Right on! If we workers made more money, we'd
Posted By: be putting more into SS. - Topaz on 2009-05-05
In Reply to: At the risk of sounding cold - AnudderMT
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old. To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
If you are going to give money to re-educate the auto workers....... sm
then it would follow that money should be given to sustain and re-educate the people in other industries (MT comes to mind) that are suffering because of big suit mismanagement and jobs going overseas. What about the thousands upon thousands of other displaced workers in the public sector that have lost their jobs? Will they need to be re-educated as well? Will there be jobs available to them, even if they are re-educated?
Maybe that's what all those re-education centers all over America are for. hmmmmmmm
I actually made more money in the 90s
x
Yesterday IBM laid off American workers but kept Indian workers, SM
and I'm sure they don't make chump change. Looks like we are becoming Zimbabwe! Thank O for that.
Well, they already made him give back Hamas' money.
nm
Printing money we dont have? Borrowing money
nm
It takes money to make money. nm
Okay, WORKERS.
30-40% of WORKERS don't pay income taxes. Is that better? And only recently has he started saying workers. No one was ever counting children or people who did not work. Of course, you realize, you are classifed as a "worker" if you work one day a year, right?
The same question...if he is going to give a tax cut or break or whatever he wants to call it for 95% of WORKERS...30-40% of whom do not pay federal income taxes NOW...HOW is he going to do that without cutting someone a check. How else is he going to get the money to them? Please explain.
Especially the power workers
God bless those people who came all the way down there, slept in their trucks in stifiling weather (because the media and gawking politicians hogged all the hotels that were left) and helped string line and get our power back on. They are heros, as well as all those who donated time and goods.
On the other hand, SHAME on the people from Indiana who printed up a bunch of Katrina T-shirts and had the nerve to come down there to sell them! Those who survived Katrina need no darn T-shirt proclaiming they did!
Instead of cutting the workers' pay, they should
cutting THEIR pay. After all, they're the ones who aren't doing their jobs very well (if at all). Same with AIG - they get the cash, and then give their company *pets* huge *retention* checks. (Yeah, right. Sounds like a big fat bonus, to me.) The big companies' CEOs just don't get it. They want more money, more money, more money, and no matter how you cut it, bailout or no bailout, the one who loses is the little guy. There's no way they're going to completely restructure and retool if they get the money, they'll just keep on doing like they're doing. The Big Three need to die a natural death, no more artificial life support or resuscitation measures - DNR, DNI !!! Then, let a NEW, leaner-meaner-greener American car industry be born in their place. Same goes for the banks. And the insurance companies. And healthcare (mis)management. Let the sick and the weak ones die, and healthier ones grow in their place. Kind of like the forests. If wildfires are prevented for too long a time, the forest gets choked with dead/sick trees and overcrowding, and when a fire finally does roar through (like at Yellowstone in the late 1980's), it's a WHOPPER. Same thing is happening in American business right now.
Union Workers
How does your husband feel about voting out in the open; no more secret ballots? That's quite audacious!
Todd Palin is a card-carrying union guy, too.
And why did the union workers
walk off the job? That's right. For better benefits, health care, retirement and working conditions which ALSO benefited non-union workers, even those scabs who went in and did the jobs. Thanks to Ronald Reagan, the Great (NOT!) the unions have lost their teeth in the ability to even strike and thus to bargain. Ole Ronnie got employers the "right to permanently replace workers." Read up on the history of unions. Ever watch the movie "Jimmy Hoffa?" Yes he made deals with criminals i.e. the mafia but he did much to help workers too. Ultimately he paid with his life. Union/non-union is sort of like arguing democrat/republican. Those for/against don't want to hear any side other than their own.
What? The workers work for nothing?
That's news to me. I thought the workers got paid.
But you see which auto workers are
handouts, and the workers are not complaining about their jobs. I am talking about the ones mentioned recently in the news here in the Southeastern US. Those workers are making(including all their benefits) around $35 an hour. The unionized big 3 workers making $70+ an hour for the same work. Is that contract worth that much?
I took it as we are unskilled workers
sent overseas and basically there is nothing that can be done about it. This has been going on for years, but to be called unskilled? We need to now be better educated for other work opportunities in the United States. So I might as well pack it in and go back to school to do something else, even though I have an AA degree with Medical Transcription skills and schooling.
Here is an article about the poll workers. sm
It is from the Boston Globe. They only give a brief description. There was more discussion on it in one of the grassroots forums.
Apparently,the poll workers did have permission to be there, and the NH GOP told them to stand their ground.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2008/01/obama_and_paul.html
AAMT is not a workers' union.
x
I might have to if your man gets elected. Maybe we'll be co workers nm
x
Here's hoping Chicago workers' sit-in and
good things to come. As Bank of America acquires Merrill-Lynch (whose CEO has the utter gall to request a $10 million bonus pay-out after the ML sell-out) they are refusing credit to Republic Windows and Doors out of Chicago after receiving $15 billion in TARP funds. The workers are fighting back to recover the pay and benefits they have already earned and their governor is backing them up. Now that's what I'm talkin' about !
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aw5QzWC86Vl8&refer=home
not 95% of Americans - 95% of American WORKERS -
From Barackobama.com/taxes:
Obama’s Comprehensive Tax Policy Plan for America will:
Cut taxes for 95 percent of WORKERS and their families with a tax cut of $500 for WORKERS or $1,000 for WORKING couples.
Provide generous tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth.
Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation.
Dramatically simplify taxes by consolidating existing tax credits, eliminating the need for millions of senior citizens to file tax forms, and enabling as many as 40 million middle-class Americans to do their own taxes in less than five minutes without an accountant.
unemployed auto workers' pay
per their contract, if unemployed they receive FULL pay. The loss would be benefits, but they get full pay for not working if they are laid off. That should give them time for re-education.
Most employers are cutting workers because they want
Money-money-money-money-
money-money-money-money-
money-money-money-money-money-money-money-money-
money-money-money-money-money-money-money-money!
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Maybe they should tax offshore workers doing OUR work.
I think you misunderstand government workers
The people who are getting the benefits are not really the people with constituents (they're not members of congress). These are the ones who work for the federal government, like people who work for the dept of agriculture, for the VA, for the dept of state, etc.
NYC using fed millions to fight sick WTC workers. sm
Shame on them. Looks like the articles by the Daily News is finally getting them some much needed attention.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/438101p-369136c.html
she said her experience was w/ minimum wage workers
she said it herself what they were paid - minimum wage -duh
then why were you referring to "minimum wage" workers
I never said I'm for giving them a handout...don't know where that's coming from. I was just pointing out the quality of employee you get when you pay minimum wage...why would you refer to minimum wage if you paid them well and didn't pay min wage? I wouldn't expect to get the most reliable people if I were paying minimum.
I said typical minimimum wage workers
I paid well above minimum wage...I guess reading my post it looks like I paid minimum. That was my mistake.
I refer to minimum wage workers because...
This type of work normally paid minimum wage. I, however, did not...
Please comment on the OP...about minimum wage workers
x
By all means give the union workers a pay cut S/M
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ocwage_05092008.htm
Going way down the page you will find the median pay for medical transcriptionists is approximately $15.02 per hour. This being the case, if you are one of those fortunate enough to be making $20 or more per hour, I assume you will be recommending a pay cut for yourself and all others who are making more than the median in order to bring pay more in line with other workers. Translated that means leaving more in the coffers for the big CEOs. I don't know whether some of you are BDD or what.
The practices of healthcare workers do need work - sm
Healthcare workers fail to take the time with patients to discuss disease prevention and health promotion.
Workers walk off job rather than read McCain script.
Some three dozen workers at a telemarketing call center in Indiana walked off the job rather than read an incendiary McCain campaign script attacking Barack Obama, according to two workers at the center and one of their parents.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/dozens_of_call_center_workers.php
For crying out loud. His target group IS workers
are so low that they come up not owing tax at the end of the year, then it would not be possible to give them a tax cut or a tax credit, unless it is a refundable tax credit. So far, you have not provided any evidence that Obama is proposing a REFUNDABLE tax credit. As a matter of fact, why do you supposed he call this tax credit "Making WORK pay." The credit will zero out at zero tax liability unless it is a refundable tax credit. Again, it seems like you cannot produce any evidence that this is the case. Or can you? What about the socialist question with regard to progressive tax reform proposals only being socialist at Obama's hands, an no other president in history since 1913, including the 7 republicans who raise the top income bracket rates to as high as 63% to 94%, as opposed to Obama, whose intent is to restore that rate back to 39.6% as it was in 2000 when Bush took office?
proposed tax policies which include granting rebates to most US workers.
That statement jumped out at me.
New Bush rule makes it easier to hire foreign workers
Dec 10, 8:43 PM EST
Administration changes to farm worker hiring afoot
By SUZANNE GAMBOA Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- As it prepares to leave office, the Bush administration is moving to make it easier for U.S. farming companies to hire foreign field workers, which farmworker groups say will worsen wages and working conditions.
Farm groups said that changes to the H2A visa program, used by the agriculture industry to hire temporary farm workers, were posted on the Labor Department's Web site at midnight Tuesday but have since been taken down.
Labor Department spokesman Terry Shawn said whatever was posted wasn't the final version of the new rule, which Shawn said would be released Thursday and published in the Federal Register on Dec. 18.
The Bush administration published a proposed version of the new rule last Feb. 13 and received nearly 12,000 public comments, Shawn added. The next version will be a final rule and can take effect 30 days after publication. Some of its provisions would take effect in mid-January and others later in the year, the farmworker groups said.
Farm worker advocates and the United Farm Workers union said the version that appeared on the Web site would lead to a flood of cheaper workers.
"The government has decided to offer agriculture employers really low wages, low benefits, no government oversight to bring in foreign workers on restricted visas and thereby convince them they should do this instead of hiring undocumented workers," said Bruce Goldstein, executive director of Farmworker Justice, a group that advocates for farmworkers.
The changes in the posted version would drop a requirement that an employer get the Labor Department to certify it faces a worker shortage before it can get visas for foreign workers; instead, employers would be allowed to simply attest in writing to a shortage. That version of the new rule also would change the method for calculating wage minimums for workers and relieve employers of a requirement to recruit in states or communities where other employers already are hiring farm workers, Goldstein said.
But Assistant Labor Secretary Leon Sequeira said Wednesday evening the agency is not dropping the obligation to obtain certification, which is required by law.
Paul Schlegel, American Farm Bureau public policy director, said many of the changes will make the program a little less burdensome for employers. He said existing laws prevent employers from hiring foreign workers if the jobs can be filled by U.S. workers.
"My members want to make sure they have a legal supply of labor," said Schlegel, who added that he had not reviewed all the proposed changes.
The rule changes are a part of a pattern of last-minute regulatory changes being rushed into effect by the Bush administration before President-elect Barack Obama's Jan. 20 inauguration.
The effect is to make it harder for Obama to change course on some policies favored by Republicans and the business community.
"We are hopeful that the Obama administration would recognize the utter mistake and unfairness of this proposal," Goldstein said. Congress has a procedure for reversing the rules, he said.
Many of the last-minute changes by the Bush administration have come in the area of public lands and the environment, including easing regulations on mining waste and allowing handguns in national parks. Another pending rule would grant greater leeway to railroads to transport hazardous materials through densely populated areas.
Larger-Than-Life Corporate Salaries are Unfair to Average American Workers. see article.
Commentary: Larger-Than-Life Corporate Salaries are Unfair to Average American Workers
Date: Friday, April 14, 2006 By: Judge Greg Mathis, BlackAmericaWeb.com
Despite slower-than-anticipated growth and lower-than-expected profits, many corporations have generously rewarded their leaders, while simultaneously reducing lower-level staff salaries and benefits in an attempt to control costs. This disturbing practice only serves to further widen the gap between America’s wealthy few and its working class and clearly demonstrates just how little this country values its workforce.
At a time when most American workers are struggling to make basic ends meet and worrying how they’ll manage to save enough for retirement, many of this country’s corporate chief executives are stuffing their pockets with larger-than-life compensation packages that include high base salaries, stock options and ample pension plans. In 2004, the average chief executive’s salary at a large company was more than 170 times that of the average worker’s pay. Last year, executive salaries grew 25 percent, while that of the average American worker grew only 3.1 percent.
Even when a company struggles, their CEOs are still rewarded. For example, the current CEO of a global manufacturing firm received over $11 million in compensation last year, despite the company’s $3.4 billion revenue loss, an 11-percent drop in stock value and a staff reduction of 17,000 workers. There are similar stories at corporations across the country. While worker pensions are frozen and many are asked to do without raises, CEOs manage to earn their multi-million dollar bonuses.
It’s no surprise that CEOs are cleaning up. Consider this: Corporations often use compensation committees to set their executive salaries. Many of these committees use outside consultants to help guide the process. These consultants are often already contracted to do other work for the company. The conflict of interest here is obvious: The consultant won’t upset the CEO -- and risk losing other contracts -- by setting a more realistic, performance based pay model.
Many corporate CEOs are, in short, getting over, and it is a slap in the face of every American worker. While it is understood that executive salaries would greatly exceed that of the average worker’s, there is no logical argument to explain why the growth rate between the two is so dramatically different. To protect its workforce, corporate America must ensure worker’s salaries grow at rates that keep pace with the cost of living, while slowing the rate of growth of CEO salaries. Corporate boards must stop rewarding CEOs with multi-million dollar bonuses. It is unacceptable for a company to lay off thousands of workers and then turn around and pay an executive for a job well done.
As a country, we often ask our government to think about the needs of the average American, and rightly so. However, if America is to truly prosper, the corporations that feed our local economy must also consider and respect the well-being of average worker.
---
Judge Greg Mathis is national vice president of Rainbow PUSH and a national board member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
Charging is not spending money...it is spending someone elses money!
When you are debt free (as we are) THEN you spend money...anything else is just going into debt. I highly doubt he pays cash for anything.
money was cut due to war
I have compassion for those affected by Katrina. It is Bush and his ilk that I have no compassion for. This article states that the money was cut in 2003 due to the war. That is why I posted it. Money has been cut to the states since Bush's war, we are strapped in many ways in America due to Bush's war. Open you eyes and see your president for what he is..a jerk, a low IQ imbecile, and for what he has done to America due to his war.
Money.........
Well, if they don't have money for birth control, they sure as shoot don't have it for a baby BUT in my neck of the woods, there are LOTS of illegitimate babies, mostly by mothers who started at 12, 13, 14 and by high school, had 2 or more. They even sit in school and brag about getting a bigger paycheck because they are pregnant again. Now, really, does that sound like someone who is interested in birth control in the first place? Some of these girls who get pregnant at 12 or 13 don't even think birth control. They usually get talked into sex by a guy several years older than them in the first place, and he is a loser anyway, and usually has fathered several babies already anyhow. And, belive me, most of these girls because of community experiences, already know where the clinics are and they can get there. They sure as heck don't have a problem getting there for all the free healthcare their child gets, usually in the ER on Friday and Saturday night because they are too lazy to get to the clinic through the week. Planned Parenthood isn't doing anything positive for them.
No, I would rather the money be used for ..sm
necessities for Alaska instead of asking the lower 48+1 to subsidize them.
The money that has gone to the war...
has been appropriated for that specific purpose. It was not just lying around waiting to be spent, so there is no reason to believe that if the war were not going on that amount of money would be spent elsewhere. That is not how the government works.
If the government did not help these institutions out, it would destabilize the economy which could trickle down to our banks and what little money we have in them. At least they learned from the fannie/freddie fiasco...when they gave the loan to AIG they kicked the top folks who ran it out, with no golden parachute and will oversee it...and in this case, finally...since it is a loan...if they stay solvent and pay it back the interest will benefit us all as it will go back into the coffers with the principal.
Exactly the kind of thing McCain has been talking about for years. Glad Bush finally listened.
yes, you can if it is your money..
I have done it already.
Sure there are.......you want all your money given as
xx
Of course you would....it's not your money
You'd be screaming a different tune. Even those without it have better sense than to believe this is a terrible thing. The more he makes, the more people he can hire. So clueless and bitter
No, that's not where he's getting his money
22
I don't think money should be taken from those
who make more AT ALL. I think there should be a tax PERCENTAGE and it is based on income so it is even across the board. I don't think those who make $200,000 should have a higher percentage than those who make $30,000. There is enough crap out there that doesn't need funding that can go to those who HONESTLY need help.
Those who HONESTLY need help are those who are trying to do something to get out of the whole and can't. Not those who go and buy a house that is way out of their price range, or who pop out 7 or 8 kids just to get food stamps. Not those who live in section 8 government housing for $60 a month and then buy a brand new BMW in someone elses name because they make money selling drugs or working under the table and not reporting it.
I said it is based on grades ALSO. Meaning it is based on both income and grades. Which means if I don't TRY and keep my grades up no matter how little money I make, I'm not going to receive it. That's the difference. No one seems to want to TRY anymore. Everyone just wants more, more, more, and they are doing less, less, less.
My argument is that those who do well for themselves should not have to pay for those who don't give a hoot and don't try to do well for themselves and just sit back and try to let daddy government take care of them.
Where did all that money come from?
Scam after scam keeps coming out. Phony donators sending money with prepaid credit cards that can't be traced. Gee, wonder where the money is coming from ? He is not honest or truthful about anything, and so many people trusting him with their future...sad.
With all the money that
Barrack Obama raised for his campaign.....I wonder who he owes now? I mean....surely some of these people who gave a bunch of money want something in return. Are there promises Obama has promised to keep to individuals who gave him money that we don't know about? This is one reason why I hate political parties. The DNC raised all that money and you have some serious extreme left psychos who gives money and then they want something in return. Does this make Barrack Obama the democratic party puppet now? How does that work?
Where is all this money going to come from?nm
x
so where does all this money come from and
when do we STOP bailing companies out? I was not a fan of the first bailout. I think that in the end, all of this will make things much worse and we are just slowing down the process. I understand that both McCain and Bush wanted the bailout, but I am capable of thinking for myself. If you want the auto industry to keep up employment, I would think that the best way to make that happen is to buy American cars, bot hand them over a lot of my hard earned money. I think that the money I paid for my car is enough.
where the money comes from
Okay, those are some interesting links. I feel even better about the job banks program now, because, check it out--this program was *created* to discourage outsourcing. The union felt like it made it too expensive for the car companies to outsource jobs. So the car companies obviously did some calculations and discovered that they could pay these guys not to work, AND outsource, AND still make money (that they failed to make money has less to do with those out of work guys, I suspect, than it does with decades of misreading consumer preferences!). So if this program is a big money-suck, it's only because they insisted on outsourcing.
It's also great to see that this job bank was not available for workers until AFTER they had exhausted their unemployment benefits--and that *those* benefits were also being funded by the automakers. So our tax dollars don't really have much to do with the story. As for the bailout...well, personally I'd rather the bailout money help actual people, rather than Wall Street, so I'm not really concerned about some guys playing checkers.
(as for the $31 an hour, I'm still having trouble doing the math on how a $5 billion dollar committment by GM for 4 years for 5000 workers works out to $31 an hour, but I'll let it go for now!)
I fuss (I like that word!) about spreading the wealth from rich to poor, and about these auto workers, because I think they represent an important case for us to learn from. How will we protect *our* livelihoods? Can companies begin to take us into account, and not at the same time do the same stupid mistakes that always bankrupt them, and not make it look like *our* fault that they're going bankrupt?
|