Private Sector Workers Need To Sacrifice

oh, this union crap is BS....sheesh.

Unions do not work in a vacuum, with no input from the ceo's or owners of the corp....If the companies agreed with the union on a pay raise or on benefits, then it is the owner's/ceo's fault for not calculating the expense of such, on the company long term....it is NOT the Union's fault for asking....it is the Company's fault for agreeing to it.....these are NEGOTIATIONS between the two....one does not have more power than the other....

I don't have issues with private sector unions. I have issues with the public worker's unions. Contracts are negotiated on the backs of tax payers. No money is coming from the pockets of those that are negotiating the contracts. This is where I have my issues.



I do have issues with private sector unions when taxpayer money is used to bail out the companies they have caused to fail just to prop up their above market compensation packages.

uhhhhh, the union workers did not get propped up with benefits, they lost some of their negotiated benefits with the gvt plan....why are you implying they gained instead of lost benefits....

do you have a problem with the ceo's getting their negotiated salaries and bonuses with tax monies as you IMPLY the union workers are getting??

sounds like you are simply jealous of union workers boe....???

what about all the workers and ceo's at the other big guys the gvt bailed out....are you against them getting paid what was negotiated and promised as well?
 
I don't have issues with private sector unions. I have issues with the public worker's unions. Contracts are negotiated on the backs of tax payers. No money is coming from the pockets of those that are negotiating the contracts. This is where I have my issues.



I do have issues with private sector unions when taxpayer money is used to bail out the companies they have caused to fail just to prop up their above market compensation packages.

uhhhhh, the union workers did not get propped up with benefits, they lost some of their negotiated benefits with the gvt plan....why are you implying they gained instead of lost benefits....

do you have a problem with the ceo's getting their negotiated salaries and bonuses with tax monies as you IMPLY the union workers are getting??

sounds like you are simply jealous of union workers boe....???

what about all the workers and ceo's at the other big guys the gvt bailed out....are you against them getting paid what was negotiated and promised as well?


Try reading up on the GM bail out. If GM had gone BK, the unions would have had to renegotiate benefits packages big time. Bond holders who had superior claims were shafted by Obama in favor of preserving the union's largesse. And this was done by preventing GM's bankruptcy via taxpayer money.

And then, the Obama Administration allowed GM to keep $45 billion of tax loss carry forwards (NOLs) so they can avoid paying taxes. The tax regulations for changes of control void such NOLs so that profitable companies cannot buy unprofitable ones just to reduce taxes.

Luxury Drive. GM famously needed rescuing, and the feds pumped in billions to save Detroit, auto jobs, and the American tailfin. We taxpayers owned 61% of GM, and that’s a lot of tailfins. But in a move of unusual largesse, the IRS announced that despite the usual rules that would limit GM’s NOLs after its stock change, these were special times.

In normal times, companies face limitations on their NOLs, but companies bailed out by the fed are different. Despite a whopping 61% stock issuance to the federal government, GM was let off the hook.

That means NOLs and other tax savings techniques normally not available because of Section 382 may save GM up to $45.2 billion in the coming years. See GM Could Be Free Of Taxes For Years. And how will GM use these NOLs to its advantage? GM just announced a $2 billion third quarter profit, and an IPO. See GM posts $2 billion quarter profit, IPO next and GM Reports $2 Billion Profit. ...


Tax Laws Rule GM And The World - Robert W. Wood - The Tax Lawyer - Forbes


So, taxpayers are paying twice for GM...with the bailout and then again with the tax break "indulgence".
 
I do have issues with private sector unions when taxpayer money is used to bail out the companies they have caused to fail just to prop up their above market compensation packages.

uhhhhh, the union workers did not get propped up with benefits, they lost some of their negotiated benefits with the gvt plan....why are you implying they gained instead of lost benefits....

do you have a problem with the ceo's getting their negotiated salaries and bonuses with tax monies as you IMPLY the union workers are getting??

sounds like you are simply jealous of union workers boe....???

what about all the workers and ceo's at the other big guys the gvt bailed out....are you against them getting paid what was negotiated and promised as well?


Try reading up on the GM bail out. If GM had gone BK, the unions would have had to renegotiate benefits packages big time. Bond holders who had superior claims were shafted by Obama in favor of preserving the union's largesse. And this was done by preventing GM's bankruptcy via taxpayer money.

And then, the Obama Administration allowed GM to keep $45 billion of tax loss carry forwards (NOLs) so they can avoid paying taxes. The tax regulations for changes of control void such NOLs so that profitable companies cannot buy unprofitable ones just to reduce taxes.

Luxury Drive. GM famously needed rescuing, and the feds pumped in billions to save Detroit, auto jobs, and the American tailfin. We taxpayers owned 61% of GM, and that’s a lot of tailfins. But in a move of unusual largesse, the IRS announced that despite the usual rules that would limit GM’s NOLs after its stock change, these were special times.

In normal times, companies face limitations on their NOLs, but companies bailed out by the fed are different. Despite a whopping 61% stock issuance to the federal government, GM was let off the hook.

That means NOLs and other tax savings techniques normally not available because of Section 382 may save GM up to $45.2 billion in the coming years. See GM Could Be Free Of Taxes For Years. And how will GM use these NOLs to its advantage? GM just announced a $2 billion third quarter profit, and an IPO. See GM posts $2 billion quarter profit, IPO next and GM Reports $2 Billion Profit. ...


Tax Laws Rule GM And The World - Robert W. Wood - The Tax Lawyer - Forbes


So, taxpayers are paying twice for GM...with the bailout and then again with the tax break "indulgence".

boe, i don't really understand the NOL thingy....and how does this equate to union workers gaining benefits or pay, over and above what they were getting, as you implied they were in this supposedly sweet deal?
 
uhhhhh, the union workers did not get propped up with benefits, they lost some of their negotiated benefits with the gvt plan....why are you implying they gained instead of lost benefits....

do you have a problem with the ceo's getting their negotiated salaries and bonuses with tax monies as you IMPLY the union workers are getting??

sounds like you are simply jealous of union workers boe....???

what about all the workers and ceo's at the other big guys the gvt bailed out....are you against them getting paid what was negotiated and promised as well?


Try reading up on the GM bail out. If GM had gone BK, the unions would have had to renegotiate benefits packages big time. Bond holders who had superior claims were shafted by Obama in favor of preserving the union's largesse. And this was done by preventing GM's bankruptcy via taxpayer money.

And then, the Obama Administration allowed GM to keep $45 billion of tax loss carry forwards (NOLs) so they can avoid paying taxes. The tax regulations for changes of control void such NOLs so that profitable companies cannot buy unprofitable ones just to reduce taxes.

Luxury Drive. GM famously needed rescuing, and the feds pumped in billions to save Detroit, auto jobs, and the American tailfin. We taxpayers owned 61% of GM, and that’s a lot of tailfins. But in a move of unusual largesse, the IRS announced that despite the usual rules that would limit GM’s NOLs after its stock change, these were special times.

In normal times, companies face limitations on their NOLs, but companies bailed out by the fed are different. Despite a whopping 61% stock issuance to the federal government, GM was let off the hook.

That means NOLs and other tax savings techniques normally not available because of Section 382 may save GM up to $45.2 billion in the coming years. See GM Could Be Free Of Taxes For Years. And how will GM use these NOLs to its advantage? GM just announced a $2 billion third quarter profit, and an IPO. See GM posts $2 billion quarter profit, IPO next and GM Reports $2 Billion Profit. ...


Tax Laws Rule GM And The World - Robert W. Wood - The Tax Lawyer - Forbes


So, taxpayers are paying twice for GM...with the bailout and then again with the tax break "indulgence".

boe, i don't really understand the NOL thingy....and how does this equate to union workers gaining benefits or pay, over and above what they were getting, as you implied they were in this supposedly sweet deal?


It's part and parcel with the GM bail out.

The reason GM had financial problems is due to excessive pay and benefits for unionized workers, combined with ineffective management.

The proper course of action would have been for GM to declare bankruptcy and restructure its obligations. The Obama Adminstration interferred, crammed down the legitimate bond holders who had first claim on assets, shifted that money to the union's benefit, and then cooked GM's books by allowing them to keep $45B of tax loss carry forwards to reduce future tax payments.

I read the GM S-1 when they filed the IPO. It's a mess. And we paid for it.

I don't see how it is moral to take money from hard working taxpayers and small businesses to pay for this mess. I really don't.
 
That's between them and their Employers i guess. That really is their business. Public Sector Unions affect all Taxpayers though. So that's all of our business. Public Sector Unions have forced Tax-Hikes on Citizens for far too many years. They have coerced Governments all across the nation with their considerable political power. It's time for Public Sector Unions to go bye bye. Their days of screwing Taxpayers should be over for good. They serve no real purpose anymore.
 
The Right believes that if something can be produced for 30 cents an hour labor somewhere in the world,

that's where it should be produced, without regard to American labor interests. Unless of course it can be produced for 20 cents an hour somewhere.

Borders, nations, national interests are all irrelevant to the Right. Capitalism and the efficiencies that best express the principles of Capitalism have to be global, unfettered by nationalist limitations. Conservative capitalists are the true globalists. Capitalism is internationalism.

In the perfect Conservative Capitalist world, all else being equal, an American worker would never make any more doing the same or similar job to any worker anywhere else in the world.

Oh. Well, then I suppose you are saying that in contrast, borders are very important to the left? Ok. When is Obama going to secure ours then?

And if we are "unfettered by nationalist limitations" then you are saying on contrast the left is nationalist? Because socialism + nationalism leads to a nasty situation ya know.

When did Reagan or Bush secure the border?

The free trade agreements are supported by the Right. They are designed to produce wage equilibrium between high wage and low wage countries. They are designed to open the borders, economically.

Other than the occasional outlier like Pat Buchanan, when do you ever hear a Conservative talk about the merits of protecting the earning power of American workers?
 
The Right believes that if something can be produced for 30 cents an hour labor somewhere in the world,

that's where it should be produced, without regard to American labor interests. Unless of course it can be produced for 20 cents an hour somewhere.

Borders, nations, national interests are all irrelevant to the Right. Capitalism and the efficiencies that best express the principles of Capitalism have to be global, unfettered by nationalist limitations. Conservative capitalists are the true globalists. Capitalism is internationalism.

In the perfect Conservative Capitalist world, all else being equal, an American worker would never make any more doing the same or similar job to any worker anywhere else in the world.


Another Leftist who pronouces what the "Right" believes. Wrong again, but please feel free to stew in your misconceptions.

Rather than living in a world where you oppose the fantasy that you think others hold, why not apply your beliefs to the actual situation around and then explain how that will solve the problem?

What is the solution of the Left? Is there one that works? Please enlighten us with your wisdom. The Leftist Congress had 4 years to make it work and successfully moved us from under 5% to over 10% unemployment. The Prez has had more than two years to solve the problem and has successfully made it worse.

If you have the answer based in the philosophy of the Left, you might want to state it clearly and succinctly so that your bretheran might follow your lead.

Hold forth!

If you can demonstrate that the consensus on the Right supports any restrictions on the movement of capital to the cheapest source of labor and to the movement of the product of that labor into the U.S. market,

by all means let's hear it.
 
Private Sector Workers don't spend $Millions on lobbying politicians to raise Taxes like Public Sector Unions do. Unless you're GM or Corporate Banks of course. I still don't get how they were bailed out with Taxpayer cash. But i digress. The only ones who get screwed or "sacrifice" are the hard-working Taxpayers. That's the way it always goes. Public Sector Unions need to go away. They have forced massive Tax-Hikes on the People for too many years. Time for them to get the boot.
 
Last edited:
We are already having to deal with increased workload, pay-freezes, lack of materials, etc.

...the whole more-bricks-less-straw business model :p
 
Try reading up on the GM bail out. If GM had gone BK, the unions would have had to renegotiate benefits packages big time. Bond holders who had superior claims were shafted by Obama in favor of preserving the union's largesse. And this was done by preventing GM's bankruptcy via taxpayer money.

And then, the Obama Administration allowed GM to keep $45 billion of tax loss carry forwards (NOLs) so they can avoid paying taxes. The tax regulations for changes of control void such NOLs so that profitable companies cannot buy unprofitable ones just to reduce taxes.

Luxury Drive. GM famously needed rescuing, and the feds pumped in billions to save Detroit, auto jobs, and the American tailfin. We taxpayers owned 61% of GM, and that’s a lot of tailfins. But in a move of unusual largesse, the IRS announced that despite the usual rules that would limit GM’s NOLs after its stock change, these were special times.

In normal times, companies face limitations on their NOLs, but companies bailed out by the fed are different. Despite a whopping 61% stock issuance to the federal government, GM was let off the hook.

That means NOLs and other tax savings techniques normally not available because of Section 382 may save GM up to $45.2 billion in the coming years. See GM Could Be Free Of Taxes For Years. And how will GM use these NOLs to its advantage? GM just announced a $2 billion third quarter profit, and an IPO. See GM posts $2 billion quarter profit, IPO next and GM Reports $2 Billion Profit. ...


Tax Laws Rule GM And The World - Robert W. Wood - The Tax Lawyer - Forbes


So, taxpayers are paying twice for GM...with the bailout and then again with the tax break "indulgence".

boe, i don't really understand the NOL thingy....and how does this equate to union workers gaining benefits or pay, over and above what they were getting, as you implied they were in this supposedly sweet deal?


It's part and parcel with the GM bail out.

The reason GM had financial problems is due to excessive pay and benefits for unionized workers, combined with ineffective management.

The proper course of action would have been for GM to declare bankruptcy and restructure its obligations. The Obama Adminstration interferred, crammed down the legitimate bond holders who had first claim on assets, shifted that money to the union's benefit, and then cooked GM's books by allowing them to keep $45B of tax loss carry forwards to reduce future tax payments.

I read the GM S-1 when they filed the IPO. It's a mess. And we paid for it.

I don't see how it is moral to take money from hard working taxpayers and small businesses to pay for this mess. I really don't.

well, i disagree that GM's problems extended from the unions....

GM upper management IS AT FAULT

1- for not keeping up with what was going on in the market place and not creating automobiles customers wanted to buy.

2-for not being wise enough to calculate the costs and forsee future costs of benefits and pay that they AGREED to in their NEGOTIATIONS, that could harm their business.

unions are not to blame for their downfall....THEY are to blame for their down fall....that's just how i see it.
 
Then we'll have to agree to disagree.

The unions were very much at fault at GM, just as they are in the public sector. Their quest for "more" is bleeding out the country.
 
I kind of have to laugh at posts like this. These are the same people who pushed hard for Private Sector Workers at GM to receive $Billions in Taxpayer Bailout Cash. The only ones "sacrificing" there were American Taxpayers. Private Sector Workers have no business being bailed out by the Government. That being said,it's the Public Sector Unions who are notorious for coercing Governments to raise Taxes. They're just too powerful at this point. It's time to either weaken them significantly or remove them from Government completely.
 
Then we'll have to agree to disagree.

The unions were very much at fault at GM, just as they are in the public sector. Their quest for "more" is bleeding out the country.

They didn't ask for more fishy. They asked that their contract be honored, after having already made concessions. And GM was in no financial bind. They built a world wide empire off the backs of Detroit's GM Union workers and were building plants while they whined to Obama for relief.

This was nothing more than a campaign payback to Obama, so stick your Union petard back in the closet.
 
Just a reminder of what this thread is about.

Private Sector Workers Need To Sacrifice

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The private sector workers need to take a 20% cut in pay and benefits to help corporations to stimulate the economy and be able to hire more workers to boost the GDP, and lower unemployment costs and associated taxes. It is no secret we are falling behind, and everybody ought to be able to give a little to help America. The only other way to do this is raise taxes and give corporations subsidies to hire workers, which will cost more to manage through the government.

A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute (pdf) concluded that private workers are making more than public workers. According to the executive summary of the study, "Comparisons controlling for education, experience, organizational size, gender, race, ethnicity, citizenship, and disability reveal that public employees of state and local governments earn less than comparable private sector employees. On an annual basis, full-time state and local employee government employees in Michigan are undercompensated by approximately 5.3% compared with similar private sector workers."

Meanwhile, the group Citizens for Accountability in Reform notes on its site that the study is the fourth in the last three years to challenge the perception that public workers are somehow over-compensated.


http://accountabilityinreform.files....studyfinal.pdf
 
The Right believes that if something can be produced for 30 cents an hour labor somewhere in the world,

that's where it should be produced, without regard to American labor interests. Unless of course it can be produced for 20 cents an hour somewhere.

Borders, nations, national interests are all irrelevant to the Right. Capitalism and the efficiencies that best express the principles of Capitalism have to be global, unfettered by nationalist limitations. Conservative capitalists are the true globalists. Capitalism is internationalism.

In the perfect Conservative Capitalist world, all else being equal, an American worker would never make any more doing the same or similar job to any worker anywhere else in the world.
The part you don't get is that it is in the American worker's interest to have that too. When we can get goods or services for less, then that means those companies make more money, which they distribute to stock holders, put into new projects, etc. They compete better with foreign companies (who are doing the same). Consumers then buy other things. Economic efficiency benefits everyone because the country is richer. But what you can't do is chain yourself to a job. You need to take the responsibility to go where the jobs are. If today's liberals had been around 100 years ago we'd still have blacksmiths. And no, we would not have more jobs because of that. It's ironic that the people who call themselves "liberals" have the most reactionary fear of change.
 
Private Sector issues should be between them and their Employers. Taxpayers shouldn't be involved with that at all. GM and the Corporate fatcat Banks should not have been bailed out with Taxpayer cash. So only the American Taxpayer "sacrificed" there. That was just wrong. But for the most part it's the Public Sector Unions who constantly coerce Government to raise taxes to enrich themselves and the Democratic Party. So people are right to be much more concerned with them. It directly affects them. The Taxpayers always pay when the Public Unions start screeching about more benefits & cash. So the Private Sector can sacrifice all they want,but it's still the Public Sector Unions who are bleeding the Taxpayers. They need to be run out of town.
 
The private sector workers need to take a 20% cut in pay and benefits to help corporations to stimulate the economy and be able to hire more workers to boost the GDP, and lower unemployment costs and associated taxes. It is no secret we are falling behind, and everybody ought to be able to give a little to help America. The only other way to do this is raise taxes and give corporations subsidies to hire workers, which will cost more to manage through the government.

A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute (pdf) concluded that private workers are making more than public workers. According to the executive summary of the study, "Comparisons controlling for education, experience, organizational size, gender, race, ethnicity, citizenship, and disability reveal that public employees of state and local governments earn less than comparable private sector employees. On an annual basis, full-time state and local employee government employees in Michigan are undercompensated by approximately 5.3% compared with similar private sector workers."

Meanwhile, the group Citizens for Accountability in Reform notes on its site that the study is the fourth in the last three years to challenge the perception that public workers are somehow over-compensated.


http://accountabilityinreform.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/epicompstudyfinal.pdf

union public sector workers pay nothing toward pensions and little if any towards health care. when they retire they will receive full benefits until they die and no longer leach off the non union tax payer. I am self employed and pay full whack for my health care. the kids are on the wife's insurance and she pays $700 a month towards that as well as taxes so the pensions of folks who provide an inferior product or service can ride the gravy train with biscuit wheels. So they have sacrificed what now ?
I guess you'd have to (actually) know one o' those folks who "ride the gravy train with biscuit wheels" to get your question answered. Whatta concept, huh??

:rolleyes:

Additionally....I'm assuming (much like your assumptions about those "gravy train" riders)....no one twisted your arm to be self-employed. That was your choice. You chose the option o' having the freedom (involved) with being self-employed, over working for someone-else. I guess you'll have to pony-up some lobbyist-bucks, to improve your situation. Those others (you criticize) decided to collectively-bargain, instead.

Now that you've identified those people who've made your life more-difficult (ignoring the fact you chose your present-situation)....you feel any better????

:eusa_eh:

*



My life is far from difficult. Even with my work being slow, I am able to feed me and my sons archery and fishing addiction, put my all my kids in private school ware real teachers work, and if they dont produce they kick rocks, pay my rent, put gas in three vehicles, buy my own food pay the utility and still manage to save a buck or two. I also dont have to advertise for my services, I get all my work from referrals from one home owner to the rest because unlike those in unions I provide a superior service to what my competition (illegal aliens) could ever provide. Now lets look at the public sector unions and the quality of the services they provide, Oh yeah, there is no quality because they cant be fired for being lazy free loaders. Even the unions who build cars cant get it right. The Unions are nothing more then bloated leeches that need to (and will be) dealt with. I will say it again, no union product or service will ever match the quality or service provided by the private sector non union workers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Right believes that if something can be produced for 30 cents an hour labor somewhere in the world,

that's where it should be produced, without regard to American labor interests. Unless of course it can be produced for 20 cents an hour somewhere.

Borders, nations, national interests are all irrelevant to the Right. Capitalism and the efficiencies that best express the principles of Capitalism have to be global, unfettered by nationalist limitations. Conservative capitalists are the true globalists. Capitalism is internationalism.

In the perfect Conservative Capitalist world, all else being equal, an American worker would never make any more doing the same or similar job to any worker anywhere else in the world.
The part you don't get is that it is in the American worker's interest to have that too. When we can get goods or services for less, then that means those companies make more money, which they distribute to stock holders, put into new projects, etc. They compete better with foreign companies (who are doing the same). Consumers then buy other things. Economic efficiency benefits everyone because the country is richer. But what you can't do is chain yourself to a job. You need to take the responsibility to go where the jobs are. If today's liberals had been around 100 years ago we'd still have blacksmiths. And no, we would not have more jobs because of that. It's ironic that the people who call themselves "liberals" have the most reactionary fear of change.

That seems like the cold hard facts for the workers of America. Take pay cuts so your corporation can compete globally and make a profit for stock holders. Even though you can buy less, the corporation can make more globally which helps it expand and hire more American workers, which lowers taxes with less unemployed or welfare cases working.
 
Private Sector issues should be between them and their Employers. Taxpayers shouldn't be involved with that at all. GM and the Corporate fatcat Banks should not have been bailed out with Taxpayer cash. So only the American Taxpayer "sacrificed" there. That was just wrong. But for the most part it's the Public Sector Unions who constantly coerce Government to raise taxes to enrich themselves and the Democratic Party. So people are right to be much more concerned with them. It directly affects them. The Taxpayers always pay when the Public Unions start screeching about more benefits & cash. So the Private Sector can sacrifice all they want,but it's still the Public Sector Unions who are bleeding the Taxpayers. They need to be run out of town.

When was the last time the Public union employees negotiated with the government for more? Seems to me, this was done at the inception of the union, decades ago....have their benefits really improved since then? Probably not. the prices for their benefits like health insurance, has gone UP UP UP, but this is not the unions doing such, it is the Insurance companies doing such....?
 
The Right believes that if something can be produced for 30 cents an hour labor somewhere in the world,

that's where it should be produced, without regard to American labor interests. Unless of course it can be produced for 20 cents an hour somewhere.

Borders, nations, national interests are all irrelevant to the Right. Capitalism and the efficiencies that best express the principles of Capitalism have to be global, unfettered by nationalist limitations. Conservative capitalists are the true globalists. Capitalism is internationalism.

In the perfect Conservative Capitalist world, all else being equal, an American worker would never make any more doing the same or similar job to any worker anywhere else in the world.


Another Leftist who pronouces what the "Right" believes. Wrong again, but please feel free to stew in your misconceptions.

Rather than living in a world where you oppose the fantasy that you think others hold, why not apply your beliefs to the actual situation around and then explain how that will solve the problem?

What is the solution of the Left? Is there one that works? Please enlighten us with your wisdom. The Leftist Congress had 4 years to make it work and successfully moved us from under 5% to over 10% unemployment. The Prez has had more than two years to solve the problem and has successfully made it worse.

If you have the answer based in the philosophy of the Left, you might want to state it clearly and succinctly so that your bretheran might follow your lead.

Hold forth!

If you can demonstrate that the consensus on the Right supports any restrictions on the movement of capital to the cheapest source of labor and to the movement of the product of that labor into the U.S. market,

by all means let's hear it.


You go first. It doesn't seem right to answer a request from me with a request of me.

I asked what the solution of the Leftists is to correct the economy. If they have a solution and are not employing it, that's pretty close to treason. The Democrat controlled Congress had 4 years to make things better and they presided over the most complete economic collapse in modern times.

If they do not have a solution and all they can do is complain that the other has no solution, that's pretty close to reality. Or is it?

What is the solution of the Left, based on the rhetoric and ideas of the Left, to solve the economic problems of the USA and why has it not been implemented? If it has been implemented and did not work, can you say Failed Stimulus, then why do they continue to cling to that ideology?

Inquiring minds want to know.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top