NYT: Thanks To The Obama Administration, "Union Takes Rare Front Seat in Deal for Chrysler"

When Pres. Obama said he was "a union man" this past week in response to a question about Chrysler, he wasn't kidding.



Know hope. :)

K&R

Employee owned works. I have seen a number of economic commentators on TV talking about how employee owned will not work.. just not true

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy-Vee

Really the worst I heard was a quick blip on Rush Limbaugh, and I am not exaggerating this one iota for effect, some one called in and said.. It was UnAmerican to buy American, because the union will be owning a majority of Chrysler.

Now if another country had owned it, that would be okay.. but American citizens owning it.. in their minds that was UnAmerican.

~sigh~

Wow, Republican wingnuts are real fascists at heart. Or Rush Limbaugh and his dittoheads want to do their best to make sure
Pres. Obama's efforts to fail Or both. They've become as loony as La Rouche voters.

Hyvee is a beautiful place. I was there caucus night when I cheered the Obamas on from the bleachers. I'm glad to hear it's
employee-owned. I have a feeling I'll see the inside of the place again in January 2012. :D

In your face, haters.

he knows where he came from. He continues to knock the ball out of the park!

would own up to the fact that they were dead wrong.

Perhaps they are too busy googling for opinion-based, unsourced hit pieces on Pres. Obama to notice this OP. Either that,
or the cognitive dissonance is so deep-seated that it cannot be erased by mere facts.

Or they're all at Kentucky Derby parties. ;)

Your post is a malicious and dishonest attack on people here using insinuation and hints and implications.

I am right here. Let's discuss these supposed "unsourced hit pieces on Pres. Obama." What is the evidence for any "cognitive dissonance?" Back up your charges. While they are not aimed at anyone in particular, as that would violate the rules, claiming that all who disagree with you on this are guilty of the things you are charging them with is still not a very constructive contribution to any thoughtful discussion.

I am more than happy to discuss this issue in any depth and at any length you choose. I welcome it. Can we do that without the insults and maligning of other members?


...

Crickets, I guess.

You well know that this is an unfair and inaccurate characterization of those who have been critical of the agreement.

Those who have been doing that were not "breathlessly claiming Obama was anti-worker/anti-union." Was I? They were not talking about Obama at all - you were and are.

What I did and would claim is that people here are expressing anti-union opinions, and then saying that those opinions are actually a defense of Obama and that the pro-union posters are anti-Obama.


...

I'm glad to hear this news, believe me. My dad is retired from Chrysler. This will give him (& me) some peace of mind. However, I'm not totally convinced that Obama is teacher-union friendly. I KNOW duncan isn't.

the union workers are getting screwed by owning part of the company they work for. Sounds preposterous, but they argued this over and over again.

Guess none of them work for the UAW. But after this, every union member will wish they do.

The "nonsense" - sourced, not a hit piece on Obama, no cognitive dissonance.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5573066&mesg_id=5573066

"...equity is small comfort..."


"The United Auto Workers’ equity in Chrysler LLC is small comfort compared with the damage the automaker’s bankruptcy inflicted on the union’s bargaining power, labor analysts said."

"...its power will be limited..."


"While the UAW gained representation on the Chrysler board through the agreement, its power will be limited because shares owned by the trust fund will be voted by independent trustees."

"...Obama said none of the plants would close, and two hours later they sent us home..."


“Obama said none of the plants would close, and two hours later they sent us home,” said Thayer, a 17-year Chrysler veteran. “So now, whom do we call a liar, the president, the UAW or Chrysler, or are they all in bed together?” Thayer asked.

Thayer said that if he loses his job, he can tap his 401(k) savings plan to make his mortgage payments. He’ll have less money in retirement, but at least he’ll have a place to live, he said.

Here are some of the concessions and consequences. How can a person be pro-Labor and not be opposed to these? Would you dispute that this list of concessions and the consequences is accurate? Would you claim that these things don't matter? Do you not care about them?

"... (the) plan will bring union auto workers much closer to the level of non-union workers..."

"...auto plants will fill up with second-class, disposable jobs..."

"...the rules limiting use of temporary part-time workers are relaxed..."

"...relief time cut back..."

"...seniority right to bid on individual jobs is canceled..."

"...wage freeze through 2015..."

"...loss of all supplemental pay such as cost-of-living adjustments, Christmas bonuses, and productivity bonuses..."

"...cancels workers’ right to decide on their own contracts until September 2015..."

"...harder to refuse reassignment to a distant plant..."

http://labornotes.org/node/2238

usual suspects and their "trickle down" rant.

I am the one who talked about trickle down, and it was in regard to the comments people were making here.

It was in response to this comment, for example:

"If the companies return to their prosperous days, the workers will rightly reap the benefits. If the companies fall flat, then the workers will lose anyway."

If saying that when management does well it will eventually get to the workers and the public is not trickle down, then what would be?


...

Obama is for helping out our country and that means People First.

And I'm pretty sure it will be ignored or summarily dismissed here at DU. A while back a thread was posted eviscerating Pres. Obama for not having yet met with the Progressive Caucus. I posted a thread a few days back about him meeting with them, and it was ignored.

And here I was ranting about there being a need for democracy within corporations.

When I read his quote, I realized that I've never read an account where a union president said he was satisfied with what was going on.

:D

:D

~ Paul Wellstone.

I am reminded DAILY that President Obama is worlds away from what a potential McCain Presidency would look like.

What excellent news ClarkUSA, thanks for sharing! :toast:

:toast:

and he's worried. Thanks for the info.

The workers got conned again.

sw

Because of it, your dad and other retirees will not have to worry about losing their pensions and
medical benefits. I'd call that a huge plus.

Also, I doubt if Pres. Obama ever said no plants will ever close due to bankruptcy provisions since
it's only recently that bankruptcy was even a consideration. I heard him say that Crysler will have
to make tough cuts and so does the union. Cherrypicking from a opinion hit piece is easy to do,
but I trust the facts stated in the OP.

This thread went dead in a big hurry.

It's so much easier to mock and deride people behind their backs than to be challenged to an actual debate.

sw

there's a reason why I tend to search for your posts

The castrating of a strong union is bad news for everyone, when the benefits at strong union workplaces are chipped away so are everyone elses.

The castrating of a strong union is bad news for everyone, when the benefits at strong union workplaces are chipped away so are everyone elses.

The Obama administration is doing nothing of the kind. Quite the opposite is happening.

And that seat on the board is a NON-VOTING seat.

So, in exchange for wage and benefit cuts, the auto workers get the chance to gamble for 55% of what SHOULD have been their untouchable retirement benefits, but has now been given over to a throw of the dice on the hope that Chrysler manages to survive bankruptcy.

Yeah, such a deal.

sw

55% percent EQUITY depends on a big IF: IF Chrysler can pull through...

As you should know, there are no guarantees in life, so your glass-half-empty perspective is a bit like asking for one. Bankruptcy is
always a roll of the dice but perhaps the UAW has a glass-half-full approach, given the Treasury guarantees to their pensions and
medical benefits, something you seem to be forgetting.

but I've also spoken with UAW activists, as opposed to getting my views from the leadership or a bankruptcy lawyer. Sorry they don't all agree with you, btw you are projecting I made ZERO mention of the Obama administration - my criticism here is aimed at UAW leadership. If I thought for a second you had any kind of background in labor activism I would be happy to engage in a debate with you. I am not interested in yet another Yeah Obama Boo Obama exchange.

... not interested in debating you, either. I provided demonstrable facts and am not here to engage in pointless dialogue
based on opinion.

Every protection given to the financial sector is more tearing away at the foundation of Labor.

sw

Perhaps for some of us, there is no debate to be had, given the facts in the OP.

there is nothing to debate like you said. Most of us don't enjoy siting around in a circle jerk and twisting words like they do.

Most of us don't enjoy siting around in a circle jerk and twisting words like they do.

Yup. Been there, done that. No more.

how many UAW members and activists have you spoken to before pronouncing something is good for them? seems a tad arrogant wouldn't you think?

Not to mention, the NYT is so pro-labor that it's demanding that the Union members who work for the Boston Globe -- owned by the NYT -- take 2 million dollars in pay cuts or it will shut down the paper.

Pardon me if I look at "facts" published by the NYT with a somewhat jaundiced eye.

Does Judith Miller ring a bell?

sw

Opinion pieces like the one from Bloomberg are not factual, that's why they're called opinion pieces.

I'm not interested in engaging your gripes based on one opinion hit piece that quotes one labor analyst and one union member.
It's obvious the IAW is getting a better upfront deal than any union could've hoped for in these hard economic times, thanks to
the Obama administration. If you and others disagree, that's fine, but don't expect us to belabor the facts, no pun intended.

It is over.

have you sought out their views at all? You don't like the "hit" piece (demonstrating your total disinterest and level of engagement with labor activism if you write of Labor Notes as a hit piece) so how about going to the source? It's not hard at all, I managed to speak with several members and UAW staff all the way from Australia, but then again I suspect my labor contacts are more robust than yours.

You have snarled and sneered all over this thread, and presented zero arguments except those advanced by the boss class, it's really quite strange.

As I said if you want to have an exchange about LABOR rather than waste both our time with another "yeah Obama" "Boo Obama" fest then I'd be happy to - I'm on the road for the next few days labor organising as it happens - this isn't some handy subject for me to snipe at Obama with, I couldn't care less about Obama, labor however is not only my passion but my bread and butter, but as long as this thread isn't locked I'll be happy to engage in an actual LABOR debate when I get back.

"You have snarled and sneered all over this thread..."

I beg to differ. I'd say that describes you more than I.

So by that logic, George Bush, since he was the president of the country spoke for all of the people in the country and was never wrong. "The president has spoken. What else do we need to know? Must be the truth." Didn't the American people just reject that sort of thinking? Isn't that why Democrats are now in power?


...

Your attempt to compare a union prez praising the Treasury's pension and medical benefits guarantees in the midst of
bankruptcy negotiations w/ Chrysler to Bush II in general is ridiculous. I am quite certain there are plenty of UAW family
members like Dinger who are relieved to hear of the Treasury guarantees but I doubt a shit-stirring Bloomberg labor
reporter is ever going to quote them for a column anytime soon.

Having seen you in action, I must say that I have no desire to dialogue with you further. The facts speak for themselves
and I am willing to see what happens. I hope Chrysler and the UAW succeed in making the company better than ever. I
will be first in line to buy a good American car product. If you want to keep railing, then of course that's your right, but
leave me out of it.

What would you have those who disagree with you do? What would you have done with them? How would you resolve things?


...

How long has this "with us or against" thing been going on here anyway?

It is more than a little intimidating for a relative newbie.

You don't have to answer. I am curious, though.

I wasn't really part of this discussion...

I was just commenting on how bitter some of the back and forth was above....

I found your responses to be quite civil and to the point, in contrast.

never met a flight it couldn't delay for 4 hours...

I'm not sure why you think that right or wrong applies to this, you've stated somewhat bizarrely that you're not interested in a "pointless dialogue based on opinion." when demonstrably whether one views this as a good thing or bad thing is nothing BUT opinion??

Anyhoo clearly I disagree with the union leadership here (once again this has nothing to do with a beef with Obama) it's not unusual, in the western world unions have become more and more corporate and less and less democratic, there are a few exceptions and in America there is a growing democratic union movement which is very encouraging (Labor Notes being a large part of this)

My first instincts before I knew much about the story was that it had really injured the union, particularly it's future bargaining power, but I went to the source to find out more, clearly the views of the people I spoke to will not be accepted by you so I would really recommend that you do what I did. The media has a tendency to reflect the preferred views of the ruling class, that's hardly Marxist (which I am most certainly NOT BTW) conspiracy theory.

As for sneering I'm not sure what I've posted that could be inferred that way - I was not sneering when I said I assumed my labor contacts were stronger than yours, it was a simple statement based on being involved in labor activism (including internationally) for a long time- I imagine you know more about and are better connected to people within the industry you work in. My suggestion to another poster that it was hypocritical to call others here "arrogant" when one was deducing that something is good for a large number of people without knowing anything about the subject nor speaking to them was entirely reasonable. Presumably if you objected to something that affected you and I insisted (without having any personal experience) that it was a good thing you would no doubt view me as arrogant. I honestly see no sneering and certainly no snarling there, almost everyone of your posts has contained an insult. However this is all perception I guess.

I don't know what more I can state here - I have an OPINION that this will end up being very bad for the UAW, for the very same reasons that similar deals made across the western world have been, deals I am well versed in but assume you are not, that opinion is shared by many UAW members (and staff, including some in the leadership but you absolutely WONT find their disagreements in the media for the same reason you wont find transcripts of disagreements between Obama and Biden in the media)

However I can not satisfy your need for a corporate media link because they tend not to write about this stuff much**, the people who do, well you don't accept their views. You've claimed that an opposing piece is a "hit piece" you haven't provided any reasoning for that and claim that you trust the OP also with no apparent reasoning.

All I can suggest is that you dig a little deeper and speak to the people involved - you're a lot closer than I am it shouldn't be that hard :shrug:

Now off to buy a $10 airport sandwich...

**On edit, there's

"The UAW's reward, though, could turn out to be punishment if the stock price doesn't rise.

"I think it's a whole lot weaker than it appears," said Gerald Meyers, a University of Michigan business professor and former CEO of American Motors Corp. "I would say the UAW wouldn't want to get into the speculative game of the stock market. That's not reassuring to retirees."

What's happening at Chrysler and GM is not employee ownership in any recognizable way," said Corey Rosen, founder and executive director of the nonprofit National Center for Employee Ownership. "The employees don't own any part of Chrysler or GM, it's the health trust, and they're going to sell that stock as soon as they can. It's more like somebody saying 'I can't pay the money I owe you, so take some stock and you can sell it.'"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30537512//

You could also talk to the activists of locals which voted no or those who campaigned against the vote (the President of Local 1700 for example), ask them why that was. There was demonstrably a difference of opinion within the union, really can't understand for the life of me why you think that any opposition to this deal is some kind of Obama hater plot based on nothing??