Indianapolis auto workers drive UAW executives out of meeting

[Hannah Bell]

Workers at a General Motors stamping plant in Indianapolis, Indiana chased United Auto Workers executives out of a union meeting Sunday, after the UAW demanded workers accept a contract that would cut their wages in half.

As soon as three UAW International representatives took the podium, they were met with boos and shouts of opposition from many of the 631 workers currently employed at the plant. The officials, attempting to speak at the only informational meeting on the proposed contract changes, were forced out within minutes of taking the floor.

The incident once again exposes the immense class divide between workers and union officials, who are working actively with the auto companies to drive down wages and eliminate benefits.

A vote on the changes was originally scheduled for Monday, but was cancelled by the UAW after Sunday’s informational meeting made it clear that opposition was nearly unanimous. The new contract would, among other concessions, cut wages from an average of $29 an hour to $15.50.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/aug2010/inds-a17.shtml


The International Union called a Special Meeting illegally and behind the local member's backs to present a concessionary contract the membership had voted to NOT NEGOTIATE! Here is how a proud UAW local makes sure their voices are heard when the International tries to ram things down their throats, against their will.

video: (the action starts about 2:45: "This is our house!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owUjzuVLY-s&feature=player_embedded

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. What has possessed the UAW executives?

Have they forgotten where they came from?

This is insanity. Wages and benefits slashed or eliminated?

Good for those workers. They are doing what we should be doing to our Congress.

Standing up and shouting them down.


Recommended.

[Hannah Bell]

4. the bought-off execs of the international forgot where they came from a long time ago.

they've worked hand-in-glove with management to screw the workers for years. you can see it in their record of (almost no) strike action since the 70s - the lowest period of activism in uaw ever, despite continual clawbacks over the period.

yeah, it does the heart good to see people standing up to the sobs. this local apparently had local reps that stood with them: from the comments:


"The International had called an "illegal" Special Meeting, going against the Constitution of the UAW and also the Local 23 By-Laws. They wanted to present and explain the "proposal" they had come to with the company even though the chairman had told them and the press many times the membership was the highest authority and they had voted no.

Here is how Local 23 handled those who betrayed them.


Local 23 members had voted in May to NOT negotiate with J.D. Norman who wanted to buy the plant, but only with concessions. The International went behind the member's backs to negotiate anyway."


"At least your Bargaining Chairman stood behind his people. At local 2244, In Fremont California, we received no representation. Our Bargaining Chairman, Javier Contreras, showed no respect at all for the membership. The UAW is to blame for putting 5000 people out of a job!"

[amborin]

12. UAW has launched several strikes , such as 1998, shutting down all of GM's North American Production

[Hannah Bell]

13. compare the numbers & length of strikes pre-80s v. post-80s.

you'll find i'm correct.

in 1979 uaw walked out for 6 months at 21 plants (international harvester/john deere strike).

in 1998 for 50 days at two plants.



By the early 1980s, the crisis in the industry brought on by the rising tide of imports end the UAW's ability to win steady contract improvements...Faced with the loss of hundreds of thousands of its members' jobs, the UAW was in no position to resist. The union also began to move away from its adversarial tradition and adopt a stance more like that of Japanese unions...

The UAW again embraced what became known as "jointness" when GM decided to open a Japanese-style factory on its own in Tennessee. The union ceded so much in its contract at the Saturn plant that one of the union's founders, Victor Reuther, charged it with betraying the principles of the labor movement. GM and the UAW nonetheless attempted to introduce jointness at other plants. The 1987 contract agreement committed the union to such a path, in exchange for greater guarantees on job security...

Jointness fell out of favor during the 1990s as GM sought greater flexibility in reducing its workforce, while the UAW resorted to scattered local strikes to protest speed-ups and outsourcing. Many of these walkouts led to wider production shutdowns, especially an eight-week dispute in 1998 centered on two plants in Flint, Michigan. At the national level, the union focused on protecting wage and benefit levels while giving some ground on job security.

GM continued its effort to reduce labor costs through layoffs and changes in benefits for the workers who remained. In 2006 the company, facing massive losses, negotiated a deal with the UAW under which every unionized worker would be offered buyout and early-retirement packages. Some 35,000 workers, about 30 percent of the total labor force, accepted the offer.

http://www.crocodyl.org/wiki/general_motors.

[amborin]

23. yes,

jointness was a joke

actually, the 1998 strike was 54 days

there were a couple of additional fairly lengthy strikes against GM, as well

*please,* let's not forget the role of GM and the overall pol context



my concern, here, is your OP can turn people against unions; it doesn't take much, and it provides fodder


the oligarchical tendencies of the international date to reuther; valient local leaders have fought great battles and still do

[Hannah Bell]

25. i understand the concern about turning people against unions; however, it seems to me that the main

reasons people began to turn against unions was because of the union leadership itself -- and those reasons have a lot to do with the fact that a good deal of the top leadership was bought off, which trickled down the chain of command -- the cynicism, the corruption, the non-democracy, the lies.

There's a great deal of difference between the uaw international & the leadership at the local level -- or so i've read.

[onethatcares]

31. when a man puts a 2000.00 suit on, it changes him

same thing happens when someone opens the car door and calls a person "sir".

Yay Workers.

I don't make $15.50 an hour anymore but am lucky enough at this point to be employed at 59 years old.

Once the economy to a dump and the banksters got all of the taxpayer money they wanted for now, I lost a $20.00/hr carpenter job

I'd had since 2001 so I know what kind of knock that is.

[Hannah Bell]

75. for sure. if you keep a shop-floor mentality you don't last long in management.

[Freddie Stubbs]

82. How many UAW leaders wear $2000 suits?

Can you name any of them?

[HEyHEY]

2. Last union I worked for was a fucking joke. The "leaders" were ass-kissing sell outs

I believe this has happened to many unions over the years. And the fault lies with members, you gotta just the sons of bitches out of the room sometimes.

[B Calm]

34. A union is strong as the membership!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Partial Dup

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x495895

[Hannah Bell]

5. not a dup in THIS forum, thanks all the same.

[Contrary1]

6. Our esteemed governor, Mitch Daniels, has stuck his nose in it...

"to save Indiana jobs". He did announce though that it would be up to the workers whether or not to accept any plans he helped hash out.

Wonder how much GM money will be going into his bank account?

[Hannah Bell]

7. they're trying to make indiana right-to-work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddu5YhrzV30&feature=related

[Sherman A1]

17. They would like to make all of the states

Right to Work states, thus far we have been lucky I suppose.

[leftstreet]

8. K&R

This is our house!

:applause:

[The_Casual_Observer]

9. The execs know that either they accept the cuts or the plant will close.

What can the wokers really do about anything anymore? Strike? They probably have a second plant in Mexicali that can make the same shit.

I'm surprised that under these circumstances GM isn't just going ahead and taking this down to minimum wage while they have the opportunity.

[Hannah Bell]

10. uh, maybe you didn't read the details. gm is trying to sell the plant to another company.

the company won't buy unless the workers take a cut, but the workers have a contract.

gm will get sued if they try to shutdown & then sell.

[The_Casual_Observer]

11. They'll close it & then sell it.

It happens all the time. It happened to a Parker Hannifin plant I was affiliated with. In the end Union workers had no choice in the matter.

[Hannah Bell]

14. let them try, & we'll see what the courts say. contract says they can't.

[B Calm]

38. This is INDIANA, another right-wing, Right to Work for Less State!

[Hannah Bell]

46. indiana is not a right to work state. they keep trying, but i don't see any evidence they've won.

If you have different info, please post it:


The following 22 states are right-to-work states:

Alabama
Arizona †
Arkansas †
Florida †
Georgia
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Mississippi †
Nebraska
Nevada
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma †
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Wyoming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law#U.S._states_with_right-to-work_laws

[seattleblue]

51. Contracts don't mean anything in bankruptcy.

GM is being governed by the rules of the bankruptcy court and contracts don't mean jack shit when you are in that court.

[Hannah Bell]

61. "new gm" is no longer in bankruptcy, is my understanding. that's why they're making profits

and not having to give them up.

so not sure why you're bringing in the bankruptcy. It doesn't have anything to do with this case.



"On July 10, 2009, a new entity, NGMCO Inc. purchased the ongoing operations and trademarks from GM.<63> The purchasing company in turn changed its name from NGMCO Inc. to General Motors Company, marking the emergence of a new operation from the "pre-packaged" Chapter 11 reorganization."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization

[amborin]

56. for pete's sake! most US courts are anti-union and won't uphold a union contract; trust me on this

[Hannah Bell]

62. i should "trust you" that US courts don't enforce contracts? but only union contracts? lol.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lawsuit brought by IAM District 26 against United Technologies Corporation (UTC), parent company of Pratt & Whitney. The court upheld a U.S. District Court’s injunction that barred Pratt from closing plants in Cheshire and East Hartford, CT.

The unanimous 23-page decision from the three-judge appeals panel states, in part: “The district court concluded that Pratt had not made, and was not making, ‘every reasonable effort’ to preserve bargaining unit work as required by the CBA . We find no error… in the district court’s determination that Pratt failed to pursue the goal of preserving bargaining unit work in good faith. We therefore affirm the judgment.”

http://www.goiam.org/index.php/territories/eastern/7549-appeals-court-upholds-decision-against-pratt-and-whitney

[amborin]

71. try reading some US labor history and note the failure of US courts to honor UAW contracts

[Hannah Bell]

84. i've read plenty of labor history, thanks all the same. your brush is too broad.

[Romulox]

91. You appear to have slipped into a coma at the part where the Obama admin forced BK, broke the UAW

abrogated retirement contracts, etc. etc. Odd how those little tidbits have consistently escaped your critique.

You big advocate for the worker, you. :eyes:

[Hannah Bell]

16. UAW members still upset over plant buyout plan

Updated: Aug 15, 2010 5:13 PM EDT

Indianapolis - Tempers flared Sunday after a UAW meeting on the west side. Some members are upset about a contract controversy.

The meeting was supposed to lay the foundation for a vote on concessions to take place Monday. But now, the Union Local says there will be no vote, which means there can be no buyer for the GM stamping plant.

http://www.factoryrat.com/factoryrat/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=12578

[Hannah Bell]

15. GM workers reject concessions

UAW International representatives intent on cutting GM workers’ wages in half were met with a roaring reception—of boos—in Indianapolis Sunday. Unable to make themselves heard over the shouts of “traitor!” and more from the standing-room-only crowd of stamping plant workers, a rep finally asked, “Are there members who want to hear this information?”

“NO!” was the answer. “Get out!”

As the rep packed up to leave the membership asked for a favor: to take their local union president, Ray Kennedy, with him. They even kicked out the police the union brass had ordered for the occasion.

Union officials were on site to sell a proposal to workers at Local 23, three months after they had voted down reopening their contract, 384-22. Fifty percent pay cuts were part of the deal demanded by JD Norman Industries as a condition of buying the factory.

The members’ decisive rejection of concessions was reminiscent of a similar “No!” shouted at another UAW official last fall inside the Ford truck plant in Dearborn, Michigan. That time the official forced to leave the area was soon-to-be UAW President Bob King.

http://socialistworker.org/blog/critical-reading/2010/08/16/gm-workers-reject-concessions

[Sherman A1]

18. Excellent!

The working folks need to stand up against both the rotten deals and those bringing back with recommendations to accept.

:toast:

[Hannah Bell]

19. There was some organizing behind this:

Throw the Traitors out of the Union Hall



Ray Kennedy and Mo Davison are not our superiors. They are not our bosses. We don’t take orders from union hacks who are more interested in representing cut throat companies like J.D. Norman than the best interests of UAW members.

Kennedy and Davison do not have the Constitutional right nor the legal right to undermine the highest authority in the UAW which is We the Members.

We are in charge and Sunday is the time to show the International that they aren’t dealing with a bunch of scabs.

We don’t have to listen to this “information” meeting because it is not officially recognized by We the Members or our elected Executive Board.

The meeting violates our UAW Constitution and our Local Union By-Laws. It is illegal because it breaks the contract we signed along with tens of thousands of other UAW brothers and sisters.

We aren’t scabs.

We should not permit traitors to hold a ratification vote in violation of the expressed will of this local membership. We the Members are the highest authority in the UAW. Union leaders are supposed to work for us, not against us.

Kennedy and Davison represent everything that is despicable about unions.

Shout them down and throw them out of the Union Hall.

Davison may be getting some sort of kickback from Norman for brokering this scab contract, but all we get is less pay, less opportunity, and a sign our backs that says, “Kick Me, I’m a Scab.”

We stand to gain more by shutting down and moving on with enhanced relocation allowance, than we do if we suck up to Norman Industries, work for non union wages, and scab on all our UAW brothers and sisters whose work GM will transfer to the scab site in Indianapolis.

Show up at the Union Hall on Sunday and show them that the real authority in the UAW is We the Members.

Throw the traitors out of the Union Hall.

Shout them down and throw them out.

Solidarity Forever!!


http://www.soldiersofsolidarity.com/


mods pls note: this is an informational broadside, not a copyrighted essay.

[Yuugal]

20. K&R

[guardian]

21. Stunning

this is crazy.

[Romulox]

22. That's why *I* drive a Toyota: to support workers in Indiana.

:shrug:

[snooper2]

24. WTF they start the meeting with a little praying

:rofl:

I don't think the "lord" is going to be present at the contract negotiations :P

[B Calm]

26. So you saying the union demanded that the company cut the employees

wages? I think it was a management decision, not the unions. . .

[Hannah Bell]

27. try reading the story.

[B Calm]

32. I read it and it was still company management that came up with this idea!

[Hannah Bell]

39. and the union bosses who did the secret negotiations after the local said no.

the local has a contract which gives them that right.

the international union bosses went behind the backs of the local to sell them out.

you seemed to have missed that part.

[B Calm]

64. No I didn't miss anything! You're so damn eager to blame the union

for the corporate decision to cut employees wages, it makes one question what the hell is your agenda!

[Hannah Bell]

65. news for you: the rank & file *are* the union, not the collaborationist leadership of the

international.

it makes me wonder what the hell *your* agenda is, that you don't know the difference.

the leadership of the international *collaborated* with potential new owners *against* the local, in violation of union rules.

why are you excusing this & attempting to smear me?

[amborin]

73. try blaming GM, the real culprit here

as far as evidence shows, you are smearing yourself

you got a lot of recs on this OP, it clearly pleases the anti-union crowd, which is growing by the day;

the international's coziness with the Big Three has been going on forever; that doesn't diminish the importance of the UAW and its benefit to workers; many, many union leaders fought, and continue to fight, valient battles

you dismiss all this; irresponsible in my opinion

[Hannah Bell]

85. the leadership of the international was collaborating with gm. try reading what i write &

stop trying to attribute motivations to me. i support unionism. i don't support company unionism.

[B Calm]

76. The UNION is as strong as the membership! The only one smearing

unions is YOU! The union leadership was not the party that made this offer, it was the company that wants to buy their plant. All the union leadership was doing was telling the membership what will happen. No reason to be kicking them out for telling the truth.

As an ex union person who went through this same scenario back in the mid 80s when Olin Corporation decided they wanted out of the cellophane business and sold our Indiana plant to an unscrupulous crook in Atlanta.

[Hannah Bell]

86. can't read, can you? the local voted not to negotiate by an overwhelming majority.

the MEMBERS.

the leadership of the international, in defiance of the local's vote, tried to cut a deal to lower their pay.

In violation of the UAW's constitution as well.

your apologetics are stupid.

[amborin]

72. +10000

[Starry Messenger]

28. Interesting development.

k & r

[Romulox]

29. Hooray! Now that the Unions are dead, Marxism will flourish!

Which is why the OP doesn't support organized labor (I guess.) :shrug:

[TheKentuckian]

33. I'm not clear why you think the OP is anti-labor, I'm missing something

[Romulox]

35. Because I recall her previous posts on the subject.

She's been anti-UAW since I've been here.

[B Calm]

36. Kinda looks that way. . .

[Hannah Bell]

43. right, because this local got treated so well by the leadership of their international.

THERE'S A REASON WHY EVERYONE IN THE LOCAL STOOD UP & TOLD THE SOB'S FROM THE INTERNATIONAL TO GET THE HELL OUT.

The international collaborated with the owners & tried to FUCK THE WORKERS.

WHAT DON'T YOU GET?

[Hannah Bell]

42. anti-uaw international's bought-off "leadership". anti-their collaboration with the phoney

"bankruptcy" that screwed their members.

anti-their continuing collaboration in screwing their members: ONE EXAMPLE OF WHICH IS DEMONSTRATED IN THE VERY INCIDENT POSTED.

But just continue with your disingenuous defense of the international's "leadership" -- which you pretend is a defense of unions.

[Romulox]

66. You drove a Toyota well before the Obama admin broke the UAW.

"Solidarity", my ass! :hi:

[Hannah Bell]

41. the poster thinks any criticism of bought-off union leadership's failure to lead = being against

unionism -- that's why.

[Romulox]

67. Bullshit. Link to a SINGLE thread you've posted in support of unionized auto workers

:hi:

[Hannah Bell]

78. this one is a defense of unionized auto workers. sorry you don't get it, & mistake the

collaborationist leadership of uaw for the union.

the union is the workers, & workers are fighting back by saying no to more clawbacks, scabbing & whipsawing.

the collaborationist leadership is saying "yes" to all those things.

[Romulox]

81. It's the fucking Obama admin that is doing this to workers.

The government owns GM and has installed its CEO. Our "progressive" government is "management" here--they are the ones doing this to workers. Under those facts, it is ridiculous to attack the UAW as the main villain here.

[Hannah Bell]

83. lol.

[Romulox]

90. It's responses like these which expose you.

You are not who/what you claim to be. Your hostility toward workers has been palpable since I started here, and a few lame postings from WSWS are not effective to cover your trail.

I would go so far as to suggest that you are a "false flag" poster. :hi:

[dionysus]

47. !!!

:spray:

[amborin]

59. yep

one of the perennial debates: reform vs revolution

some marxists prefer no reforms as they delay the revolution;

but while we're waiting, and it looks as if it's going to be a long wait, the reforms make conditions a tiny bit better for workers, hence unions

i just don't like the language in the op

using the term "executives" seems unfair

granted, the international leadership is way too cozy with gm; and bob king just gave up the fight in his inaugural speech in traverse city; and the administration caucus pretty much controls everything and stamps out debate; but *all* workers benefit from organizing and this op provides fodder for the anti-union crowd; besides, it fails to discriminate between int leadership and local level leadership

[Hannah Bell]

60. "UAW Region 3 Director Maurice Davison" is an executive of UAW International.

He's also DNC.

This action was a rebellion of a local, and its leadership, against the "leadership" of UAW International, who had blatantly collaborated with (potential new) owners to screw the local, and all GM workers (whipsawing) -- in violation of the spirit & letter of the union's own rules.

Sorry you see that as "fodder for the anti-union crowd". It happens to be the truth. All workers don't benefit from collaborationist company unions. In times like this which are one uninterrupted concession/giveback, NONE do: collaboration = a joint effort to grind workers.

[blindpig]

30. Good for them

Workers need to take back their unions from the scabs who are selling them out.

[sendero]

37. Unpopular opinion follows, open at your own risk..

... the pay for these jobs will be cut. Manufacturers that cannot get these concessions from the union will relocate the plants. The unions bosses get it, apparently the rank and file do not.

[GrantDem]

40. I do not know the specifics of this particular plant...

however, in many cases when a vote-this-way-or-else ultimatum has been issued the decision to close the plant has already been made. Too many times workers agree to huge concessions only to have the plant shut down anyway. It becomes more of a matter of pride and dignity.

[704wipes]

44. That's what I think, but this will cause a stop in production

They wanted the union to take the cutbacks so the plant could be sold without
a break in production. Now in order to sell it GM will have to actually stop production.

Which, in a way, is the union saying we strike your plant with a production stop
before you can use it again. Probably the closest they could come to an actual old
fashioned job action, although there is one more action option they have left, if they want to
really take it to 1930's style action.

[Hannah Bell]

45. LOL. typical uninformed comment. The workers make out lots better saying no. Inform yourself.

Live Bait & Ammo# 154: Whipsawing is an STD


The UAW International’s plan to whipsaw GM stamping plants into submission begins at UAW Local 23 in Indianapolis, Indiana. The plant is scheduled to be closed. J.D. Norman, an independent metal fabricator, offered to buy the plant but refused to honor the current contract’s successor clause.
Norman wants to cut compensation in half.

Local union members passed a motion affirming their decision to uphold solidarity with other stamping plants in the GM-UAW system and honor the master agreement. They’d rather shut down than act like scabs... but under the leadership of the new UAW International president, Bob King, union democracy can apparently be swept under the rug. King doesn’t respect the rank & file. He prefers to carry water for J.D. Norman. The UAW Constitution forbids any union official from negotiating with an employer without approval of the membership. But under Bob King’s leadership the UAW Constitution should only be used to control and manipulate workers.

The UAW International went behind the backs of the members and their elected Bargaining Chairman, Greg Clark, and negotiated a cut rate contract with J.D. Norman. In defiance of the local union, the UAW Constitution, and the fundamental union principle of solidarity, Bob King demands that members vote to break the master agreement at a special meeting this Sunday and ratify the scab contract on Monday.

All UAW members are threatened by Bob King’s arrogant behavior, but members at stamping plants should feel particularly offended. The Indianapolis plant has 1.2 million square feet to fill. As soon as the domino falls in Indianapolis, Bob King’s henchman will be knocking on other local union doors and demanding wage cuts. Submit, or GM will transfer your work to J.D. Norman, a shop represented by the new UAW where members work for non union wages under non union work rules.

UNDER THE TENTATIVE AGREEMENT WORKERS WILL GET LESS THAN IF THE PLANT CLOSED AND THE WORKERS TRANSFERRED TO OTHER GM PLANTS WITH THE ENHANCED RELOCATION ALLOWANCE REWARDED TO SITES UNDER CLOSED PLANT STATUS.

http://www.soldiersofsolidarity.com/

[sendero]

48. Better..

... but their wages will be cut.

[Hannah Bell]

63. you didn't read it. their wages won't be cut.

interesting contingent of folks here supporting management as they screw workers on the grounds that "there's nothing workers can do but take their mandated screwing".

meanwhile telling me *i'm* anti-union. lol.

[Romulox]

70. I think a lot of people don't support management here.

They just sense an agenda other than concern for the well-being of these workers, and, bottom line, they don't support you. :hi:

[Hannah Bell]

74. what would that "agenda" be? the fact is, the posts are supporting the position of the

international, which is acting against the local in violation of uaw's constitution.

[Romulox]

80. I don't know what it is, but it surely ain't pro auto worker.

:hi:

[Hannah Bell]

87. because you, who cheers $14/hr, no bennies, are "pro-auto worker".

what crap.

[Romulox]

92. Your posts are garbage; I've never advocated for anything like that.

:hi:

[tinymontgomery]

49. They need to tell the leaders

that they will take the pay cut when the leaders make the same amount, 15 dollars or so per hour, aren't we all in this together?

[Rage for Order]

50. There's an easy way to ensure union reps and execs work for their members' interests:

The unions need to pass a rule mandating that the reps and execs can't make more money than the highest paid union worker, and they have to accept the same size pay & benefit cut, proportionally, as the union members do when contracts are re-negotiated. I bet they wouldn't be so quick to recommend the union members take a pay cut if these rules were in place.

[seattleblue]

52. Would not work in a large union

Large unions such as the UAW, Teamsters, and Steelworkers, as examples, often have hundreds of different contracts under their control. They may represent hundreds of completely different companies in different industries. So if some small company somewhere went bankrupt and workers had to take a pay cut it would not be fair to penalize the union administration.

[Rage for Order]

53. If the union execs are encouraging their members to take a pay cut...

Then they need to share in the pain so they don't lose touch with those people who they are supposed to support.

[seattleblue]

54. So if one percent of the union members are working for a

company that has to take a pay cut and 99% of the members are doing great then the union execs should take a pay cut? There would not be a union left in the country.

[Rage for Order]

55. My rule proposal could be tweaked...

But certainly the first part - no union rep or exec is allowed to make more than the highest paid union worker - would be a good start.

[seattleblue]

58. I agree at least somewhat with the first part.

In major unions you can find many workers making well over $100,000 in various plants because of overtime, etc. I don't think union execs should take a vow of poverty because often they have the livelihoods of thousands of people in their hands and they need to be rewarded for that responsibility if they are competent.

[unkachuck]

57. "...cut wages from an average of $29 an hour to $15.50."

"...a concessionary contract the membership had voted to NOT NEGOTIATE!"

....Walter Reuther is rolling over in his grave....

[Fla_Democrat]

68. This was on Limbaugh's show

yesterday (got no control over the radio at work). I thought he was joking. He certainly was laughing it up. :wtf:

[Romulox]

69. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

:puke:

[Hannah Bell]

77. yes, it's a laff riot watching the "left" defend the collaborationist leadership of the

international, the "leaders" who've presided over the destruction of unionism & clawbacks of wages & benefits -- thus giving the right the opening to pose as defenders of workers.

it's a barnum & bailey world, all right.

[Romulox]

79. The Obama administration is "management" in this case.

Funny you should neglect to mention any of that! :shrug:

Add another player to the bill, I guess. :hi:

[Hannah Bell]

88. your smears are transparent. keep sticking up for $14/hr, no bennies & non-union plants!

[maryf]

89. Real hope for change here!!

Thanks for posting this, Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours