Surprise Surprise, GM and the UAW agree on contract.
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
September 28, 2011 4:13pm CST
When both sides are the same people, how can any honest person claim there was "negotiations" at all.
Another example of the unethical and dishonest "relationship" when the union owns a major part of stock in the company.
Obama is a fascist criminal.
2 people like this
5 responses
@RebeccaScarlett (2532)
• Canada
29 Sep 11
I agree that this situation is unethical.
But fascism is on the right of the political spectrum, not the left :)
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
29 Sep 11
Not true, the Right is for free market economy, not government control of business. You can't have free market fascism.
@RebeccaScarlett (2532)
• Canada
29 Sep 11
The original Fascism was corporatist and envisioned as a right-wing ideology. The Nazis perverted fascism. There are many parts of fascism, such as forming a patriotic native identity, being willing to purge decadence from the national community, and ensuring the future generations are educated to understand and accept the beliefs of the nation, including religion, that are quite right-wing. Fascists also believe in a strong military in order to defend and spread the national identity.
Here's the wikipedia link to the original fascism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Fascism
Although America is a democracy, your President is also the head of the military (something often seen in dictatorships) and has a lot more power than Prime Ministers in the British tradition do.
Of course, this is all political theory, and theory often has very little to do with reality 
Sometimes the party a particular person is affiliated with doesn't really reflect his views or actions very well.
Sometimes the party a particular person is affiliated with doesn't really reflect his views or actions very well.1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
29 Sep 11
Ted, you do have a point that the union was paid in stock for their portions of the health care pack. But, this is actually not fascist, it is much more capitalistic than the former system. This way the union has to keep the company afloat because if they destroy the company, they lose all of that money. This way, the corporation can use that leverage against the unions, and actually allow them to make money and lose money together. But, this may not be as good for the workers because the union heads may look out for their own good, and ignore the workers.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
29 Sep 11
It's fascist as long as the US government is in direct partnership with the UAW in ownership of GM.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
1 Oct 11
No, I don't think this corruption was good in any way. It's a crime done by criminal scum.
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
30 Sep 11
The minute the government sells the stock that have no ties to GM. Don't you agree it is better that the union has a horse in the race when it comes to GM making money, and controlling cost? I think it makes the unions look at the big picture, just like the CEO of a company does, instead of only looking at one portion.
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
29 Sep 11
Well even though UAW owns a majority share of the company. I know that where I work 25% if not a little more is owned by Employees that are Union Members.
Union Contracts are normally not a thing that share holders get any real knowledge of or get a vote on. The big thing is the UAW could put people who are pro union in the level of management that would represent the Unions interest depending on how much they own of GM like if they are on the Board of Directors. But share holders have no real knowledge of what is worked out in the Contract. Also UAW would have a vested interest in making the contract good for the company as well so it might not be seen as a bad thing I mean their are plenty of Employee owned companies which is very similar in operation to Union Shops without Unions. Their are tons of procedures to protect the workers from over supervision. Two of the big examples that I can think of is COSTCO and WINCO.
So I don't see it as being dishonest. As now the Union would have more interest in cutting a good deal for the company as well as the workers.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
29 Sep 11
So the hype that there needs to be unions so there will be a third party keeping management in check is just another union lie.
When the business is owned by the union, the union becomes management. No honest person can say otherwise.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
30 Sep 11
No, because it isn't the union members that own the stock in the UAW, it's the union itself. Which means the management and union are the same people. Totally unethical, and goes against the entire concept of a union.
Which is why I not only question the integrity of the union leaders for this, I also challenge that of the members for putting up with it.
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
30 Sep 11
I think when the Union becomes management the company becomes employee owned.
@Bula210 (42)
• Kenya
29 Sep 11
It is like saying a father going into agreement with his son on merging or doing business together, yet all the businesses belong to him.
