wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:19:04 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


Speaking of competition, it looks like the UAW won last night. They get
to keep their high salaries. They won't have to accept the drivel given
to the employees at Toyota and Honda.

Of course, that's only for the next few weeks.

They must be Yale graduates also.
Well duh...

That's the dumbest F'n decision, I think I've seen in my life. McConnell
must like Russian Roulette. After already giving $350 billion to Wall
Street to keep the markets afloat, he's unwilling to spend $14 billion.
That's one month's spending in Iraq.

If I'm not mistaken, there will be a bloodbath on Wall Street today.
Republicans sure know how to instill confidence in the economy.

One of the first steps any company needs to insure it's long term
viability is that it's cost structure is competitive. Since labor is
about 10% of the cost of the car, it makes sense for labor to agree to a
competitive salary to keep their jobs for the long term. It looks to me
that the UAW and the Senate are not playing Russian Roulette, it is more
like "Chicken" in a auto, to see who will swerve.

Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:19:04 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


Speaking of competition, it looks like the UAW won last night. They get
to keep their high salaries. They won't have to accept the drivel given
to the employees at Toyota and Honda.

Of course, that's only for the next few weeks.

They must be Yale graduates also.
Well duh...

That's the dumbest F'n decision, I think I've seen in my life.
McConnell must like Russian Roulette. After already giving $350
billion to Wall Street to keep the markets afloat, he's unwilling to
spend $14 billion. That's one month's spending in Iraq.
If I'm not mistaken, there will be a bloodbath on Wall Street today.
Republicans sure know how to instill confidence in the economy.

One of the first steps any company needs to insure it's long term
viability is that it's cost structure is competitive. Since labor is
about 10% of the cost of the car, it makes sense for labor to agree to a
competitive salary to keep their jobs for the long term. It looks to me
that the UAW and the Senate are not playing Russian Roulette, it is more
like "Chicken" in a auto, to see who will swerve.



The southern Republicans in the Senate who turned down the deal did so
to protect the future sales of the foreign-owned car manufacturers on
their turf. It was patently obvious that they feel the failure of the
American automakers will increase marketshare for the plants in their
states.

On Dec 12, 10:54*am, Boater wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:





wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:19:04 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

Speaking of competition, it looks like the UAW won last night. They get
to keep their high salaries. They won't have to accept the drivel given
to the employees at Toyota and Honda.

Of course, that's only for the next few weeks.

They must be Yale graduates also.
Well duh...

That's the dumbest F'n decision, I think I've seen in my life. *
McConnell must like Russian Roulette. *After already giving $350
billion to Wall Street to keep the markets afloat, he's unwilling to
spend $14 billion. *That's one month's spending in Iraq.
If I'm not mistaken, there will be a bloodbath on Wall Street today. *
Republicans sure know how to instill confidence in the economy.

One of the first steps any company needs to insure it's long term
viability is that it's cost structure is competitive. *Since labor is
about 10% of the cost of the car, it makes sense for labor to agree to a
competitive salary to keep their jobs for the long term. *It looks to me
that the UAW and the Senate are not playing Russian Roulette, it is more
like "Chicken" in a auto, to see who will swerve.

The southern Republicans in the Senate who turned down the deal did so
to protect the future sales of the foreign-owned car manufacturers on
their turf. It was patently obvious that they feel the failure of the
American automakers will increase marketshare for the plants in their
states.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't suppose that given the chance, the northern Democrats in the
Senate would try to protect their interests, no would they?

On Dec 12, 11:16*am, wrote:
On Dec 12, 10:54*am, Boater wrote:





Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:19:04 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

Speaking of competition, it looks like the UAW won last night. They get
to keep their high salaries. They won't have to accept the drivel given
to the employees at Toyota and Honda.

Of course, that's only for the next few weeks.

They must be Yale graduates also.
Well duh...

That's the dumbest F'n decision, I think I've seen in my life. *
McConnell must like Russian Roulette. *After already giving $350
billion to Wall Street to keep the markets afloat, he's unwilling to
spend $14 billion. *That's one month's spending in Iraq.
If I'm not mistaken, there will be a bloodbath on Wall Street today. *
Republicans sure know how to instill confidence in the economy.

One of the first steps any company needs to insure it's long term
viability is that it's cost structure is competitive. *Since labor is
about 10% of the cost of the car, it makes sense for labor to agree to a
competitive salary to keep their jobs for the long term. *It looks to me
that the UAW and the Senate are not playing Russian Roulette, it is more
like "Chicken" in a auto, to see who will swerve.

The southern Republicans in the Senate who turned down the deal did so
to protect the future sales of the foreign-owned car manufacturers on
their turf. It was patently obvious that they feel the failure of the
American automakers will increase marketshare for the plants in their
states.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't suppose that given the chance, the northern Democrats in the
Senate would try to protect their interests, no would they?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Only the ones North of the Equator! They do well at lockstep,
reguardless of the concequences. Remember they bragging about being
"the do nothing congress". Funny, they didn't run on that last time
around..

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:16:55 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Dec 12, 10:54*am, Boater wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:





wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:19:04 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

Speaking of competition, it looks like the UAW won last night. They get
to keep their high salaries. They won't have to accept the drivel given
to the employees at Toyota and Honda.

Of course, that's only for the next few weeks.

They must be Yale graduates also.
Well duh...

That's the dumbest F'n decision, I think I've seen in my life. *
McConnell must like Russian Roulette. *After already giving $350
billion to Wall Street to keep the markets afloat, he's unwilling to
spend $14 billion. *That's one month's spending in Iraq.
If I'm not mistaken, there will be a bloodbath on Wall Street today. *
Republicans sure know how to instill confidence in the economy.

One of the first steps any company needs to insure it's long term
viability is that it's cost structure is competitive. *Since labor is
about 10% of the cost of the car, it makes sense for labor to agree to a
competitive salary to keep their jobs for the long term. *It looks to me
that the UAW and the Senate are not playing Russian Roulette, it is more
like "Chicken" in a auto, to see who will swerve.

The southern Republicans in the Senate who turned down the deal did so
to protect the future sales of the foreign-owned car manufacturers on
their turf. It was patently obvious that they feel the failure of the
American automakers will increase marketshare for the plants in their
states.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't suppose that given the chance, the northern Democrats in the
Senate would try to protect their interests, no would they?

Not a bad point, Loog.
--
John

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:45:04 -0500, Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:


One of the first steps any company needs to insure it's long term
viability is that it's cost structure is competitive. Since labor is
about 10% of the cost of the car, it makes sense for labor to agree to a
competitive salary to keep their jobs for the long term. It looks to me
that the UAW and the Senate are not playing Russian Roulette, it is more
like "Chicken" in a auto, to see who will swerve.

Of course labor has to be part of any long term solution, but it's quite
interesting that Corker wanted to concentrate on labor's 10% and forget
about the other 90%. Regardless, when this economy is in such perilous
condition, letting GM and Chrysler go out of business, is quite counter-
productive. As I have said before, under normal circumstances, if the
economy was healthy, I would agree to let GM take it's chances with
bankruptcy.

As it stands, both GM and Chrysler, have hired bankruptcy lawyers. I
don't think the next several years are going to be pretty.

wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:45:04 -0500, Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:


One of the first steps any company needs to insure it's long term
viability is that it's cost structure is competitive. Since labor is
about 10% of the cost of the car, it makes sense for labor to agree to a
competitive salary to keep their jobs for the long term. It looks to me
that the UAW and the Senate are not playing Russian Roulette, it is more
like "Chicken" in a auto, to see who will swerve.

Of course labor has to be part of any long term solution, but it's quite
interesting that Corker wanted to concentrate on labor's 10% and forget
about the other 90%. Regardless, when this economy is in such perilous
condition, letting GM and Chrysler go out of business, is quite counter-
productive. As I have said before, under normal circumstances, if the
economy was healthy, I would agree to let GM take it's chances with
bankruptcy.

As it stands, both GM and Chrysler, have hired bankruptcy lawyers. I
don't think the next several years are going to be pretty.


The Republicans wanted the UAW to engage in substantial pay package
givebacks in either 2009 or 2010, and apparently factored in the costs s
of the total absorbed payroll, too, which includes the retirees. There's
really not much difference between the hourly rates of the current
represented employees and the exploited employees of ForeignAutoMakersSouth.

I wonder if the Repubs want the unionized workers to give up health care
benefits, too?

On Dec 12, 11:24*am, Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:45:04 -0500, Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:

One of the first steps any company needs to insure it's long term
viability is that it's cost structure is competitive. *Since labor is
about 10% of the cost of the car, it makes sense for labor to agree to a
competitive salary to keep their jobs for the long term. *It looks to me
that the UAW and the Senate are not playing Russian Roulette, it is more
like "Chicken" in a auto, to see who will swerve.

Of course labor has to be part of any long term solution, but it's quite
interesting that Corker wanted to concentrate on labor's 10% and forget
about the other 90%. *Regardless, when this economy is in such perilous
condition, letting GM and Chrysler go out of business, is quite counter-
productive. *As I have said before, under normal circumstances, if the
economy was healthy, I would agree to let GM take it's chances with
bankruptcy.

As it stands, both GM and Chrysler, have hired Man, bankruptcy lawyers. I
don't think the next several years are going to be pretty.

The Republicans wanted the UAW to engage in substantial pay package
givebacks in either 2009 or 2010, and apparently factored in the costs s
of the total absorbed payroll, too, which includes the retirees. There's
really not much difference between the hourly rates of the current
represented employees and the exploited employees of ForeignAutoMakersSouth.

I wonder if the Repubs want the unionized workers to give up health care
benefits, too?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Man, did you get a transcript of the union rep's news conference,
cause you are chiming exactly the same sour grapes bull**** as he
threw up? Word for word... Who'd a thunk? The Unions refused any
reasonable concessions, just crying and fudging the numbers.

On Dec 12, 11:40*am, wrote:
On Dec 12, 11:24*am, Boater wrote:





wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:45:04 -0500, Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:

One of the first steps any company needs to insure it's long term
viability is that it's cost structure is competitive. *Since labor is
about 10% of the cost of the car, it makes sense for labor to agree to a
competitive salary to keep their jobs for the long term. *It looks to me
that the UAW and the Senate are not playing Russian Roulette, it is more
like "Chicken" in a auto, to see who will swerve.

Of course labor has to be part of any long term solution, but it's quite
interesting that Corker wanted to concentrate on labor's 10% and forget
about the other 90%. *Regardless, when this economy is in such perilous
condition, letting GM and Chrysler go out of business, is quite counter-
productive. *As I have said before, under normal circumstances, if the
economy was healthy, I would agree to let GM take it's chances with
bankruptcy.

As it stands, both GM and Chrysler, have hired Man, bankruptcy lawyers. I
don't think the next several years are going to be pretty.

The Republicans wanted the UAW to engage in substantial pay package
givebacks in either 2009 or 2010, and apparently factored in the costs s
of the total absorbed payroll, too, which includes the retirees. There's
really not much difference between the hourly rates of the current
represented employees and the exploited employees of ForeignAutoMakersSouth.

I wonder if the Repubs want the unionized workers to give up health care
benefits, too?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Man, did you get a transcript of the union rep's news conference,
cause you are chiming exactly the same sour grapes bull**** as he
threw up? Word for word... *Who'd a thunk? The Unions refused any
reasonable concessions, just crying and fudging the numbers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He googled it. It's all he has in his pathetic life.

On Dec 12, 12:48*pm, wrote:
On Dec 12, 11:40*am, wrote:





On Dec 12, 11:24*am, Boater wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:45:04 -0500, Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:

One of the first steps any company needs to insure it's long term
viability is that it's cost structure is competitive. *Since labor is
about 10% of the cost of the car, it makes sense for labor to agree to a
competitive salary to keep their jobs for the long term. *It looks to me
that the UAW and the Senate are not playing Russian Roulette, it is more
like "Chicken" in a auto, to see who will swerve.

Of course labor has to be part of any long term solution, but it's quite
interesting that Corker wanted to concentrate on labor's 10% and forget
about the other 90%. *Regardless, when this economy is in such perilous
condition, letting GM and Chrysler go out of business, is quite counter-
productive. *As I have said before, under normal circumstances, if the
economy was healthy, I would agree to let GM take it's chances with
bankruptcy.

As it stands, both GM and Chrysler, have hired Man, bankruptcy lawyers. I
don't think the next several years are going to be pretty.

The Republicans wanted the UAW to engage in substantial pay package
givebacks in either 2009 or 2010, and apparently factored in the costs s
of the total absorbed payroll, too, which includes the retirees. There's
really not much difference between the hourly rates of the current
represented employees and the exploited employees of ForeignAutoMakersSouth.

I wonder if the Repubs want the unionized workers to give up health care
benefits, too?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Man, did you get a transcript of the union rep's news conference,
cause you are chiming exactly the same sour grapes bull**** as he
threw up? Word for word... *Who'd a thunk? The Unions refused any
reasonable concessions, just crying and fudging the numbers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He googled it. It's all he has in his pathetic life.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Goes to show you, having everything handed to you and stealing the
rest from hard working folks ain't all it's cracked up to be...