Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
16705 messages, Last post on Nov 25, 2009 at 6:56 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: foresterxt (Dec 10, 2008 8:55 pm) At least 40 percent of all women report being sexually harassed at some point in their career, and men currently account for 11.6 percent of all sexual harassment cases. So, the chances of your company needing to respond to a sexual harassment concern are great. Be prepared, and you will likely deal with it successfully for all parties involved. http://www.nfib.com/object/IO_25824.html |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: spirit6100 (Dec 11, 2008 4:35 am) But corporate tax lawyers quickly realized the enormous implications of the document: Administration officials had just given American banks a windfall of as much as $140 billion. The sweeping change to two decades of tax policy escaped the notice of lawmakers for several days, as they remained consumed with the controversial bailout bill. When they found out, some legislators were furious. Some congressional staff members have privately concluded that the notice was illegal. But they have worried that saying so publicly could unravel several recent bank mergers made possible by the change and send the economy into an even deeper tailspin. "Did the Treasury Department have the authority to do this? I think almost every tax expert would agree that the answer is no," said George K. Yin, the former chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the nonpartisan congressional authority on taxes. "They basically repealed a 22-year-old law that Congress passed as a backdoor way of providing aid to banks." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/09/AR2008110902155_- pf.html |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: dieselone (Dec 11, 2008 6:34 pm) In the pension agency's view, to permit a company to adopt this type of ''follow-on'' pension plan after terminating its original plan is to invite abuse of the pension insurance system. As the agency explained its view to the Court, workers will have every incentive to collude with their employers in the abandonment of troubled pension plans, knowing that the Federal program will cover most of the benefits and a relatively inexpensive new plan will pick up the rest. The result, the agency said, will be an accelerating drain on its resources. But the appeals court ruled that under the Federal retirement law, the existence of a new pension plan of this type was not a basis for the pension agency to order restoration of the old plans. In its appeal, P.B.G.C. v. LTV Corp., No. 89-390, the agency is arguing that the appeals court should have deferred to the agency's professional judgment that misuse of the insurance fund should not be tolerated. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE6D6123EF932A05753C1A96F94826- 0&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1 Also your right about everything being done on the IPhone. I stand corrected. |
|
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Dec 11, 2008 6:10 pm) Depends who you think is more correct. 3 think tank type groups or the Republicans down south with the competitors plants. Just for balance, there's also Milton Friedman, Harvard economist, and a lot of other economists who side with your "Republicans down south with competitors plants". Unfortunately we may find out. Headlines as of this moment are saying the talks have broken down because UAW won't agree to wage cuts. Looks like not much has changed with them.
|
|
|
"Several Republican senators seen leaving a meeting on a proposed settlement said the deal was off following hours of negotiations. The problem, they said, returned to the contentious issue of forcing the UAW to accept wages and benefits equal to those paid by foreign automakers in the United States." lTalks break off after GOP senators, UAW can't agree on pay (Detroit Free Press)
|
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Dec 11, 2008 6:56 pm) Your original post implied that because the UAW were collective bargaining employees they shouldn't have to tighten their belts (make concessions). Nothing to do with whether your employer can fire you. Are you suggesting that just because workers pay union dues they should be exempt from sacrifice to save a company? Everybody else sacrifice but not them? That appears to be the mentality as the bailout bill failed tonight because the UAW didn't want to budge until after their precious contract runs out in 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Dec 11, 2008 9:47 pm) keep the teacher's in the classroom where they belong and they should not be allowed to corrupt the rest with their ideas. Socrates was put to death for corupting the youth you know...., It is somebody(ies) theory being passed around to depend on the bankruptcy, but it does not have to be that way at all. There have been trillions of dollars here at play.., if all of those are so smart then something should have been done to save the economy more than where it's at now. 1)the UAW have made concessions. 2)A contract is a contract....., You could find a pie of your own and leave everbody elses' pie alone........, it's unlawful to break a contract....., The workers are tired enough already to deal with people trying to eat at them. pick pick pick the banks that were bailed out could allow the general public to open they're Home Loan Contracts for a better interest rate instead of foreclosures or the way you are talking, lower the amount of the loan to the lowered value of the home if that be the case. ceos have been fired in the past, but i don't see a good economy still. for $1 a year, one might be given the opportunity to resolve this. ~cheers
|
|
|
And the sticking point?? The group came close to agreement, but it stalled over the UAW's refusal to agree to wage cuts before their current contract expires in 2011. Republicans, in turn, balked at giving the automakers federal aid. The UAW did not immediately react to the failure of the Senate proposal. Bailout DEAD! Greed is the ultimate killer. Regards, OW
|
|
|
Replying to: cooterbfd (Dec 11, 2008 3:14 pm) I wonder though, when you're pulling that kind of hours, how you'd find the time to spend it! For a brief time, I actually had three jobs, back in early 1996 when I got divorced, and was deep in debt. There was a couple times I pulled in 80+ hours per week, and I think once I hit 90! About all I had time for though, was work and sleep! At that time, all the money was going to pay down bills, so I couldn't have blown it on an extravagant lifestyle if I wanted to...but even if I could, I wouldn't have the time! Back in March 2005, there was one week where I had to work 90 hours. It was pretty brutal. It was one thing when that 90 hours was spread across three jobs, and one of them involved a lot of running around, delivering pizzas. At least there was some variety, and it kept me moving. But to do 90 hours of PowerPoint and proofreading, is enough to rot your brain! I imagine that if you're getting overtime on a regular basis, you just get used to it always being there, and it's easy for your lifestyle and spending habits to adapt. Up until about 1-2 months ago, I had been averaging 4-5 hours of OT per week at my job. And on top of that, I maxed out my leave balance, so they've been letting me cash out 8 hours per week. So for the time being, that's been like getting a 30% raise! (getting paid for 52 hours, rather than 40. Also, I don't get time and a half, just a straight hourly rate). Unfortunately, about 1-2 months ago, we had a meeting, and they said they're going to start cutting out overtime to save on costs. At first they tried to stand their ground on it, but then they realized that if I go home as soon as I hit 40 hours and something comes up, the people that are left here can't always handle it. So they backed down on that one. And the vacation paydown won't last forever, either. We switch companies in a few months, at which point they just cut a check for our remaining balance. I never was one to live beyond my means. I've taken the extra income from the vacation paydown and the overtime and invested it (which in this economy, means I would've been better off stuffing it in a mattress.  ) Still, I guess it's not hard for some people to adjust their lifestyle, thinking the prosperity will go on forever. How easy it is to forget the past!
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Dec 11, 2008 6:35 pm) If you're married, isn't the insured maximum doubled? So $500K in this case? Or is that an old wive's tale? And yeah, much over 2.5% is pretty mythical these days. I know Emigrant Direct is at 3%, but I'm expecting them to drop soon. They usually change their rates soon after the Fed does, but this time they've slacked off...thankfully! Citibank had some savings account that was paying 3.5%, but it's down to 2.75 now. I was able to lock in a 6-month CD with H&R Block bank for something like 4.25%, but I doubt if they'd pay that now. And I didn't want to tie up the money any longer, just in case I need it. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
