Jack Weber Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 (edited) And, more fascinating, sometimes they are, but have been informed that the fault always comes from weird directions, rather than from those with the most power and influence. It's the "submission to authority" issues that permeate conservative thought that allows this to happen... Power and control of the workplace is what they want...It comes from a deep seated superioroty complex...I've seen it in every contract negotiation I have ever been involved in... Edited June 19, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Shwa Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 I'd say both parties share the blame. But the CAW didn't mind the car companies getting billions in bailouts a couple of years ago. It saved their jobs, and it paid their salaries, pensions and benefits. Did it now? Really? GM pays back government loans from US, Canada It seems like company profitability paid for staff now doesn't it? Quote
CPCFTW Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 (edited) Did it now? Really? GM pays back government loans from US, Canada It seems like company profitability paid for staff now doesn't it? Wtf are you even arguing? GM would be bankrupt without the government bailouts. Hence the operating costs (including salaries, pensions, and benefits) were paid for by the low interest government loans that could not be obtained in the financial markets. This saved CAW jobs as GM would have been bankrupt without the government bailout. Unless CAW employees are also bankruptcy lawyers, they would not have had jobs anymore. How hard is that to understand? Edited June 19, 2011 by CPCFTW Quote
Shady Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 Productivity is really less people doing more work for less money... Not necessarily for less money. But I see that you're one of the flat-earthers, that think you can force businesses not to use technology to their advantage, and to force them to hire or keep employees that aren't needed. Higher productivity means lower costs of goods and services for us all. But you're uncapable of understanding that. You're probably still mad at the advent of ATM machines and kiosks! Quote
Shady Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 Did it now? Really? GM pays back government loans from US, Canada It seems like company profitability paid for staff now doesn't it? Looks like you fell for the same con as a lot of people. When GM was given its bailout money, a small portion of it was given as a loan, the rest as a grant. Yes, they paid off the small amount that was structured as a loan. But the overwhelming majority of the bailout money won't be paid back. GM CEO Ed Whitacre announced in a Wall Street Journal column Wednesday that his company has paid back its government bailout loan "in full, with interest, years ahead of schedule." He is even running TV ads on all major networks to that effectUncle Sam gave GM $49.5 billion last summer in aid to finance its bankruptcy. Because a loan of such a huge amount would have been politically controversial, the Obama administration handed GM only $6.7 billion as a pure loan. (It asked for only a 7% interest rate--a very sweet deal considering that GM bonds at that time were trading below junk level.) The vast bulk of the bailout money was transferred to GM through the purchase of 60.8% equity stake in the company--arguably an even worse deal for taxpayers than the loan, given that the equity position requires them to bear the risk of the investment without any guaranteed return. (The Canadian government likewise gave GM $1.4 billion as a pure loan, and another $8.1 billion for an 11.7% equity stake. The U.S. and Canadian government together own 72.5% of the company.) Link So yes, GM paid back its loan of $6.7 billion. Now it just has another $43 billion to go. And the worst part of it, is they paid back the $6.7 billion using the grant portion of the bailout. So in essence, they just shifted the money given to them around. And dopes like you fell for it. Quote
Wilber Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 Not necessarily for less money. But I see that you're one of the flat-earthers, that think you can force businesses not to use technology to their advantage, and to force them to hire or keep employees that aren't needed. Higher productivity means lower costs of goods and services for us all. But you're uncapable of understanding that. You're probably still mad at the advent of ATM machines and kiosks! Who is saying companies shouldn't use technology to their advantage or they should hire or keep employees who are not needed? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Shady Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 (edited) Who is saying companies shouldn't use technology to their advantage or they should hire or keep employees who are not needed? Union Jack Weber. His is a typical union mentality though. Less work for more pay. Edited June 19, 2011 by Shady Quote
Shwa Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 Looks like you fell for the same con as a lot of people. When GM was given its bailout money, a small portion of it was given as a loan, the rest as a grant. Yes, they paid off the small amount that was structured as a loan. But the overwhelming majority of the bailout money won't be paid back. So yes, GM paid back its loan of $6.7 billion. Now it just has another $43 billion to go. And the worst part of it, is they paid back the $6.7 billion using the grant portion of the bailout. So in essence, they just shifted the money given to them around. And dopes like you fell for it. The vast bulk of the bailout money was transferred to GM through the purchase of 60.8% equity stake in the company--arguably an even worse deal for taxpayers than the loan, given that the equity position requires them to bear the risk of the investment without any guaranteed return. (The Canadian government likewise gave GM $1.4 billion as a pure loan, and another $8.1 billion for an 11.7% equity stake. The U.S. and Canadian government together own 72.5% of the company.) GM posts fourth-quarter, full-year profits Not to mention that this equity can be - and will be - sold. And making a multi-billion dollar profit helps that sale doesn't it? Do you honestly think the Canadian and US governments are going to sell and below-market-price for their stake in GM? Once all the "shifting around" is done and all? Secondary to all of this - supposing that the governments DID - in the end - pay for all those employee benefits and pensions and such. Where does all that money go - do you know? Quote
CPCFTW Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 (edited) GM posts fourth-quarter, full-year profits Not to mention that this equity can be - and will be - sold. And making a multi-billion dollar profit helps that sale doesn't it? Do you honestly think the Canadian and US governments are going to sell and below-market-price for their stake in GM? Once all the "shifting around" is done and all? Secondary to all of this - supposing that the governments DID - in the end - pay for all those employee benefits and pensions and such. Where does all that money go - do you know? That 8.1B for 11.7% of GM gives GM a 69B valuation. They are now trading at a valuation of 45B (ie. 11.7% is worth 5.2B). It will be a long time before Canada recoups losses from the bailout, and even when they do, the annualized real rate of return will be laughable. Not to mention Canada has effectively borrowed money for the bailout so we purchased this equity stake on margin (that 8B could have went towards debt repayment for a greater ROI). Basically we borrowed at our cost of debt (I'm not exactly sure how government debt repayment works.. I assume they just don't roll over short term bonds, but it would be around 1.5-2% if debt repayment is at current yield levels) to finance an investment in an asset that has realized a -36% ROI. The government bailed out the CAW, plain and simple. Deal with reality instead of trying to spin the truth. Edited June 19, 2011 by CPCFTW Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 That 8.1B for 11.7% of GM gives GM a 69B valuation. They are now trading at a valuation of 45B (ie. 11.7% is worth 5.2B). It will be a long time before Canada recoups losses from the bailout, and even when they do, the annualized real rate of return will be laughable. The government bailed out the CAW, plain and simple. Deal with reality instead of trying to spin the truth. The government bailout cost the tax payers. That is the long and the short of it. Who got the money is not very important to me, I am sad to say it but it is true for me. I simple don't care who got the money because the fact remains that it was once my money and the government took it away. Since I have no say in the manner of funds taken from me by the government, the bastards can and do tax us at will, I won't waste my time worrying about it. In my view they should have let the companies fail, after that the government could have and should have picked the bones clean of those corporate carcasses. The transfer of public funds into private venture control has set a very dangerous precedent. How many times have we already subsidized private corporations, and how many more times will we do it in the future? Considering that the current government says one thing and does another with respect to discretionary spending, I will suggest that no help on problem resolution will be found within the government itself. Its time to rethink many things and government spending is the only place to start. I will suggest that the Liberals deciding to take a couple of years to choose a new leader suggests that they are planning to use the available time to morph the party into something worthy of public support. Keep in mind that the country export dependent. In Canada, the requirement is to produce or perish. The nation needs immediate and intensive industrial development and manufacturing capacity. In terms of resources and opportunities, our best gamble is the north. Canada needs once again to invoke crown corporations to get the job done. The long term plan associated with that is the privatization of those companies once they become fully viable and profitable. As soon as the company can be sold off to recoup the investment it should be done. Perhaps the governments should never be in business, but this is Canada. We have done it before, and we can do it again. Its time to do a lot of rethinking. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 bloated labour costs from ridiculous pensions for unskilled labour is definitely one of them. Being a CSR at an airline is no more a career than being a CSR at Wal-Mart. If you want a pension, get a real career. A DC pension is more than fair. Quit trying to pass off your opinion as fact. Quote
CPCFTW Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 The government bailout cost the tax payers. That is the long and the short of it. Who got the money is not very important to me, I am sad to say it but it is true for me. I simple don't care who got the money because the fact remains that it was once my money and the government took it away. Since I have no say in the manner of funds taken from me by the government, the bastards can and do tax us at will, I won't waste my time worrying about it. In my view they should have let the companies fail, after that the government could have and should have picked the bones clean of those corporate carcasses. The transfer of public funds into private venture control has set a very dangerous precedent. How many times have we already subsidized private corporations, and how many more times will we do it in the future? Considering that the current government says one thing and does another with respect to discretionary spending, I will suggest that no help on problem resolution will be found within the government itself. Its time to rethink many things and government spending is the only place to start. I will suggest that the Liberals deciding to take a couple of years to choose a new leader suggests that they are planning to use the available time to morph the party into something worthy of public support. Keep in mind that the country export dependent. In Canada, the requirement is to produce or perish. The nation needs immediate and intensive industrial development and manufacturing capacity. In terms of resources and opportunities, our best gamble is the north. Canada needs once again to invoke crown corporations to get the job done. The long term plan associated with that is the privatization of those companies once they become fully viable and profitable. As soon as the company can be sold off to recoup the investment it should be done. Perhaps the governments should never be in business, but this is Canada. We have done it before, and we can do it again. Its time to do a lot of rethinking. Why would we need crown corporations? Just give private companies some grants and tax breaks for northern exploration. Quote
CPCFTW Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 Quit trying to pass off your opinion as fact. Should I insert a disclaimer that my posts are my opinion? I thought that was implied. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 That has nothing to do with what I said. Quote
CPCFTW Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 That has nothing to do with what I said. Then please feel free to explain what you are saying. Am I not allowed to use adjectives? Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 Why would we need crown corporations? Just give private companies some grants and tax breaks for northern exploration. That is the whole point! Instead of giving away tax dollars, invest them in the REAL economy. Call it nation building. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 Then please feel free to explain what you are saying. Am I not allowed to use adjectives? You can use all the adjectives in the world that you want and you can state whatever opinions you want, but without actually qualifying what you're saying with supporting evidence your opinions are entirely meaningless. It doesn't go without saying that labour costs are bloated. Perhaps they are fair value or even too low for the labour that is being done. It's also not self-evident that the pensions are ridiculous. Again, they're negotiated compensation for the work that is being done. If the company agreed to it, then they mustn't have been ridiculous for the work that was being offered in exchange for it. Unskilled or not has nothing to do with the value of the labour being done. Unskilled doesn't mean free or necessarily cheap. It depends on what work needs to be done and how many people are willing to do it, as well as how many people are capable of doing it well, among many other things. So the only thing that I see around here that is bloated, ridiculous and unskilled are your opinions. Quote
CPCFTW Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 (edited) You can use all the adjectives in the world that you want and you can state whatever opinions you want, but without actually qualifying what you're saying with supporting evidence your opinions are entirely meaningless. It doesn't go without saying that labour costs are bloated. Perhaps they are fair value or even too low for the labour that is being done. It's also not self-evident that the pensions are ridiculous. Again, they're negotiated compensation for the work that is being done. If the company agreed to it, then they mustn't have been ridiculous for the work that was being offered in exchange for it. Unskilled or not has nothing to do with the value of the labour being done. Unskilled doesn't mean free or necessarily cheap. It depends on what work needs to be done and how many people are willing to do it, as well as how many people are capable of doing it well, among many other things. So the only thing that I see around here that is bloated, ridiculous and unskilled are your opinions. Quit trying to pass off your opinion as fact. WTF are you even arguing? The adjectives are obviously my opinion. You obviously think otherwise. Thank you for wasting our time on that conclusion. Edited June 19, 2011 by CPCFTW Quote
Wilber Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 Union Jack Weber. His is a typical union mentality though. Less work for more pay. Must have missed that. Can you provide the quote? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
bloodyminded Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 Must have missed that. Can you provide the quote? Get comfortable. Forever is a long wait. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Shady Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 Must have missed that. Can you provide the quote? Page 2 of the thread. He assails productivity as a bad thing. Quote
Wilber Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 Page 2 of the thread. He assails productivity as a bad thing. I didn't read it that way at all. I read it that he feels in some minds, productivity means more work for less pay. If anything, more productivity from an individual employee should mean more pay, not less. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Sandy MacNab Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 I didn't read it that way at all. I read it that he feels in some minds, productivity means more work for less pay. If anything, more productivity from an individual employee should mean more pay, not less. More productivity = more pay for employee = lower prices for consumers = more sales for business = greater profits = more tax revenue for gov'ts = prosperity for all! An equation totally ignored by unions. Quote
Wilber Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 More productivity = more pay for employee = lower prices for consumers = more sales for business = greater profits = more tax revenue for gov'ts = prosperity for all! An equation totally ignored by unions. By some maybe but the thrust here seems to be for all of those things except the second. Lowering incomes does not increase tax revenues, nor does it increase profits if people have less to spend. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Scotty Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 Hahaha "pension holidays". You mean not going bankrupt holidays? Companies would have just gone bankrupt earlier without those "holidays" because the union pension demands are unreasonable and a company can't compete in a globalized environment while taking on investment risk for unskilled labourers. Then they shouldn't have signed the contracts. Companies have done everything they can to extend their lives for the worker's benefit [/quoteOhhh, they did that for the workers, eh? Wow, how noble! Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.