Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Brassmask

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 174
46
3DHS / Re: Angry Iraqi Throws Shoe at Bush
« on: December 14, 2008, 05:26:43 PM »
Gotta say I had a lot of feelings about that when I saw the video online a little while ago.

It's kind of a childish thing for a guy to do.  Throwing something at a US president can get a somebody shot.

Then, there was a second of "WTF? Who does that Iraqi guy think he is throwing something at a US president?" but that was short-lived.

Then there's the idea that that sort is a good expression of how Iraqis should feel.

I think what I'm going to wind up taking away from this is really two things though.

First, I have to admit that I'm VERY impressed that Bush A) had the wherewithal and reflexes to totally duck both shoes and B) that he didn't hit the deck like a total wuss, screaming like a little girl.  That second point I find most surprising.

The Second point, very concerning, is that the guy was able to get one shoe off and throw it right at Bush in the first place; then, scariest of all, is that he was able to get a second shoe off and throw it as well before any secret service was even close to him.

47
3DHS / Re: Is he right?
« on: December 12, 2008, 08:09:02 PM »
But this is what I was really thinking about.

http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20080317/005259.html

UAW locals resisting new GM wage deal

Plant level union leaders say automaker pushing through more second-tier jobs than contract allows.

Sharon Terlep The Detroit News Monday, March 17, 2008

Some of General Motors Corp.'s local unions are pushing back against the automaker's plan to implement lower-wage jobs at its factories, a key part of GM's new labor deal with the United Auto Workers union.

At least three UAW local leaders have sent out notices to their members in recent weeks accusing GM of trying to push through more second-tier jobs than the company and union agreed to under the national contract, and several say those talks have been a point of contention in local contract talks.

GM's labor deal with the UAW, signed more than five months ago, allows the automaker to usher out senior workers with retirement incentives and replace many of those veterans with new hires who will be paid the lower wage.

GM will begin officially rolling out retirement offers today and expects workers to be gone by July 1.

But before the shift can happen, GM and UAW locals that represent dozens of plants across the country must agree on which factory jobs will command an hourly rate about half the current wage of $28 an hour. Under the national contract, lower wages will go to workers not directly involved in building an automobile.

The agreement laid out general job descriptions for the lower-tier workers and rough numbers -- negotiating the specifics is up to each factory.

"It's bound to be a contentious issue because there are large financial stakes for the company and the workers involved," said labor expert Harley Shaiken of the University of California-Berkeley. "There are conflicts and suspicions at the local level. It's not a permanent roadblock, it just requires negotiation."

GM and the UAW almost certainly will manage to hammer out deals on two-tier wages, union leaders and industry watchers say.

But, for now, the snags are preventing the automaker and its union locals from putting in place virtually any local contracts, most of which expired in September.

The lack of agreement on wages likely wouldn't cause major problems until later this summer, when GM will need to bring in new employees to fill spots vacated by workers who took retirement incentives or buyout offers.

GM went into the 2007 contract talks determined to get its labor costs more in line with leaner foreign-based rivals such as Toyota Motor Corp.

Most of the savings generated from the deal won't begin until 2010 when a union-run, company-funded trust will take over responsibility for GM's massive retiree health care tab. The second-tier jobs are a more immediate cost-cutting measure for the automaker. The UAW also stands to benefit because the new hires will mean additional members for the union's waning ranks.

Under the labor deal, GM and the union agreed to reclassify about 16,000 jobs as "noncore" automotive work that would command the lower wage. The union and company agreed that those noncore jobs will include work such as moving material, managing chemicals and working in the paint shop.

Setting an exact number Through much of February, teams of representatives from the company and union visited each of GM's factories to better understand the nature of each job.

Now the hard work remains of setting a number of core and noncore jobs at each plant.

In one online posting to members, Dwayne Humphries, a UAW Local 276 shop chairman who represents workers in Arlington, Texas, said the local contract called for 296 jobs at the factories to be designated as noncore. The company, he said, is looking to designate more than 400 jobs as noncore.

"We have taken exceptions to some of the assessments and number of jobs that they recommend to be marked as 'Non-Core,' " Humphries wrote in his message late last month. "The shop committee is working diligently to convince Management and the International UAW that some of the jobs that they are recommending be 'Non-Core' be removed from that list."

Local 5960 shop chairman Mike Dunn, representing workers at GM's Orion plant, wrote in a posting to members that GM would like to have about 580 noncore jobs at the plant, while local leaders think something like 300 is a more fair number.

"There was a set number for each location," as part of the national contract, said Pat Sweeney, president of the Orion local. "And, for every one of them, the number got raised. That's what's being talked about now."

Some say figure is fair

Not all locals are upset by the two-tier issue. Several local presidents have said GM presented them with a fair figure for the lower-wage jobs.

"We're actually going to have less than we thought," said George McGregor, president of UAW Local 22 in Hamtramck.

GM spokesman Dan Flores declined to comment on details of the local talks.

"GM and the UAW continue to work together to implement the national contract," he said.

Ford Motor Co. took a different approach to implementing two-tier wages, which also were a part of its labor deal with the UAW.

Ford and the union agreed 20 percent of workers eventually will be assigned lower wages, rather than creating two different job categories.

48
3DHS / Re: Is he right?
« on: December 12, 2008, 08:03:29 PM »
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,461607,00.html

UAW Makes Concessions in Bid to Help Automakers

Thursday , December 04, 2008

AP
ADVERTISEMENT

DETROIT —
Worried about their jobs and warned that the cost of failure could be a depression, hundreds of leaders of the United Auto Workers voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to make concessions to the struggling Detroit Three, including all but ending a much-derided program that let laid-off workers collect up to 95 percent of their salaries.

"Everybody has to give a little bit," said Rich Bennett, an official for Local 122 in Twinsburg, Ohio, representing Chrysler workers. "We've made concessions. We really feel we're doing our part."

Union leaders also agreed to let the cash-starved automakers delay billions of dollars in payments to a union-administered trust set to take over health care for blue-collar retirees starting in 2010.

In addition, they decided to let the Detroit leadership begin renegotiating elements of landmark contracts signed with the automakers last year, a move that could lead to wage concessions.

The vote came on the eve of congressional hearings on as much as $34 billion in loans that General Motors and Chrysler say are critical to their survival. Ford has said it may be able to hang on through 2009 without additional credit.

Democratic congressional leaders say they want to act to prevent one or more of the automakers from collapsing, but they have made no commitments to approve an unpopular bailout at a time of economic peril.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said a Democratic plan to tap the Wall Street rescue fund to save U.S. automakers does not have the votes to pass.

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said the union must help persuade Congress to offer the loans or risk destroying what he said is the country's economic spine.

"Let's look at the backbone and the millions of jobs lost if we lost this industry," he said.

Earlier in the day, Chrysler Vice Chairman Jim Press went a step further, warning of a depression if even one automaker runs out of cash.

"We're on the brink with the U.S. auto manufacturing industry," Press told The Associated Press in an interview. "If we have a catastrophic failure of one of these car companies, in this tender environment for the economy, it's a huge blow. It could trigger a depression."

Both Chrysler LLC and General Motors Corp. are so perilously low on cash that the companies may not be able to pay all their bills by the end of the year. GM wants a total of $18 billion in loans. Chrysler is seeking $7 billion, and both manufacturers say they need cash this month.

Ford Motor Co., which borrowed billions before credit markets tightened, says it can survive through 2009 and may not need to tap the $9 billion credit line it requested.

As a further sign of the companies' dire straits, Moody's Investors Service on Wednesday downgraded its ratings for GM and Chrysler, sending them further into non-investment, or "junk," status. Moody's affirmed its ratings for Ford, but said the outlook for the three automakers is "negative," implying further downgrades are possible.

Sent home empty-handed last month, executives from all three companies knocked on doors on Capitol Hill and made television appearances Wednesday, hoping the detailed plans they submitted Tuesday would convince hostile lawmakers to help. CEOs from all three, plus Gettelfinger, will appear before Senate and House committees Thursday and Friday.

Fritz Henderson, GM's president and chief operating officer, stressed on NBC's "Today" show that bankruptcy isn't a viable option.

Choosing bankruptcy, he said, would further erode consumer confidence in the automaker and "we want them to be confident in their ability to buy our cars and trucks."

All three executives took hybrid cars from Detroit to Washington after enduring harsh criticism last month for using corporate jets for the trip.

The automakers' plans were being scrutinized by legislators, the White House and the Treasury and Commerce departments.

"It sounds to me like the companies have given this a lot of thought and are willing to make some tough decisions," White House press secretary Dana Perino said. "We just need a little more time to pore through the documents."

President-elect Barack Obama said it appeared that the CEOs were returning to Congress with a "more serious set of plans" for how their companies are going to survive.

The plans painted the most dire portrait yet of the industry's woes — including the prospect of shuttered factories and massive job losses if Congress does not act quickly.

The much-derided "jobs bank" that permits laid-off workers to receive most of their pay was created in the mid-1980s as a trade-off to the UAW for increased factory automation. But the system became a symbol for the union's largess when workers were paid for years after their factories closed.

Gettelfinger said the union will suspend the bank, but he did not give specifics or a timetable.

"We're going to sit down and work out the mechanics," Gettelfinger said. "We're a little unclear on some of the issues."

Members of Congress criticized the automakers last month for paying laid-off workers, saying it's one reason why their labor costs are higher than competitors. About 3,500 workers from all three companies are now in the jobs bank.

Until the 2007 contract, workers could stay in the jobs bank indefinitely, but the new pact imposes time limits. Workers in the bank must report to local union halls. Sometimes they do charity work, but other times they do nothing.

Gettelfinger stopped short of saying the union would reopen its contracts but said it would return to the bargaining table to change some terms. Modifications would have to be ratified by members.

Delaying the health care trust payments will help the companies survive their cash shortages, which they say were brought on by the severe economic downturn and the worst U.S. sales in more than a quarter century.

The delay will have to be approved by federal courts, which already have blessed the trusts' formation.

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she hopes Congress acts to help the automakers. Reid said he would advance a bill Monday in preparation for a possible auto bailout vote later in the week.

The automakers, humbled by criticism from their last visit, gave lengthy plans with minute details about how they plan to repay the government money.

Ford CEO Alan Mulally and GM CEO Rick Wagoner both said they would work for $1 a year if their firms took any government loan money. Chrysler chief Robert Nardelli already works for $1 a year.

Per the UAW's constitution, Gettelfinger receives an annual salary of about $145,000 per year, plus insurance, retirement and other benefits.

Ford offered to cancel management bonuses and salaried employees' merit raises next year, and GM said it would slash top executives' pay. Ford and GM both said they would sell their corporate aircraft.

Nevertheless, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, said the mood in Congress "is not supportive" of the automakers, although he called the consequences of just one of them failing "cataclysmic."

49
3DHS / Re: Is he right?
« on: December 12, 2008, 05:32:40 PM »
The unions held fast to renegotiating in 2011.

The GOP wanted 2009.

Seems like 2010 should be the year.



It is my understanding that the unions have taken pay cuts already.

50
3DHS / Re: ......What does the left consider
« on: December 12, 2008, 05:31:41 PM »
Who are you going to believe?  Your own cartoonish, 24-inspired world of hateful people who will kill you no matter what or interrogators who do it day in/day out and GET RESULTS?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Alexander
Try using your head for something other than a hat rack.


Couldn't answer the question, could ya.  And knute-lite insult to boot.  Gotta love the consistency at least

Didn't check the link at all, did you?  How about Plane's link?  Anything?  Beuller?  Beuller?

51
3DHS / Re: ......What does the left consider
« on: December 12, 2008, 05:13:43 PM »
so.......your answer to my question is........... ???.................form trustful relationships with some terrorists that were caught killing American soldiers or blowing up schools??  This is done, how again?

And the hypothetical terrorist attack that's going to hit us in 3 weeks, this "buidling of a trustful relationship" will be up and running in that matter of time, right?


That all sort of blows your mind, doesn't it?  That people talking to the netherworldly horrors that you have envisioned as "terrorists" could be talked into giving up their info.  It's true though and it works.

Where?.....when?.....how long??  You saying it, and it happening in some form of definative time neceesary for the info to be beneficial, are 2 entirely different scenarios.


If your neighbor is playing loud music at night when you have to be at work at 6 am, ....

Ridiculous comparison, since my neighbor isn't a terrorist, nor do I want information from him.  If I want him to stop, I ask him to stop, then I call the police if he doesn't.  Can you get back on topic, please?

You claim that we need to form trustful relationships with some terrorists that were caught killing American soldiers or blowing up schools.  This is done, how again?

And the hypothetical terrorist attack that's going to hit us in 3 weeks, this "buidling of a trustful relationship" will be up and running in that matter of time.  Is that what you're claiming?  And that would be based on.................?



Who are you going to believe?  Your own cartoonish, 24-inspired world of hateful people who will kill you no matter what or interrogators who do it day in/day out and GET RESULTS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Alexander

Try using your head for something other than a hat rack.

52
3DHS / Re: ......What does the left consider
« on: December 12, 2008, 04:50:31 PM »
so.......your answer to my question is........... ???.................form trustful relationships with some terrorists that were caught killing American soldiers or blowing up schools??

This is done, how again?

And the hypothetical terrorist attack that's going to hit us in 3 weeks, this "buidling of a trustful relationship" will be up and running in that matter of time, right?

That all sort of blows your mind, doesn't it?  That people talking to the netherworldly horrors that you have envisioned as "terrorists" could be talked into giving up their info.

It's true though and it works.

If your neighbor is playing loud music at night when you have to be at work at 6 am, screaming out the window at them only makes them turn it up louder.  Going over as you see them coming and going in the next couple of days and mentioning that you have to be at work at 6am and that music sure is loud and you'd appreciate it if some arrangement could be made so they can listen to their music and you could get your beauty z's is much better and gets results 100 times faster.

53
3DHS / Re: ......What does the left consider
« on: December 12, 2008, 04:00:22 PM »
There is a new book out, as I'm sure you know, where an interrogator (using the pseudonym Matthew Alexander) spells out how torture is worthless for getting valid info.  He details how he and his team formed trustful relationships with detainees and it led to the capture of Zarquawi.  (I think that's who it was.)

Torture only works on "24", sirs. 

54
3DHS / Re: Republicans should filibuster the auto bailout
« on: December 12, 2008, 02:57:15 PM »
What is, Brass?  Where's your condemnation of Congress for not bailing out EVERY failing/struggling business??  Doesn't Home Depot have more employees than the big 3??  Oh that's right, not high in Union employment.  The pattern thus emerges

You're making yet another assumption about me and I'm damned sick of it.

It is my position that unions have abused their power in the past but that is not a reason to forever condemn and outlaw the concept of unionizing.

How can someone like myself who has spent hours and hours theorizing on how to initiate an RBE be against bailouts in toto?  Answer:  I can't.

I think that WALMART WORKERS in the US should unionize and get a bigger piece of the WALMART pie.  I might actually start shopping there if they did.

BT is right.  If we don't bail these morons out (with heavy ropes, not strings attached) we are going to see another perhaps even worse Depression.

America has been pushing around paper for almost 30 years now and it's all coming crashing down now.   The best thing we can do, as a nation (if that matters), is start off with a rousing rendition of Khumbaya followed closely by a fullthroated chorus version of Canned Heat's Let's Work Together.

55
3DHS / Re: Republicans should filibuster the auto bailout
« on: December 12, 2008, 02:25:05 PM »
We'll get through it. This is America. We have made the best of challenges before. We've already lost 1.2 million jobs over the past quarter. We will get through this. But we can't bail out the big three just because they are large and provide many jobs. What about the local mom and pop hardware store down the road forced to close up because of tough economic times? Where's their bailout money? They don't have millions to spend on lobbyists. Everybody is hurting right now. Sucking the government teat is not the answer.

Inflexible and intractable.

56
3DHS / Re: Is he right?
« on: December 12, 2008, 02:23:33 PM »
The GOP seems incapable of introspection.  The GOP seems to believe that any form of self-awareness or even theoretical self-doubt (even just for double-checking themselves) is a form of weakness.  It seems to me the GOP (or perhaps those who run it and have the most face time) has assumed a number of inflexible positions for so long and the Dems have allowed those GOP positions to be the starting points for dialogue for so long, those NOW running the GOP think that if they take inflexible positions that they will always get what they want.

And since the auto bailout failed, I think that is true.

For years, I've said that Pelosi and Reid are worthless and have to spines.  Now, those two are waking up to hearing the base talking about replacing them in the next elections.

Back to the GOP though, while there are those of us on the left here who will immediately jump on any GOP negative and trying going for the jugular every time, there are also those of here, who, of late, have at least ATTEMPTED to upgrade our questions or have declined to crow over GOP failures while trying to find out what consensus can be found between the left and the right.

There has been little success there but old habits die hard.

If the GOP should have learned anything from the last election it is that the nation is very tired of the politics of strategy and division.  They are also very tired of politicians with ideological goals like union-busting.

57
3DHS / Re: Covering (Up) Obama
« on: December 11, 2008, 09:14:53 PM »
And not so surprisingly, both Knute & Brass miss the mark, when it was LISTENING/HEARING to any stories (i.e. MSM news sources one watches and HEARS, such as CNN, MSNBC, Any of the evening news programs by the big 3.....etc., etc., etc.), that I was referring to.

Uh, you are aware, aren't you, that Chris Matthews in ON MSNBC, right?

Yea.....and?  That takes up 1 finger, and likely was a slip of the tongue that 1 time


Example of how Sirs-World® works.

Sirs presents a point of view.

Someone else presents EVIDENCE THAT REFUTES SIRS' POINT OF VIEW.

Sirs only sees evidence that refutes sirs' point of view*.




* "evidence" is probably false and/or does not refute sirs' point of view.

58
3DHS / Re: Covering (Up) Obama
« on: December 11, 2008, 07:05:44 PM »
I just hope it blows over.


60
3DHS / Re: Covering (Up) Obama
« on: December 11, 2008, 06:58:36 PM »
And not so surprisingly, both Knute & Brass miss the mark, when it was LISTENING/HEARING to any stories (i.e. MSM news sources one watches and HEARS, such as CNN, MSNBC, Any of the evening news programs by the big 3.....etc., etc., etc.), that I was referring to.

Yea, that was easy

Uh, you are aware, aren't you, that Chris Matthews in ON MSNBC, right?

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 174