chasd00: It has everything to do with it. Americans that work hard and devote their lives to a big company DESERVE the right to a decent wage and benefits.

This is kind of a tangent but I never understood the sense of entitlement that employees, especially those that have been at the same job for a while, develop. I've been at my job for 8 years now and not once did I not get paid for my work. If one day they say "we no longer have a place for you" then, as long as they're paid up for my work, no hard feelings. Some people are like "i've been here 20 years you owe me!" when for those 20 years the company has been paying them right on time. What could they possibly be owed?

No hard feelings, huh? Wow you must be made out of cast iron.BFletch651: Whidbey, here, likes to speak in terms of companies "deserveing" to do business and workers "deserving" to get whatever wage they're comfertable with.

It doesn't work that way, and not because I say so.

That's not really an answer to my contention that workers have the right to paid a comfortable living wage, nor does it address why we the citizens of a community shouldn't have the right to demand that big corporations making billions in profits treat their workers fairly and with dignity.

Stoj: And if you want more information on the history of those plants & unionizing, go google your ass off. The NY Times & other newspapers were all over it. I wast implying all the nonsense you were spewing.

Not good enough, and it wasn't "nonsense."

You really don't have anything to counter my contentions, do you?

OpheliasMusing: kind of OT, but...

i keep hearing "taxpayers money." when does this money get taken from us? are they taking from tax year 08 or tax year 09? i'm only asking b/c i got married this year, and i'm excited to claim that on my taxes finally.

/carry on.

Not for a while, yet. Since you're a newlywed, I'll assume you're relatively young and not acquainted with the way things are done in these Sunset of The American Way of Life Days. The way it works -- the US would sell bonds to borrow the money, so we get the $25 billion from China to give the auto companies and then we have to pay China back $30 billion about the time your firstborn is starting middle school.

/And congratulations

HeadLever: Still subjective, but it is a start. I agree that you need to have a list of objectives, but in the end these need to be quantified. Just saying 'reasonable' does not cut it. What is reasonalbe to Mr Trump is not the same as Mr. Hobo living under the bride.

I still think you took that point to a ridiculous extreme without actually addressing it.

Mercutio74: HeadLever: Does that include the 40-ft yacht and the private island in BC? Way to awnser the question with subjective drivel, Whidbey.

Well, let's figure that out. I think a good wage for a middle class worker should be enough to comfortably afford housing in an area that's a reasonable commute to work, enough discretionary income to stimulate the economy, and to build reasonable retirement savings. Sound reasonable?

Comfortable. Reasonable. Discretionary. WTF do those words mean in dollars, Einstein?

whidbey: globalwarmingpraiser: UAW shoud either suck it up or their members should kick them out. All it would take is 1 major to do it and there would be a mass revolution against them.

Funny how you think this is the unions' fault and not the companies'...

Any knee-jerk reaction to kill off worker representation just doesn't sit with me, GWP.

I blame both. But we are discussing unions. GM failled to react to market demands. They are now. But, UAW is a bad union. There are good and bad ones. GM has several good programs and they need to be pursued. They are the leaders in hydrogen fuel cells, and plug in hybreds. This is a good thing. If they can lower costs they can be competitive, and keep a lot of people employeed. This good for everyone.

Hoe Muffin: Needs are not the same thing as rights. Especially where positive rights are concerned, even more so once you get past basic rights.

Disagree.

globalwarmingpraiser: This is a good thing. If they can lower costs they can be competitive, and keep a lot of people employeed. This good for everyone.

But lowering costs means downsizing, and you know it. The "lowering" never seems to affect the upper echelons of the company, nor does it affect the richest proponents.

THIS is why we would need union representation.

keloyd: Behold GM's future

India's auto industry was protected and coddled by its government for decades. The result? Their cars were 50 years out of date when the tariffs and protectionism finally came down. This Hindustan Ambassador is still made, NEW, and remains a clone of the 1957 Morris Oxford. If you're cheap, you can still get bias ply tires and drum brakes all around. Thankfully the Indian middle class has been able to buy other cars since the '90s. As a result, the Amby's market has shrunk to mostly government staff cars and taxis.

And even now guess who buys most Ford Rangers and Lincoln Towncars...

Exactly!

We need to protect American jerrrbs!

/DEY TOOK OUR JERRRBS!
/OH NO! A production line worker can't afford a boat, jetskis, snowmobiles, a vacation home, three cars, plasma television, child support payments, cigarettes, and other parts of the American Dream anymore!

USP .45: whidbey: And of course, I'm totally against this...

We need less cars on our roads, not more.

whidbeynomics: Reducing the number of suppliers will also reduce the amount of demand for the product being supplied.

whidbey consumer advocacy: Deceasing competition within an industry will cause the oligarchy to have a less centralized lobbying base, and less influence on the number of cars on our roads.

Was there actually a point amongst your usual vague style of attack?

Do you disagree that we need to stop making so many cars? Do you disagree that the 25 billion would be better spent in job retraining programs?

Try addressing those two points instead.

whidbey: Stoj: And if you want more information on the history of those plants & unionizing, go google your ass off. The NY Times & other newspapers were all over it. I wast implying all the nonsense you were spewing.

Not good enough, and it wasn't "nonsense."

You really don't have anything to counter my contentions, do you?

Look, man. I'm not saying that gross mismanagement wasn't responsible - it was greatly responsible. But the cost of doing business with the UAW puts companies at a huge disadvantage. Nothing short of outstanding management could make that situation successful.

The southern plants are hardly the sweatshops you make them out to be.

/really done this time

BFletch651: An inferred right to a "comfortable living wage" and "dignity" are not specific. This may seem like an unimportant distinction, but its the key. Without specificity, a thing is not enforceable. If its not enforceable, its not a right in the legal sense. It's an arguement about morality.

It's actually been codified to an extent.

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights

USP .45: The basic rights of the CEO and the worker are exactly the same.

Not really. The CEO ultimately has the greater job security, and even if he's fired, does a lot better than the grunt who got his walking papers ANY day....

whidbey:
The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights

This/a> is the link I meant to post...

USP .45: Try addressing those two points instead.

Yes, the point (illustrated quite clearly I might add) is that you don't know what you're talking about.

You might as well be saying that we need to use less oil, and to do that, we need to allow fewer oil companies to be in control of more of the market share. (notice how I don't need to agree or disagree with the premise to show how your logic is fail)

Not only would that have 0 effect on demand, but it makes the lobbying power of that industry even more consolidated.

Typical USP patronizing. Stay classy.

The fact is that pledging to bail out an industry that contributes to global warming sends the wrong message.USP .45: whidbey: USP .45: The basic rights of the CEO and the worker are exactly the same.

Not really.

Wow.

I told you why. Are you capable of addressing that point without looking down your nose at me, would be the challenge here.

HeadLever: whidbey: I still think you took that point to a ridiculous extreme without actually addressing it.

You were the one that was asked the question and still refuse to awnser.

I gave you my answer. Most reasonable people know what a "living wage" is. Your reply was to take my point and do your best to make it seem worthless. The problem is that you just wasted my time instead of addressing it. You wasted everyone's time here.

whidbey: globalwarmingpraiser: This is a good thing. If they can lower costs they can be competitive, and keep a lot of people employeed. This good for everyone.

But lowering costs means downsizing, and you know it. The "lowering" never seems to affect the upper echelons of the company, nor does it affect the richest proponents.

THIS is why we would need union representation.

Hate to tell you but there needs to be more automation in the US auto industry.
GWP economic recovery plan.

1. Allow GM/Chrysler/Ford to go into Chapter 11, restructure and come out in better shape.

2. Start more oil exploration, creating many jobs accross many sectors.

3. Investigate all current tax idea and which ever one encourages economic grwth go with it.

4. Encourage creation of an alternative energy infrastructure.

5. Allow Market forces to ensure a slow, but steady switch to more effective.

6. Encourage private development of passenger rail service.

Do these things and I would bet there would be an industrial and economic revival in this country like you would not believe. The competition for employees would drive wages up of their own accord.

pd771: It's actually been codified to an extent.

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights

All the UN does is pass retarded resolutions like this that change nothing rather than going into Darfur. farking UN.

The US is the country responsible for blocking this "retarded resolution" I posted. We are the reason why it has yet to be ratified.

Darconix: There's your congressman Barney Frank at work, libs: But, you know, we've had enough anti-union activity, and enough increase in income inequality in this country. I don't want to set a precedent that bankruptcy now is a way in which you undo what gains unions have been able to hold on to.

Hey liberal asshats, if the farking union leeches are sucking the blood out of the host, don't keep the farking host alive at taxpayer expense. Let the farking leeches kill the host and let them both starve. That's how the farking market operates.

Before you work yourself into an ecstatic lather convincing yourself that it's all the union's fault, it might be worth noting that the CEO's of the Big 3 all arrived in D.C. in private jets at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars to each of their companies, when a regular airline ticket could have been purchased for a few hundred $$ a piece.

There's a lot of legit criticism to be made of the UAW and the current state of union contracts. But is the basis of your argument that collective bargaining should be eliminated entirely, in all professions? Or what?

globalwarmingpraiser: 1. Allow GM/Chrysler/Ford to go into Chapter 11, restructure and come out in better shape.

2. Start more oil exploration, creating many jobs accross many sectors.

3. Investigate all current tax idea and which ever one encourages economic grwth go with it.

4. Encourage creation of an alternative energy infrastructure.

5. Allow Market forces to ensure a slow, but steady switch to more effective.

6. Encourage private development of passenger rail service.

Why we would need more oil exploration when there's more than an adequate supply to tide us over while we would be WORKING on alternatives makes no sense to me. Keep in mind that oil companies have plenty of leases they don't even utilize...

whidbey: Hoe Muffin: Needs are not the same thing as rights. Especially where positive rights are concerned, even more so once you get past basic rights.

Disagree.

If the concepts you are talking about depend on someone else giving them to you -- they are not rights.