Thank you. I’m proud of you, really am. I appreciate you blocking the bailout bid this time around. Who knows if it may re-appear and get approved later on down the line but for now; Ya done good.
This is what got me though:
negotiators worked late into Thursday evening to broker a deal, but deadlocked over Republican demands for steep cuts in pay and benefits by the United Automobile Workers union in 2009.
So greed and a stubborn will have now essentially in the doomsday scenerio you painted, cost you and your employees / union workers their jobs… Congrats UAW, congrats.
FULL STORY:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/business/12auto.html?hp
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday night abandoned efforts to fashion a government rescue of the American automobile industry, as Senate Republicans refused to support a bill endorsed by the White House and Congressional Democrats….
19 responses so far ↓
Jessica in NYC // December 12, 2008 at UTC1631 |
Have you lost your marbles?
I will reserve my thank-yous until they actually come up with ideas on how to turn this economy around and create jobs and not just pose for media pictures and feed journalist catchy sound bites. I find the double standards of how blue collar workers vs white collar workers are treated reprehensible. It’s is completely misleading that UAW employees earn $79/hour according to one Senator’s account. The workers earn about $3 more than foreign car manufactures with plants in the US pay their employees. How dare the senators not have oversight or regulate how wall street uses our tax payer dollar–which we still do NOT have an account for how much of the money was spent or will be used! But now the politicians have the gull to scrutinize every penny for American car manufactures?
As I sated on the BBC WHYS blog, how can the US elected officials elect to save white collar jobs, but send the blue collar workers to the unemployment line and expect the economy to improve?
Brett // December 12, 2008 at UTC4531 |
how can the US elected officials elect to save white collar jobs, but send the blue collar workers to the unemployment line and expect the economy to improve?
Oh tisk tisk tisk Jessica, the US elected officials didn’t send blue collar workers to the unemployment line (at least in this isntance), it was the idiot CEOs and others within the corporation who ran their companies without foresight and in an utterly crappy and greedy fashion… For the shareholders… And I’m willing to bet those same poor poor blue collar workers, although mislead by their superiors, benefited from the booms seen in past times within their companies in some way or another. You win some, you lose some, you can’t always come out on top.
If my company went out of business, I wouldn’t protest and petition the US government and blame them for my job loss because ‘they didn’t help’… I’d turn first to those in charge of the corporation.
Jessica in NYC // December 12, 2008 at UTC3831 |
Furthermore, Brett, how dare you imply this the fault of union leaders and detract the blame where it belongs? The greedy car executives and CEOs who fail to innovate and produce a quality product that was not based on just making profit high enough to line the pockets of board members and shareholders are the only ones to blame. Unions exist to protect blue collar worker from the greedy companies that makes millions off of them, but fail to compensate it’s workers accordingly. If union collapse, watch discrimination run ramped against older employees. Why pay an older employee $30 an hour when you can pay a kid $10?
For the record, I do not think we should have bailed out wall street or the car manufactures. Now, it’s too late. Politicians gave away nearly a trillion tax payer dollars to banks whose leaders have proven to be bad businessmen incapable of regulating themselves.
Did you see this BBC article: $50bn fraud charge at hedge fund /7779442.stm?
Brett // December 12, 2008 at UTC1131 |
Jessica,
I’m assuming you wrote that last comment before you read my response to you:
Oh tisk tisk tisk Jessica, the US elected officials didn’t send blue collar workers to the unemployment line (at least in this isntance), it was the idiot CEOs and others within the corporation who ran their companies without foresight and in an utterly crappy and greedy fashion…
?
I didn’t blame UAW for the entire problem, but, if the UAW and/or auto manufacturers are going to claim that without a bailout the companies WILL fail and everyone WILL lose their jobs, then doesn’t it only make sense to accept a wage cut, take what you can and deal with it?
Jessica in NYC // December 12, 2008 at UTC5031 |
We agree that is it not tax payers’ responsibility to bail “them” out. My problem is who the government decides to help and who not to help. So, don’t thank politicians (much less GOP) for doing the job they are paid to do. Especially the politicians in question are only looking for for their future bank accounts. Don’t forget they already flushed a trillion dollars of our tax payer dollars away.
Brett // December 12, 2008 at UTC4131 |
My problem is who the government decides to help and who not to help.
I have the same problem you do… So why allow it to continue down the same ‘wrong way’ path?
Where does it end and where do we stop?
Jessica in NYC // December 12, 2008 at UTC1131 |
The fundamental concept that makes this run is that we operate in a capitalist society whose sole purpose is to make an all mighty dollar. Greed will always be paramount way of doing business. Workers do not hold the power to save their jobs. Taking a pay cut now will NOT save anyone’s job long term and when a company’s bottom line is based on making a profit pockets that satisfy the executives. Companies in the US do not operate on what is best for the people, its workers or the economy. People taking pay cuts will NOT do anything for the local economy, if people make less they will spend less. An economy can only grow up especially in service industries where goods are produced. Either way someone is out of a job, whether it’s a car worker or a wait staff at the worker’s local lunch place or after work pubs. Basic Economics 101–the trickle down effect of less spending the whole county suffers.
Brett // December 12, 2008 at UTC2231 |
Taking a pay cut now will NOT save anyone’s job long term and when a company’s bottom line is based on making a profit pockets that satisfy the executives.
Agreed. Financially it will not. But when the pay cut is a determining factor in the decision on the deal to issue a bailout, the paycuts will save peoples jobs (again, assuming the doomsday ‘auto industry will end if we dont get money now’ scenerio that the industry has painted).
And agreed, paycuts are not the optimum solution, I was not advocating that they were.
Jessica in NYC // December 12, 2008 at UTC0031 |
“So why allow it to continue down the same ‘wrong way’ path? Where does it end and where do we stop?”
There is not an easy answer. We, ‘the people’ have not been given all the facts. They are still unfolding. As I said above, we should not have bailed out wall street or the three car manufactures. However, I am suspicious of a government who is willing to fork over nearly trillion dollars of tax payer money to wall street exec based their three page proposal, but make companies that employ blue collar workers beg and gravel. it seems to me that politicians are looking out for their best interest. How else do you explain the government bailing out wall street when the majority of public opinion was against it? The majority of public supports a car bail out, but the Senate is blocking it? I sure hope Obama’s team is intelligent enough to “fix” the problems in our capitalist way of doing business. Our banking system and business need to be regulated when they have the ability to throw the economy in a recession.
Jessica in NYC // December 12, 2008 at UTC0431 |
“But when the pay cut is a determining factor in the decision on the deal to issue a bailout, the paycuts will save peoples jobs (again, assuming the doomsday ‘auto industry will end if we dont get money now’ scenerio that the industry has painted).”
Brett, The skeptical side of me that does not trust greedy CEOs and I questions their motives for painting this doomsday scenario. I think if they are threaten to cut jobs, the choice has been made. They are just looking to blame the govt for their business mismanagement. If they get the money, they will say “it was too late, we still have to cut jobs” or “it’s not enough” or “we need more else we’ll have to cut jobs”. I will not distribute the blame and say the workers should take a pay cut, or the union is at fault or anything else. My point is jobs will be lost, with or without workers taking a pay cut, our economy is already suffering, and it is getting worst.
[btw, yes, I had not read your comment at e4531 when I posted my e4531 comment.]
Brett // December 12, 2008 at UTC1331 |
However, I am suspicious of a government who is willing to fork over nearly trillion dollars of tax payer money to wall street exec based their three page proposal, but make companies that employ blue collar workers beg and gravel. it seems to me that politicians are looking out for their best interest. How else do you explain the government bailing out wall street when the majority of public opinion was against it? The majority of public supports a car bail out, but the Senate is blocking it
Oh I agree with you 100% on that.
If they get the money, they will say “it was too late, we still have to cut jobs” or “it’s not enough” or “we need more else we’ll have to cut jobs”.
Exactly, and when they do fail (not if, but when) they will blame the government for not acting quickly enough (as if they have the best track record of quick action); And those in the government who supported the bailout will use it as cannon fodder against those who didn’t support it and claim “see, if only you would have listened, they would have survived! (even though that is clearly not the case)”.
It’s going to be a long-waged war and a hotly debated topic for some time to come. And no matter what the outcome its going to be used and beat into the ground for anyones political agenda who it benefits.
“See, I supported it in 2008 and look what happened”
or “I didn’t support it in 2008 and look what happened”.
It’s the CEO’s/CFO’s/etc faults, its the CEO’s/CFO’s/etc faults, they should be the first to take pay cuts, they should be the first to pay for their actions, decisions, or lacktherof.
Not just one person at the tippy top saying “oh, Im going to give up $1 million in bonuses this year” when they make $20 million, but everyone above the lowest paid worker.
Jessica in NYC // December 12, 2008 at UTC1931 |
Agreed!
Even though, I am against both bail outs, I can’t swallow bailing out the wall street but not the ‘big 3′ . I hate that this is a battle of the “classes” and it seems blue working class people will always be the “fall guy”.
Jessica in NYC // December 12, 2008 at UTC0931 |
I honestly think republicans are just trying to break up the unions by withholding the bailout and blame the union. IMO, they will eventually fork over the money. Like you said this will be a bunch line in the next election. Is maybe it should be even: “We were wrong to bailout wall street and the big 3″…?
Brett // December 15, 2008 at UTC4131 |
With the big 3 seemingly destined to fail whether they are bailed out or not, I wish the house would piss money away on me. Heck they could give it all to me… I’d put it straight back to into the economy… (well some of it
)
Profit?
Jessica in NYC // December 15, 2008 at UTC5631 |
Bottom line, the banks and the “Big 3″ SHOULD have been left to work this out. In a capitalist society government has no role managing or adding more bureaucracy to businesses, however, government MUST reinstate check and balances to ensure the safe guard the people from an unregulated financial industry. Wall Street should have NEVER been able to recklessly gamble with our money.
At the end of the day there is a bigger issue at hand in my eyes. It is evident that politicians value workers differently in regards to their class. We acknowledge discrimination in regards to race, religion, gender and sexual orientation as a fact of reality. We have to laws to safe guard us from these forms of discrimination. The ugly truth that the Big 3 has revealed is that the unemployment of blue collar workers is dispensable and that of while collar workers is not. We spent nearly a trillion dollars saving the financial industry, but won’t spend a tenth of that money saving the jobs of blue collar workers.
Jessica in NYC // December 15, 2008 at UTC1431 |
In a free society that is a fundamental corner stone of the democracy we advocate to the rest of the world, people should be valued equally. When will we acknowledge that white collar people get preferential treatment to that of blue collar workers. We bailed out Wall Street, we should bail out the Big 3 ONCE with MANY conditions, including that they innovate and make energy efficient cars.
Not to belabor the issue, but our government representatives went against the majority of the people’s wishes in bailing out Wall Street, a white collar industry. Therefore, must deal with the Big 3 and I am not comfortable with our government openly discriminating against car manufactures that employ blue collar workers.
(Maybe we should call ‘em tiny 3? LOL, bad joke.) I’m officially done ranting. Thanks for indulging my ThoughtsFromNYC on your blog.
Brett // December 15, 2008 at UTC4331 |
We bailed out Wall Street, we should bail out the Big 3 ONCE with MANY conditions, including that they innovate and make energy efficient cars.
Oh but they are! They’re so green now!!! Haven’t you seen the commercials?! No doubt in a ploy to gain public support for their companies… I had to sit through what seemed like a 2-3 minute Chevy commercial the other night with what used to be the GM marketing manager for Egypt or some crap and how GM is such an amazing and innovative company and how they strive to minimize waste in all aspects (ppssshhhh lol) and how amazing their cars and company and fuel efficiency is and is becoming.
Amazing… in 1 week theyre suddenly an eco-friendly, well run company lol.
Oh yes, and as an aside, I agree with your rant
Nice work lol
Pink // December 23, 2008 at UTC0431 |
Brett, it is the principle of the thing. Maybe a cut in pay and benefits woudl not hurt UAW members. Maybe it would. However, it is not up to COngress to decide that – not unless we are suddenly living in a Communist world where the government determines our wages. What next, some government hag will show up at my doorstep to inform me that my baby gets taken away next year to train as a gymnast? For all that those Republican freaks claim to hate Communism, they sure do lap it up if it means busting the Union.
And that is precisely what they were trying to do. Shelby and his ilk do not mind the auto industry. In fact, Shelby wholeeartedly supported foreign auto companies and lobbed millions of dollars of money at them from Congressional coffers to convince them to set up plant in Alabama. What Shelby hates is the union. God forbid that we should have something standing between us and the slippery slope leading to $2.50/hr wages sans benefits as is the norm in Mexico! Horror of horrors that a proud, hard-working American should hope to have a guarantee of being able to own a home, eat healthy, send his kids to college and retire!
What we do not realise is that not only do we have working conditions that are sometimes teneable as a result of the blood, sweat, and tears of unionists before us, but that our unions are fighting tooth and nail to preserve the American dream for us, only to be clonked on the head by some idiot Republicans who want to play chicken with our auto industry.
May Shelby, Corker, and their ilk rot in Hell.
Pink // December 23, 2008 at UTC4331 |
I want to add that the Senate Republicans threw out a perfectly fine chance to force our auto companies to operate responsibly and in an environmentally friendly manner. Bush’s TARP tap is less constrictive on the Big Three than the House legislation. Idiots.