Unions

Post by Carl Ballard

I'm only like 90% sure the “Washington” in Washington Rebel is a reference to this Washington. So if this fucking foppotee comes from the other Washington or is rebelling against the other Washington or whatever, then I'm sorry I wasted everyone's time making fun of it. But in any event, TL Davis really hates unions.

If the people were so inclined, impeachment of Barack Obama would not be out of the question. While the Left likes to link Halliburton to any conservative and brand that conservative with the worst the corporation has done, or it has been reported that it has done, there seems to be no interest in the linkage between Obama and labor unions.

I, for one, wish there was a stronger linkage between Obama and labor unions. Labor unions are awesome. Labor unions protect workers and bring a modicum of democracy to the workplace. They provide a check against big corporations that the government has either been unwilling or unable to provide on its own.

Halliburton is partly responsible for the BP disaster, they have been bribing foreign officials and war profiteering including a case that their subsidiary's negligence killed US Soldiers; The UAW helped preserve 100,000 jobs (the complaint below). So, clearly they are the same thing.

Likewise, since dealerships are not unionized, the decisions to shut down certain dealerships for GM and Chrysler for whatever reason the administration offered were actually done along contributor/Democrat lines. I recall a lot of the owners of dealerships that were threatened with being shut down begging for some reason, or some logic to it, when all they had to do was review their donation records and party affiliation. Also, inner city dealerships were maintained while rural dealerships were axed.

This is still horseshit.

Now, the UAW has made out like bandits from the GM IPO while the taxpayers get shafted once again. Here is an article from The Washington Times that will illustrate the degree to which the Obama Administration has done nothing but turn GM into a union cash cow, supposedly a growing trough from which Obama intends to draw from during the 2012 election. That, ladies and gentlemen, is nothing short of money laundering.

The UAW took a risk and it paid off. They took over a significant amount of GM shares at a time when there was an open question if the company would survive. GM rebounded in part because of the work of UAW employees. It's a fucking success story. Now they may make money on the IPO because the company is worth more. Yay for the UAW; yay for the US taxpayer. The risk on its own may not have been worth it, but since it also saved 100,00 jobs or so that are desperately needed in this country it was a good risk for the government and for the UAW.

There are a few other instances where this method of boosting the coffers of the unions has gone on without even a hint of regulatory or congressional investigation. But, when Toyota had been accused of producing automobiles with a faulty acceleration glitch, they were investigated forthwith.

Yes, when Toyota's cars might kill us, there was an investigation. Horror?*

I would like to give the many members of the Obama Administration a view of the Congressional hearing room from the inside, sitting in the chairs facing our new legislators and explain to us, the American people who are on the hook for all of these wealth transfer payments to unions, where the money came from and where it went.

They've already been transparent about where that money and stimulus money went.

We all know this already. The stimulus bill went to unions both public and private. The jobs bill went to unions both public and privte [sic]. The profits from the GM IPO, where they took stock owned by citizens in the Old GM and gave it to the unions, then when GM relaunched itself, the old stock was recognized and about 1/3 held by unions was redeemed to fill their accounts with cash.

Yes, they took a massive risk on those shares, and that risk paid off. I guess that's much worse than the company disappearing?

If the legislature does nothing else, it should declare any union which accepted these funds during the Obama Administration as holding a conflict of interest and be unable to contribute to the Obama campaign, nor to any entity that has and/or will make donations to the Obama campaign. To the extent that comports with current election law, I have no idea. But, new laws are passed all the time and it often takes years to get it right.

But don't ban any corporation that might benefit or has benefited from one party or the other taking power from spending in any race. I mean fair is fair.

* FWIW I own a Toyota.

zp8497586rq

3 Responses to “Unions”

  1. Thehim says:

    If the legislature does nothing else, it should declare any union which accepted these funds during the Obama Administration as holding a conflict of interest and be unable to contribute to the Obama campaign, nor to any entity that has and/or will make donations to the Obama campaign. To the extent that comports with current election law, I have no idea. But, new laws are passed all the time and it often takes years to get it right.

    I have a feeling that this gentleman isn’t terribly up-to-speed on the Citizen’s United decision, and I’m not sure it’s worth anyone’s time to attempt to explain it to him.

  2. Carl says:

    I think his interpretation is that unions have a conflict of interest but corporations are interested parties so they should participate.

  3. Thehim says:

    I think his interpretation is that unions have a conflict of interest but corporations are interested parties so they should participate.

    Yeah, and the jury is still out on whether that’s the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th dumbest part of this post.