So, when can we expect the President of the United States to order the heads of various unions, to quit? (Congress, minimum wage)

[Little-Acorn]

President Obama recently assumed the power to direct the hiring and firing of personnel in private companies (a power formerly held only by Kings and dictators, and maybe still is), and used it to fire the CEO of General Motors. He seemed to feel that the CEO's actions were at least partly to blame for the automaker's poor financial state.

If that's the case, then we can certainly expect more firings in the private sector soon by the President. And the number-one target must inevitably be the head of the union that brought GM down: the United Auto Workers (UAW).

Unions were first started for good and necessary reasons. Company heads had been getting together and holding down wages artificially for years in the early part of the last century, presenting workers with a choice of pitifully low wages or none. Finally the workers got together in return and began presenting the companies with a similar choice: Decent wages or no labor at all. Some company heads responded with violence and coercion, and some union peoiple bled and died before companies finally started to yield. It was the only remedy the workers had available to them, and they used it to redress many wrongs.

After the violence and bloodletting were mostly through, the U.S. Congress then stepped in and made unions mostly unnecessary by passing various "Labor laws", guaranteeing maximum length work weeks, minimum wages, decent working conditions, etc., all things that the unions had fought and bled for. Would have been nice if the Congress had acted a little sooner, much of the violence and bloodshed could have been avoided. But it was not to be, and the unions suffered, only to have Congress codify later what they had obtained in blood earlier.

Since that time, as mentioned, unions became mostly useless, as companies offered better wages and working conditions (some forced by law, some voluntarily, see Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie etc.) Yet the unions hung on, longing for their glory days and pretending the workers were still suffering, ignoring the fact that there was a new sheriff in town (State and Federal lawmakers). Union membership has shrunken steadily as Federally-mandated wages and working conditions improved, until it was a small fraction of what it once was.

But unions have remained in a few industries, noteably the auto industry. And they have kept the stranglehold they had on management that had once allowed them to make much-needed gains for their workers in past generations. And this despite the fact that the workers now enjoy wages and working conditions the original unions could only dream of.

And unions have continued to use that stranglehold to get even more and more for their workers (and for themselves, today's union bosses have perks the old-time bosses also could only dream of), far beyond any "equitable" settlements they once asked for. Now, due to union threats of strikes, workers who work only a relatively short time can get full retirement benefits for life after they leave, full medical coverage for life, etc., while worker still on the assembly lines get wages more than twice as high as the mild difficulty and low stress of most of their jobs merits.

And since companies like GM don't have a money tree, those high payments must come either from raising the prices of the cars they're trying to sell, or skimping on quality, or from borrowing. All three things are being done, with the result that GM cars and trucks break down more on average than others, while costing as much or more... all while the company's debt soars. For many periods in recent years, GM was losing $5,000 for every car they sold... and they sold hundreds of thousands such cars.

The UAW has been raping the auto companies for many years, extorting payments they no longer deserve simply because they can. Now the President of the United States has assumed the power to control personnel decisions in private companies. And he seems to be intent on rooting out those who led the auto companies (and others, this is just a start) to the ruinous state they presently face.

It is inevitable that the next people to be targets, must be the union bosses, starting with the guy at the top as he did with GM itself. The unions have been fatly enriching themselves, far beyond anything they or their workers deserve, for years and even decades. Long after the genuine grievances they fought for long ago, were settled in their favor.

So, when can we expect the head of the UAW to be fired by President Obama? It is certainly the most relevant task on his list, now that he seems to intend to cut out the unnecessarily high payments and expenses that have recently destroyed so many big companies.

[Aylalou]

If a company asks for bailout money, that company (like any person) is then beholden to the person who gave them the money(in the case the government, who then sort of became the boss). Simple. The company created the problem and now has to pay the piper.

You've gone off the deep end in your theories and predictions. I doubt unions are going to request money from the government or that the government will give them bailout money. Bailout money to unions won't stimulate the economy. Obama told GM in advance there were conditions. GM made the ultimate decision, so the blame is on GM. They should thank their lucky stars that they didn't go under which they would have without bailout. So I think they paid a small price to remain solvent.

[idahogie]

You know that your premise is totally wrong, don't you? AIG's former CEO, Robert Willumstad resigned in September (http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1886344/ - broken link)as a result of the bailout. It happens all the time. It happened to the heads of FM/FM, too. All that occurred under Bush.

Seriously, you wingnuts just don't know which way to go, do you? One of your leading pundits - Charles Krauthammer, called for the death penalty for AIG executives. Now he's up in arms because the government asked for a change in management as part of a restructuring using tons of taxpayer money.

Seriously - this is one pathetic display by the right. Grow up a little bit.


PS. When we search for this text on Google, where will we find that you plagarized from?

[Little-Acorn]

So, nobody is able to answer the question so far? Or even hazard a guess? Nothing but frantic subject-changing, namecalling, and unfounded accusations against the messenger? That's about what I'm coming to expect from some of the residents on this board.

Back to the subject:
When will President Obama order the firing of the heads of various unions such as the UAW? They have certainly done at least as much as the head of GM, to send that company into near-bankruptcy and beyond.

_________________________

Note to poor little idahogie: When you search for this text on Google, and find no, zip, zero trace of it anywhere (because it didn't exist until I wrote it a few minutes ago), where will we find your apology to me?

[JoeP]

yawn

[oz in SC]

Typical reaction of the Obama shills.

Of course if/when Obama does do something to the unions they will support him 100%.

Party first,party always.

[beenhereandthere]

Union leaders are not making absurd salaries like the CEO's are and they are not the leaders of the company. If the CEO's really wanted to, they could get rid of the unions.
Not a insightful or smart thread.

[Captain Worley]

I wouldn't think he'd do anything to the unions since they are big supporters. They are a pretty big part of the problem. I have to admit, I'd love to see obama fire Gettlefinger, although I think it is outside what the government should be doing.

[oz in SC]

Could you tell us what the head of the UAW makes?

[ergohead]

Well, let's see -

There was the Chicago way, with Hoffa;

there was the Reagan way, with ATC's;

and there was the Henry Ford way. (pay the **** out of your employees so they'll laugh the Union off the grounds)

Obama's way? Don't know at this time.