UAW union threatens strike against GM
By DEE-ANN DURBIN, AP Auto Writer
DETROIT - After 20 straight days of negotiations, the United Auto Workers union said it would strike General Motors Corp. Monday morning if a new contract agreement isn't reached, citing the automaker's failure to address job security and other concerns.
Full Story
Conservative Bloggers Comments:
I have previously written about how I believe that the useful time for unions has passed. This is a great example of how they can hurt American workers. They are pressing GM for further wages etc, in an environment where GM is marginally competitive already and struggling to survive. Toyota workers are supposedly considering the union option as well. How fast do you suppose the Japanese would reduce or completely close their US operations if US workers decide to unionize? They would never say that directly, but you can bet that they would not expand and would more likely reduce the scope of US operations if production costs go up too much. The UAW is in a unique position. They are potentially able to destroy the entire US auto market by painting the auto makers into a corner on wages, benefits etc. The UAW says they wants job security for their workers. Causing the auto makers to become non-competitive and possibly close their doors is not the greatest way to go about this. The thought of GM going under and dumping their pensions on the US taxpayers is not something that I would look forward to. Wake up UAW and start thinking of the workers REAL needs.
Showing posts with label Unions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Unions. Show all posts
Monday, September 24, 2007
Monday, August 27, 2007
Union Workers - Beware
by Robert Bluey
Liberals Target Union Watchdog
August 27, 2007 02:00 PM EST
The Office of Labor Management Standards, the federal government’s union watchdog agency, has recouped more than $100 million for American workers since 2001. But the increased oversight on unions hasn’t gone over well with liberals in Congress, who are trying to slash the agency’s budget for next year.
Last month, pro-labor Democrats in the House successfully fought back a Republican-led challenge to restore $2 million to the agency’s budget. The Senate will take up the bill when Congress returns from its August recess.
The liberals’ revolt against the Department of Labor agency comes on the heels of an increased crackdown on union misbehavior and greater scrutiny of union finances. Following the 2000 elections, the Office of Labor Management Standards reversed nearly a decade of lax enforcement under the Clinton Administration.
Full Story
Conservative Bloggers Comments:
It's time once again to stand up on my soap box and say for the millionth time that Labor Unions are becoming/have become the problem for the american worker instead of part of the solution. This article is a great example of how the Democratic Party who claims to be such a big supporter of the blue collar worker is really just beholden to the Labor Unions. It wouldn't be so bad if the Labor Unions were actually looking out for the best interests of the workers. Unions are so large today that they are huge entities that themselves have become a form of government. Big goverment as all conservatives know is anything but efficient. The bigger they get, the move diverse their goals are from those of the common worker or people that they claim to support. In the past the saying was "Workers Unite!". It's time for union members to consider the phrase "Workers Dissolve!" and end these bloated beaurocracies before it's too late. Lastly, a question to the Democrats in Washington. If you are so concerned for the workers of America, why would you cut funding to the agency that policies unions and protects the rights of workers?
Liberals Target Union Watchdog
August 27, 2007 02:00 PM EST
The Office of Labor Management Standards, the federal government’s union watchdog agency, has recouped more than $100 million for American workers since 2001. But the increased oversight on unions hasn’t gone over well with liberals in Congress, who are trying to slash the agency’s budget for next year.
Last month, pro-labor Democrats in the House successfully fought back a Republican-led challenge to restore $2 million to the agency’s budget. The Senate will take up the bill when Congress returns from its August recess.
The liberals’ revolt against the Department of Labor agency comes on the heels of an increased crackdown on union misbehavior and greater scrutiny of union finances. Following the 2000 elections, the Office of Labor Management Standards reversed nearly a decade of lax enforcement under the Clinton Administration.
Full Story
Conservative Bloggers Comments:
It's time once again to stand up on my soap box and say for the millionth time that Labor Unions are becoming/have become the problem for the american worker instead of part of the solution. This article is a great example of how the Democratic Party who claims to be such a big supporter of the blue collar worker is really just beholden to the Labor Unions. It wouldn't be so bad if the Labor Unions were actually looking out for the best interests of the workers. Unions are so large today that they are huge entities that themselves have become a form of government. Big goverment as all conservatives know is anything but efficient. The bigger they get, the move diverse their goals are from those of the common worker or people that they claim to support. In the past the saying was "Workers Unite!". It's time for union members to consider the phrase "Workers Dissolve!" and end these bloated beaurocracies before it's too late. Lastly, a question to the Democrats in Washington. If you are so concerned for the workers of America, why would you cut funding to the agency that policies unions and protects the rights of workers?
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Unions - Time for a change?
by Phyllis Schlafly
The NEA Lists Its Goals And Democrats Agree
August 22, 2007 02:00 PM EST
Some critics have complained that the issue of education has been conspicuously absent from presidential television debates. But the Democratic candidates did sound off with their pro-federal-government, pro-spending policies when addressing the annual convention of the National Education Association, and the nation's largest teachers union liked what they heard.
Senator Hillary Clinton told the NEA delegates that she will fight school vouchers "with every breath in my body." Reiterating the message of her book "It Takes a Village," she called for universal preschool for four-year-olds.
Senator Barack Obama likewise inveighed against "passing out vouchers." Former Senator John Edwards also announced his opposition to vouchers and proposed that the federal government pay college tuition for all students who will work ten hours a week.
Governor Bill Richardson wants to "raise teacher's average minimum wage to $40,000 a year." Rep. Dennis Kucinich goes all-out for "a universal prekindergarten system which will provide year-around daycare for children ages 3-5."
All Democratic candidates look forward to increased federal control of and spending for public schools. And they all attacked George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind law for not appropriating more funds to implement it.
Full Story
Conservative Bloggers Comments:
I think once upon a time Unions served a purpose to unite workers and put into more balance what had been an owner/company/management dominated working arena. To that end I think the pendulum has swung and now the unions are to the point where they are bullying not only their own members/workers (being forced to join etc.), but even the taxpayers through the lobbying clout that they hold. Just as I think big goverment is dangerous I feel the same way about big unions. Look at the political agenda in bold (just some of the views) and you will see what the NEA really stands for. Rather than caving in to their demands I think we should be considering just the opposite. The NEA is no longer about better education, it is merely a big union trying to protect its turf and pad it's pockets with taxpayer dollars. Shame on the NEA for feeding this to us in the wrapper of doing what is best for our children.
This is about doing what is best for their pocketbooks and has little to do with our children.
Here are some of the things the NEA opposes: vouchers, tuition tax credits, all parental choice programs, making English our official language, the use of voter ID for elections, and the privatization of Social Security.
High on the list of NEA policies that actually relate to education is opposition to the testing of teachers as a criterion for job retention, promotion, tenure, or salary.
The NEA wants the right to teach schoolchildren about sex without any interference from parents, but on the other hand wants its pals in the bureaucracy to regulate all homeschooling taught by parents. The NEA opposes allowing homeschoolers to participate in any public school sports or extracurricular activities.
The NEA Lists Its Goals And Democrats Agree
August 22, 2007 02:00 PM EST
Some critics have complained that the issue of education has been conspicuously absent from presidential television debates. But the Democratic candidates did sound off with their pro-federal-government, pro-spending policies when addressing the annual convention of the National Education Association, and the nation's largest teachers union liked what they heard.
Senator Hillary Clinton told the NEA delegates that she will fight school vouchers "with every breath in my body." Reiterating the message of her book "It Takes a Village," she called for universal preschool for four-year-olds.
Senator Barack Obama likewise inveighed against "passing out vouchers." Former Senator John Edwards also announced his opposition to vouchers and proposed that the federal government pay college tuition for all students who will work ten hours a week.
Governor Bill Richardson wants to "raise teacher's average minimum wage to $40,000 a year." Rep. Dennis Kucinich goes all-out for "a universal prekindergarten system which will provide year-around daycare for children ages 3-5."
All Democratic candidates look forward to increased federal control of and spending for public schools. And they all attacked George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind law for not appropriating more funds to implement it.
Full Story
Conservative Bloggers Comments:
I think once upon a time Unions served a purpose to unite workers and put into more balance what had been an owner/company/management dominated working arena. To that end I think the pendulum has swung and now the unions are to the point where they are bullying not only their own members/workers (being forced to join etc.), but even the taxpayers through the lobbying clout that they hold. Just as I think big goverment is dangerous I feel the same way about big unions. Look at the political agenda in bold (just some of the views) and you will see what the NEA really stands for. Rather than caving in to their demands I think we should be considering just the opposite. The NEA is no longer about better education, it is merely a big union trying to protect its turf and pad it's pockets with taxpayer dollars. Shame on the NEA for feeding this to us in the wrapper of doing what is best for our children.
This is about doing what is best for their pocketbooks and has little to do with our children.
Here are some of the things the NEA opposes: vouchers, tuition tax credits, all parental choice programs, making English our official language, the use of voter ID for elections, and the privatization of Social Security.
High on the list of NEA policies that actually relate to education is opposition to the testing of teachers as a criterion for job retention, promotion, tenure, or salary.
The NEA wants the right to teach schoolchildren about sex without any interference from parents, but on the other hand wants its pals in the bureaucracy to regulate all homeschooling taught by parents. The NEA opposes allowing homeschoolers to participate in any public school sports or extracurricular activities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
