Stimulus bill seeks to recover Wall Street bonuses

[kwame k]

WASHINGTON – Financial institutions that received federal bailout money and paid large executive bonuses would be required to compensate taxpayers under the economic stimulus bill approved by the Senate.

The $838 billion measure includes an amendment penalizing companies that paid bonuses greater than $100,000 to executives after receiving government rescue funds last year. The amendment would require the companies to repay within four months any portion of the bonus above $100,000 or face an excise tax of 35 percent on the portion of the bonus above $100,000.

The Senate approved the stimulus bill 61-37 on Tuesday, setting up negotiations with the House, which passed a slightly different version last week.

"It should have gone without saying that the bailout money was never intended for employee bonuses, but once again financial institutions have taken advantage of lax regulation and the public trust," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who co-sponsored the amendment with Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine.

"The American people are demanding that these firms get serious about getting our economy back on track,' Wyden said. "Congress has to show that it is willing to step in until they get the message."

Snowe, one of just three Republicans to back the stimulus bill, said the financial bailout Congress approved last fall "left open an escape hatch of golden parachutes for top executives on Wall Street, the same individuals whose careless mistakes hurt the financial system and forced taxpayers to foot the bill in the first place."

She said that by requiring the companies to return bailout funds used to pay big bonuses, the government could "claw back" bonuses already paid to senior executives at firms that received money in the final quarter of 2008 from the Treasury Department's Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP.

Snowe and Wyden said their amendment would work in conjunction with the Treasury Department's new guidelines on executive pay for financial institutions receiving TARP funds, by applying strict standards to bonuses paid in 2008. The new guidelines, announced Tuesday, apply to the unspent $350 billion installment of the $700 billion bailout fund.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the Wyden-Snowe amendment would raise as much as $3.2 billion. Financial institutions received more than $274 billion through the bailout program while paying out an estimated $18.4 billion in employee bonuses last year, the committee said.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090210/ap_on_go_co/stimulus_bonuses)

[kwame k]

So that's 18 billion coming back to the taxpayers..........

The thing that still blows my mind is.....when asked, the banks couldn't tell you where the money they were given went.......Wha? Sounds like Haliburton when asked to give an accounting of where 10's of millions of dollars went.....Answer.....duh, I don't know. Now that was accountability under Dubya's Administration.........looks like Obama is going to do just a bit better........Fiscal Responsibility and Accountablity......a new concept.

[LoungeMachine]

The original TARP "bailout" [read: corporate welfare" ] was a fucking going away reacharound from BushCO, plain and simple.

And we picked up the tab.

:gulp:

[Big Train]

And we are now about to pick up the tab on the union reach around act , bailout 2.

This is grandstanding of the worst kind. Anyone who knows anything about contract law understands that the majority of those bonuses were guaranteed, so it's just a fine. So you took back their bonuses, big fucking deal. They are still in play and will have amended and restructured contracts (amending their current agreements, thereby sidestepping the 500k bullshit) post haste.

This is as toothless as every other measure they have taken thus far to correct anything in the markets.

It's like taking a cookie away after a free meal.

Lounge, let me help you. Under WHOSE watch were those people pulling down their bonuses? Survey says...

Ok good, we can move on to something constructive now...

[hideyoursheep]

And we are now about to pick up the tab on the union reach around act , bailout 2.

This is grandstanding of the worst kind. Anyone who knows anything about contract law understands that the majority of those bonuses were guaranteed, so it's just a fine. ...
How in the FUCK can any legitimate business guarantee a bonus, when the CEO's are waiting in line at congress' door with their hands out, claiming to be BROKE?

The Right whines about giving to the poor and middle class, but somehow a bonus for bank execs who FAIL should somehow be justified?

-Don't make sense.

You don't reward bad business by using borrowed money to give bonuses and junkets for spa treatments. -PERIOD. They should be shitcanned immediately.

[Nickdfresh]

And we are now about to pick up the tab on the union reach around act , bailout 2.

This is grandstanding of the worst kind. Anyone who knows anything about contract law understands that the majority of those bonuses were guaranteed, so it's just a fine. So you took back their bonuses, big fucking deal. They are still in play and will have amended and restructured contracts (amending their current agreements, thereby sidestepping the 500k bullshit) post haste.

This is as toothless as every other measure they have taken thus far to correct anything in the markets.

It's like taking a cookie away after a free meal.

Lounge, let me help you. Under WHOSE watch were those people pulling down their bonuses? Survey says...

Ok good, we can move on to something constructive now...

So only corporate whore CEOs are supposed to make bank? The guys that earn 30K tp $70K a year working their asses off (many of whom are about to lose their unemployment benefits) can go fuck themselves? Right!

[sadaist]

You don't reward bad business by using borrowed money to give bonuses and junkets for spa treatments. -PERIOD. They should be shitcanned immediately.


I'd be willing to bet that a few million spent on a weekend junket sustains more employment than the same few million being spent to fix a crappy bike path in someones city in the current stimulus plan.

[Big Train]

How in the FUCK can any legitimate business guarantee a bonus, when the CEO's are waiting in line at congress' door with their hands out, claiming to be BROKE?

The Right whines about giving to the poor and middle class, but somehow a bonus for bank execs who FAIL should somehow be justified?

-Don't make sense.

You don't reward bad business by using borrowed money to give bonuses and junkets for spa treatments. -PERIOD. They should be shitcanned immediately.

Dummy, I'm AGREEING they should be replaced. I'm saying Obama's "punishment proposals" have no fucking teeth.

A legitimate business that hits a performance target does guarantee a bonus structure for upper management, happens in most industries. Whatever metric they had for performance targets they were hitting. Remember, a lot of this swept lots of legit biz down the tubes, as the bottom dropped out. Wasn't like they weren't having good years up UNTIL it dropped out. Those contracts usually run 3-5 years.

[Big Train]

So only corporate whore CEOs are supposed to make bank? The guys that earn 30K tp $70K a year working their asses off (many of whom are about to lose their unemployment benefits) can go fuck themselves? Right!

You too, where exactly do you get that from? You project these things from my comments as if that was what I was thinking. I'm simply criticizing a poorly written bill and an even more poorly written executive order.

But since you have decided to bring up this second line of thought, here goes. The 30-70k guy does deserve to make a living. I don't believe this bill is gonna give the average guy that much work to do. It will make the unions more powerful (and probably the Mafia to, as there will be competition for these union jobs), as they will lord over 90% of this busy work. However, this bill does very little to help create sustainable jobs in new industries, where Mr. 30-70k will feed his family over the long term. But we can dumb it down and say yea, I don't care....I'll think of some things to project on you for later.

Like, what, you don't care about business? You don't care about job stability in corporations?

[WACF]

I'd be willing to bet that a few million spent on a weekend junket sustains more employment than the same few million being spent to fix a crappy bike path in someones city in the current stimulus plan.

But everyone that lives in someone's city will get to enjoy the bike path for many years.

That weekend junket only benefits a select few and is over before they know it.

When the government hands out money to fix infanstructure you take it...it is not often money is handed out freely to fix things that should of already been taken care of.

[sadaist]

But everyone that lives in someone's city will get to enjoy the bike path for many years.

That weekend junket only benefits a select few and is over before they know it.

When the government hands out money to fix infrastructure you take it...it is not often money is handed out freely to fix things that should of already been taken care of.

Not really. The money goes to all the employees, caterers, valet, bartenders, restaurants, etc... Then those people pay their bills, buy things locally and recirculate that money. Then those stores where the money was spent hire more people, creating more jobs, more paychecks, more people spending money. Circle of life. This is why cities fight so hard (and spend a ton of dough) for the privilege to host the Super Bowl. Only one weekend, but that huge infusion of money starts circulating around & around.

And the problem I have with the government "stimulus" bill fixing shit like bike paths is that my local taxes are supposed to cover those already. I hate paying for stuff more than once. Even Van Halen I.....8-track, cassette, album, cd, remastered cd. Not to mention how many times I had to re buy those due to sun warping, scratching, dropping between the car seats & ruining it.......

[kwame k]

Not really. The money goes to all the employees, caterers, valet, bartenders, restaurants, etc... Then those people pay their bills, buy things locally and recirculate that money. Then those stores where the money was spent hire more people, creating more jobs, more paychecks, more people spending money. Circle of life. This is why cities fight so hard (and spend a ton of dough) for the privilege to host the Super Bowl. Only one weekend, but that huge infusion of money starts circulating around & around.

And the problem I have with the government "stimulus" bill fixing shit like bike paths is that my local taxes are supposed to cover those already. I hate paying for stuff more than once. Even Van Halen I.....8-track, cassette, album, cd, remastered cd. Not to mention how many times I had to re buy those due to sun warping, scratching, dropping between the car seats & ruining it.......


So your solution is, if I am understanding you correctly, to allow CEO's, bureaucrats, and lobbyist to bilk millions of taxpayer's dollars to have parties? Yeah, now that is Fiscally Responsible right there.......fuck the infrastructure, fuck your children's education, fuck public saftey.........Washington, throw a huge fucking party.....that'll fix it!

BTW, are you really Henry Paulson?

[FORD]

Well, I guess we know now that Olympia Snowe is the real moderate republican in Maine. Susan Collins, not so much (at least based on her recent performance).

Maybe it's the name? My home town is known for Liberalism, after all........

[BlimpyCHIMP™]

Any body whining about this that is Democrat is a retard.

[LoungeMachine]

Any body whining about this that is Democrat is a retard.

Put the alias away GARicki.

Fucking moron.

:gulp:

[sadaist]

So your solution is, if I am understanding you correctly, to allow CEO's, bureaucrats, and lobbyist to bilk millions of taxpayer's dollars to have parties? Yeah, now that is Fiscally Responsible right there.......fuck the infrastructure, fuck your children's education, fuck public saftey.........Washington, throw a huge fucking party.....that'll fix it!



Not at all. Just pointing out that making a corporation cancel an annual weekend conference is just a ploy to get the public angry and behind the politicians agenda. And since the agenda is being sold to us as creating jobs, allowing the conference to go through probably would have more of an impact than a lot that's in the current bill. And Washington DID throw a "huge fucking party"....they called it Inauguration (most expensive & lavish ever by more than triple). Didn't hear many complaints on that spending.

To avoid a total thread rehash, there's some interesting stuff here.

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53749

[kwame k]

Half right dude...........We pay for the swearing in ceromony......private donations paid for the Inaugural Galas that night.......since we have always paid for the swearing in ceremony, what the fuck does this have to do with anything.....yes, the costs were more......why? Because more fucking people attended.....which was/is our right to do.


President-Elect Obama is carrying his theme of change through the inauguration, where, as reported, he is limiting the amount individuals can donate to his inaugural committee to $50,000 and refusing money from corporations and lobbyists. All well and good — and certainly in line with the campaign finance standards Obama enforced during the election — but with escalating hype surrounding one of the most historic inauguration days in American history, can Obama actually afford to keep such a promise without angering his new neighbors in the District?

The lavish events that traditionally mark inauguration week are funded by private donations raised by the Presidential Inaugural Committee. In 2005 Bush’s inaugural committee raised about $40 million — at least $24 million of that came from big-business interests. Fifty-three corporations shelled out maximum donations of $250,000, the voluntary limit set by the 2005 committee. (Unlike campaign donations, inaugural donations are neither subject to legal limitations nor governed by any federal laws.) And that was for a ceremony that didn’t even draw 500,000 people. Next month, some 2 million are likely to descend upon the nation’s capital.

The feds and the D.C. government cover the costs of the swearing-in ceremony, security, and other public services. This year, the feds have allocated $15 million for that purpose, but costs could be much higher. Last time around, security expenses totaled $17.3 million, but federal funding only covered a portion of that. In the end, the District had to dip into its own funds for a homeland security project to pay the remaining $11.9 million.


Link (http://www.publicintegrity.org/blog/entry/1103/)

[sadaist]

Half right dude...........We pay for the swearing in ceromony......private donations paid for the Inaugural Galas that night.......since we have always paid for the swearing in ceremony, what the fuck does this have to do with anything.....yes, the costs were more......why? Because more fucking people attended.....which was/is our right to do.

Actually, you brought up the "party in Washington". And you're not even close to being half right. We as taxpayers also pay for security, porta-johns, clean up, transportation, emergency funding for other states, etc...




"Add to that the massive costs of security and transportation — costs absorbed by U.S. taxpayers — and the historic inauguration will produce an equally historic bill."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28707475/

"The country is in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, which isn't stopping rich donors and the government from spending $170 million, or more, on the inauguration of Barack Obama"
http://abcnews.go.com/business/inauguration/story?id=6665946&page=1

"One of the biggest costs is transport, and the Washington DC transport authority has also put in a request to the federal government for extra funding."

"The federal government has budgeted $49m for the inauguration. But this does not take account of other demands, such as from Virginia and Maryland, the states surrounding the capital, that have also asked for emergency funding."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/14/barack-obama-inauguration-cost

BUT MY FAVORITE QUOTE :)

"Obama today issued a statement calling on people across the nation to participate by holding their own neighborhood events, including their own balls."

How dare he tell us to hold our own balls.

[LoungeMachine]

How dare he tell us to hold our own balls.

Bush Cheney just told us to grab our ankles.....

:gulp:

[kwame k]

So now it's Obama's fault that every inauguration is paid for by the tax payers or the fact the his was the most popular.......I think you're on to something......he should be charged with paying for OUR National Election, too........fucking greedy bastard.


Late Game Edit Alert!!!!!!!!

So the American Taxpayers, who's money funded the Inauguration, decided to come out in record numbers and engage in this historic event......funded by and for said taxpayers........So your issue isn't with Obama it's with the American Public.....

[WACF]

sadaist...I hear what are saying but, I disagree.

By your logic...instead of fixing roads and bridges...the Feds should just send everyone out for supper.


The thing with giving public money for these guys to spend on their failing business'...should they not be accountable to the very people that provided it?

Private money is private...when Public money is used...the game changes...

[sadaist]

By your logic...instead of fixing roads and bridges...the Feds should just send everyone out for supper.



Not at all. Many of the roads & bridges in my area need repairing and it will create some jobs and generate local cash flow. However, if you look at what each city is doing with shares of their allotment, it seems pretty silly. $3 1/2 million for a bicycle path that really isn't in bad shape, and is hardly ever used....creating a total of a whopping 4 jobs. I think that 3 1/2 mill could be used better where it created many more than just 4 jobs. That's just one example from my own city. I'm sure we could all find many more that aren't the best use of our dollars.

And I agree that the CEO's that took HUGE bonus' after receiving bailout money should not have gotten it. But there was also a lot of commotion & even Barack himself said NO VEGAS TRIPS. Conventions & weekend conferences are fine, even with taxpayer dollars. They increase networking within the company, create friendships that assist in joint projects, and many other benefits all while dumping cash into that local economy, which in turn creates jobs. But one guy getting $15 mill to line his Swiss bank account after running a corp into the ground & the Govt bailing him out...no. I was against these idiots getting the bailouts to begin with. No company is "too big to fail".

As for the inauguration, with everyone screaming poverty, soup lines, and a "catastrophe we will not recover from if we don't act immediately & drastically", seems somewhat hypocritical to have had such a big hurrah. YES, the people came out in droves, but only because they were encouraged to. Had Obama NOT opened the entire mall (like every other President has elected not to do), NOT have done the Lincoln train ride, NOT have agreed to attend a record number of inaugural balls, and made it very clear in his many press conferences that "due to financial issues currently within the country, I am choosing to lead by example and spend no more than necessary on the inauguration. Difficult times like these do not call for extravagance", I think everyone would have given him even more props.

Everyone could have watched it up close on their own televisions...that is if they've gotten their free $40 taxpayer funded coupon for a digital transition box.

[WACF]

Not at all. Many of the roads & bridges in my area need repairing and it will create some jobs and generate local cash flow. However, if you look at what each city is doing with shares of their allotment, it seems pretty silly. $3 1/2 million for a bicycle path that really isn't in bad shape, and is hardly ever used....creating a total of a whopping 4 jobs. I think that 3 1/2 mill could be used better where it created many more than just 4 jobs. That's just one example from my own city. I'm sure we could all find many more that aren't the best use of our dollars.


In that case fixing the path may be silly...perhaps everything else is just peachy and that is what your city chose.

Each ward has a councilman/woman that you can contact to see what the hell they are thinking...unless it is different there.


And I agree that the CEO's that took HUGE bonus' after receiving bailout money should not have gotten it. But there was also a lot of commotion & even Barack himself said NO VEGAS TRIPS. Conventions & weekend conferences are fine, even with taxpayer dollars. They increase networking within the company, create friendships that assist in joint projects, and many other benefits all while dumping cash into that local economy, which in turn creates jobs. But one guy getting $15 mill to line his Swiss bank account after running a corp into the ground & the Govt bailing him out...no. I was against these idiots getting the bailouts to begin with. No company is "too big to fail".

Growing your business and or contacts is one thing...rewarding yourself or your employee's when things are in the shitter with taxpayer money is just stupid.

Some crossed a line...and they needed to be called out.

It is that sense of entitlement that got some of those companies into the mess they are in...and yet the people on top still expect their bonus for a job done poorly.

When the Big Three went looking for finacial help with their corporate jets they really gave themselves a black eye...they did not get it.

Part of our system is that a badly run business will fail.


As for the inauguration, with everyone screaming poverty, soup lines, and a "catastrophe we will not recover from if we don't act immediately & drastically", seems somewhat hypocritical to have had such a big hurrah. YES, the people came out in droves, but only because they were encouraged to. Had Obama NOT opened the entire mall (like every other President has elected not to do), NOT have done the Lincoln train ride, NOT have agreed to attend a record number of inaugural balls, and made it very clear in his many press conferences that "due to financial issues currently within the country, I am choosing to lead by example and spend no more than necessary on the inauguration. Difficult times like these do not call for extravagance", I think everyone would have given him even more props.

Everyone could have watched it up close on their own televisions...that is if they've gotten their free $40 taxpayer funded coupon for a digital transition box.

Well...as a non Americain who was in a foreign country at the time with the only english speaking channels being Fox and CNN...I was absolutely amazed at the pomp and ceremony.

Alot of Americans I ran into that day were all pretty amazed at it themselves.

IMO...a huge waste of money.

But...there is alot more to it for your country than most...people in some cases were very emotionally invested...it is hard to understand.
For Canada...a change in government or leaders is just another day at the office...they are just people we put in charge...and can fire.

Just imagine the credibilty Obama would of built for himself if he had really cut back and written a nice to cheque for homeless shelters...

[hideyoursheep]

Dummy, I'm AGREEING they should be replaced. I'm saying Obama's "punishment proposals" have no fucking teeth.

A legitimate business that hits a performance target does guarantee a bonus structure for upper management, happens in most industries. Whatever metric they had for performance targets they were hitting. Remember, a lot of this swept lots of legit biz down the tubes, as the bottom dropped out. Wasn't like they weren't having good years up UNTIL it dropped out. Those contracts usually run 3-5 years.

You're out of your mind!

What's the name of the so-called contract that bankers have drawn up during employment? What union is this?


Dummy.

[Big Train]

ughhh...your a fucking retard. Let me slow the bus down and maybe you can catch up.

It's called an employment agreement, you stupid fuck. Most high level management in most businesses have one. Stock options, performance bonuses and the like are par for the course.

Dummy.

[hideyoursheep]

ughhh...your a fucking retard. Let me slow the bus down and maybe you can catch up.

It's called an employment agreement, you stupid fuck. Most high level management in most businesses have one. Stock options, performance bonuses and the like are par for the course.

Dummy.

Do I really need to address you further or do I let you keep pinning the dumbass badge on all by yourself?


Cuntmuscle.:give-the-finger:




Stock options, performance bonuses and the like are par for the course.
Stock options? Performance bonuses?

And you call ME the 'stupid fuck'?

It's not hard to see why the need a bailout now, is it?


:rolleyes:

I'm not holding your hand while you cross the street anymore.

[Nickdfresh]

Any body whining about this that is Democrat is a retard.

So are people that write sentences like this, that...

[Nickdfresh]

You too, where exactly do you get that from? You project these things from my comments as if that was what I was thinking. I'm simply criticizing a poorly written bill and an even more poorly written executive order.

But since you have decided to bring up this second line of thought, here goes. The 30-70k guy does deserve to make a living. I don't believe this bill is gonna give the average guy that much work to do. It will make the unions more powerful (and probably the Mafia to, as there will be competition for these union jobs), as they will lord over 90% of this busy work. However, this bill does very little to help create sustainable jobs in new industries, where Mr. 30-70k will feed his family over the long term. But we can dumb it down and say yea, I don't care....I'll think of some things to project on you for later.

Like, what, you don't care about business? You don't care about job stability in corporations?

Oh, now the mob is going to get stronger?:hee:

Whatever. And since when do corporations give a fuck about their employees? How many of the jobs "outsourced" were unionized?

Corporations are more profitable than they've ever been, yet only the top 2% sees any real benefit of this...

[Big Train]

Do I really need to address you further or do I let you keep pinning the dumbass badge on all by yourself?


Cuntmuscle.:give-the-finger:



Stock options? Performance bonuses?

And you call ME the 'stupid fuck'?

It's not hard to see why the need a bailout now, is it?


:rolleyes:

I'm not holding your hand while you cross the street anymore.

Your the stupid cunt who doesn't understand the basic business concepts being discussed. Change your Huggies, read a book and come back...

[Big Train]

Oh, now the mob is going to get stronger?:hee:

Whatever. And since when do corporations give a fuck about their employees? How many of the jobs "outsourced" were unionized?

Corporations are more profitable than they've ever been, yet only the top 2% sees any real benefit of this...

Let me respond to your side questions one by one.

Yea, let's see...control over all kinds of contracts, with fresh bucketloads of money attached to them, in most major metro areas of the country. Likely with zero oversight. Nah, the mob wouldn't be interested in that, in one of their traditional rackets. Not one bit...yup, your right again...

Corporations don't give a fuck about their employees. Employees don't give a fuck about their employers. What's the point?

Unionized jobs were outsourced because they found a way to lower their cost basis (lower wage, less the union costs on top). It's called economics. I'm not making morally judgements about business, you are. I say it is what it is.

As for corporations, perhaps you should come to their side and start your own business. Then you can be one of them. Be a capitalist. The water's fine...

[hideyoursheep]

Your the stupid cunt who doesn't understand the basic business concepts being discussed. Change your Huggies, read a book and come back...Basic business concepts do not include rewarding terrible performance.


Read all the fucking books you want.
Common fucking sense will still evade you.

And I still want to know how these shitbag bank employees are legally guaranteed bonuses for losing money.


What's the name of that union again?
:rolleyes::019:

[Big Train]

There isn't a union, it's a CONTRACT. An employment agreement, with stipulations. And yes, basic business concepts do sometimes reward in situations they shouldn't. "Performance" in some cases may mean only bringing business in and hitting revenue targets, not overall performance of the business. A guy brings in say 100 loans in a quarter, gets a bonus. They may be all toxic, but he still gets a bonus for bringing in that many loans.

So let's review, simple, it's really simple if you try. :

1. I never said it was RIGHT. I said it is what it is. They were contractually obligated to pay those bonuses out to employees who hit the targets specified in their contracts.

2. Upper management has no union, nor do they need one. They do just fine.

I hope you can combine logic and common sense in your responses to what's being said in the future. You can, if you try...

[Nickdfresh]

Let me respond to your side questions one by one.

Yea, let's see...control over all kinds of contracts, with fresh bucketloads of money attached to them, in most major metro areas of the country. Likely with zero oversight. Nah, the mob wouldn't be interested in that, in one of their traditional rackets. Not one bit...yup, your right again...

You've watched waaay too many Soprano's episodes. They mob ain't very powerful anymore and they've been largely supplanted by other ethnic mafias...

Of course corruption exists. But I'd rather have the payoffs in THIS country and not in Iraq to benefit the oil companies and tricky Dick's buds at Halliburton as we hemorrhage money there...


Corporations don't give a fuck about their employees. Employees don't give a fuck about their employers. What's the point?

That wasn't always the case. There was once a notion of loyalty that was a two way street where you had companies that valued their workers and employees that weren't "job-jumpers." And there still exists the ethos that happy employees in a progressive working environment are better employees...

And then there is this mentality:

http://cache.valleywag.com/assets/resources/2007/08/bobs.jpg
http://thenastyboys.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/lumbergh.jpg

"Not giving a fuck about" your employees is not only socially destructive, it's also bad business practice of the shortsighted, bottom-line mentalitied dummy...

How many people here have been pissed off because they couldn't under-fucking-stand the Urdu speaker on the other end of the line giving you "technical support." Many of those call centers are returning as a result...


Unionized jobs were outsourced because they found a way to lower their cost basis (lower wage, less the union costs on top). It's called economics. I'm not making morally judgements about business, you are. I say it is what it is.

Since when were call centers unionized, blankets?

Were air traffic controllers "outsourced?" Construction workers?

The only industry you possibly have an argument for that one is the automotive industry where Ford and GM have built plants in Mexico and South America. But even here we can see that "outsourcing" often times means shit in regards to profitability when things are run terribly with lack of foresight and realism. Nissan builds all of its cars in Asia and in South America, and they're fucked too. Same thing with Toyota - they're losing money and they have no US union employees and their Japanese unions are not comparable...


As for corporations, perhaps you should come to their side and start your own business. Then you can be one of them. Be a capitalist. The water's fine...

How do you know that I am not a capitalist? There is no one kind of capitalist nor a universal definition. I am a New Deal capitalist that thinks capitalism needs to be tightly regulated and a lot of what passes as 'free market' is anything but when we factor in things like collusion...

[Big Train]

You've watched waaay too many Soprano's episodes. They mob ain't very powerful anymore and they've been largely supplanted by other ethnic mafias...

Of course corruption exists. But I'd rather have the payoffs in THIS country and not in Iraq to benefit the oil companies and tricky Dick's buds at Halliburton as we hemorrhage money there...

I used the term Mafia as an all encompassing term. Paulie Walnuts doesn't have to be the person...just as likely the russian or mexican mafias in certain parts of the country. You'd be hard pressed to say those outfits aren't very powerful anymore. Your ok with paying off these guys...with union workers money. Wow, ok..

That wasn't always the case. There was once a notion of loyalty that was a two way street where you had companies that valued their workers and employees that weren't "job-jumpers." And there still exists the ethos that happy employees in a progressive working environment are better employees...

Ah yes, the "Google, we are all so happy to be here" ethos. The one that stops when things turn slightly south, for both parties. It is and always was fantasy that each cared so much about each other. As long as money is made, both will keep up that image with "team building" and other such bullshit.

"Not giving a fuck about" your employees is not only socially destructive, it's also bad business practice of the shortsighted, bottom-line mentalitied dummy...

It's the way of the world, I just call it the way I see it.

Since when were call centers unionized, blankets?

They weren't, numbnuts. Those jobs were replaced by non-union workers in other countries. Trying reading a little slower, might help you.

Were air traffic controllers "outsourced?" Construction workers?

The only industry you possibly have an argument for that one is the automotive industry where Ford and GM have built plants in Mexico and South America. But even here we can see that "outsourcing" often times means shit in regards to profitability when things are run terribly with lack of foresight and realism. Nissan builds all of its cars in Asia and in South America, and they're fucked too. Same thing with Toyota - they're losing money and they have no US union employees and their Japanese unions are not comparable...

Yea, for starters, let's ignore the entire fucking tech industry, where they cannot get Indian workers in fast enough. Travel to the suburbs around the Silicon Valley...nothing but. The tech work, R&D that's contracted out to India...no unions there.

While I agree with your comments about the auto industry not being run with foresight, the asian manufacturers are suffering from the general economic downturn. Nissan is not losing a million dollars an hour like Ford or GM. Toyota and Nissan may be not selling as many US cars, but they are doing well all around. The lack of union legacy costs (while not all) is certainly allowing them to stay a lot healthier financially.


How do you know that I am not a capitalist? There is no one kind of capitalist nor a universal definition. I am a New Deal capitalist that thinks capitalism needs to be tightly regulated and a lot of what passes as 'free market' is anything but when we factor in things like collusion...

One point for you sir. I don't know if you are or are not. Let's just say we are at opposite ends of the spectrum as far as free market principles go.

[hideyoursheep]

There isn't a union, it's a CONTRACT. An employment agreement, with stipulations. And yes, basic business concepts do sometimes reward in situations they shouldn't. "Performance" in some cases may mean only bringing business in and hitting revenue targets, not overall performance of the business. A guy brings in say 100 loans in a quarter, gets a bonus. They may be all toxic, but he still gets a bonus for bringing in that many loans.

So let's review, simple, it's really simple if you try. :

1. I never said it was RIGHT. I said it is what it is. They were contractually obligated to pay those bonuses out to employees who hit the targets specified in their contracts.

2. Upper management has no union, nor do they need one. They do just fine.

I hope you can combine logic and common sense in your responses to what's being said in the future. You can, if you try...:lmao:

I'm going to tear this up later....not interested right now..I won't forget about you...;)

[Big Train]

How exciting something to look forward to. Perhaps on another topic you are more versed in, you can "tear it up" on me.

I've said all I need to in this thread, I'm moving on.

[WACF]

Corporations don't give a fuck about their employees. Employees don't give a fuck about their employers. What's the point?




Not always.

You gotta remember...as a union employee...the survival of the company you work for is paramount.

The last thing you want is to see your company go down...cause your job goes with it.



Unionized jobs were outsourced because they found a way to lower their cost basis (lower wage, less the union costs on top). It's called economics. I'm not making morally judgements about business, you are. I say it is what it is.


In some cases...those jobs were outsourced to get around labour laws, health and saftey and even enviromental requirments.

[LoungeMachine]

One point for you sir. I don't know if you are or are not. Let's just say we are at opposite ends of the spectrum as far as free market principles go.

No such thing as a "free market" anymore

:gulp:

[FORD]

Exactly... 28 years of trickle down on the middle class policies included the gutting of so many regulations that were designed to prevent the circumstances that created the Great Depression from ever happening again.

And now that they have been, look where we are.

If only Jesus would raise Franklin Delano Roosevelt from the dead, so Obama could put him in his cabinet........

[WACF]

With the creation of Free Trade Zones...did any North American company really have any chance of surviving here?

Really...while they may employ people in underdeveloped countries...they abuse the hell out of them...and the enviroment.

[LoungeMachine]

And how can any market be free, when the FEDS will step in and bail them out if they fuck up?

Subsidies, regulations, bailouts........ Free markets?

:gulp:

[Big Train]

I agree completely. I've said all along (during TARP v.1) nobody should save the automakers. They are better served by being broken up and invested in as individual brands. The workers would still be ok for the most part as they are too big to break up the plants easily, but perhaps the UAW would have figure out separate arrangements for each setup. Which I have been fine with all along.

None of what I have seen so far from either package stimulates the economy in any meaningful way.

[WACF]

I agree completely. I've said all along (during TARP v.1) nobody should save the automakers. They are better served by being broken up and invested in as individual brands. The workers would still be ok for the most part as they are too big to break up the plants easily, but perhaps the UAW would have figure out separate arrangements for each setup. Which I have been fine with all along.

None of what I have seen so far from either package stimulates the economy in any meaningful way.

The automakers brought this on themselves...the government should let them learn an important lesson here.

In a restrucuring/breaking apart scenerio...the UAW would have no choice.

You wanna a job or not changes things pretty quickly...

[kwame k]

Now the Auto Makers are threating to go bankrupt........you know there deadline for having a...........you know......Business Plan.......is coming up.

Knew that was going to be their ace in the hole......."If you don't do this" bankruptcy, "If you don't let us do that" bankrupcy.....

It's a shame that the real losers are the working men and women.........

The nightmare scenario here in Michigan is going to be........More layoffs/pink slips, more factories closing and other corporate slash and burn techniques.........
While I agree the Big 3 ran themselves into the ground, it's tough watching family and friends lose everything.......

Last one out of Michigan turn off the lights

[WACF]

The nightmare scenario here in Michigan is going to be........More layoffs/pink slips, more factories closing and other corporate slash and burn techniques.........
While I agree the Big 3 ran themselves into the ground, it's tough watching family and friends lose everything.......

Last one out of Michigan turn off the lights

It is absolutetly shitty.

Ontario is going through this as well with the threats and closures.

The sad thing here too is yeah...alot of working class people are going to get hit.

Wilst the people at the top will walk away and still not have to worry about supper...