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

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.

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?

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

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"