Yet another reason we need unions...nm

• Chrysler closing all 30 plants for 1 month. - Ford closing 10. GM filing for bankruptcy. nm
  • Maybe it isn't a crisis, just extortion and - gourdpainter
    • I'm so glad you put that 'cause s/m - Zville MT
      • This problem in automotive did not happen over night. - sm
        • I have to ask - gourdpainter
          • American made - sm
            • Actually, I agree, these companies - gourdpainter
              • It will take a long time to get out of this mess. - sm
  • union people will still get paid for doing nothing. - Big 3 need to restructure without govt
    • yes they do - ..
    • Yet another reason we need unions...nm - Just the big bad
  • One month -- (sm) - Just the big bad
    • And inject a healthy dose of reality of the consequences - sm
      • ADD time. The end of that sentence should be - sm
  • GM has NOT filed for bankruptcy.nm - nm
    • GM suspended work at Flint Plant and - sm
      • So? GM will "likely" file for bankruptcy, but - they have not yet, so that was not truthful.nm
  • Bush is busy writing his legacy. - nm
    • Legacy - Gimme A Break
      • Yes, they SHOULD be forced to filibuster. - Marmann
      • LOL...In addition to that...(sm) - Just the big bad
        • The unions are killing companies, though. That is - main reason Honda can survive and GM cant.nm
          • Okay then don't complain because offshoring has lowered your MT wages. n/m - gourdpainter
    • Totally unfair. Bush is the only one trying - to HELP them at this point.nm
      • Bush is the one that CAUSED this economic meltdown. - nm
        • Yes, Bush and Bush alone did this whole mess all my himself - Sheesh!
          • Bush = 6 years before Dems took - SM
        • Not exactly. Economy was doing great. Dems took - over Congress 2 years ago -then went bust.nm
          • How in the world - gourdpainter
            • you got Bush mixed up with Bill Clinton...it was....(sm) - ...
          • LOL. You really should keep closer track of - sm
        • Not completely true - Zville MT
          • Was bound to happen. People want loans they can - not pay for and they love the plastic credit cards
      • Not in time for Chrysler, its employees, downstream businesses - nm
      • Evidently he does not understand the gravity of the crisis. - ......
        • I dont think Obama has a clue either. This man of - "change" might as well hire the Clintons.nm
          • Obama would not be fiddling while Rome burns. - sm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

is negotiate bloated hourly pay rates and pension plans.  The car manufacturers, of course, agreed.  Couple that with executive pay and bonuses, the effect has been to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. 

I believe it was a triad, the unions, executives, and government meddling that has killed the auto industry.

Let's not leave out the government's part in this - long before the bailouts, government mandates and standards for manufacturing cars other than what people wish to buy.  And since the government could not ban SUVs and trucks (apparently what many consumer wanted and still want) it attacks them in a different way. 

We've all read claims that SUVs are 'responsible for highway deaths.'  Why?  Because the SUV driver walked away and the family of four driving a roller skate did not? Look for gas prices to go back up to four bucks and stay there. That will be to force us to drive tiny death trap cars.  People were actually buying them when gas prices were high, but sales dropped when the per-gallon price got back down to two dollars. 

Maybe there will also be some kind of tax based on vehicle size or weight, either on purchase, or to scoop more of us into the governmentm maw, a federal surtax when we reregister our current cars. 

to be something we would do on a country wide basis.  I mean...what is the point if you can't leave your state because other states don't accept them.  I meant this as a country wide thing.  If the whole country recognized civil unions with the same benefits as marriage kind of thing.  I guess I wasn't specific enough. 

As it goes, same sex marriage is only accepted in the states that allow it.  I mean...you have to live in those states to have the rights of marriage...right?  Please correct me if I'm wrong on that one because I really don't know. 

At first we were told the outsourcing was to cut labor costs.  Only after this campaign rhetoric took hold did the issue of taxes come up.  Now I ask you, if the reason for outsourcing is taxes, what the heck?  Didn't Bush CUT taxes.

It seems that American people have lost the reasoning side of their collective brains.  When I quit working a few months ago I was making LESS than I made in the 80s.  How is that possible?  The cost of medical care has not gone down.  The cost of medical insurance has not gone down.  I posted some time ago about a local hospital that laid off their most experienced nurses, not a few of them, ALL of them, and hired new graduate nurses to replace them at lesser wages.  What was that about?  They got away with it though.  Anything to increase the bottom line profit.

This is true in every industry.  They like to blame labor for everything.  Well, how the heck can you buy a $2+ loaf of bread and $5 gallon of milk on minimum wage, ya know?  Take gasoline for example.  Sure it has gone down the last days but is it back where it was when oil was what?  $86 a barrel or whatever?  No and it never will be.

So that car you drive.........how much do you think of the price tag is labor? 

These things are what really aggravates me.  People just can't seem to use reasoning power any more.  I'll give you an example:  After my husband lost his job in the CF fiasco, he drove for awhile for a friend who owns a trucking company.  I went with him on a trip.  He picked up a load of beef in Boonesville, AR, hauled it to Chicago, no problem.  Then they sent him somewhere in Ohio to pick up a load of vinegar to take to Florida.  Got to Ohio and I forget the reason but he couldn't pick up the vinegar. Then he was sent (empty) to Logan (?), Kentucky where he picked up 40,000 pounds of chocolate covered doughnuts which he delivered to Phoenix.  In Phoenix they told him that most of that load would be routed back to Atlanta.  Now what kind of sense does that make?  Taxes the problem?  I would say poor management is a bigger problem than taxes OR labor.

I'm sorry about your dad's experience.  People used to do things like that.  I recall my late father-in-law, worked for the fire department in Fort Worth and he said during the depression they did the same thing, worked less so the ones with less seniority could keep a job.  They all suffered but they suffered together and somehow they all made it as did your parents.

I am just horrified at the apparent digress of intelligence in this country.  It seems people believe anything the news media or anyone else tells them.  Seems they have totally lost the ability to reason and God forbid that anyone should think of anyone other than themself.

All that said, feel free to go ahead and believe that companies are outsourcing jobs because of labor costs or taxes.  The unionized workers, under Reagan, started taking wage concessions, that is taking a DECREASE in pay to keep jobs.  How did that work?  Don't believe I've heard of any of the victims of outsourcing even being offered a pay cut to keep the jobs in this country.  Certainly not the Rheem plant in Fort Smith that the other day laid off the last 600 workers.  They sent most of their production to Mexico a few years ago.  Fort Smith they say is dying because of outsourcing.  Their reason?  They say, it's "labor costs."  Well, then, how is it that people can't afford to pay their bills with all the excessive wages they're supposedly receiving. Obviously the next in vogue EXCUSE will be that taxes are lower in other countries.  B.S.!!!!!!!

Some union members are afraid to vote for better benefits or strike because management threatens to move, like the other posters stated.

Case in point: A small manufacturing shop. Union wanted higher wages or strike, and health care benefits to stay the same, both in cost and care. The union wanted a $.25 an hour raise. Owner said No. Union asked for $.15. Owner said no. Union said strike. Workers said no. They were afraid the owner would shut down and they had their jobs for 30 years.

The union steward fought for better benefits but when the workers voted against the better benefits, the company won. Two weeks later, the steward was laid off, along with a member of my family just because he was friends with the union steward. That was 3 years ago. The workers are still working for the same hourly rate this year. How's that for being fair?

I was a member of the Teamster's. When we went on strike for better wages back in the ྂs, he company threatened to move out.. We also wanted (women) equal pay for equal work because we did the same work the men did, but got paid $.25 an hour less.  They moved and 100 jobs were lost. So, you see, companies still have the upper hand, not unions. They only want your money anymore. They really don't care about the workers.

Two husbands who were union workers.  One IBEW, one Teamster.  BOTH said there were workers who didn't carry their share of the work load...not much different than MTs who cherry pick for instance.

#1 IBEW husband said at the time or Reganomics, when Ronald Reagan, himself a card-carrying member of the actor's union, said he would break the unions, it would be the downfall of the American workers.. Regan succeeded in breaking the backs of the unions.   When union workers lost the ability to bargain, they had to start taking wage concessions......and guess what?  Union wages went down, so did non-union wages follow suit.  When union workers got better working conditions, better wages and better benefits, so did non-union workers.

#2 Teamster husband is a radical retired Teamster.  While he also complained that there were lazy workers who rode on the backs of the hard-workers, he also said that the union does not support such and more times than not the union would uphold the firing of such a person.  He has a Teamster retirement that is the envy of most people and he has retiree health care benefits even though we pay about $700 a month for that.  While he was working, his union dues were around $35 a month and that covered our insurance.   Teamster retirees today will not enjoy those benefits.

Do some research on the history of unions.  Might not hurt to watch the movie Norma Rae as well. 

his own personal reasons.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php

The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.

Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."

Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.

In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"

Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.

Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.

Conversations With Bush The Candidate

Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.

The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.

I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."

Debating The Timeline For War

But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.

The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.

On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"

I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."

"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …

"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.

Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.

Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"

Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.

Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."

Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.

Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.

Bush gives new reason for Iraq war

Says US must prevent oil fields from falling into hands of terrorists

By Jennifer Loven, Associated Press  |  August 31, 2005

CORONADO, Calif. -- President Bush answered growing antiwar protests
yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in
Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said
would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.

The president, standing against a backdrop of the USS Ronald Reagan,
the newest aircraft carrier in the Navy's fleet, said terrorists
would be denied their goal of making Iraq a base from which to
recruit followers, train them, and finance attacks.

''We will defeat the terrorists, Bush said. ''We will build a free
Iraq that will fight terrorists instead of giving them aid and
sanctuary.

Appearing at Naval Air Station North Island to commemorate the
anniversary of the Allies' World War II victory over Japan, Bush
compared his resolve to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's in the
1940s and said America's mission in Iraq is to turn it into a
democratic ally just as the United States did with Japan after its
1945 surrender. Bush's V-J Day ceremony did not fall on the actual
anniversary. Japan announced its surrender on Aug. 15, 1945 -- Aug.
14 in the United States because of the time difference.

Democrats said Bush's leadership falls far short of Roosevelt's.

''Democratic Presidents Roosevelt and Truman led America to victory
in World War II because they laid out a clear plan for success to the
American people, America's allies, and America's troops, said Howard
Dean, Democratic Party chairman. ''President Bush has failed to put
together a plan, so despite the bravery and sacrifice of our troops,
we are not making the progress that we should be in Iraq. The troops,
our allies, and the American people deserve better leadership from
our commander in chief.

The speech was Bush's third in just over a week defending his Iraq
policies, as the White House scrambles to counter growing public
concern about the war. But the devastation wrought by Hurricane
Katrina in the Gulf Coast drew attention away; the White House
announced during the president's remarks that he was cutting his
August vacation short to return to Washington, D.C., to oversee the
federal response effort.

After the speech, Bush hurried back to Texas ahead of schedule to
prepare to fly back to the nation's capital today. He was to return
to the White House on Friday, after spending more than four weeks
operating from his ranch in Crawford.

Bush's August break has been marked by problems in Iraq.

It has been an especially deadly month there for US troops, with the
number of those who have died since the invasion of Iraq in March
2003 now nearing 1,900.

The growing death toll has become a regular feature of the slightly
larger protests that Bush now encounters everywhere he goes -- a
movement boosted by a vigil set up in a field down the road from the
president's ranch by a mother grieving the loss of her soldier son in
Iraq.

Cindy Sheehan arrived in Crawford only days after Bush did, asking
for a meeting so he could explain why her son and others are dying in
Iraq. The White House refused, and Sheehan's camp turned into a hub
of activity for hundreds of activists around the country demanding
that troops be brought home.

This week, the administration also had to defend the proposed
constitution produced in Iraq at US urging. Critics fear the impact
of its rejection by many Sunnis, and say it fails to protect
religious freedom and women's rights.

At the naval base, Bush declared, ''We will not rest until victory is
America's and our freedom is secure from Al Qaeda and its forces in
Iraq led by Abu Musab alZarqawi.

''If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would
create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks, Bush
said. ''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could
recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the
United States and our coalition.

Like GT so eloquently wrote below, she has nothing to do with my request that you leave our board.  The only person who has anything to do with it is YOU.

You and every single one of your *friends* are rude, crude, abrasive, insulting, and continually lie, lie, LIE.  You are the kind of people I would choose NOT to associate with in real life because you have no values and you have a gang mentality, but most of all, you're just deplorable human beings, as you yourselves have demonstrated through your posts.

You have your own board.  Would you please just go back there?  You are offensive to many on this board.  This is the liberal board.  You clearly don't belong here any more than I don't belong on your board, where you and you *friends* indeed constantly gang up on anyone who disagrees with you.  If that's how you want to conduct yourselves on your own board, that's fine.  It's your board, and if you choose to turn it into a filthy sewer, that's your option.  But you don't have the right do that on the liberal board.  I'm very close to writing to the administrator and complaining about you all before I leave, as well.  You don't contribute anything of value to this board, and all you morons do is chase kind, loving and intelligent people away.

As GT says in her posts, you are clearly obsessed with her, and I don't understand why, but you're becoming psychotic about it, and you're showing that psychosis to anyone who reads this board.  You paint her to be a terrible person, and from what I read in her posts, she is NOT a terrible person.  She is loving and caring and intelligent..all traits that not ONE of you posseses.  You are way out of your limited ignorant hateful league on this board.  Please.  JUST GO AWAY.

I don't want government involved in my health care.  The VA is a joke and our veterans do not get the care that they need and deserve.  If heroes like that aren't taken care of by our government....what in the he11 makes us think that the government will take care of us?   

Maybe people who are struggling to afford healthcare, fill up their gas tanks and feed their families just happen to agree with his VIEWS on the issues.

ever called you a kool-aid drinker is because you constantly post about rhetoric.  When will you wake up and realize that even democrat politicians say one thing and do another.  You can't get much more obvious about than the Obama administration and yet you continue to sing his praise.  You are blinded by your own political party. 

Obama...the man who said he would sign no bill with pork in it and then did without batting an eyelash.

The man who said he would pull troops out of Iraq and has extended the time frame to keep troops in Iraq longer and to deploy more in Afghan.  He ridiculed McCain for not wanting a time line but I guess a time line is okay as long as you can push it back whenever you feel the need, huh? 

A man who promised tax cuts on 95% of the American people and yet he wants cap and trade which will tax everyone A LOT.

Gay rights activists sing his praise and yet Obama himself isn't for same sex marriage.

He wants people to have the right to choose to carry a child or abort it and yet he takes the rights away from hospitals and doctors by not allowing them to refuse to perform that procedure.  You complain about taking the rights away from people but yet you have no problem taking rights away from people with a different view point than yourself.

Yet all you ever come back with is that we are a bunch of babies who need to grow some balls and how ignorant we are for watching Fox News even though Fox has higher ratings than the crap you watch.

The channels you profess to tell the truth aren't even covering the tea parties.  I personally feel that thousands and thousands of Americans protesting is a big deal and should be reported on whether or not a channel agrees with the reason behind it.  Picking and choosing what to report is not telling the truth.  It is being very one sided.  Any open minded person would realize that.

marriage would not still be limited to two people (of whatever flavor) at a time.  Bygamy would still be bygamy. 

You're right.  Think what men with half a dozen legal wives and a couple of dozen kids could do to any medical plan, let alone our system for deducting dependents from income tax. 

On the other hand, I have a same-sex housemate who is disabled, unemployed and uninsured.  We are not gay, but if same-sex marriage were legal, I could marry her and get her insured under my plan.  Many marriages involve no sex.  Maybe they didn't start out that way but over time they evolve in that direction.  We would simply be skipping the honeymoon part. 

Making sure you put the Hussein part in, when I have never seen you address him that way before.  Yes, it is his full name but some people (are you included?) love to add that in just to make people think he is Muslim or make references to it. 

Not saying that was your intention but it smells kind of fishy.

Integrity.  Belief in his own vision for the future.  Distaste for repub tactics of dividing Americans over issues such as anti-choice, pro-choice, gay rights, etc.