Sorry, no featured properties currently.
Oh, they make it sound like such a crime.
February 9, 2009 at 2:34 p.m.
Baboo, my father works at General Motors. Are you calling him a poor slob? Where did you get the right to insinuate such nonsense? Was it at college? Because I go to college, and I never learned such an ignorant sentiment. I also work full time doing grunt labor, and I have no healthcare or benefits or pension despite the re-occuring lung infections I get from the poor air quality. Fortunately, I get enough coverage from my father's plan that I can afford to go to the hospital if I had to. He still pays monthly on that plan, too. What's all the talk about great benefits?
If everything is so great there, then why weren't you smart enough to get hired? How did you graduate college? Or maybe you were just like the rest of us who go to college to aviod working in a factory. The fact is, you simply couldn't handle a job like that. We both went to college to avoid the rigors of physical labor. The difference is, I'm smart enough to recognize that, and you, well...
February 4, 2009 at 6:21 p.m.
If GM workers have it so easy, then why doesn't everyone work there? How much would they have to pay you to work at a place like that?
They get paid well because the job is dangerous and health-hazerdous. But they don't even get paid well anymore. Fourteen dollars an hour??? Of course the workers, or the "real Americans" as the anti-union Sarah Palin put it, had to take the pay cuts. What about the executives?
Hillbilly is right in the respect that all wages across the board need to be cut if they are in such dire need of money. But really, they should start at the top.
It's not the production workers' fault that the executives didn't invest the money into R&D properly. It's not their fault that the executives didn't modernize the plants, so even when they have to start producing new cars, they won't be able to. The actual workers had nothing to do with the major share-holders deciding that the money that they received from the huge corporate tax cuts would better be served lining their pockets, than serving their company.
But all of you people want to take it out on the worker. Let me tell you something. The more money people make, the better it is for the economy. Rick Wagoner won't be buying pizzas from Fernando, but that guy that works in the plant, the one that you are jealous of because he has good benefits, he does buy pizza from Fernando. So you people want to cut that guy's pay, and take a customer away from Fernando?
Here's something else. If you cut the workers' benefits, and they can't afford healthcare, where do you think they'll get it from? The government, perhaps? Guess where that money comes from? It's not from GM; it's from you.
December 1, 2008 at 10:49 p.m.
Andersonathan Why should the UAW be forced to renegotiate their terms? Don't you think the guys who got them into this mess i.e Rick Wagoner, should have to renegotiate his pay? Oh, and the UAW is taking money and investing and hoping for the best, because if GM files for bankruptcy people's pensions will run out in 2011. If the UAW's plan fails, a lot of people are going to be screwed.
November 19, 2008 at 9:17 a.m.
dmets I agree. But we both know there is no way they would do that.
clayor, he doesn't owe them anything. GM lobbyists didn't give him any money. And that money would come out of the $700 billion that congress already approved, so we wouldn't have to see anymore money come out of our pockets. Plus, it's a loan; GM will have to pay it back.
November 18, 2008 at 9:12 a.m.
That probably wan't the best time for me to misuse "your" for "you're."
November 17, 2008 at 11:26 p.m.
YSUgrad, just because you toured the plant once doesn't mean you know everything about it. There are a lot of workers making $29/hour. But there are even more making $17/hour. Let me ask you something? Would you work in a place where in 50 years, you won't be able to walk because of back pain, or bend your knees because of arthritis? What about the high risk of emphysema from inhaling large quantities of dust, smoke, metal flakes, and chemicals? Oh and you have to work that job at a wage that is deemed worthy by someone who has never worked the job, or clearly any production line in his life.
GM signed the contract with the union that guarentees the "high" wages and the health benefits. Why shoulnd't they have to abide by the contract? I'm sure you have a job. Did you sign a contract with your employer? Would you be angry if tomorrow they said, "We're going to cut your wage in half because some guy who graduated from Youngstown State in 1999 thinks you make too much...oh, by the way, I'm giving myself a $450,000 bonus?"
Who do you think should make the concession in that case?
Your a smart guy but you don't know what your talking about here.
November 17, 2008 at 8 p.m.
ysugrad, ldchian is right. If unions become obsolete there will be another worker revolution in 50-100 years. You seem to know your history well, but you haven't learned anything. Didn't you ever hear that timeless quote by George Santayana? "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."Corporations already try their hardest to take advantage of the workers. Example: A few years ago Delphi asked it's workers to take a $10/hour paycut and a benefits cut, and at the same time they gave the CEO $440,000 bonus. Why didn't you bring that up in your history lesson?There's also the less documented cases like, me working in a restaurant for three years without a single raise and no vacation. I worked six days a week for the last year and a half, and I never took a day off. Any compensation for my loyalty? ...The only reason why competative wages exist in non-union jobs is because they don't want the workers to form union. If that threat doesn't exit anymore, the wages will drop. And those good working conditions will suffer.Now, I might not know everything. I only graduated high school in 2007, but I know this: the union is the only thing that protects the workers. The executives couldn't care less about the people and they proved this with Fanny and Freddy, Enron, Delphi and any other company that gave their CEO a huge severance pay after that same CEO ran the company into the ground.
November 17, 2008 at 2:18 p.m.
I meant to say hearing both sides of the story ISN'T the only way to develop an opinion
November 15, 2008 at 9:42 p.m.
YoungstownMom, the issue with Obama looking better on cnn is very complicated. Firstly, the media always favors the winner. They did this in 2000 and 2004. Secoondly, it's hard to say anything bad about Obama because his campaign never made any mistakes. They never got off message; they never changed the message; they never leaked; they never made inflammatory, derogatory remaks about McCain, like calling him a socialist, terrorist, anti-American. The media loves conflict, and there wasn't any conflict when it came to Obama.
Anyone who couldn't see that his campaign was disasterous was only seeing what they wanted to see.
And I don't think that hearing both sides of the story is the only way to properly produce an opinion. If one could possibly objectively listen to both sides of the same story his or her head would explode. This only works for rhetoric, and even then, one's bias is going to ommit what they don't want to hear. I look at the actual facts: the entire quote in the context, the extremely complicated senate bills, and the statistics (although numbers are easily manipulated).
November 15, 2008 at 9:39 p.m.