![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
: Ron doesn't Get(telfinger) it
http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/b
Gettelfinger declined to say whether renewed negotiations with the automakers would mean a cut in wages.
He also said the union will run a television ad in Maine, Kentucky, Indiana and Minnesota to put the faces of union workers on the controversy over the loans. The ads presumably are designed to pressure Congressional opponents of the loans.
Running ads? We're supposed to believe that money is so tight and they now need, not 25, but $34 Billion for the auto industry, meanwhile, the UAW is running ads to pressure members of Congress into giving it to them?
One local union member who was in the meeting said the changes to the jobs bank would nearly eliminate it. The member asked not to be identified because the details had not been made public.
Well, yeah. It's not much of a layoff if you keep paying the employee to not work. All you're doing is cutting productivity by not having them work and pissing away money at the same time. That's a move that hurts the company twice-over. The idea of a "layoff" was to fire people "temporarily" and not call it firing. It's something you do to SAVE money. This jobs bank of theirs COSTS money through both spending on wages and decreased revenue from less production. If you're going to pay the person, the company should be getting something for it. That's the whole IDEA of jobs.
http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/b
Gettelfinger declined to say whether renewed negotiations with the automakers would mean a cut in wages.
He also said the union will run a television ad in Maine, Kentucky, Indiana and Minnesota to put the faces of union workers on the controversy over the loans. The ads presumably are designed to pressure Congressional opponents of the loans.
Running ads? We're supposed to believe that money is so tight and they now need, not 25, but $34 Billion for the auto industry, meanwhile, the UAW is running ads to pressure members of Congress into giving it to them?
One local union member who was in the meeting said the changes to the jobs bank would nearly eliminate it. The member asked not to be identified because the details had not been made public.
Well, yeah. It's not much of a layoff if you keep paying the employee to not work. All you're doing is cutting productivity by not having them work and pissing away money at the same time. That's a move that hurts the company twice-over. The idea of a "layoff" was to fire people "temporarily" and not call it firing. It's something you do to SAVE money. This jobs bank of theirs COSTS money through both spending on wages and decreased revenue from less production. If you're going to pay the person, the company should be getting something for it. That's the whole IDEA of jobs.