Originally Posted by Pulaski

Per above, doing things with corporate money that the union doesn't approved of doesn't make it illegal.

Originally Posted by civilservant

Very difficult to attack a completely vacuous statement that has zero facts, only scurrilous accusations.

Except to call it a completely vacuous statement that has zero facts, only scurrilous accusations. Which I think I did, by extension.

Originally Posted by The Mirror

I always found it absurd how corporations can get billions put into thier bank accounts overnight with nary a word from people, but try to give a little assistance to a poor single mother in the form of a gallon of milk, a frozen can of juice and a box of cereal every month and they go beserk, screaming socialism!. Corporations don't need you lookin out for them, theyre doin just fine without you.

In case you haven't noticed: This is Socalism for corporations, and brutal capitalism for everyone else. ....

Originally Posted by The Mirror

I always found it absurd how corporations can get billions put into thier bank accounts overnight with nary a word from people, but try to give a little assistance to a poor single mother in the form of a gallon of milk, a frozen can of juice and a box of cereal every month and they go beserk, screaming socialism!. Corporations don't need you lookin out for them, theyre doin just fine without you.

In case you haven't noticed: This is Socalism for corporations, and brutal capitalism for everyone else

Originally Posted by The Mirror

I made many statements, which one? And a lifetime of REAL LIFE experience teaches a person many things...

Originally Posted by Steerpike

I don't think anyone here is going to argue with the idea that the bailouts are "socialism for corporations", nor that some of the actions of these corporations are less than ideal. What started this somewhat pointless exchange was your assertion that it was 'looting' and 'illegal'. I think we all fully understand that these corporations are going to abuse this money. The original point being made was, the unions were stupid to take a hard negotiation stance because they hold NONE of the cards.

Originally Posted by johnwoo

The unions and the general population rarely hold much of any in the way of a winning hand.
The corporations and the wealthy have the upper hand and intend to keep it that way. Those at the bottom aren't even in the game.
Nothing to do with the thread but the conversation has drifted, my two cents worth.

Originally Posted by Jsmth321

Private sector unions in more and more industries seem powerless these days, just struggling to stay relevant.

I've been in several unions before in the airline industry, I would say none of them were of any real benefit, they made sure the most senior employees got a nice raise, and shafted the rest of us and when it came to oursourcing the union was more eh nothing we can do, sorry.

Same in the hotel industry unions are pretty much useless and in bed with the company, same as the grocery industry in Canada, union serves no purpose, oh gee min wage, yay unions!

I am for unions that actually fight for workers, but more and more it seems the union leaders do jack all for workers these days.

Originally Posted by Pulaski

Once you have laws on working hours and vacation time, and some sort of minimum wage, even if it is well below a "living wage", it is IMO always going to be difficult for most unions to remain relevant. Which means across most of the industrial world, unions have been fighting for their existance since WWII.

There was ample demand for labour during the post war reconstuction, which kept wages up, and by the late 60's and 70's the unions, certainly inthe UK, had transformed into a sort of organized crime/ extortion racket, designed to extract above average pay from industries that were primarily unionized - in the UK, that was the unions linked to heavy industry - coal, iron, railways, and ship building, as well as public service jobs, such as healthcare staff, teachers, bin men, and eventually even ambulance and fire crews. It all got a bit crazy in 1970, when the electorate had clearly had enough of the antics of the unions, and elected Mrs Thatcher, who took that as a mandate to take on the miners, who had caused several damaging strikes in the UK and thought they could bring the country to its knees and governments to cower and fold whenever they went on strike.

I don't think it was as bad in the US, but Ronald Reagan set a precedent in the US by firing the striking Air Traffic Controllers, which led to a collapse in the number of strikes in the US. I know that not everyone will agree that that is a good thing, but if strikes in the UK and US had continued in the 80's and 90's like they had been in the 70's even more of the manufacturing base would have left for countries, primarily in Asia.

Originally Posted by Steerpike

I don't think anyone here is going to argue with the idea that the bailouts are "socialism for corporations", nor that some of the actions of these corporations are less than ideal. What started this somewhat pointless exchange was your assertion that it was 'looting' and 'illegal'. I think we all fully understand that these corporations are going to abuse this money. The original point being made was, the unions were stupid to take a hard negotiation stance because they hold NONE of the cards.

Originally Posted by Jsmth321

Private sector unions in more and more industries seem powerless these days, just struggling to stay relevant.

I've been in several unions before in the airline industry, I would say none of them were of any real benefit, .

Originally Posted by Giantaxe

In the Great Recession bailout of banks, many subsequently used the bailout money to buy back stock, thus increasing the value of stock/stock options in the remuneration, in particular, of senior executives. Not "illegal", obviously, but given that "looting" isn't really a legal term, I can certainly see an argument that that use of bailout money approached that word. At the very least, it was completely unethical, and iirc caused bailouts this time around to stipulate that the money could not be used for buy backs

Originally Posted by johnwoo

The unions and the general population rarely hold much of any in the way of a winning hand.
The corporations and the wealthy have the upper hand and intend to keep it that way. Those at the bottom aren't even in the game.