocation they are offering for transferees? I've twice moved states with employers, and paid not a penny to do so. One paid me a COLA to move me to a higher cost of living state. The other moved me for free to a lower cost of living state with no reduction in pay - an effective raise, as would the same deal be here assuming no paycuts. I can't recall too many stories of transferees taking lower pay when making this kind of downward affordability move. New hires yes but not transfers. What if te employees refuse to move? Then any disloyalty is not on the company's part. What if Toyota refuses to move any of them and starts afresh with new cheap labor though? A shortsighted and self defeating move I would be surprised to see from a company well known for recognizing the cost of indoctrination, but even then employers and employees owe each other only pay and labor in mutually agreeable amounts and for a mutually agreeable duration. I have also worked for more than a handful of companies, and would never have expected, or agreed to, a lifetime contract with any of them. I value my free agency, and naturally accord my employers the inverse freedom. I give them what I know and what I can achieve. They pay me for it. I expect no other arrangement, certainly not a permanent commitment to the piece of real estate that we both by chance occupy today.

If my employer decided tomorrow to move to, say, Chicago (this happened in a previous gig) I would refuse to go. They are unlikely to offer a raise big enough to compensate for the 4X increase in housing costs, I detest living in cities with huge traffic jams, and I hate the cold. If however Chicago offers them better logistics, better recruitment, and easier access to customers, the reasons for the move as I well know having been on the site selection committee, by what sane rationale should I expect them to value my continued preference or even service over those gains? Same for substantial diminution in tax bills. If they decided to move to Plano I'd think about it. Much would depend on commute time to acceptable housing. If they decided to move to LA I'd certainly only be willing if I could find by wild chance suitable affordable housing within a few miles - people who commute 90 minutes a day each way in horrendous traffic value their free time and sanity far less than I. If they decided to move to Huntsville or Chattanooga or Baton Rouge I'd be on it like a shot. In none of these cases would I expect them to place my wishes very high on the list, because I know full well a sizeable chunk of my colleagues would have exactly opposite wishes, as if you recall one of the key benefits of the real example was a better ability to recruit in Chicago than in semirural Pennsylvania, where the previous HQ was. Much better for me, but not for the large number of specialty engineers they hired. Do you really think DFW is such a terrible place that Toyota will have any trouble recruiting? If you value your preference for CA over your established career, who is being disloyal - you or Toyota?