Business groups dare Obama to limit pay for union bosses

[Sinatra]

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

Great find!

 

[Sinatra]

I also think Limbaugh's suggestion that all government salaries should be capped at $100k every year there is a deficit.

That includes the ridiculous operating expenses members of Congress get to work with.

 

[oreo]

Sure they did, any liability of the company would "have something to do" with them going bankrupt. However, the Unions didn't suddenly change in the past 10 years, and start being evil which caused GM to suddenly decline. It was because of other systemic moves by GM

The retirees of GM were getting a whopping 80% of their base pay & continue to do so--thanks to Barack Obama & this administration. Only now--we're paying for it. Obama cast his vote--over this bankruptsy & he voted UNION.

It's not that I don't blame management too--they could have stopped this insanity years ago & didn't.

Yeah, he voted for the people who worked for it as opposed to the bankers who tried to make money from its demise. What a terrible, terrible man.

And please tell what bankers caused the demise of GM & Crysler If you're referring to bondholders--YOU too can own bonds on any publicly traded company--you don't need to be a bank. (commonly referred to as Preferred stock.) Obama screwed them big-time.

BTW--No Business equals No workers which equals NO UNION.

 

[oreo]

I also think Limbaugh's suggestion that all government salaries should be capped at $100k every year there is a deficit.

That includes the ridiculous operating expenses members of Congress get to work with.

Yep--& if Obama really wants to follow FDR--that's exactly what he should do. Because that was the first thing FDR did when he came into office during the depression. He also cut out 100 MILLION out of the budget--which was HUGE back in the 1930's.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The retirees of GM were getting a whopping 80% of their base pay & continue to do so--thanks to Barack Obama & this administration. Only now--we're paying for it. Obama cast his vote--over this bankruptsy & he voted UNION.

It's not that I don't blame management too--they could have stopped this insanity years ago & didn't.

Yeah, he voted for the people who worked for it as opposed to the bankers who tried to make money from its demise. What a terrible, terrible man.

And please tell what bankers caused the demise of GM & Crysler If you're referring to bondholders--YOU too can own bonds on any publicly traded company--you don't need to be a bank. (commonly referred to as Preferred stock.) Obama screwed them big-time.

BTW--No Business equals No workers which equals NO UNION.

you can't be pro jobs and anti-business.

 

[Annie]

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.

And you probably don't think the auto unions had anything to do with bankrupting GM & Chrysler either.

Sure they did, any liability of the company would "have something to do" with them going bankrupt. However, the Unions didn't suddenly change in the past 10 years, and start being evil which caused GM to suddenly decline. It was because of other systemic moves by GM

GM's decline wasn't 'sudden' and didn't start within the past 10 years. They chose 'quick profits' along with 'labor packages' to avoid strikes, instead of retooling and turning to robotics and other cost-saving methods.

The whole argument for regulating 'salaries' lies upon the 'failed company leadership.' Regarding GM & Chrysler, that has as much to do with union leadership as it does with the company leadership. They were in cahoots at mismanaging and going for the personal goal.

So, if limiting/regulating one, the other should also apply.

 

[editec]

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...

Actually they did...sort of.

When the USA came in to sort of save GM, they also sort of saved the unions.

 

[WillowTree]

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...

Actually they did...sort of.

When the USA came in to sort of save GM, they also sort of saved the unions.

not even "sort of" they did,, the unions got stock in the business, we own the company and the union works for us.. we want full disclosure now of all salaries.

 

[editec]

Actually they did...sort of.

When the USA came in to sort of save GM, they also sort of saved the unions.

not even "sort of" they did,, the unions got stock in the business,

Yeah, that's why I think "sorta", actually. Given what they gave up for those stocks, and given what those stocks are actually worth, the union only sorta got saved.

Just like GM only sorta got saved.

we own the company and the union works for us.. we want full disclosure now of all salaries.

I'm not entirely in disagreement with this sentiment.

I'd like to see the union managment get cleaned up no less than I'd like to see managment get cleaned up.

 

[justabubba]

the union negotiates contracts and enforces them - in accordance with the provisions of those contracts

if the contracts were too rich for the company, then that is another one of the bone headed management decision of the auto industry leaders - buying something they could not afford. in this instance labor

none of that gives the government the right to regulate the unions. the bailout checks were paid over in the name of "chrysler" and "GM". should any of them be found payable to "UAW", then an assertion that the union received bailouts would hold water. until then, you remain all wet on that point

and one of the purposes for seeking bankruptcy protection was to allow the company to go back before a court and have its obligations examined for reasonableness. that included the union contract. the bankruptcy court judge can determine that changes to that contract are required. but that does not provide the judge any authority to address the salary compensation of the labor leader - which is NOT a debtor in bankruptcy

but the judge cannot touch the salaries of the UAW. and the reason is the bankruptcy petition does not say "UAW" just like the bailout checks are not made to "UAW". while the judge can revise the contract entered into by and between the union and GM, such that the union members are no longer to afford the present dues which then enables that present UAW head's salary to be paid, the judge does not get to alter that UAW leader's salary because the UAW is NOT the bankrupt debtor. to believe otherwise is like saying the judge gets to change your salary because you bought a buick and financed it thru GMAC ... a debtor in the bankruptcy

the OPs premise is an absurd notion evidencing nothing other than an extraordinary ignorance of the bankruptcy provisions

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

No Union Bosses just rob the retirement funds, order strikes with no chance they will lose a job or pay. And get paid Hundreds of thousands for doing nothing.

Go ahead tell me the last time the corporate Union bosses and their staff had to go on strike?

 

[Nik]

and the democwats voted for it,, blindly voted for it!

Voted for them making huge amoutns of money? What?

Here's the answer Nick: These liberals really don't know that the 64 million in AIG bonuse's that everyone was so outraged about a couple of months ago was stuck in the so-called economic stimulus bill? Meaning taxpayer dollars for 64 million for executives at AIG were included in the so-called economic stimulus bill.

They don't know that another 200+ million in bonuses were also in the so-called stimulus bill that was also for bonuses at Freddie/Fannie. Meaning 200+ million in taxpayers dollars were included in the so-called economic stimulus bill for executive bonuses at Freddie/Fannie.

Willow--was stating that our congress & President signed off on this bill--without reading it first. Criss Dodd & Tim Geither stuck these bonuses in the bill. It's a done deal.

Please point to the legislative language which specifically, explicitly gives money to these individuals.

 

[Nik]

I also think Limbaugh's suggestion that all government salaries should be capped at $100k every year there is a deficit.

That includes the ridiculous operating expenses members of Congress get to work with.

Incredibly stupid. You wonder why government is inefficient? Its, in part, because people don't get paid enough and so they have a hard time recruiting quality people. Government needs to be able to offer competitive salaries with private companies.

 

[Nik]

The retirees of GM were getting a whopping 80% of their base pay & continue to do so--thanks to Barack Obama & this administration. Only now--we're paying for it. Obama cast his vote--over this bankruptsy & he voted UNION.

It's not that I don't blame management too--they could have stopped this insanity years ago & didn't.

Yeah, he voted for the people who worked for it as opposed to the bankers who tried to make money from its demise. What a terrible, terrible man.

And please tell what bankers caused the demise of GM & Crysler If you're referring to bondholders--YOU too can own bonds on any publicly traded company--you don't need to be a bank. (commonly referred to as Preferred stock.) Obama screwed them big-time.

BTW--No Business equals No workers which equals NO UNION.

Reading comprehension fail. Feel free to actually read what I said and try again.

 

[Newby]

I also think Limbaugh's suggestion that all government salaries should be capped at $100k every year there is a deficit.

That includes the ridiculous operating expenses members of Congress get to work with.

Incredibly stupid. You wonder why government is inefficient? Its, in part, because people don't get paid enough and so they have a hard time recruiting quality people. Government needs to be able to offer competitive salaries with private companies.

Yet they (the Obama administration) is trying to do that very thing with private company salaries right at this very moment by placing salary caps on private individuals working for private companies. You take money from the government and all of a sudden they can tell you what you're allowed and not allowed to do all in the name of 'looking out for taxpayer dollars'. If people cannot draw a parallel between what is happening now and what kind of control they will exert over your personal health whenever socialized medicine is instituted, you have to be blind as a bat. I wonder what they will tell you about what you can afford to pay for your health once the 'taxpayer' is footing the bill. It's all about power and control and we just keep letting them grab more and more of it.