Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you not understand that the health care trust fund due to workers was covered by a BOND when they turned over responsibility for health care to the UAW back in 2007? That bond made them a bondholder long before the bankruptcy occurred and it was all but shoved down the UAW's throat at the time. Are you suggesting that some bondholders should be more important than other bondholders or shareholders in a bankruptcy court? Like it or not the UAW was a major bondholder and giving them stock in company in lieu of the cash due did not make the UAW any happier than it made the general public. Unless that stock can be sold off at a good price the UAW won't be able to sustain the VEBA program that covers health care for GM workers.
The UAW were not bondholders yet they got a better deal than the bondholders. Just because you say it doesn't make t so. I have provided ample evdence that they were not bondholders. If they were they would have gotten 10% just like all the rest. They did not they got signifcantly more. Now stop you are loking foolish.
The UAW were not bondholders yet they got a better deal than the bondholders. Just because you say it doesn't make t so. I have provided ample evdence that they were not bondholders. If they were they would have gotten 10% just like all the rest. They did not they got signifcantly more. Now stop you are loking foolish.
Your undated article proved nothing. It said:
Quote:
GM wants investors holding $27.2 billion of the company's bonds to swap them in exchange for 10 percent of the equity shares of the restructured company. The United Auto Workers would get up to 39 percent of the company in return for half of the $20 billion GM owes to a health fund for retired workers.
BUT when the bankruptcy courted ruled the UAW didn't get that 39%. They got 17.5% which isn't "significantly more" than the UNsecured bondholders got. Be honest, even if they had gotten the same 10% as the UNsecured bondholders you union bashers would still be here bi*ching.
He should apologize to all of us for being such a prolific liar whose continued assult on the pocketbooks on the middle class via ObamaCare, skyrocketing gas prices and rising food prices has no end in sight, as well as several devastating tax law changes and exploding costs for medical care.
LOL...like any of that^^ is actually true. Please..stop it.
Your undated article proved nothing. It said: BUT when the bankruptcy courted ruled the UAW didn't get that 39%. They got 17.5% which isn't "significantly more" than the UNsecured bondholders got. Be honest, even if they had gotten the same 10% as the UNsecured bondholders you union bashers would still be here bi*ching.
"This company is formed by the United States government with a 60% stake, the federal government of Canada and provincial government of Ontario with a 12% stake, the United and Canadian Auto Workers unions[45] with a 17.5% stake, and the unsecured bondholders of General Motors with a 10% stake.["
"This company is formed by the United States government with a 60% stake, the federal government of Canada and provincial government of Ontario with a 12% stake, the United and Canadian Auto Workers unions[45] with a 17.5% stake, and the unsecured bondholders of General Motors with a 10% stake.["
Pathetic.
Did I not say that the UAW got 17.5%, the same percent as the article I linked and you are quoting here? Your article linked earlier said they would get 39% and had they actually got that I would have agreed that it was "significantly more" than the unsecured bondholders got. The UAW would have preferred the 20 billion owed them in the trust agreement, trust me.
It would not have "failed"..it would have been broken up, reorganized, sanitized, de-unionized into a better company.
Even The Economist disagrees with you. It said it was highly likely both companies would have been liquidated. That's a center right source but a reality based source. You can keep making wild claims but they're not jiving with reality.
Did I not say that the UAW got 17.5%, the same percent as the article I linked and you are quoting here? Your article linked earlier said they would get 39% and had they actually got that I would have agreed that it was "significantly more" than the unsecured bondholders got. The UAW would have preferred the 20 billion owed them in the trust agreement, trust me.
The bondholders got the shaft, and the UAW was not a bondholder as you have been insisting.
And actually they got more because they got warrents too.
I am sure they would have prefrered to have been made whole as would the bondholders. But Obama's pals got a much better deal than bondholders.
That's a joke. The UAW can't WAIT to sell their 17.5% worth of stock so they can diversify. They aren't going to exercise their warrants.
They got a better deal than anyone else because they are Obama's friend. I am sure bondholders would love to be anxious to sell their stock and warrents.
They got a better deal than anyone else because they are Obama's friend. I am sure bondholders would love to be anxious to sell their stock and warrents.
Get out the violins. The major bondholders accepted the debt-for-equity deal they got and it came with warrants. Tell me the truth, if the UAW had gotten 10% would you be happy with that? I'm guessing you don't think they should have gotten a dime for the 20 billion owed them.
Last edited by Wayland Woman; 11-05-2010 at 04:18 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
