Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I didn't know union bosses lead companies that failed, which were then bailed out with the boss receiving tens of millions of dollars.
Oh wait. They didn't. Hence the discrepancy.
I didn't know union bosses lead companies that failed, which were then bailed out with the boss receiving tens of millions of dollars.
Oh wait. They didn't. Hence the discrepancy.
unions did not get bailouts...you're making a strawman with meadowmuffin "straw"....
you're obviously clueless about what has been happening. you're also clueless as to WHY obama and bush wanted the bailouts....to protect the WORKERS...their pension, pay etc....and the WORKERS as you know give money to and support the unions. without the bailouts, the unions would be squat. the unions failed to help the company be more profitable, so yes, they did facilitate the downfall of the companies....
I didn't know union bosses lead companies that failed, which were then bailed out with the boss receiving tens of millions of dollars.
Oh wait. They didn't. Hence the discrepancy.
unions did not get bailouts...you're making a strawman with meadowmuffin "straw"....
you're obviously clueless about what has been happening. you're also clueless as to WHY obama and bush wanted the bailouts....to protect the WORKERS...their pension, pay etc....and the WORKERS as you know give money to and support the unions. without the bailouts, the unions would be squat. the unions failed to help the company be more profitable, so yes, they did facilitate the downfall of the companies....
Unions aren't supposed to make the company more profitable, they are supposed to give the workers some voice in the company.
Besides that, this is just a whole bunch of bullshit babble. The original point was daring Obama to limit union bosses compensation. I was explaining the difference between them and CEO's. Do you get the difference, or do I need to explain basic facts of life to you as well?
I didn't know union bosses lead companies that failed, which were then bailed out with the boss receiving tens of millions of dollars.
Oh wait. They didn't. Hence the discrepancy.
unions did not get bailouts...you're making a strawman with meadowmuffin "straw"....
you're obviously clueless about what has been happening. you're also clueless as to WHY obama and bush wanted the bailouts....to protect the WORKERS...their pension, pay etc....and the WORKERS as you know give money to and support the unions. without the bailouts, the unions would be squat. the unions failed to help the company be more profitable, so yes, they did facilitate the downfall of the companies....
Unions aren't supposed to make the company more profitable, they are supposed to give the workers some voice in the company.
Besides that, this is just a whole bunch of bullshit babble. The original point was daring Obama to limit union bosses compensation. I was explaining the difference between them and CEO's. Do you get the difference, or do I need to explain basic facts of life to you as well?
unions did not get bailouts...you're making a strawman with meadowmuffin "straw"....
you're obviously clueless about what has been happening. you're also clueless as to WHY obama and bush wanted the bailouts....to protect the WORKERS...their pension, pay etc....and the WORKERS as you know give money to and support the unions. without the bailouts, the unions would be squat. the unions failed to help the company be more profitable, so yes, they did facilitate the downfall of the companies....
Unions aren't supposed to make the company more profitable, they are supposed to give the workers some voice in the company.
Besides that, this is just a whole bunch of bullshit babble. The original point was daring Obama to limit union bosses compensation. I was explaining the difference between them and CEO's. Do you get the difference, or do I need to explain basic facts of life to you as well?
why should they NOT have limits? they RECIEVED help from the bailouts as well...do you need me to draw you a picture.
Unions aren't supposed to make the company more profitable, they are supposed to give the workers some voice in the company.
Besides that, this is just a whole bunch of bullshit babble. The original point was daring Obama to limit union bosses compensation. I was explaining the difference between them and CEO's. Do you get the difference, or do I need to explain basic facts of life to you as well?
why should they NOT have limits? they RECIEVED help from the bailouts as well...do you need me to draw you a picture.
Compare Union boss salaries with CEO salaries for me, bucko.
unions did not get bailouts...you're making a strawman with meadowmuffin "straw"....
you're obviously clueless about what has been happening. you're also clueless as to WHY obama and bush wanted the bailouts....to protect the WORKERS...their pension, pay etc....and the WORKERS as you know give money to and support the unions. without the bailouts, the unions would be squat. the unions failed to help the company be more profitable, so yes, they did facilitate the downfall of the companies....
Unions aren't supposed to make the company more profitable, they are supposed to give the workers some voice in the company.
Besides that, this is just a whole bunch of bullshit babble. The original point was daring Obama to limit union bosses compensation. I was explaining the difference between them and CEO's. Do you get the difference, or do I need to explain basic facts of life to you as well?
But now the UAW owns a huge stake in Government Motors, but you say unions aren't for making companies profitable
Now doesn't that put the UAW in a pickle. they own a company and by your definition don't care if the company turns a prifit as long as its members keep getting higher and higher salaries.
And if you don't call the US government giving nearly 20 percent ownership of GM to the union a bail out, what exactly do you call it?
It'll be a cold day in hell before Obama tries to freeze union boss' wages...
Business groups dare Obama to limit pay for union bosses - The Back Story - Washington Times
why should they NOT have limits? they RECIEVED help from the bailouts as well...do you need me to draw you a picture.
Compare Union boss salaries with CEO salaries for me, bucko.
IOW....you're now backing out of why the union bosses should not also be held accountable....that was easy
unions did not get bailouts...you're making a strawman with meadowmuffin "straw"....
you're obviously clueless about what has been happening. you're also clueless as to WHY obama and bush wanted the bailouts....to protect the WORKERS...their pension, pay etc....and the WORKERS as you know give money to and support the unions. without the bailouts, the unions would be squat. the unions failed to help the company be more profitable, so yes, they did facilitate the downfall of the companies....
Unions aren't supposed to make the company more profitable, they are supposed to give the workers some voice in the company.
Besides that, this is just a whole bunch of bullshit babble. The original point was daring Obama to limit union bosses compensation. I was explaining the difference between them and CEO's. Do you get the difference, or do I need to explain basic facts of life to you as well?
But now the UAW owns a huge stake in Government Motors, but you say unions aren't for making companies profitable
Now doesn't that put the UAW in a pickle. they own a company and by your definition don't care if the company turns a profit as long as its members keep getting higher and higher salaries.
And if you don't call the US government giving nearly 20 percent ownership of GM to the union a bail out, what exactly do you call it?
unions did not get bailouts...you're making a strawman with meadowmuffin "straw"....
you're obviously clueless about what has been happening. you're also clueless as to WHY obama and bush wanted the bailouts....to protect the WORKERS...their pension, pay etc....and the WORKERS as you know give money to and support the unions. without the bailouts, the unions would be squat. the unions failed to help the company be more profitable, so yes, they did facilitate the downfall of the companies....
Unions aren't supposed to make the company more profitable, they are supposed to give the workers some voice in the company.
Besides that, this is just a whole bunch of bullshit babble. The original point was daring Obama to limit union bosses compensation. I was explaining the difference between them and CEO's. Do you get the difference, or do I need to explain basic facts of life to you as well?
But now the UAW owns a huge stake in Government Motors, but you say unions aren't for making companies profitable
Now doesn't that put the UAW in a pickle. they own a company and by your definition don't care if the company turns a profit as long as its members keep getting higher and higher salaries.
And if you don't call the US government giving nearly 20 percent ownership of GM to the union a bail out, what exactly do you call it?
Driver on the Phone? »
Wednesday
01Apr
GM CEO: Accountable to the President. UAW President: Accountable to NOBODY
Apr 1, 2009 at 10:40AM
After reading this report, ask yourself just one question: If the President found it necessary to fire Rick Wagoner as CEO of General Motors, why is there no similar accountability on the part of UAW President Ron Gettlefinger?
LaborPains.org » Blog Archive » UAW Financial Reports Shows Lavish Resorts and Big Salaries During 2008 Turmoil
UAW Financial Reports Shows Lavish Resorts and Big Salaries During 2008 Turmoil
Today, amidst further negotiations between General Motors (GM), the United Auto Workers (UAW), and the federal government, the UAW filed its yearly financial report which shows hard times for auto workers did not translate to the UAWs lavish expense accounts and salaries.
GM CEO: Accountable to the President. UAW President: Accountable to*NOBODY - Blog - Jack for Michigan
I didn't know union bosses lead companies that failed, which were then bailed out with the boss receiving tens of millions of dollars.
Oh wait. They didn't. Hence the discrepancy.
I didn't know union bosses lead companies that failed, which were then bailed out with the boss receiving tens of millions of dollars.
Oh wait. They didn't. Hence the discrepancy.
hey! buddy,, we the taxpayer are now paying the union bossess wages,, we bought the car company, we employ the union bossess and we deserve to know what they make.. quit being a hypocrite!
I didn't know union bosses lead companies that failed, which were then bailed out with the boss receiving tens of millions of dollars.
Oh wait. They didn't. Hence the discrepancy.
hey! buddy,, we the taxpayer are now paying the union bossess wages,, we bought the car company, we employ the union bossess and we deserve to know what they make.. quit being a hypocrite!
Wait...do you want the government to run companies or not?
