A blonde calls her boyfriend and says, 'Please come over here and help
me. I have a killer jigsaw puzzle, and I can't figure out how to get
started.'

Her boyfriend asks, 'What is it supposed to be when it's finished?'

The blonde says, 'According to the picture on the box, it's a
rooster.'

Her boyfriend decides to go over and help with the puzzle.

She lets him in and shows him where she has the puzzle spread all
over the table.

He studies the pieces for a moment, then looks at the box, then turns
to her and says,

'First of all, no matter what we do, we're not going to be able to
assemble these pieces into anything resembling a rooster.'

He takes her hand and says, 'Second, I want you to relax. Let's have
a nice cup of tea, and then ...' he said with a deep
sigh, . .. . .. .. .




(scroll down)




















'Let's put all the Corn Flakes back in the box.'

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:46:17 -0600, Vic Smith wrote:

George W. Bush to the rescue.
Who da thunk it?
BTW, though I said earlier I think Corker is sensible, I'm reserving
final judgement until more facts are available.

--Vic

I'm not so sure. From my reading, the UAW was willing to accept pay
parity with the foreign manufacturers. The problem was defining parity,
and the timing of when to accept it. To me, it looks like union
busting. If you take retirement benefits out, they are close to parity
now.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/po.../blog/2008/12/
uaws_superhigh_pay_a_myth.html

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:00:44 -0600, wrote:

I'm not so sure. From my reading, the UAW was willing to accept pay
parity with the foreign manufacturers. The problem was defining parity,
and the timing of when to accept it. To me, it looks like union
busting. If you take retirement benefits out, they are close to parity
now.

They wanted parity after the expiration of their current contract
which runs out in 2011.

I heard the whole UAW press conference this morning - prevarication
ruled the day for them. According to the UAW, it's all the
Republicans fault - it took a reporter to point out to him that the
bailout would have passed if three more Democrats had voted for it.

Another fallacy is this whole bit about labor being 10% of the total
cost per car.

That is total bull****.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:00:44 -0600, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:46:17 -0600, Vic Smith wrote:

George W. Bush to the rescue.
Who da thunk it?
BTW, though I said earlier I think Corker is sensible, I'm reserving
final judgement until more facts are available.

--Vic

I'm not so sure. From my reading, the UAW was willing to accept pay
parity with the foreign manufacturers. The problem was defining parity,
and the timing of when to accept it. To me, it looks like union
busting. If you take retirement benefits out, they are close to parity
now.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/po.../blog/2008/12/
uaws_superhigh_pay_a_myth.html

I don't know if that guy knows what he's talking about.
I've heard entirely different figures, and I've also heard that
retirement costs have been or soon will be split off from GM's books.
BTW, Corker has explicitly said he wasn't asking for "parity,"
and the union chief gave the impression that he views Corker
differently than the Republican caucus.
The timing issue really doesn't add up to much in the big picture,
and that it should stall things makes me suspect Corker's motives.
The complexities or restructuring are great, and I really think Corker
has a more objective picture than anyone about the details, but is
subject to the political pressures of the Rep caucus, whatever his
common sense tells him. He's pretty impressive.
I'd like to see him one-on-one with Gettelfinger, who also is
impressive. When I was UAW the answer to all this would be
"**** you. Shut the God damn place down."
Still might turn out that way.

--Vic

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:00:44 -0600, wrote:

I'm not so sure. From my reading, the UAW was willing to accept pay
parity with the foreign manufacturers. The problem was defining parity,
and the timing of when to accept it. To me, it looks like union
busting. If you take retirement benefits out, they are close to parity
now.

They wanted parity after the expiration of their current contract
which runs out in 2011.

I heard the whole UAW press conference this morning - prevarication
ruled the day for them. According to the UAW, it's all the
Republicans fault - it took a reporter to point out to him that the
bailout would have passed if three more Democrats had voted for it.

Another fallacy is this whole bit about labor being 10% of the total
cost per car.

That is total bull****.


WEll, that's a careful, fact-filled analysis.
Wait, I'm sure you'll find some crap on a right-wing site to help you out.

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:00:44 -0600, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:46:17 -0600, Vic Smith wrote:

George W. Bush to the rescue.
Who da thunk it?
BTW, though I said earlier I think Corker is sensible, I'm reserving
final judgement until more facts are available.

--Vic
I'm not so sure. From my reading, the UAW was willing to accept pay
parity with the foreign manufacturers. The problem was defining parity,
and the timing of when to accept it. To me, it looks like union
busting. If you take retirement benefits out, they are close to parity
now.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/po.../blog/2008/12/
uaws_superhigh_pay_a_myth.html

I don't know if that guy knows what he's talking about.
I've heard entirely different figures, and I've also heard that
retirement costs have been or soon will be split off from GM's books.
BTW, Corker has explicitly said he wasn't asking for "parity,"
and the union chief gave the impression that he views Corker
differently than the Republican caucus.
The timing issue really doesn't add up to much in the big picture,
and that it should stall things makes me suspect Corker's motives.
The complexities or restructuring are great, and I really think Corker
has a more objective picture than anyone about the details, but is
subject to the political pressures of the Rep caucus, whatever his
common sense tells him. He's pretty impressive.
I'd like to see him one-on-one with Gettelfinger, who also is
impressive. When I was UAW the answer to all this would be
"**** you. Shut the God damn place down."
Still might turn out that way.

--Vic


Or maybe the auto company execs will do what their precedessors
do...shoot the employees.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:36:21 -0600, Vic Smith wrote:

He's pretty impressive.

He's had some ethical lapses. Seems they don't know how to make a bind
trust in Tennessee. Then there was the sale of some wetlands.

http://www.citizensforethics.org/taxonomy/term/773

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Corker#Controversy

Boater wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:00:44 -0600, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:46:17 -0600, Vic Smith wrote:

George W. Bush to the rescue.
Who da thunk it?
BTW, though I said earlier I think Corker is sensible, I'm reserving
final judgement until more facts are available.

--Vic
I'm not so sure. From my reading, the UAW was willing to accept pay
parity with the foreign manufacturers. The problem was defining
parity, and the timing of when to accept it. To me, it looks like
union busting. If you take retirement benefits out, they are close
to parity now.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/po.../blog/2008/12/
uaws_superhigh_pay_a_myth.html

I don't know if that guy knows what he's talking about.
I've heard entirely different figures, and I've also heard that
retirement costs have been or soon will be split off from GM's books.
BTW, Corker has explicitly said he wasn't asking for "parity,"
and the union chief gave the impression that he views Corker
differently than the Republican caucus.
The timing issue really doesn't add up to much in the big picture,
and that it should stall things makes me suspect Corker's motives.
The complexities or restructuring are great, and I really think Corker
has a more objective picture than anyone about the details, but is
subject to the political pressures of the Rep caucus, whatever his
common sense tells him. He's pretty impressive.
I'd like to see him one-on-one with Gettelfinger, who also is
impressive. When I was UAW the answer to all this would be
"**** you. Shut the God damn place down."
Still might turn out that way.

--Vic


Or maybe the auto company execs will do what their precedessors
do...shoot the employees.

How many employees do you have to shoot before the rest of them fall in
line?

wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:36:21 -0600, Vic Smith wrote:

He's pretty impressive.

He's had some ethical lapses. Seems they don't know how to make a bind
trust in Tennessee. Then there was the sale of some wetlands.

http://www.citizensforethics.org/taxonomy/term/773

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Corker#Controversy

Look at Alexander, Rarity Club, TVA, and a lot more, Western N C,
Montana, Cumberland Plateau, Bowaters, etc Little Cedar Mountain. A lot
of what was, on the net, has "disappeared"

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...

Another fallacy is this whole bit about labor being 10% of the total
cost per car.

That is total bull****.


I've been watching this. It's a creative way of accounting for costs. And
it's not *pay*. It's burdened labor rates, which determine cost.

If you listen to jerks like Olbermann, you'd think, (in fact he *said* this
the other night) that in order to obtain parity with Toyota, Honda, etc.,
the UAW workers would need a pay *increase*.

Then he goes on to inform everybody that the *real* UAW labor rate is about
28-30 something bucks per hour *when* you substract all the contractual
benefit costs. He's an idiot. He should have stayed with color
commentary of baseball games.

Eisboch