On Dec 13, 9:54*pm, D K wrote:
Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:59:58 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

A Chapter 11 filing does not, in itself, reorganize a company and
certainly is *not* a means for "getting people to do the same things,
only cheaper". All it does is protects the company from involuntary
bankrupcy by putting the vendor bill collectors, banks and lawsuits at
bay while an effort is made to reorganize and satisfy current finanical
obligations via negotiation. *While protected in Chapter 11 *a plan is
developed to reorganize, refinance, and re-negotiate existing (and in
GM's case - obsolete) *contracts. * Overseen by a bankruptcy court, the
plan, agreed to by all concerned parties is generated and when
implimentated, the company emerges from Chapter 11. *If a plan cannot be
produced that is approved by all concerned parties, the company usually
goes belly up in Chapter 7.

Sure, but the end result is "getting people to do the same thing, only
cheaper". * Let me ask you something, does the bankruptcy court take
into consideration America's interests? * Under normal circumstances,
I would readily agree GM should go Chapter 11, but these are not
normal circumstances. *We are in recession, and it's looking like it
could be a severe one. *Personally, I don't think we can afford to let
GM go into bankruptcy at this time.

Barney Frank's bill limits the ability to truly reorganize the auto
companies. *It's simply throwing money into the same sink hole.
Six-eight months from now they'll be back, needing more survival money.

The auto industry's contracts and historical ways of doing business need
a complete overhauling in order to be a viable, competitive entity in
today's global markets. * Chapter 11 reorganization, prepackaged with a
government bridge loan to keep the beast breathing during the process,
makes sense to me.

You know, we have already spent $350 billion to bail out the *******s
that caused this mess. *We've let them keep their millions in bonuses,
but we're quibbling about spending 1/10 of that to save an industry
that provides 1-3 million jobs. *I don't get it. *And, I would point
out, it was the incompetence of Wall Street that brought Detroit's
troubles into crisis.
Obama's already talking about major infrastructure spending with the
intent of creating jobs. *It seems to me, saving GM's jobs, might in
the long run, be cheaper.

You don't get it? It's easy. The Republicans have great disdain for
working people, especially working people represented by unions. Working
people, after all, are nothing more than property, to be used up and
discarded.

I was opposed to the Wall Street-banker bailout, but not the auto bailout.

Why do employees need the added cost of "representation"? *That money
could go into their pockets, not to a litany of people who profit from
other people's work. *"Joe Six Pack" certainly doesn't need Jerry
Maguire to represent them.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The lazy ones who won't work need the representation. If you work too
hard the union gets on your case. It is in their interest to have
lot's of extra hands around to pay the dues.. Usually it's some excuse
like, "we might get busy so we need to have extra hands around". The
town here wanted to hire a couple of more guys for the street crew so
they slowed down to a crawl last year doing the fall leaves. I was
there when they were all sitting around joking about it. They got
their guys over the summer and low and behold, they were able to make
the schedual this year.. Now what to do with those guys the rest of
the year? I used to work for the town years ago, I had between 1.5 to
two hours work a day and was told directly to make it last all day...