Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

coolbeans said:
HylianSwordsman said:
I will never understand all the cowards that will insist that a handful of assholes screwing over millions of people have every right to do so because "freedom", even as they're a part of the group that gets screwed over, and apparently our freedom doesn't matter. They think they're so profound because the state the obvious, that these assholes have a lot of power, and then back down from fighting them like a bunch of cowards and think that somehow just makes them smart, even as they pull the boot over their face and say "tread on me harder, Daddy!" They don't care who fucks with them as long as it isn't a government.

I mean...you're free to directly contest what I'm saying--if that inspired you.  It wouldn't look like some embittered diatribe built on over-generalizations.  

I'm not even following that first sentence.  What's this structure of pejoratively placing freedom in scare quotes and then belting out "our freedom doesn't matter" in relation?  At what point was force applied to make this voluntary agreement?  The freedom to re-negotiate or walk is always there if said person feels undervalued.  And talking about getting "screwed over" in this context is...kinda questionable.  For all its faults, the UAW appears to be a collective that pushes for increased wages & benefits at a modest rate. 

The reason I responded to begin with came down to the context of the UAW in particular.  I just don't buy this whinging over companies being obligated to share their increased yearly or quarterly profits beyond their agreed-to negotiations.  Execs & higher-ups took a gamble that paid off; and if it didn't, they're still on the hook to pay all their workers negotiated wages (as they should).  

I'll be honest, I didn't even read your other posts. But sure, keep being a welcome mat for the corporate board room.



Around the Network

So GM just canceled health insurance for 46k workers.

$8 billion in profits (a record).
$0 paid in corporate taxes.
$104 million in tax rebates.
Closing 4 plants contractually obligated not to close).
15,000 employees laid off.

New employees took a pay cut in half to help bail out GM during the recession.

But keep telling me how the employees are just being greedy because they want their fair share of the profit sharing they are contractually obligated to have.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
So GM just canceled health insurance for 46k workers.

$8 billion in profits (a record).
$0 paid in corporate taxes.
$104 million in tax rebates.
Closing 4 plants contractually obligated not to close).
15,000 employees laid off.

New employees took a pay cut in half to help bail out GM during the recession.

But keep telling me how the employees are just being greedy because they want their fair share of the profit sharing they are contractually obligated to have.

I wonder how much of those record profits are because of layoffs and gutting benefits/wages.  
This is why strong unions are necessary, and why corporate welfare isn't.



HylianSwordsman said:
coolbeans said:

I mean...you're free to directly contest what I'm saying--if that inspired you.  It wouldn't look like some embittered diatribe built on over-generalizations.  

I'm not even following that first sentence.  What's this structure of pejoratively placing freedom in scare quotes and then belting out "our freedom doesn't matter" in relation?  At what point was force applied to make this voluntary agreement?  The freedom to re-negotiate or walk is always there if said person feels undervalued.  And talking about getting "screwed over" in this context is...kinda questionable.  For all its faults, the UAW appears to be a collective that pushes for increased wages & benefits at a modest rate. 

The reason I responded to begin with came down to the context of the UAW in particular.  I just don't buy this whinging over companies being obligated to share their increased yearly or quarterly profits beyond their agreed-to negotiations.  Execs & higher-ups took a gamble that paid off; and if it didn't, they're still on the hook to pay all their workers negotiated wages (as they should).  

I'll be honest, I didn't even read your other posts. But sure, keep being a welcome mat for the corporate board room.

About as interesting a response as I expected, so I can't say you disappointed.



October VGChartz Articles:

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/440852/greedfall-xone/ (Review - GreedFall 8/10)

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/440952/the-bradwell-conspiracy-xone/ (Review - The Bradwell Conspiracy 7/10)

SuaveSocialist said:
SpokenTruth said:
So GM just canceled health insurance for 46k workers.

$8 billion in profits (a record).
$0 paid in corporate taxes.
$104 million in tax rebates.
Closing 4 plants contractually obligated not to close).
15,000 employees laid off.

New employees took a pay cut in half to help bail out GM during the recession.

But keep telling me how the employees are just being greedy because they want their fair share of the profit sharing they are contractually obligated to have.

I wonder how much of those record profits are because of layoffs and gutting benefits/wages.  
This is why strong unions are necessary, and why corporate welfare isn't.

To your final point. $0. GM pays the highest wages in the industry. So $0 of these record profits is due to layoffs and gutting benefits/wages.

What part of $63/hour doesn't click with you? There really is just this growing philosophy that businesses should not be earning the profits they do, and they should be obligated to share more of these profits.

You continue to bring up over and over and over all these concessions the workers had to make for the Great Recession, yet continue to (unsurprisingly) ignore that the shareholders lost EVERYTHING. The workers are not the only damn people impacted by this company's profit (or lack thereof).

Being that people get pissy when somebody makes $1/hr more than them, I'm led to believe that nothing will ever result in happiness when it comes to an employee/owner relationship on the grand scale (there are obviously cases where people are happy, but overall, it seems like the majority are not).



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Around the Network

And can we just stop with the "who cares about the shareholders" philosophy.

Despite all these facts that show the majority of stocks are owned by the wealthy, they are also very much so owned by the general population. Your 401, your pension, your IRA, your 403(b). What the hell exactly do you think those investments are made of? Fairy dust?

I'm sorry, but I want to earn 8% on my investments, not 3% because you don't think companies should be making as money as they are.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Baalzamon said:
SuaveSocialist said:

I wonder how much of those record profits are because of layoffs and gutting benefits/wages.  
This is why strong unions are necessary, and why corporate welfare isn't.

To your final point. $0. GM pays the highest wages in the industry. So $0 of these record profits is due to layoffs and gutting benefits/wages.

What part of $63/hour doesn't click with you? There really is just this growing philosophy that businesses should not be earning the profits they do, and they should be obligated to share more of these profits.

You continue to bring up over and over and over all these concessions the workers had to make for the Great Recession, yet continue to (unsurprisingly) ignore that the shareholders lost EVERYTHING. The workers are not the only damn people impacted by this company's profit (or lack thereof).

Being that people get pissy when somebody makes $1/hr more than them, I'm led to believe that nothing will ever result in happiness when it comes to an employee/owner relationship on the grand scale (there are obviously cases where people are happy, but overall, it seems like the majority are not).

I think you replied to the wrong person.



Baalzamon said:
SuaveSocialist said:

I wonder how much of those record profits are because of layoffs and gutting benefits/wages.  
This is why strong unions are necessary, and why corporate welfare isn't.

To your final point. $0. GM pays the highest wages in the industry. So $0 of these record profits is due to layoffs and gutting benefits/wages.

What part of $63/hour doesn't click with you? There really is just this growing philosophy that businesses should not be earning the profits they do, and they should be obligated to share more of these profits.

You continue to bring up over and over and over all these concessions the workers had to make for the Great Recession, yet continue to (unsurprisingly) ignore that the shareholders lost EVERYTHING. The workers are not the only damn people impacted by this company's profit (or lack thereof).

Being that people get pissy when somebody makes $1/hr more than them, I'm led to believe that nothing will ever result in happiness when it comes to an employee/owner relationship on the grand scale (there are obviously cases where people are happy, but overall, it seems like the majority are not).

What part of "Profit-sharing contract" are you not understanding? 



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Fuck the shareholders. :P



Baalzamon said:

What part of $63/hour doesn't click with you? 

My question here would be why do you keep ignoring the entire rest of the issue and continue focusing on the average hourly wages.  

Reminds me of the forbes article on the subject, which weirdly points out that the starting issue was the factories closing, and yet most of the article gets dedicated to talking about their hourly wages. 

The point there is that a $63/hour job doesn't mean anything if it doesn't exist.  

Baalzamon said:

There really is just this growing philosophy that businesses should not be earning the profits they do, and they should be obligated to share more of these profits.

Sure.  Even ignoring the contract, there is a growing philosophy that businesses shouldn't be earning the profits that they do.  

(And I'm sure that you'll point out the $63 an hour again, but that philosophy largely exists because of companies like Walmart, and Amazon.)

That philosophy exists, because people think it's unfair that there are individuals who aren't even working making literally millions of times more than what their employees are making.  There is a growing push to take care of the less fortunate.