Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
By Bryce G. Hoffman / The Detroit News
WAYNE -- Ken Pool is making good money. On weekdays, he shows up at 7 a.m. at Ford Motor Co.'s Michigan Truck Plant in Wayne, signs in, and then starts working -- on a crossword puzzle. Pool hates the monotony, but the pay is good: more than $31 an hour, plus benefits.
"We just go in and play crossword puzzles, watch videos that someone brings in or read the newspaper," he says. "Otherwise, I've just sat."
Pool is one of more than 12,000 American autoworkers who, instead of installing windshields or bending sheet metal, spend their days counting the hours in a jobs bank set up by Detroit automakers and Delphi Corp. as part of an extraordinary job security agreement with the United Auto Workers union.
The jobs bank programs were the price the industry paid in the 1980s to win UAW support for controversial efforts to boost productivity through increased automation and more flexible manufacturing.
As part of its restructuring under bankruptcy, Delphi is actively pressing the union to give up the program.
With Wall Street wondering how automakers can afford to pay thousands of workers to do nothing as their market share withers, the union is likely to hear a similar message from the Big Three when their contracts with the UAW expire in 2007 -- if not sooner.
"It's an albatross around their necks," said Steven Szakaly, an economist with the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor. "It's a huge number of workers doing nothing. That has a very large effect on their future earnings outlook."
*snip*
source: http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0510/17/A01-351179.htm
(Excerpt) Read more at detnews.com ...
The question is not what else to hate about unions. But what NOT to hate about them.[/QUOTE]Well, they do. Unions throw a monkeywrench in the works. When GM started taking a bailout they were paying a couple of thousand employees not to work as per the union contract. The only reason for the bailout was to pay for their benefits, insurance, pension plans and bonuses.What about decreasing cost per unit don't you understand?Pay the workers enough so they can afford to buy the products they make. Even Walmart employees can't afford walmart products. That's why they go on foodstamps.
They sure don't worry about overhead when paying Mary GM CEO Mary Barra s compensation will be worth about 14.4 million Detroit Free Press freep.com
A corporation that operates in America has to both make a profit and benefit the citizens. If it doesn't, it can fuck off.
I remember when the right attacked unions for this. Yes, it was a stupid thing GM agreed to. I have a feeling GM gave in to this demand and planned on using it to make the unions look bad. It sure worked.
So that policy is no longer. What else do you hate about labor unions?
Anything that makes assholes like you (and your union hating buddies) apoplectic is a good thing IMO. Including unions. I sure do like me some unions. You I don't much care for.
By Mark Graban December 16, 2005 Read More →
GM Jobs bank programs — 12,000 paid not to work
Detroit News – 10/17/05
UPDATE 2/9/06: Why the sudden interest in this article?? Email me.
This isn’t new news, nor is it a new program, the GM “jobs bank”. When I worked at GM, 1995-96, as a new college graduate, it was a weird awakening to the working world that GM would pay people to not work. They really wasted the potential of those folks by just letting them sit around. It can’t feel good to come to work and not be needed. It’s better than not collecting a paycheck I guess, but not by much.
The reason I link to this was a pretty hard-hitting editorial in today’s Wall St. Journal (link here, subscription required).
I also bring this up in the context of the lean people who say you must promise to not lay off employees as a result of lean efforts. In a way, the GM jobs bank program was of a similar vein, but it promised not to displace workers because of the robots and automation that were expected to lead to Roger Smith’s “lights out factory” boondoggle. The WSJ points out, rightfully, that GM needed to have a growth strategy to make use of the Jobs Bank workers and that, without that, the program is a collossal waste and an embarrassment to GM.
If you’re going to work on lean, yes, it’s better to promise “no layoffs”, otherwise you’ll quickly drain away any motivation your workers have to make suggestions and drive improvements. But, make sure you’re ready to bring on more business and to grow, to make use of employees who will inevitably be freed up due to lean improvements.
Some quotes from the WSJ editorial:
Mr. Wagoner, meanwhile, is joining Ford Motor CEO William Ford in mounting a campaign to ask Washington for taxpayer help, starting with a passionate op-ed on these pages last week. But since Mr. Wagoner is asking for help, it’s only fair that taxpayers get to ask some questions in return about the GM business practices that so concern the bond raters.
A good place to start is with its “jobs bank,” which is the company’s euphemism for a post-employment limbo in which GM pays laid off members of the United Auto Workers not to work. If you want to know why GM’s costs are too high for the number of cars it sells, here’s one explanation.
….
GM has a host of problems, from the attractiveness of its product lines to the health-care costs it pays for its one million retirees. But a major one is size: It is a smaller company than it was or expected to be when it made the promises it’s now trying to keep both to retirees and current workers. GM has some of the most productive industrial workers in the world, but it has too many of them for the number of cars it can sell today.
The jobs bank is both cause and symptom of that problem. We don’t wish hardship on those workers, but the company’s future now rests on its ability to make its payroll match its production. If the jobs bank — and the self-deception it represents — cannot be fixed, that millstone will continue to drag down what was once one of America’s great companies.
You're dealing with a man of faith here. Telling a liberal to get a grip implies that you're counseling him to abandon his religion of liberalism and all of its faith-based positions. We both know that Liberalism is a hard religion to leave, worse than Scientology even.Talk about twisting the facts. The Obama admin bailed out GM as a gift to the UAW for their undying support. Get a grip.Well, they do. Unions throw a monkeywrench in the works. When GM started taking a bailout they were paying a couple of thousand employees not to work as per the union contract. The only reason for the bailout was to pay for their benefits, insurance, pension plans and bonuses.What about decreasing cost per unit don't you understand?
A corporation that operates in America has to both make a profit and benefit the citizens. If it doesn't, it can fuck off.
I remember when the right attacked unions for this. Yes, it was a stupid thing GM agreed to. I have a feeling GM gave in to this demand and planned on using it to make the unions look bad. It sure worked.
So that policy is no longer. What else do you hate about labor unions?
Their job isn't to create jobs. That's what your problem is. Businesses are in existence to make money, not provide jobs. It just so happens that when they make money usually it creates jobs. If the workers become a liability then they have to explore alternatives. First rule of business when you have to cut costs is the usual 30% they have to spend on wages and benefits, they are the first to be axed. Unions exaserbate this problem.By Bryce G. Hoffman / The Detroit News
WAYNE -- Ken Pool is making good money. On weekdays, he shows up at 7 a.m. at Ford Motor Co.'s Michigan Truck Plant in Wayne, signs in, and then starts working -- on a crossword puzzle. Pool hates the monotony, but the pay is good: more than $31 an hour, plus benefits.
"We just go in and play crossword puzzles, watch videos that someone brings in or read the newspaper," he says. "Otherwise, I've just sat."
Pool is one of more than 12,000 American autoworkers who, instead of installing windshields or bending sheet metal, spend their days counting the hours in a jobs bank set up by Detroit automakers and Delphi Corp. as part of an extraordinary job security agreement with the United Auto Workers union.
The jobs bank programs were the price the industry paid in the 1980s to win UAW support for controversial efforts to boost productivity through increased automation and more flexible manufacturing.
As part of its restructuring under bankruptcy, Delphi is actively pressing the union to give up the program.
With Wall Street wondering how automakers can afford to pay thousands of workers to do nothing as their market share withers, the union is likely to hear a similar message from the Big Three when their contracts with the UAW expire in 2007 -- if not sooner.
"It's an albatross around their necks," said Steven Szakaly, an economist with the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor. "It's a huge number of workers doing nothing. That has a very large effect on their future earnings outlook."
*snip*
source: http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0510/17/A01-351179.htm
(Excerpt) Read more at detnews.com ...
The executives running the company are responsible for making products that consumers will purchase.
Blaming the workers because of the failure of the executives is why conservatives are losing political support. They don't hold their beloved "job creators" responsible and accountable for doing their jobs...which is to actually create jobs.
Their job isn't to create jobs. That's what your problem is. Businesses are in existence to make money, not provide jobs. It just so happens that when they make money usually it creates jobs. If the workers become a liability then they have to explore alternatives. First rule of business when you have to cut costs is the usual 30% they have to spend on wages and benefits, they are the first to be axed. Unions exasperate this problem.By Bryce G. Hoffman / The Detroit News
WAYNE -- Ken Pool is making good money. On weekdays, he shows up at 7 a.m. at Ford Motor Co.'s Michigan Truck Plant in Wayne, signs in, and then starts working -- on a crossword puzzle. Pool hates the monotony, but the pay is good: more than $31 an hour, plus benefits.
"We just go in and play crossword puzzles, watch videos that someone brings in or read the newspaper," he says. "Otherwise, I've just sat."
Pool is one of more than 12,000 American autoworkers who, instead of installing windshields or bending sheet metal, spend their days counting the hours in a jobs bank set up by Detroit automakers and Delphi Corp. as part of an extraordinary job security agreement with the United Auto Workers union.
The jobs bank programs were the price the industry paid in the 1980s to win UAW support for controversial efforts to boost productivity through increased automation and more flexible manufacturing.
As part of its restructuring under bankruptcy, Delphi is actively pressing the union to give up the program.
With Wall Street wondering how automakers can afford to pay thousands of workers to do nothing as their market share withers, the union is likely to hear a similar message from the Big Three when their contracts with the UAW expire in 2007 -- if not sooner.
"It's an albatross around their necks," said Steven Szakaly, an economist with the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor. "It's a huge number of workers doing nothing. That has a very large effect on their future earnings outlook."
*snip*
source: http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0510/17/A01-351179.htm
(Excerpt) Read more at detnews.com ...
The executives running the company are responsible for making products that consumers will purchase.
Blaming the workers because of the failure of the executives is why conservatives are losing political support. They don't hold their beloved "job creators" responsible and accountable for doing their jobs...which is to actually create jobs.
And yet Obama bailed GM out as a favor to unions. Then he takes GM over and starts selling cars for them. Wonder why they had so many recalls?By Mark Graban December 16, 2005 Read More →
GM Jobs bank programs — 12,000 paid not to work
Detroit News – 10/17/05
UPDATE 2/9/06: Why the sudden interest in this article?? Email me.
This isn’t new news, nor is it a new program, the GM “jobs bank”. When I worked at GM, 1995-96, as a new college graduate, it was a weird awakening to the working world that GM would pay people to not work. They really wasted the potential of those folks by just letting them sit around. It can’t feel good to come to work and not be needed. It’s better than not collecting a paycheck I guess, but not by much.
The reason I link to this was a pretty hard-hitting editorial in today’s Wall St. Journal (link here, subscription required).
I also bring this up in the context of the lean people who say you must promise to not lay off employees as a result of lean efforts. In a way, the GM jobs bank program was of a similar vein, but it promised not to displace workers because of the robots and automation that were expected to lead to Roger Smith’s “lights out factory” boondoggle. The WSJ points out, rightfully, that GM needed to have a growth strategy to make use of the Jobs Bank workers and that, without that, the program is a collossal waste and an embarrassment to GM.
If you’re going to work on lean, yes, it’s better to promise “no layoffs”, otherwise you’ll quickly drain away any motivation your workers have to make suggestions and drive improvements. But, make sure you’re ready to bring on more business and to grow, to make use of employees who will inevitably be freed up due to lean improvements.
Some quotes from the WSJ editorial:
Mr. Wagoner, meanwhile, is joining Ford Motor CEO William Ford in mounting a campaign to ask Washington for taxpayer help, starting with a passionate op-ed on these pages last week. But since Mr. Wagoner is asking for help, it’s only fair that taxpayers get to ask some questions in return about the GM business practices that so concern the bond raters.
A good place to start is with its “jobs bank,” which is the company’s euphemism for a post-employment limbo in which GM pays laid off members of the United Auto Workers not to work. If you want to know why GM’s costs are too high for the number of cars it sells, here’s one explanation.
….
GM has a host of problems, from the attractiveness of its product lines to the health-care costs it pays for its one million retirees. But a major one is size: It is a smaller company than it was or expected to be when it made the promises it’s now trying to keep both to retirees and current workers. GM has some of the most productive industrial workers in the world, but it has too many of them for the number of cars it can sell today.
The jobs bank is both cause and symptom of that problem. We don’t wish hardship on those workers, but the company’s future now rests on its ability to make its payroll match its production. If the jobs bank — and the self-deception it represents — cannot be fixed, that millstone will continue to drag down what was once one of America’s great companies.
GM executives knew about the terms and conditions of the labor contracts they signed. The fact that the GM executives failed to uphold their part of the contract is not the fault of the workers. GM management is at fault here and genuine conservatives would hold the executives accountable and responsible instead of blaming the innocent victims of the malfeasance of those who lined their own pockets with millions of dollars while stealing from hardworking Americans.
And yet Obama bailed GM out as a favor to unions. Then he takes GM over and starts selling cars for them. Wonder why they had so many recalls?By Mark Graban December 16, 2005 Read More →
GM Jobs bank programs — 12,000 paid not to work
Detroit News – 10/17/05
UPDATE 2/9/06: Why the sudden interest in this article?? Email me.
This isn’t new news, nor is it a new program, the GM “jobs bank”. When I worked at GM, 1995-96, as a new college graduate, it was a weird awakening to the working world that GM would pay people to not work. They really wasted the potential of those folks by just letting them sit around. It can’t feel good to come to work and not be needed. It’s better than not collecting a paycheck I guess, but not by much.
The reason I link to this was a pretty hard-hitting editorial in today’s Wall St. Journal (link here, subscription required).
I also bring this up in the context of the lean people who say you must promise to not lay off employees as a result of lean efforts. In a way, the GM jobs bank program was of a similar vein, but it promised not to displace workers because of the robots and automation that were expected to lead to Roger Smith’s “lights out factory” boondoggle. The WSJ points out, rightfully, that GM needed to have a growth strategy to make use of the Jobs Bank workers and that, without that, the program is a collossal waste and an embarrassment to GM.
If you’re going to work on lean, yes, it’s better to promise “no layoffs”, otherwise you’ll quickly drain away any motivation your workers have to make suggestions and drive improvements. But, make sure you’re ready to bring on more business and to grow, to make use of employees who will inevitably be freed up due to lean improvements.
Some quotes from the WSJ editorial:
Mr. Wagoner, meanwhile, is joining Ford Motor CEO William Ford in mounting a campaign to ask Washington for taxpayer help, starting with a passionate op-ed on these pages last week. But since Mr. Wagoner is asking for help, it’s only fair that taxpayers get to ask some questions in return about the GM business practices that so concern the bond raters.
A good place to start is with its “jobs bank,” which is the company’s euphemism for a post-employment limbo in which GM pays laid off members of the United Auto Workers not to work. If you want to know why GM’s costs are too high for the number of cars it sells, here’s one explanation.
….
GM has a host of problems, from the attractiveness of its product lines to the health-care costs it pays for its one million retirees. But a major one is size: It is a smaller company than it was or expected to be when it made the promises it’s now trying to keep both to retirees and current workers. GM has some of the most productive industrial workers in the world, but it has too many of them for the number of cars it can sell today.
The jobs bank is both cause and symptom of that problem. We don’t wish hardship on those workers, but the company’s future now rests on its ability to make its payroll match its production. If the jobs bank — and the self-deception it represents — cannot be fixed, that millstone will continue to drag down what was once one of America’s great companies.
GM executives knew about the terms and conditions of the labor contracts they signed. The fact that the GM executives failed to uphold their part of the contract is not the fault of the workers. GM management is at fault here and genuine conservatives would hold the executives accountable and responsible instead of blaming the innocent victims of the malfeasance of those who lined their own pockets with millions of dollars while stealing from hardworking Americans.
Be sure to include Carl Jung in your footnotes. Karl Marx too. Of course you have to read them first.
American middle class made it's most gains from the election of FDR until around 1995 when Clinton decided to cave in and enact republican policies like nafta and ending welfare as we know it. These years, the republicans almost never controlled congress. Careful what you wish for if you think republicans will ever do anything for anybody but the very wealthy. Why are people always bringing up Marx anyway. We've never had a marxist politician although some have been led to believe Obama is one when he's not being a muslim.
Might have something to do with Obama actually running for office under the banner of a Marxist party. I know, it's a stretch right, why would anyone believe that a politician running under a Marxist banner would actually be a Marxist. It's not like people actually believe that people who join Al Queda are actual Al Queda followers.
Their job isn't to create jobs. That's what your problem is. Businesses are in existence to make money, not provide jobs. It just so happens that when they make money usually it creates jobs. If the workers become a liability then they have to explore alternatives. First rule of business when you have to cut costs is the usual 30% they have to spend on wages and benefits, they are the first to be axed. Unions exasperate this problem.By Bryce G. Hoffman / The Detroit News
WAYNE -- Ken Pool is making good money. On weekdays, he shows up at 7 a.m. at Ford Motor Co.'s Michigan Truck Plant in Wayne, signs in, and then starts working -- on a crossword puzzle. Pool hates the monotony, but the pay is good: more than $31 an hour, plus benefits.
"We just go in and play crossword puzzles, watch videos that someone brings in or read the newspaper," he says. "Otherwise, I've just sat."
Pool is one of more than 12,000 American autoworkers who, instead of installing windshields or bending sheet metal, spend their days counting the hours in a jobs bank set up by Detroit automakers and Delphi Corp. as part of an extraordinary job security agreement with the United Auto Workers union.
The jobs bank programs were the price the industry paid in the 1980s to win UAW support for controversial efforts to boost productivity through increased automation and more flexible manufacturing.
As part of its restructuring under bankruptcy, Delphi is actively pressing the union to give up the program.
With Wall Street wondering how automakers can afford to pay thousands of workers to do nothing as their market share withers, the union is likely to hear a similar message from the Big Three when their contracts with the UAW expire in 2007 -- if not sooner.
"It's an albatross around their necks," said Steven Szakaly, an economist with the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor. "It's a huge number of workers doing nothing. That has a very large effect on their future earnings outlook."
*snip*
source: http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0510/17/A01-351179.htm
(Excerpt) Read more at detnews.com ...
The executives running the company are responsible for making products that consumers will purchase.
Blaming the workers because of the failure of the executives is why conservatives are losing political support. They don't hold their beloved "job creators" responsible and accountable for doing their jobs...which is to actually create jobs.
We have not been invaded by a foreign power in 200 yearsTell me, when was the last conflagration on US soil?We have spent many more trillions on the military and yet, we still have warsI know this, it's why I shudder when republicans say that they will bring big business values to government. Capitalism is amoral by your definition, do you want an amoral government concerned only with cash flow? I don't, I want a government that is concerned with the well being of it's citizens. Remember them? Those things that republicans and democrats alike are fond of calling "consumers".
I want an amoral government only concerned with cash flow and the limited power it is granted under the constitution. Let the people define their own morals and address their own social concerns, it's not the government's place. Whenever government becomes involved in "do-good-ism" it fails. We have countless examples of that.
You say you're concerned with the "well being" of citizens, but repeatedly we've seen one liberal initiative after another fail to produce results. We've spent upwards of $20 trillion on social entitlement programs and we have as many people living in poverty as before we started. We're now spending $13,000 per child for education that lags behind the rest of the industrialized world. We've totally priced ourselves out of the manufacturing sector with unionized labor. On and on, one liberal initiative to "help people" after another has failed to help anyone but the politicians who continue to dangle a carrot for idiots like yourself, and push us closer and closer to totalitarian socialism and away from constitutional freedom.
I'd rather spend money on our people
Ok, now that you've gotten that one, now you know why a strong military is essential to keep it that way...By keeping our armed forces equipped, we in effect spending money on the people.
Hard to justify a military that is more powerful than the next ten nations combined.
By keeping our armed forces so equipped we are denying money to help our people
Nominated for Best Post of the Day!
The question is not what else to hate about unions. But what NOT to hate about them.[/QUOTE]Well, they do. Unions throw a monkeywrench in the works. When GM started taking a bailout they were paying a couple of thousand employees not to work as per the union contract. The only reason for the bailout was to pay for their benefits, insurance, pension plans and bonuses.What about decreasing cost per unit don't you understand?
A corporation that operates in America has to both make a profit and benefit the citizens. If it doesn't, it can fuck off.
I remember when the right attacked unions for this. Yes, it was a stupid thing GM agreed to. I have a feeling GM gave in to this demand and planned on using it to make the unions look bad. It sure worked.
So that policy is no longer. What else do you hate about labor unions?
Anything that makes assholes like you (and your union hating buddies) apoplectic is a good thing IMO. Including unions. I sure do like me some unions. You I don't much care for.
Be sure to include Carl Jung in your footnotes. Karl Marx too. Of course you have to read them first.
American middle class made it's most gains from the election of FDR until around 1995 when Clinton decided to cave in and enact republican policies like nafta and ending welfare as we know it. These years, the republicans almost never controlled congress. Careful what you wish for if you think republicans will ever do anything for anybody but the very wealthy. Why are people always bringing up Marx anyway. We've never had a marxist politician although some have been led to believe Obama is one when he's not being a muslim.
I'm betting you've never read Marx? You should read the Communist Manifesto, it sounds as if it could be the DNC platform.
You demonstrate a point made in the OP about the liberal mind when you mention NAFTA. Liberals supported it, some Republicans supported it, so a Democrat signed it into law, claiming it was the best thing since sliced bread. As conservatives predicted, it has been a terrible thing for us. Now comes the liberal laying the blame on conservatives, oblivious to the facts.
Like a dog returning to it's vomit, you are back to talking about the "middle class" as if America is only comprised of people belonging to established classes they can't escape. The fact is, in a free capitalist system, people move into and out of this so-called "middle class" all the time.
Hottest WHAT in California....Hey rocket scientist, there are remnants of a hurricane crossing the Gulf of California, headed toward the Arizona border. There is a ridge of high pressure over the Canadian Rockies. The result is windflow patterns which drive air down from the high Sierra peaks. When air sinks it compresses. When air compresses it does what?it isn't. And there is NO global warming. The eastern 2/3rds of the US just went through two of the coldest winters on record. The NWS long range forecast is for another unusually cold winter.You are so wrong. Gore tried to steal the election in 2000 and failed, thank goodness. Libtarded logic at its best fails.Your side rigged the rules. Its our government's job to undo what the mega rich have done through Bush and the GOP and the Supreme Court.
No wonder the GOP needed to steal 2000. They already planned on invading Iraq that's we know for sure and they wanted to appoint Alito and Roberts so they could pass Citizens United.
And I bet global warming isn't man made, right?
What happens in your neck of the woods doesn't have to necessarily be "warming". Have you seen it's the hottest on record in California?
The weather patterns are forecast to normalize for this time of year. Get a grip on yourself.
Talk about twisting the facts. The Obama admin bailed out GM as a gift to the UAW for their undying support. Get a grip.Well, they do. Unions throw a monkeywrench in the works. When GM started taking a bailout they were paying a couple of thousand employees not to work as per the union contract. The only reason for the bailout was to pay for their benefits, insurance, pension plans and bonuses.What about decreasing cost per unit don't you understand?Pay the workers enough so they can afford to buy the products they make. Even Walmart employees can't afford walmart products. That's why they go on foodstamps.
They sure don't worry about overhead when paying Mary GM CEO Mary Barra s compensation will be worth about 14.4 million Detroit Free Press freep.com
A corporation that operates in America has to both make a profit and benefit the citizens. If it doesn't, it can fuck off.
I remember when the right attacked unions for this. Yes, it was a stupid thing GM agreed to. I have a feeling GM gave in to this demand and planned on using it to make the unions look bad. It sure worked.
So that policy is no longer. What else do you hate about labor unions?
The question is not what else to hate about unions. But what NOT to hate about them.Well, they do. Unions throw a monkeywrench in the works. When GM started taking a bailout they were paying a couple of thousand employees not to work as per the union contract. The only reason for the bailout was to pay for their benefits, insurance, pension plans and bonuses.What about decreasing cost per unit don't you understand?Pay the workers enough so they can afford to buy the products they make. Even Walmart employees can't afford walmart products. That's why they go on foodstamps.
They sure don't worry about overhead when paying Mary GM CEO Mary Barra s compensation will be worth about 14.4 million Detroit Free Press freep.com
A corporation that operates in America has to both make a profit and benefit the citizens. If it doesn't, it can fuck off.
I remember when the right attacked unions for this. Yes, it was a stupid thing GM agreed to. I have a feeling GM gave in to this demand and planned on using it to make the unions look bad. It sure worked.
So that policy is no longer. What else do you hate about labor unions?
Then you engage in futility. The facts and time are not on your side. You are arguing into an empty glass. Screeching to an empty room.Just stop it with the unions. That horse has left the barn. Unions are NOT coming back. Reason? Nobody wants them.Speaking of which:
Democrats support unions and unions kick back donations to Democrats. Without unions Democrats couldn't compete with Republicans for campaign funds. Unions chase businesses put of states and even chase em out of the country. So Democrats not only attack businesses with taxes and massive regulations, but they also back the groups primarily responsible for job loss in America.
Why did unions push companies out of the USA?
In 1998 Ford had record profits and employees got record level profit sharing.
You righties like to blame unions for things the GOP and Corporations did to themselves on purpose. They were able to go bankrupt and renig on pensions, move jobs overseas, cut wages and benefits, lower wages, get tax breaks passed that normally we wouldn't give but we were in a "recession" and they said it would help job creation.
And now you guys want to blame Obama because wages are down. If Romney would Prez you'd be bragging about this recovery. Fuck you guys.
One important fact that you ignore is that like any other business, labor unions operate in their own self interest. That means, they wish to turn a profit. They do this off the backs of the people they claim to represent. In the end, unions will eat the low hanging fruit and move on..
A perfect example is the Stella D'Oro bakery in the Bronx, NY. HBO did a documentary on the strike by United Food and Commercial Workers local 342.
The contract expired and of course the union wanted a new deal. The plant was struggling financially and management went to the table with a set of concessions. One was that instead of the workers contributing nothing to their health benefits, the company wanted 10% of the cost from the workers. The union would not negotiate. The company wanted wage concessions in the form of reduced overtime which many of the workers said they depended upon to as one worker said "send my kids to private school and one to a private university. Another worker wondered how he would be able to keep his vacation home in the Poconos, without overtime.
IN any event the company and the workers were at an impasse. They decided to take the matter to court. The court ruled in favor of the union. The workers celebration was short lived. The company immediately shut the plant and sold it to another bakery company. That new firm never reopened the plant. They took the equipment out, sent it to other bakeries under their ownership and sold the building and property.
The issue here is had those workers taken the jobs with concessions, they'd all be working today. So instead of 95% they decided on ZERO %....Real friggin smart.
40 or 50 years ago, the business was over a barrel. Unions no longer have that kind of clout.
BTW, that union the UFCW is thriving as its management still have jobs and still pay the managers and delegates very well. So who won?.....Not the workers.
I will not stop. Politics is a pendulum. Since 2000 the pendulum has swung your way but the system isn't working for all of us right now and if the GOP keep being so blatantly anti labor people are going to finally wake up and realize they are labor and how for the last 40 years the GOP have fucked the middle class.
Thank god for the internet so people aren't being brainwashed with the corporate media that is only liberal on social issues. BFD.
The pendulum? Are you kidding? Your side has been holding it back...Should the GOP win control of the US Senate which is quite likely, then the pendulum will begin to swing slowly back to the right. With the emphasis on slowly. The country requires balance. A condition denied us for the last 6 plus years.
Just stop it. Why do you insist on exposing your foolishness?
Be sure to include Carl Jung in your footnotes. Karl Marx too. Of course you have to read them first.
American middle class made it's most gains from the election of FDR until around 1995 when Clinton decided to cave in and enact republican policies like nafta and ending welfare as we know it. These years, the republicans almost never controlled congress. Careful what you wish for if you think republicans will ever do anything for anybody but the very wealthy. Why are people always bringing up Marx anyway. We've never had a marxist politician although some have been led to believe Obama is one when he's not being a muslim.
I'm betting you've never read Marx? You should read the Communist Manifesto, it sounds as if it could be the DNC platform.
You demonstrate a point made in the OP about the liberal mind when you mention NAFTA. Liberals supported it, some Republicans supported it, so a Democrat signed it into law, claiming it was the best thing since sliced bread. As conservatives predicted, it has been a terrible thing for us. Now comes the liberal laying the blame on conservatives, oblivious to the facts.
Like a dog returning to it's vomit, you are back to talking about the "middle class" as if America is only comprised of people belonging to established classes they can't escape. The fact is, in a free capitalist system, people move into and out of this so-called "middle class" all the time.
That's why I said the middle class made gains till around 1995! Reread my post and you'll see.
I read Marx in high school early 60's. Reread it in the navy where I became interested in other philosophies. I don't see anything Marxist about present day democrats. We do not have a free capitalistic system like you say either. We have one or two big players in each industry that get together to set prices. This used to be called monopolies. We had a president who talked against this about a hundred years ago. Teddy Roosevelt. He gave us anti trust legislation, but our politicians, bought off with big money, choose not to pursue trust busting or illegal immigration busting either. We now have very conservative democrats like obama and clinton because the conservative DLC vetted candidates, making sure that we would never get a liberal, progressive, or man of the people such as: Kucinich, Wellstone, Gravel or a number of other decent candidates. You say liberals supported Nafta? Wrong. The democrats voters were against Nafta. Clinton was no liberal and neither is Obama and our elected democrats go along with them. But these guys are the choices democrat voters are given, and we believe that they're better choices than anything republicans have to offer.
That is a little extreme, don't you think?Be sure to include Carl Jung in your footnotes. Karl Marx too. Of course you have to read them first.
American middle class made it's most gains from the election of FDR until around 1995 when Clinton decided to cave in and enact republican policies like nafta and ending welfare as we know it. These years, the republicans almost never controlled congress. Careful what you wish for if you think republicans will ever do anything for anybody but the very wealthy. Why are people always bringing up Marx anyway. We've never had a marxist politician although some have been led to believe Obama is one when he's not being a muslim.
I'm betting you've never read Marx? You should read the Communist Manifesto, it sounds as if it could be the DNC platform.
You demonstrate a point made in the OP about the liberal mind when you mention NAFTA. Liberals supported it, some Republicans supported it, so a Democrat signed it into law, claiming it was the best thing since sliced bread. As conservatives predicted, it has been a terrible thing for us. Now comes the liberal laying the blame on conservatives, oblivious to the facts.
Like a dog returning to it's vomit, you are back to talking about the "middle class" as if America is only comprised of people belonging to established classes they can't escape. The fact is, in a free capitalist system, people move into and out of this so-called "middle class" all the time.
That's why I said the middle class made gains till around 1995! Reread my post and you'll see.
I read Marx in high school early 60's. Reread it in the navy where I became interested in other philosophies. I don't see anything Marxist about present day democrats. We do not have a free capitalistic system like you say either. We have one or two big players in each industry that get together to set prices. This used to be called monopolies. We had a president who talked against this about a hundred years ago. Teddy Roosevelt. He gave us anti trust legislation, but our politicians, bought off with big money, choose not to pursue trust busting or illegal immigration busting either. We now have very conservative democrats like obama and clinton because the conservative DLC vetted candidates, making sure that we would never get a liberal, progressive, or man of the people such as: Kucinich, Wellstone, Gravel or a number of other decent candidates. You say liberals supported Nafta? Wrong. The democrats voters were against Nafta. Clinton was no liberal and neither is Obama and our elected democrats go along with them. But these guys are the choices democrat voters are given, and we believe that they're better choices than anything republicans have to offer.
I saw a show once where the KKK in Alabama set fire to a bus full of freedom riders. They called them commies, marxists and socialists too. All I saw were some black men and women and their white friends trying to ride a greyhound bus from Alabama to Mississippi.
Boss if he were around back then would have seen "Marxists".
