Ball Corp. announces layoffs in Fairf...

Ball Corp. announces layoffs in Fairfield

There are 31 comments on the The Reporter story from Dec 22, 2009, titled Ball Corp. announces layoffs in Fairfield. In it, The Reporter reports that:

A Fairfield aluminum can manufacturing plant that serves the beer and soft drink industries announced on Monday that 40 to 50 of its 180 employees face layoffs in the coming year because of a decline in demand for 12-ounce cans.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Reporter.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Dixon Guy

Las Vegas, NV

#21 Dec 22, 2009
Target Store in Walnut Creek is doing the right thing and so should Ball Corp.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/top-stories/c...

Employers consider the $10,000.00 fine per employee if you get caught with un documented workers.
Canmandan

AOL

#22 Dec 23, 2009
I'm one of the employees let go. Business is businees. You can't make a profit when out put slows down by half. This plant can make 2.7 billion cans a year. We lost a contract for 1.2 billion cans. The reason is: cost of shipping has increased because we won't let companies drill for oil in the USA. Also, the price of aluminum was high last year when the market was going crazy. Companies hedge their bets the price was going to continue up. But, it didn't, it dropped. Finally demand for 12 oz cans is down. You folks like plastic, even though it cost more to make. So its business. Oh by the way, not one person was an illegal alien in the plant and this guy is far from loving Obama. Remember this, the green job policy will leave US out in the cold with no green in the pocket.
localgal

AOL

#23 Dec 23, 2009
soda tastes better in plastic than a can.....what can I say?
Lomim

Vacaville, CA

#24 Dec 23, 2009
Emjoe wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly ! Waiting until after Christmas would have made ZERO difference, and 40 to 50 families would be having a Merry Christmas instead of getting pink slips and coal in their stockings.
On the other hand, knowing before xmas, that would give them a chance to avoid blowing their wad on video games and fancy TVs when they realized they would need it for food after xmas. Which is kinder? I dunno.
casa del guano

Vacaville, CA

#25 Dec 23, 2009
Emjoe wrote:
<quoted text>Who controlled both the Senate AND Congress during Bush's terms ? That's right, it was the Democrats. You're sounding like Cindy Sheehan...and we all know how sane she is.
Wrong. The Republicans controlled both houses until the election of 2006, when they lost the House, except for a brief period when the Senate was 50-50.

Since: Oct 08

Vacaville, CA

#26 Dec 23, 2009
casa del guano wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. The Republicans controlled both houses until the election of 2006, when they lost the House, except for a brief period when the Senate was 50-50.
...and when did the economic guano hit the fan ?
Dixon Guy

Las Vegas, NV

#27 Dec 23, 2009
CanManDan

Thank you for clearing the air on the status of the employees.

About shipping costs do you ship via train?

“Stupid is, as Stupak does!”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#28 Dec 23, 2009
San wrote:
Hey "Really" this is the result of EIGHT years of your buddy Bush! YOU are the IDIOT!
No you are the idiot!

Mon January 26, 2009
"Just this week, we saw more people file for unemployment than at any time in the last 26 years, and experts agree that IF NOTHING IS DONE, THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE COULD REACH DOUBLE DIGITS."

Obama pleaded for quick action, warning, "A BAD SITUATION COULD BECOME DRAMATICALLY WORSE."

"The president urged congressional members to quickly pass an $825 billion economic stimulus package, which he hopes will create up to 4 million jobs over the next two years."

That's pure Obama baby, pure Obama! 10% unemployment and the REAL figure is probably 21% according to economist John Williams.

"Hopelessness and Despair", only what Democrats deliver on.

“Stupid is, as Stupak does!”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#29 Dec 23, 2009
casa del guano wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. The Republicans controlled both houses until the election of 2006, when they lost the House, except for a brief period when the Senate was 50-50.
Look at when the deficits under Bush really started to sky rocket. That's right, after the Democrats took full control of both Houses.

President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.
President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.
President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.
President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above.
Canmandan

AOL

#30 Dec 28, 2009
Dixon Guy wrote:
CanManDan
Thank you for clearing the air on the status of the employees.
About shipping costs do you ship via train?
To expensive...smaller pallets of cans have to used. One pallet has 8,000 cans, 24 pallets per truck. Train pallets are 1/2 the size.
Dixon Guy

Las Vegas, NV

#31 Dec 29, 2009
CanManDan

Good answer....one would think that a train would be less expensive...

Thanks

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Broomfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Louisville Music Thread May 22 Ranger 3
News Old evidence at new trial (May '06) May 7 Dad May 7 52nd an... 1,138
Ridge Home Information (Dec '06) Apr '17 Ben 63
News Local Best Buy employees try to catch shoplifte... (Aug '09) Apr '17 Microtheftcenter 64
News Littleton's Jack-n-Grill has closed Mar '17 Jami 1
Listen live talk radio Wilkes Barre/Scranton Pa Mar '17 Jack 1
News Weird 33 mins ago 3:31 p.m.Woman arrested at Me... Mar '17 07 Mustang 3

Broomfield Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Broomfield Mortgages