Busboy

So, if Bush and his party would have been successful in enacting their "Open Skies" agreement, and it decimated the union jobs here in the states...You would still argue that a lack of private sector union growth proves neither party is our friend?

Brilliant!!

Pragmatic1

I'm trying to keep up with your shifting argument. I thought the Texas budget was balanced. How about you take a little time to research before you post. California's pension problem is far from the worst in country. Again MI's budget shortfall is 6% of their budget and TX's is 31%. You may not like those apples but the facts are valid and things aren't so rosie in the right to work state of Tex-***

Pragmatic1

FYI...
Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: Interactive Map of Public Pension Plans; How Badly Underfunded are the Plans in Your State?

Pragmatic1

Like it was said. Poor management and poor vision was the real downfall of the American auto industry. It started with the massive rise in fuel cost which destroyed the HIGHLY profitable SUV and truck market. This started the downward spiral and the tight credit markets during the financial crisis put the nail in the coffin. Neither is caused by the UAW but that was the first place they came to cut cost. Just like our current contract isn't currently cooking the goose, however if circumstances change and the company needs to cut cost, 4a2b will be back again. Would that mean we are overpaid and have lavish benefits? No. A

jungle

Only one group cares about unions or labor.

The right to strike is vital when your company is going bankrupt.

If a corporation funds one group it is good, if it funds another group it is evil.

If you watch one TV channel you are getting proper indoctrination, other channels can't give you this feature.

If states cut the pay of non-union workers to help with a budget, that's fine, if they cut anything from a union worker, that is a major attack on humanity.

Your pay is a direct result of belonging to a union.

Only political causes can nurture unions, it has nothing to do with the economy.

Corporations pay almost zero taxes.

Busboy

I would give you a gold star for listening today...But, you didn't get the TV channel information correct. It is:

If you only watch one TV channel you are not getting proper information, other channels can give you this feature.

olly

My argument is that one party is labor friendly, and has produced legislation beneficial to the working man. The other party is not labor friendly, and has produced legislation & policy to weaken organized labor, and policies that benefit corporate interests much more so than the average working man.

Furthermore, my argument is the R's, by & large, are a negative force in our professional pilot occupation & ALPA members at large. The evidence here is overwhelming. However, ALPA PAC lobbys both sides of the aisle (as do many entities, both labor & business) to support our initiatives. It's always been about the results & not purely the idealogy of the influence.

If your argument is that private unions have declined- there is no argument- they have. I listed many documented factors, the Taft Hartly Act in 1947 started it, as it enabled states to enact right to work, prohibited closed union shops, and gave the government power to impose legaly binding injunctions in the case of a striking workers. Would unions still have declined without this act, probably so due to all the other factors, but it would have taken longer, and been more gradual. The act is what opened up many of the other factors.- Thus the impact of politics & legislation

In areas of economics, there are few absolutes, but there are heavy contributors, and consistent trends. In any industry that is regulated by the government, politics absolutely matters, and that is my point.

We are in one of the most heavily federal regulated industries, and politics matter for us (pilots ALPA). To state that it doesn't is pure folley, and shows an absolute disregard of history, or ignorance of the history of how politics has impacted (& will continue to) our profession.

Pragmatic1

Jungle wrote "At last we come to the real indoctrination.

My premise is that neither party has helped stop the decline of unions over the last 56 years.

You want to squirm around with the statistics to make one side look good and ignore the bottom line.
That is ok, but it ignores the end result."

The data speaks for itself. If you choose to ignore it. That's fine. But emphasizing and end result with out any understanding of how it is derived is of little use.


Part of your dogma wails that corporations pay no taxes, most real sources blow that out of the water:Tax bills for 5 corporate giants - Exxon Mobil: $15.1 billion (2) - CNNMoney.com

On the corporate tax issue, it's obvious from the discussion we were talking about the U.S. and therefore U.S. Taxes. According to your own link Exxon paid zero U.S. tax on income and in fact had a - $156 million federal tax liability. That's a powerball size tax return. Thanks again for providing support for my argument.

ThinkProgress ExxonMobil paid no federal income tax in 2009. (Updated)
Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes | Reuters

Like I said, corporations pay little to no taxes.

Pragmatic1

I think today is no different than any other day in your life with respect to learning.

FDXLAG

$5K of every GM vehicle sold in 2007 went towards retiree pension and health care. Nothing that the engineers could come up with could overcome this handycap. This 5K effects quality control, fuel economy, safety feature, and standard equipment. If you want to buy a toyota or a chevy and the bidding starts at MSRP +5k the chevy will lose every time.

I am afraid you are clueless when it comes to SUVs:
Despite gas prices, pickups, SUVs sales are strong - Mar. 1, 2011