It was not the Democrats, but the Republicans who defeated the bail-out bill.

 

What the Republicans demanded was that the unionized auto-workers' pay be slashed.  This was not demanded of the executives and this was not demanded of the workers in the finance industry.

The Republicans are anti-middleclass and won't stop until they turn us into a third world country with the majority of people being impoverished working class slave and a small wealthy ruling elite.

Harriet,

 

 

Part of that is because we Conservative Democrats are hammaring our Republican representatives to oppose all bills that fail to bring the union pay in competition with that of Toyota and Honda.

 

If the Nanny Staters responded by agreeing if the executives did the same, I bet we will have a bill that will pass.

 

Curm

What the senate Republicans, and a few Dims wanted was those excessive and/or unnecessary business expenses that contribute nothing to the manufacture, distribution, or sales process like excessive unemployment supplements equaling 90% of the workers pre lay-off salary; thousands of feather-bedding employees who still show-up to draw full pay and benefits without any contribution to the company whatsoever, and retirement pay that nearly equals the worker's pay before retirement - making his combined SS and retirement income more than he earned before retirement.     Retire to higher pay?      I'd like some of that!

 

Managers offered to work for $1.00 a year until their companies became stable.

Harriet, you miss the point, the dems had the votes to pass the bill but they didn't want to. The four no votes added to the four who didn't vote would have carried the bill. Four of the major players in the Democratic leadership voted no or didn't vote at all. They didn't want the bill to pass, plain and simple. They would rather have the Repubs look like the bad guys so they could be the "knights in shining armor" to the "working people" no matter how bad that would be for everyone. Without concessions from the unions the companies will be in the same position no matter how much money they are given and will continue to come to the trough of government to feed. Unless the pay scales are brought in line with the companies with whom they compete they will continue to lose money, it's simple economics.

What the Dems should do is put the condition of passing the Employee Free Choice Act as part of the conditions so those foreign car makers who've taken advantage of the anti-worker laws in the south will be unionized, bringing wages and benefits up. This raises all boats instead of continuing the race to the bottom, which is what the Republicans really want.

 

Opar, managers have not offered to work for a dollar a year. The CEO's said they would take a dollar a year as their wage but wages are only a very small fraction of what their compensation package is for a year. They aren't offering anything.

There is no free choice in the "Employee Free Choice Act". It is an excuse for union bullying and intimidation and takes away the right to vote by secret ballot. You want higher prices on everything we consume? Go ahead and keep promoting unions. Any way you look at it higher wages cause inflation. It is the Dems who want everyone on the bottom so they can continue to get their vote through false promises and pandering. As someone said on another thread, "If poor people are the ones who elect Democrats, what is their incentive to make them rich?"

D2,

 

 

LOL!  The DC switchboard continues to be shut down as millions of Americans call with their passionate opposition to any and all Bailouts for any entity!  No Nanny Stater wants to be held accountable for the inflation or tax attacks such a travesty against Americans represents!

 

Have you not received this by e-mail?

 

And we need to tell the President in no uncertain terms that it’s his turn to stand strong—just as you have all along.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

Here is the President’s comments telephone number, as well as his email address: <o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

• 202-456-1111<o:p></o:p>
• [email protected]<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

Every single call or email counts. So, please make your voice heard now -- loud and clear.<o:p></o:p>

 

Curm

Here's what I put in my email to them:

 

I believe that companies need to survive or fall based upon their own merits with no government interference. If a company needs money to reorganize because they are failing, then they are going to fail again. If they cannot see their failure coming, then they are not good businessmen to start with. Companies must be able to project to the future and have and idea of what's coming and prepare for it. To bailout companies when they fail does a great disservice to those who are smart enough to use sound business practices and prepare for whatever may arise.

Without the Employee Free Choice Act, employers have been free to intimidate workers, including firing them for trying to organize. There are no real laws and penalties to prevent them from doing so.Even when workers are successful in organizing, employers are refusing to come to an agreement on the first contract which ends up taking the workers right to form a union away. This is all done without a secret ballot. With the Employee Free Choice Act, these laws and penalties are strengthened and the workers still vote on whether or not they want a union by either signing a card or not signing one.

 

That's the difference between CONservatives and PROgressives. Cons use negativity and deceit in their arguements to lower wages and living standards for working people, so the wealthy can exploit and control them. Pros come up with inovative ideas to bring up wages and living standards of working people which raises everyones' boats, because everyone has more spending money and free time to pursue their own interests in their lives.

In case you forget, the jobs belong to the employers and not the workers. The employers build the business through investment of their own money or that of stockholders. Without employers there are no jobs. There are always workers, there are not always employers especially if the business cannot be profitable.

 

As far as "voting" by signing a card or not, it is a lot harder to not sign a card when you have a couple of thugs pushing it in your face than it is to sign it and place it in a ballot box. Suppose we did away with the secret ballot in other elections, how would you feel about that?

You have to remember that employers need those jobs filled or they lose their money, which they make off of the work of the workers. Without working people there are no employers. Besides, all people have the right to have decent lives and not kept impoverished and controled by the wealthy few. As FDR said, True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.

 

As far as voting without a secret ballot, I would be for it. That way some voting machine which is owned by some conservative can't change my vote. It would keep people honest.

 

Also wages don't drive inflation, its the other way around. Wages haven't even kept pace with inflation. High inflation in the 70's and just recently was driven by OPEC and speculation which drove up energy costs and other commodities. Before there were any labor laws in this country the economy saw many periods of high inflation.

 

There will never be total employment so there will always be workers and not the other way around. Without employers there are no jobs, plain and simple.

 

Explain to me why during periods of high inflation there is also high unemployment and not the other way around?