Is President Obama President of the United States or only Union State
By bobmnu
@bobmnu (8157)
United States
March 2, 2012 12:52am CST
We had to bail out the Auto Companies because it was critical to the economy and it was very important to keep American Car Companies. Well another American Icon is facing Bankruptcy and what is the government doing. President Obama gave part of the company to the Unions and part to the US government (through Stock Ownership). The stockholders and bond holders (who by law were entitled to what is left after the bill have been paid) got nothing. The government allowed the Saturn Car Company to close when they had a buyer (Penske Motors) and Saturn was a non Union Company. Kodak is a non Union Company and the only US Camera maker.
Churches want exemptions from parts of Obama Car and they are denied. Unions who supported Obama Care are given exemptions.
Now he wants to charge US Service men and women more for their Health Insurance while while unionized Defence Contractors working for the government would not have to pay for their Health Insurance.
It seems that President Obama and his administration is all about supporting the Unions and making everyone else suffer and pay.
1 person likes this
1 response
@TheMetallion (1834)
• United States
2 Mar 12
This is certainly a creative assembly of claims, and by creative I mean false.
Saturn Corporation was a union shop from its founding -- when I bought my first SL2 in 2001, they bragged in their marketing material that their union contract fit in a manilla folder. That contract was in force until the union agreed to disolve it in 2004, when Saturn Corporation was reorganized from a subsidiary of GM into a Division of GM, at which time Saturn employees had the same contract the rest of GM had.
GM announced its intention to sell or close Saturn in December 2008, during the Bush Administration.
Penske withdrew its offer to buy Saturn in 2009 once they realized they couldn't figure out a way to make selling Saturns profitable.
I don't know if Kodak ever tried for a federal bailout, but if they did the key difference between them and the auto industry was the potential for a return to profitability. Kodak spent years destroying itself by not entering into the digital camera market, and they went the way of the buggy whip makers. If they had been unionized they'd still have gone out of business.
And so on.
@TheMetallion (1834)
• United States
3 Mar 12
GM could have given Saturn to Penske for free and if Penske couldn't figure out how to sell Saturns at a profit they'd lose money on the deal. They didn't walk away because they couldn't make money, they walked away because Saturns stopped being a profitable car to make and sell.
The auto industry was destroying itself because it was designing cars people don't want to buy, not because union labor was insufficiently productive at building cars people don't want to buy. The decision to build cars people don't want to buy wasn't a decision made by labor.
The government invests 50 billion in 2008 and 4 years later has over 20% of its capital back, plus avoiding the job losses that GM going bankrupt would have brought on (Remember, GM goung under would have also devastated all the companies that make car parts that build GM cars, and the parts that make those parts, etc.) plus positions GM to continue it's current trend? I'd call that a long-term investment that's already started to pay off.
But let's not change the subject: we were discussing how your opening post was constructed of statements that are simply factually incorrect.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
8 Mar 12
"The auto industry was destroying itself because it was designing cars people don't want to buy, not because union labor was insufficiently productive at building cars people don't want to buy."
It was because union labor was making crappy cars. It's no secret that the least dependable cars were made by Chrysler, followed by GM. Don't get me wrong, GM put out a few decent vehicles, but Chrysler dominated the worst cars lists. If there's one things I've consistently seen in unions, they fight tooth and claw to make sure that the worst employees can't be fired and crappy employees led to crappy cars.
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/09/23/chrysler-uaw-employees-work-hard-play-hard-bus/
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/07/14/chrysler-employees-caught-drinking-smoking-during-lunch-break/
Obviously when these videos became public people got fired, but how long do you think this was going on for before the media caught wind? I'm sure you don't believe this was their first time do you?
@TheMetallion (1834)
• United States
8 Mar 12
The best labor in the world will build crappy cars if you give them crappy designs to build. Unions didn't decide to bet the farm on gas guzzlers.
