Another example of class warfare?

United States
March 22, 2009 12:33pm CST
While listening to the sunday morning talk shows there was a very good point made that I had yet to think of myself, or heard anywhere else. The bail out of the big three stipulated that the UAW had to renegotiate their union labor contract for them to keep the bail out money, and receive more in the future. This is the same kind of contract (an employement contract) that these executives at AIG signed. So why is it that we are forcing union workers (who never built a car they weren't told to buil), to have their contract renogotiated, when the millionaires at AIG (who caused the world to go into a recession) are so important to the world that we can't do the same?
1 person likes this
3 responses
@xfahctor (14128)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
22 Mar 09
Isn't hypocrocy great? This is a bit like two edges of the same sword. On one edge, we have congress outright violating article one section 9 of the cosntitution, after igniting american anger towrds aig to ensure support for doing so. On the other edge, we have the government stepping in and demanding conditions of contracts between private entities be re negotiated. Neither is apropriate, and we would not be in this mess at all if they had not interfered in the first place. these guys are just running in circles, and they are dragging us along with them.
3 people like this
• United States
24 Mar 09
X, we have had this discussion many times and it leds back to the same point that is not resolved. I agree that Congress should not have bailed out the banks, but again show were where it is that CONGRESS was talking about this before Bush, and Paulson ran in claiming the sky is falling, the sky is falling? You can blame Congress all you want, but the people that pushed this through congress were the president, and the secritary of the treasury. They have alot more blame in this than congress does. But, the two men that are to blame for this, rode off into the sunset with and left the largest finacial crisis in the last 70 years for someone else to fix.
@xfahctor (14128)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
24 Mar 09
I swear dude, you are absolutely pathalogical sometimes about this, what does it matter who the president was? It was wrong. And besides, the same people are still running congress and heading these things up. Dodd, Frank, they were there then, they are there now. Tim Geitner, who was then head of the new york FED was chief player in the bail out then, is head of the treasury now and still a top player. Berneke, head of the federal reserve then, head of the federal reserve now. the faces haven't changed much other than a president and places on the chess board in a few cases. Don't you get it? It's an illusion, smoke and mirrors, slight of hand, how many cliche's do I need to use to point it out? Come on, your not stupid. You should be even angrier than I am because you supported these people and they duped you. You should be furious with them and yet here you are, clinging desperately to a shiny glittery party letter.
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
23 Mar 09
The difference is they have the choice accept the money and the terms are you renegotiate the contract. AIG was given the money and told they could keep their bonus. If they had given AIG the money and stipulated that the bonus had to be renegotiated or they could not keep the money then they would have a choice too.
• United States
24 Mar 09
Bob, the CEO of AIG said that the employment contracts that the bonuses were attached couldn't be renegotiated without legal actions, and breach of contract fines. Why couldn't any member of the UAW sue any of the big three for the very same reason? These contracts aren't "magical", they are no different than those of the UAW, and can be broken, or modifided to suite the times we are in. The problem is this is Wall Street, and they only care about themselves. It was their greed and arrogance that got the world in this mess, and now they just want to pretend it didn't happen and go on with live as if nothing happened. They don't care that they are suing tax payer dollars for their bonuses, one trader was on CNBC saying that he paid taxes, atleast now he is getting some of that money back.
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
24 Mar 09
The contract that was agreed to between the US Government and AIG said that AIG Executives could receive their bonus and the government would give them the bail out money. With the Auto Industry and UAW is if you want the bail out then you need to renegotiate your contracts. They can CHOOSE to take the money or not. IF GM and the UAW decide not to change the contract they will get no bail out. If AIG was told before they accepted the bailout that the bonus would have to go and they accepted the bail out then I would say no bonuses, BUT the government promised them the bonus and now wants to take them away. This is breach of contract.
• United States
26 Mar 09
Basically because you are wrong. The companies signed different contracts.
• United States
27 Mar 09
You are incorrect more (I know that this can not be, but you are), they are both employement contracts that can be and modified easily. The CEO of AIG could have modified them, but he decided not to upset the employees, and just take the heat. Many of these people in this division worked for little or no money, but they received large bonuses. These men make a ton of money when the company makes alot, and still make alot of money when it doesn't. The are not different contracts, if you do some research you will see this to be the case