We need Tom Tupa Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 President Obama sought to further distance himself from his predecessor on Friday as he announced steps that he said would strengthen organized labor... At a White House ceremony, the president signed three executive orders that he said would “reverse many of the policies towards organized labor that we’ve seen these last eight years, policies with which I’ve sharply disagreed.” “I do not view the labor movement as part of the problem,” Mr. Obama said. “To me, it’s part of the solution.” Mr. Obama’s and Mr. Biden’s remarks pleased union leaders. “It’s a new day for workers,” said James P. Hoffa, the Teamsters president, who attended the White House ceremony. “We finally have a White House that is dedicated to working with us..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Vomit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We need Tom Tupa Posted January 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 And now this: The stimulus bill passed by the House last night contains a controversial provision that would mostly bar foreign steel and iron from the infrastructure projects laid out by the $819 billion economic package. A Senate version, yet to be acted upon, goes further, requiring, with few exceptions, that all stimulus-funded projects use only American-made equipment and goods. Proponents of expanding the "Buy American" provisions enacted during the Great Depression, including steel and iron manufacturers and labor unions... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...l?hpid%3D$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Hey lets be fair. At least we'll use Teamsters to load up those jobs we'll be "shipping overseas." Your success via the scorched earth policy has done wonders for the rust belt. Thanks. WSS[/b] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 I dont understand why republicans are anti union? Sure their has been corruption and and some unsavory things that unions have done but no more than any other agency but the main goal of a union is to insure equal rights for working Americans,why the animosity? I don't speak for a party but I say unions are fine. Join up. Go on strike. Demand what you want. If a plant closes tough shit. My problem is when it's written into law that you can't hire someone else to do that job OR work a job without paying a bribe. Understand? wss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 I dont understand why republicans are anti union? ... but the main goal of a union is to insure equal rights for working Americans,why the animosity? Not quite. The main goal of the Unions is to insure the preservation of the Unions. If some equal rights and a $.25 raise every 4 months happens to evolve out of the negotiations, then, "yeay!" I've got a guy in my A&P group that used to work at one of the safest, most productive F150 plant (Norfolk, VA). He wasn't just on the line either, he had operations he was managing. They only manufactured F150's which was part of their demise. Union didn't help him out much, particularly after they "guaranteed" him a job for life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Nice cut and paste Leg. Typical where you cut out the part where are say not all unions are on the up and up. It was the glutony of big business who didn't want to pay a decent wage or health insurance that brought unions to prominence. Ultimately some unions ended up being as corrupt as the businessmen they were fighting against,but that cant be a blanket indictment of all unions and what they were able to accomplish for working men and women in this country. The basic concept of a union I always found to be a good thing,maybe I'm wrong? You have always been wrong Danamal. Stop taking the percoset. It's affecting your judgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 And now this: The stimulus bill passed by the House last night contains a controversial provision that would mostly bar foreign steel and iron from the infrastructure projects laid out by the $819 billion economic package. A Senate version, yet to be acted upon, goes further, requiring, with few exceptions, that all stimulus-funded projects use only American-made equipment and goods. Proponents of expanding the "Buy American" provisions enacted during the Great Depression, including steel and iron manufacturers and labor unions... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...l?hpid%3D$ Damn - Dan Drezner's been warning that national stimulus could lead directly into protectionism. He may be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We need Tom Tupa Posted February 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Yeah, it's the kind of charge I've been hoping was hyperbole, but these arent baby steps anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 The basic concept of a union I always found to be a good thing,maybe im wrong? The concept was fine. Good, even. The result, for the most part, is corrupt as shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Unions, in the early days, saved workers from being unfairly treated, unfairly paid, unfairly fired... But, when the workers have a great company with great managment, and they are paid and treated excellently,,, unions now are worthless, expensive, and have no direction, other than self-serving quibbling, in the name of trying desperately to legitimize their continued existence. Ask 3 or 4 older union guys. You are apt to get an honest answer that the union, when not needed, should just go hide somewhere, and come back when needed. But, no. The dues keep coming, and the $$$$$$$$$ collected ends up making union leaders rich, and providing them with lavish vacation resort trips, and union execs' own 6 million dollar golf coarses, complete with lavish club houses. with the newer generation of workers who came along, the dominant union member protection all too often has given way to sloth, and strikes laughingly called "extended vacations". and production and quality goes out the window, and problems come in the window. Unions have generally outlived most of their usefullness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Ok ,so we can all agree that in the beginning the union fighting for the working man was a good thing. At this point in time when all of our jobs are being outsourced to other countries and everything you buy at walmart comes from China shouldnt we start all over again and begin to build our economy back up by our own sweat? When these frickin ceo's show up for blank checks from the government in their private jets do they really care about their hourly employees? Yet that's merely bad PR. Personally (though I have reservations about shitcanning a legal contract) I'd tell anyone who wants a piece of the bailout pie needs to dump the outrageous bonuses or go pound salt. (unfortunately it will be wasted on pork) The money would be meaningless BUT the PR would inspire consumer confidence. But to the union.... How much should you pay semi skilled workers in the real world? How many that bitch own foreign goods? And lets say we just outlaw foreign cars. How long before the quality drops and price skyrockets for a Chevy? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Nice cut and paste Leg. Typical where you cut out the part where are say not all unions are on the up and up. It was the glutony of big buisness who didnt want to pay a decent wage or health insurance that brought unions to prominence. Ultimately some unions ended up being as corrupt as the buisnessmen they were fighting against,but that cant be a blanket indictment of all unions and what they were able to accomplish for working men and women in this country. The basic concept of a union I always found to be a good thing,maybe im wrong? Happy? I was addressing one part of your statement, which is why I removed the other part and added "..." as per typical grammatical stylings. If I wanted to, I could have removed the phrase from your original post if I somehow needed to make you seem even less informed. But I didn't. It's still in plain view for all to see. Don't be a paranoid-douche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 I am not a big fan of Unions and think they are a large reason for our manufacturing demise. I know Tupa does not like "protectionist" policies but this story is a little bit out of context for one main reason. We are allocating possible DEFICIT FUNDS, or borrowing against value and money that does not exist. If we in fact are borrowing againt the deficit I would rather those hypothetical funds benefit domestic (after all is this not a DOMESTIC STIMULAS package) business. This is not a protectionist trade act, this just insures this loan we are making to ourselves mainly benefits OURSELVES not canadien steel or any other foreign nation the most. We are not borrowing against their currencies we are borrowing against our own to help jump start our system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We need Tom Tupa Posted February 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 President Obama has issued an executive order that permits federal agencies to require union labor for work on federal contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 President Obama has issued an executive order that permits federal agencies to require union labor for work on federal contracts. I'm sure that's the most cost effective and "beneficial to the unemployed masses" way to go. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We need Tom Tupa Posted February 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 I'm sure that's the most cost effective and "beneficial to the unemployed masses" way to go. WSS I liked this headline for the story: "Executive Order Discriminates Against 84 Percent of the Construction Workforce" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.