E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSPresident Obama addresses the United Autoworkers union today in DC. The New York Times previewed the speech and the UAW’s efforts: “The United Automobile Workers union, a primary beneficiary of President Obama’s decision to rescue domestic carmakers, is now trying to return the favor.” The UAW and other unions will “put their vast political organizations into motion behind Mr. Obama, testing their power in a difficult economy after years of declining membership.”
Obama today “will talk about steps to ensure that the economic recovery lasts and to signal to them that he shares their concerns about income inequality and preserving the middle class,” the Times continues. “One of organized labor’s motivating issues in the election is addressing disparities in wealth…. In an attempt to outnumber Republicans at the polls in November, union officials are getting an early start with voter registration drives in their plants. Successful efforts to curb collective bargaining rights in neighboring states like Wisconsin and Indiana are adding to a sense of urgency already heightened by the steep decline in ranks. The union has about 400,000 members — less than a third of its size 30 years ago.”
No joke… Bill Maher gave $1 million to Priorities USA Action last week.
The Boston Globe previews Obama’s New Hampshire trip Thursday: “President Obama will tout his economic plans, with a focus on energy, at Nashua Community College in New Hampshire on Thursday afternoon, the White House announced this evening. It will be the president’s second visit to the general election swing state in the last three months.”
AP: “President Barack Obama plans to announce Tuesday the creation of a new enforcement office to challenge what the White House calls unfair trade practices worldwide.”
Leave a Comment:
obama incidentally kept GM and Chrysler afloat, while paying back his unions!!!
Unions, that in turn will drive GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy again down the road!!!
The unions will be taking over obama's ows movement in April as they pilfer members dues to send to obama.
Unions are PAC's also!!!!
So Gary, in effect what you are saying is, you have absolutely no clue about Unions and their associated PACs. Might want to stick to something you know about.
jmr actually I am very familiar with unions.
Then you would know that under most circumstances membership dues money does not go to supporting PACs. Some Money is allowed for Administrative support functions. Aside from rare exceptions PAC money from a Union comes from members making direct contributions, above and beyond what is paid for membership. My Union has supported candidates from all political parties based on voting records, that is decided by the membership, not the "bosses".
Your union votes on which candidate your dollars will support????
If the workers of the fast food industry is ever organize, Gary will feel very differently about unions.
No, the PAC members (member volunteers) make the decisions (via vote) and reports the results back to the Union. If a candidate has a solid track record of supporting working people and requests support, they'll get a check. Party Affiliation doesn't matter, actions do.
My question, Your union votes on which candidate your dollars will support????
jmr your reply says what???
"No, the PAC members (member volunteers) make the decisions (via vote) and reports the results back to the Union."
I think its funny how Republicans exalt the principle of the free markets, except when it comes to the right of labor to capitalize on their numbers and negotiate with management. Then, all of a sudden, government is supposed to protect companies from the pressures of employing people.
Call me a free market acolyte, but I believe dealing with workers is just part of the price of doing business. How you handle your employees is as great a indicator of your future success as the way you handle your competitors.
Amy says
"but I believe dealing with workers is just part of the price of doing business. How you handle your employees is as great a indicator of your future success as the way you handle your competitors."
And I agree that's exactly why all states should be "Right to Work" No more union hostage taking!!!
"Right to Work" is really the right to see your benefits and salaries reduced. If unions can't collect fees for representing workers in negotiations with management, then the workers won't get the best representation. You know what they say, a defendent who represents himself in court, has a fool for a client.
Amy, you oppose the right of the American worker to choose???
You can choose whether or not to belong to a union, but if you work at a place where the union represents you in negotiations, then you should pay for that service. There are plenty of costs associated with holding a job: paying for your transportation there, paying for clothes and grooming services to look presentable, and paying for the education that got you the job or is required for promotion. Paying a union negotiator is money well spent.
Amazing... the number of people who are more than willing to take the higher pay and better working conditions and other benefits that Union's negotiate for their members, but are not willing to pay towards the cost of these negotiations.
I would be more impressed if the Union employees could benefit from the results negotiatated on their behalf paid for by their dues and those who choose not to join a Union would accept taking whatever pay and benefits the employer was willing to give them. Right to Work is wrongly named...it should be called "Right to Steal from my fellow workers"
If you believe in 'Right to Work' then you also believe that the worker has to pay a higher tax rate on his earnings than does the person who earns his income from investment. You are in the same camp.
Right to Work has nothing to do with whether or not the tax rates are fair or not!!!!!
Gary K-2697770
Sorry Gary, I must have misread the Republican mantra of 'Right to Work' and 'No New Tax Rates'.
I am not opposed to new lower tax rates across the board!!
I am opposed to union hostage taking!!!
Two different issues!!!
Gary K-2697770
How about corporate bullying? Ok with that?
amy corporate bullying, LMAO do your job!!!!
Call me a free market acolyte, but I believe dealing with workers is just part of the price of doing business. How you handle your employees is as great a indicator of your future success as the way you handle your competitors.
Enough said!!
Right to Work is another one of those Orwellian phrases that the right uses confuse the issue. While the phrase might sound good its intentions are the complete opposite. This union bashing that's been going on for sometime is based upon false arguments. Back in the 80s ol' Raygun decried the UAW because Detroit was failing when in fact it was not the unions fault but management in their inability to design and engineer autos that could compete with the Japanese cars. I suggest that you read Barbara Tuchman's "A Distant Mirror" and see just how tilted the playing field has been against the working class.
Amy's comments are dead on.
Currently twenty three states are "Right to Work" states, while eleven more are in the process of becoming "Right to Work".
The days of the union taking hostages is over!!!
Time for the worker to decide!!!
Sorry Gary, every right to work state that I have lived and worked in had a higher income tax (except for Texas and we know what kind of shape they are in), higher cost of living and lower wages. No bull just facts.
Gary, am I right in assuming, then, that you consider taxation being held hostage by your government? And maybe you also believe that when you're buying food and clothing, you're being held hostage by your family. Oh, and do you feel like a hostage when you pay your insurance premium?
How about this idea--Let's set up a system where only those workers who choose to be represented by their Union are represented by their Union. Those unrepresented can try to negotiate their own salaries and benefits. Gee, I wonder how many workers would choose not to pay their Union dues and be unrepresented, then. Oh, and I'm sure that the company bosses will generously pay those unrepresented workers just as much as the represented ones. Right . . . .
Jerry, I suppose you are one more person on the vine that is not a union member, but know one???
I CHOOSE where and what food to buy.
I am legally obligated to by insurance but CHOOSE which one.
A worker should be able to CHOOSE whether or not they want union representation!!!!
I understand you have the individuals best interest at heart, LMAO!!!!
As reported on the Washington Examiner's "Beltway Confidential" blog, Development Counselors International (DCI) recently asked corporate executives and representatives which states they thought were the best to locate for business. As the Examiner notes, America's job providers overwhelmingly favored states with Right to Work laws.
Of course this should come to no surprise. The results of DCI's survey largely mirrors that of CNBC 2010 "Best for Business" list, in which states with Right to Work protections for its workers were ranked seven of the top 10 and 10 of the top 15.
But despite the economic benefits business enjoy from Right to Work, the real beneficiaries are America's independent-minded workers. As the National Institute of Labor Relations Research (NILRR) has found time and again, workers and their families benefit immensely from Right to Work protections: from higher incomes and purchasing power to an increased likelihood of sending their children to college and having private, employment-based health insurance.
And most important of all, workers in Right to Work states get to exercise their fundamental freedom of association -- a quintessential American value supported by 80 percent of Americans and even 80 percent of union members.
Fact: Every single GOP candidate wished for one of America's greatest industry to fail. Now that GM is the leading car manufacturer in the world, putting real revenue on the bottom line and providing a splendid representation of America overseas, I bet they are wishing they weren't so vocal about their disloyalty. Their short-sighted bluster, based more on politics than on what was good for the country, is going to cost them dearly.
Really? Because GM ran their Company into the ground we the people have to pay to bail them out. Should have let them file for Bankruptcy like everyone else. Oh and by the way, GM has either been number 1 or number 2 forever...not really that big of a deal if you consider the US makes 90% of all cars worldwide.
euterpe,
If it's a fact, direct me to that location, I would like to read it. Also nice beer? Haubru Haus?
What are you disputing, that Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul are against the bailout? They just reiterated it not five days ago. Or that the auto industry is one of America's greatest industry? We don't want to be forgetful of what made us the envy of the world, now do we?
Thanks! They pour 'em rather large at the Biergarten in Epcot.
Another sweet all-is-well Obama headline story from MSNBC First Read, quoting the Obama-poodle NY Times, the Romney-attack-dog Boston Globe and the Obama-poodle AP.
All bark, no bite.....unlike the snark and negative stories about the GOP 24-7.
In his speech, Obama said he would buy a VOLT, after he is no longer President. He said the Secret Service wont let him buy one now...probably because the battery catches fire..
Obama should order it now, and then can drive it out of the White House when he leaves...in January 2013. The millionaire Obamas will get a $10,000 rebate on this lemon, paid for by poor taxpayers..
Ha, he can buy one, he just can't drive it until he's out of office. Since he owns GM, why not just write one off.
I will never buy any American vehicle except Ford ever again.
I now have a Honda and a Ford. Screw GM.