Without Union Concessions, Bankruptcy Better Than A Bailout, Republicans Say

No bailout for people who come home from work and take showers. Only for people who take showers and go to work.

 

GM, Ford, an Chrysler in Canada hav already decided to shut down for a month..I think they said for January.

The union is very arrogant considering their pay scale against all those without work. They would rather have nothing than less.



Cheers,

Jim

 

Who would buy a vehicle from a company in bankruptcy? I know I wouldn't risk it.

 

I bet you would for the right price.

 

You would lose that bet.

 

Everyone that wants to.

If they make good cars for a good price, people will buy them.

End of story.

 

You wouldn't buy one for $1?

 

At least Studebaker was a decent car. Just had trouble knowing if it was coming or going.

Cheers,

Jim

 

From the article:
"According to the Associated Press, the deal stalled over the United Auto Workers’ refusal to agree to wage cuts before their current contract expires in 2011."


I would have problems buying from a company who demanded MY tax money to bail out their sinking ship, unless they are willing to pay some of the price: Lower wages, No bonuses, etc. You can't save a sinking ship without repairing the leaks.

I would rather buy from an American comapny but the companies need to show that they care about quality and fairness. I have seen very little of either quality or fairness from them.

They are threatening grave dammange to the economy if we don't pay the ransom.

 

>Originally Posted by Squire Robertsson
>Why should the GOP do anything for the UAW?

Yes, we know that GOP only does things for bankers and rich people.

 

You need to check your facts.

In the $700B giveaway, only 7 democrats voted against it. 15 Republicans voted against it.

The dems hold the majority, and they pushed the bill through, with presidential and his flunkies supporting it. This is a bi-partisan disaster...but the numbers slightly favor the democrats.

Your charge against the GOP doesn't wash.

 

Since the UAW is dead set on raping taxpayers, why should we.

I may never buy another foreign built big 3 auto.

I'll buy American built Hondas or Toyotas or VWs instead.

 

1. You normally advocate less government in the market, why do you agree with politicians negotiating labor agreements? Since when is it ok for the Senate to tell any company what to pay it's workers?

2. Why are the Republican's only demanding the union workers make concessions and have placed no demands on management? Are they saying it's ok for the middle class worker to make less but the Republican management should be immune?

3. Why are the Republican's being so tough on the UAW after so freely giving 10x this amount of money to the banks with no business plan or pay cut demands. These same banks that gave executives bonuses, went on retreats, bought other banks and are still not making loans.

The voices of the middle class spoke these past two elections and have said loudly that we're tired of having to bear the burden while the executives make unquestioned millions. The Republican's fell drastically in the last election when they voted down the original bailout plan. Now they turn around and do this.

I think this is a down payment for tombstones to go in the GOP cemetery. They really don't seem to get it, there is not enough ultra-conservatives in this country to win them an election and they are alienating any moderates that might lean their way. If they keep this up, 2010 will be another good year for the Democrats.

 

I don't think they are telling them what to pay their workers. They are telling them under what conditions they will get money.

The plan by Corker did address management and bondholders. Before the Union would take any cuts, the bond holders would have to take a 70% cut. No one was asking such a huge cut from labor.

We probably shouldn't fault them for not making loans. After all, bad loans is what got us in this mess. The answer is not to run out and make more bad loans. But having said that, the Dems were in favor of the previous bailout, and nobody should have been.

Perhaps it is finally a return to principle.

 

That's the way I see this requirement. They are saying the workers should be paid like the workers in the south. That is telling them what to pay their workers. Yes, the Big three could always turn down the money but my point was you didn't see this type requirement placed on the banks.

Bondholders, yes. You would have to point out management in his agreement cuz I sure don't see them listed.

Fair statement...