|
|
Post by diesel on Sept 5, 2012 14:47:22 GMT -5
Are you better off
We haven't had a raise for how long? Another ten years of this and where will we be? Sorry I don't like Obama or his policies. Also really starting to dislike uaw what have they done for us lately? Also many of you know me and don't like me because I am a transfer from Indy. I think you are just jealous because we had a real local union and no team bull. See you on Thursday.
|
|
|
|
Post by ericramman on Sept 5, 2012 15:07:41 GMT -5
diesel, these Louisville folks gone kick your ass...
|
|
|
|
Post by kbrundag on Sept 5, 2012 15:39:44 GMT -5
The answer is... Of course, he's a Democrat. As far as your comments about Indy and your union go, I don't think anyone really gives a damn. You're in Louisville now. Get organized and make the changes you're so desperate for. I'm sure a large number of your local coworkers feel the same way. A little advice... Make your campaign about change and making our local stronger, not about how you did things in Indy, Kansas City or wherever else you came from. We need a strong local here in Louisville, don't alienate yourself because of where you came from because it don't matter and we don't care.
|
|
|
|
Post by beenaround on Sept 5, 2012 16:58:51 GMT -5
Guess what the uaw doesn't care either can't wait until you are a transfer and see how you hillbillies like it. Don't worry ill be there before you maybe then you will understand. Besides the real question is are you better off? Nobama 2012. With at the most,16 years(doubtful though) there are plenty of people ahead of you on rolls at LAP!! |
|
|
|
Post by fordlapworker1993 on Sept 5, 2012 17:19:03 GMT -5
Are you better off We haven't had a raise for how long? Another ten years of this and where will we be? Sorry I don't like Obama or his policies. Also really starting to dislike uaw what have they done for us lately? Also many of you know me and don't like me because I am a transfer from Indy. I think you are just jealous because we had a real local union and no team bull. See you on Thursday. No raise in 10 years.....Obama has only been in office 3 1/2 years....just saying |
|
|
|
Post by diesel on Sept 5, 2012 17:38:02 GMT -5
So are you better off? After only 3 and a half years? Answer the question southern boy
|
|
|
|
Post by JoePieper on Sept 5, 2012 18:20:02 GMT -5
I'll answer the question. NO we are not better off. Period.
|
|
|
|
Post by fordlapworker1993 on Sept 5, 2012 18:54:26 GMT -5
So are you better off? After only 3 and a half years? Answer the question southern boy NO we are not but do you think Mitt is the answer? They both work for wall street so its really a toss up |
|
|
|
Post by lap65 on Sept 5, 2012 18:56:28 GMT -5
Don't know where you work, but LAP is not team concept. We do not have team leaders. People do not rotate 7 different jobs etc. I know we have a lot of people in here from a lot of different places including management who use those terms because it was that way where they came from, I know our plant manager wants it that way, he even had them put team room on the break area's but we are not team concept. If your area is operating in a team concept mode you need to contact someone on the bargaining committee.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackshaft on Sept 5, 2012 19:11:31 GMT -5
If ind did such a great job why didnt indy stay open and you stay there with them just saying
|
|
|
|
Post by crowdogg on Sept 5, 2012 19:17:57 GMT -5
If ind did such a great job why didnt indy stay open and you stay there with them just saying Cuz Ghettofinger isn't from Indy, he's from Louisville, and that's most of the reason why LAP stayed open. |
|
|
|
Post by jackshaft on Sept 5, 2012 19:32:57 GMT -5
Ok he saved lap did he close ind dont think so bad members did that you know the ones that hate
|
|
|
|
Post by tryingtomakeit on Sept 5, 2012 19:35:19 GMT -5
Why do you ask stupid questions? If Hitler was the dem nominee, the uaw would endorse him.
|
|
|
|
Post by crowdogg on Sept 5, 2012 19:39:31 GMT -5
Why do you ask stupid questions? If Hitler was the dem nominee, the uaw would endorse him. Exactly, it doesn't matter who it is as long as they claim Dem. |
|
|
|
Post by TheyCanDoThat on Sept 5, 2012 20:08:00 GMT -5
Are you better off We haven't had a raise for how long? Another ten years of this and where will we be? Sorry I don't like Obama or his policies. Also really starting to dislike uaw what have they done for us lately? Also many of you know me and don't like me because I am a transfer from Indy. I think you are just jealous because we had a real local union and no team bull. See you on Thursday. What the fuck does the president of the USA have to do with Ford giving us a raise?! Ford does what they need to do to stay in business & they could care less what jerks like you think. And I'd bet money that nobody likes you because your such an asshole! Most brothers & sisters @ LAP are fantastic people & could care less where you transferred from. God Bless Ford, God Bless the UAW & God Bless President Obama! |
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on Sept 5, 2012 20:17:04 GMT -5
Moved this to the politics board where it belongs.
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Sept 6, 2012 0:29:41 GMT -5
Party line voting from both parties is a huge part of the problem. Face it, if Romney was running on the Democratic ticket the same people would be praising him and supporting him. Ditto if Obama was running on the opposite side.
People that vote party line, gender, color, looks are really not helping out nation. The collection of clowns in the senate is another issue entirely.
Give me a person or group of people that spend less than the government takes in and I will vote for that person regardless of color, gender or party affiliation.
|
|
|
|
Post by driveshaftgrunt on Sept 6, 2012 10:25:42 GMT -5
My take:
Republican Senators and talking heads argued, PUBLICALLY, that we should lose/degrade our pensions, healthcare, and take a substantial wage cut.
They are one record, almost to a man, that we were the problem, and well, screw us.
The bailout orchestrated by the WH allowed us to keep virtually all we had, when its opponents argued we should be out of a job.
|
|
|
|
Post by hotcarl on Sept 6, 2012 22:21:39 GMT -5
I'd say the people from Indy are way better off today than they were 3 1/2 years ago. Back then they were at a dying plant. Now they are at plant that has a bright future in part due to a Department of Energy low interest loan to retool plants like LAP to build fuel effiecent vehicles that our customers demand. President Obama supports the loans that allowed LAP to thrieve now and in the future be with policies like these. I know that we have many members who have made more money these last couple of years than they ever have. One party hates unions and would love to see their demise and the other one fully supports them. One presidential candidate supported the auto bailout which largely left our pay and benefits intact while the other wanted to see our industry go bankrupt and watch our contracts schredded and let lawmakers, judges and greedy executives rewrite them. I think I'll stick with President Obama and those who believe in our right to organize. Furthermore, to blame a President when it was our own members voting in favor of contracts with no raises and concessions, especially before he took office, shows your intelligence level.
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Sept 7, 2012 0:09:01 GMT -5
I'd say the people from Indy are way better off today than they were 3 1/2 years ago. Back then they were at a dying plant. Now they are at plant that has a bright future in part due to a Department of Energy low interest loan to retool plants like LAP to build fuel effiecent vehicles that our customers demand. President Obama supports the loans that allowed LAP to thrieve now and in the future be with policies like these. I know that we have many members who have made more money these last couple of years than they ever have. One party hates unions and would love to see their demise and the other one fully supports them. One presidential candidate supported the auto bailout which largely left our pay and benefits intact while the other wanted to see our industry go bankrupt and watch our contracts schredded and let lawmakers, judges and greedy executives rewrite them. I think I'll stick with President Obama and those who believe in our right to organize. Furthermore, to blame a President when it was our own members voting in favor of contracts with no raises and concessions, especially before he took office, shows your intelligence level. So you are OK with Obama screwing the GM bond holders? Then there is the small issue of the 25.1 billion loss in GM stock that all the tax payers will eat? Yep, that saved the car industry alright. www.forbes.com/2009/04/09/gm-auto-industry-personal-finance-guru-insight-obama-bankruptcy.htmlAlso the same group that floated the cash for clunkers netted about 42% of American / domestic cars sold or 58% foreign. Money well spent again??? The government should stay out of private sector business and trying to dabble in it. Obama has zero experience to draw from to even make a rookie attempt at it. The losses in the auto industry labeled as a success is laughable. The sad part is we are the ones paying for it. |
|
|
|
Post by hotcarl on Sept 7, 2012 7:40:45 GMT -5
You do not lose money until you sell a stock. If the government was to sell right now, they would lose the $25B. They are not selling right now so thats a moot point. It could be a bigger loss, a smaller loss of even a profit. Only time will tell. For arguement's sake we'll go with your numbers this time. $100B > $25B. Do some research and you'll find that had the government let GM and Chrysler go under, you'll be hard-pressed to find an economist who thought that a bankruptcy would have cost the taxpayers less $100B to conduct. This doesn't take into effect lost tax revenue from hundreds of thousands of lost jobs and the new jobless benefits that would have arose. The bailout was a no brainer. As for Cash for Clunkers, it was actually Ford, GM and Chrysler executives who pushed to allow foriegn brands to be included in the program. They feared that there would be backlash from consumers had they fought to keep them out. I think that they were wrong. It's funny to me how people think that the government should stay out of "private sector business" but don't seem to have a problem with a presidential candidate who says "Corporations are people" and are cool with the billions in bribe money that comes from said lobbyists. As to your questions, in regards to GM's bondholders; nearly everyone in a bankrupty, save the lawyers and select executives of the company, gets screwed including people like us in competing industry. We lost big time in our next contract due to what GM and Chrysler employees had taken from them. Stocks and bonds are a risk and when companies go bankrupt, sometimes you get only pennies on the dollar and sometimes even less.
|
|
|
|
Post by driveshaftgrunt on Sept 7, 2012 7:46:17 GMT -5
Bond holders got screwed. An unstructured bankruptcy would have screwed everybody, especially us. The 25 billion estimated losses in stock for the govt. pale in comparison to the blow to GDP, the public assistance in UI, loss of comsumer spending, houses forclosed on, income tax revenue lost etc. etc. that would have resulted from the kind of bankruptcy that Republicans in the Senate wanted. It was their opportunity to bust the UAW forever, and they were open about it. Made no attempt to hide it. And Obama didn't let that happen. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggvwc5KFYvA |
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Sept 9, 2012 13:51:50 GMT -5
Pure speculation....could have, might have, would have been.
Chrysler was on the ropes how many times now? GM has dropped to around 18% market share??? I suppose the people that think the bail out was a good idea like the way government runs the Postal Service, Amtrack and next our health care unless repealed ?
Government has a poor record of successful business involvement in the private sector.
Most of the so called "experts" or economists either teach their opinions or report on such. Few are or were successful founders of companies or a CEO of any. Kind of like an Ex quarterback Vs someone that studied the game but never played. Its different on the field but the people on the sidelines have all the answers.
|
|
|
|
Post by driveshaftgrunt on Sept 9, 2012 20:52:06 GMT -5
No speculation about what an unstructured bankruptcy would have meant to us UAW members.
Check the steel industry.......or other unionized industries that went under.
Our pensions would have been frozen, which means we would be drawing about half when we retired.
And our renegotiated contracts, or the terms set by the court, would have had major wage and bennie reductions.
|
|
|
|
Post by dowhat on Sept 30, 2012 11:54:00 GMT -5
I'm assuming that you want the UAW to support Romney or the Republican party. I was just wondering can you give a strong argument as to why the UAW should support Romney or the Republicans?
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Sept 30, 2012 19:11:15 GMT -5
Democrat or republican the government has no positive track record or expertise in private business endeavors nor should they be trying to as such.
Unless you live with you're head in the dirt out government is in a deep hole and Obama is digging it deeper with his spending and policies. I am not a huge Romney fan but given the choice between the two Romney definitely knows the ropes in the public sector where as Obama has never really did squat in the public sector, except for himself.
Key points~
Obama promised to cut the debt by 1/2 but he added 5 TRILLION.
He pledged to lower private health care rates by $2500 a year , each year but they actually increased.
Fewer people working today than 4 years ago.
Pretty inverse performance of what he promised and what are his plans for the next 4 year ? More of the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by dowhat on Oct 1, 2012 10:05:15 GMT -5
Why should the UAW support the republicans? Anyone can ramble on and on on party lines 90% of which is pure BS. This thread was started about the UAW suppoting Obama. If you think they should support the republicans why?
|
|
|
|
Post by dowhat on Oct 1, 2012 10:09:08 GMT -5
I will say that for me and my family we are without any question better off today than we were a short while ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Oct 1, 2012 10:17:51 GMT -5
To be crystal clear then our union should not be "backing" any political candidates.
They should focus and serve the people that pay the dues that makes up the union, all of us.
If you are better today then you are fortunate because many are not in that category.
|
|
|
|
Post by dowhat on Oct 1, 2012 13:38:29 GMT -5
So if one supports you and your ideas you should not support them in return. And let's be clear here plain and simple the republican party does not support the unions and what it stands for. So the premise of this thread is laughable to think that the UAW would not support the Democrats and their front runner Obama. Republicans would love to bust Ll unions. Stop for just a minute and ask yourself why. What is it about this organization that they do not like? The answer is really simple and truly sad.
|
|
