too bad GM fails to mention they stuck it to its workers. Guess big bonus time for big shots of outfit
ad is well done agiprop for company
Amazon BLOCKED From Filming Union Voting
5 years ago
Showing posts with label UAW. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UAW. Show all posts
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Fenton plant demonstration 7-24-09 UAW
Below is a Fox-news vid, yesterday in St. Louis, Missouri. It is a short snip of a demonstration/rally at the Fenton plant.
Yes, this plant (as well as about 7 others) in closing/closed in the United States. Business shipped to Mexico and Canada. Hell of a use of tax-payer supported enterprizes. Ralph M (our local Soar president) attended the rally.
This is copyrighted materials and I will withdraw if objections made: ---------------------------------------------
Yes, this plant (as well as about 7 others) in closing/closed in the United States. Business shipped to Mexico and Canada. Hell of a use of tax-payer supported enterprizes. Ralph M (our local Soar president) attended the rally.
This is copyrighted materials and I will withdraw if objections made: ---------------------------------------------
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Veba for UAW takes hit
The following is from Charlie's blog and deals with the injustice that some UAW folks will face:
http://www.charlieaverill.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
U.S. Treasury Department Screws GM Retirees and Actives
U.S. Treasury Department treats USW/IUE-CWA/IAM/ and
Teamster retirees differently then UAW retirees. General
Motors and the UAW agreed to fund current and future retiree
health care through a Voluntary Employee Benefit Association
Trust (VEBA) fund. As part of the bankruptcy process the
Trust was partially funded with cash and the balance through
GM stock of the new company.
General Motors agreed in principal to fund a VEBA for the
other unions that represent workers in their facilities but
the Treasury Department intervened and halted the process.
This intervention prevents about 50,000 current and future
retirees from receiving health care coverage they were
promised by General Motors. Rather than receiving the
benefits they deserve the workers represented by these other
unions are thrown into the bankruptcy process as unsecured
creditors. This essentially wipes out any chance of these
current and future retirees of ever receiving health care
benefits from General Motors.
The unions referenced above are fighting this injustice. We
need your help!
please contact your elected representatives and demand that
all GM current and future retirees be treated the same as
the UAW retirees.
Posted by Charlie Averill at 10:09 AM
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.charlieaverill.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
U.S. Treasury Department Screws GM Retirees and Actives
U.S. Treasury Department treats USW/IUE-CWA/IAM/ and
Teamster retirees differently then UAW retirees. General
Motors and the UAW agreed to fund current and future retiree
health care through a Voluntary Employee Benefit Association
Trust (VEBA) fund. As part of the bankruptcy process the
Trust was partially funded with cash and the balance through
GM stock of the new company.
General Motors agreed in principal to fund a VEBA for the
other unions that represent workers in their facilities but
the Treasury Department intervened and halted the process.
This intervention prevents about 50,000 current and future
retirees from receiving health care coverage they were
promised by General Motors. Rather than receiving the
benefits they deserve the workers represented by these other
unions are thrown into the bankruptcy process as unsecured
creditors. This essentially wipes out any chance of these
current and future retirees of ever receiving health care
benefits from General Motors.
The unions referenced above are fighting this injustice. We
need your help!
please contact your elected representatives and demand that
all GM current and future retirees be treated the same as
the UAW retirees.
Posted by Charlie Averill at 10:09 AM
--------------------------------------------------------
Friday, May 29, 2009
GM? is the deal a raw one
This is another interesting article from the Wall Street Journal. It is a copyrighted article that brings up many interesting points. I shall withdraw if objections made:
MAY 29, 2009
Obama's GM Plan Looks Like a Raw Deal Congress, not a secret task force, should decide the company's fate
. Article more in Opinion »Email Printer By RALPH NADER and ROBERT WEISSMAN
What public purposes animate the government's planned rescue of General Motors Corp? David Gothard Millions of people in communities across the country depend on the government getting the GM rescue right. That's why it is startling -- and mistaken -- for the future of GM to rest with a small, largely unaccountable, ad hoc task force made up of a handful of Wall Street expats.
A congressional abdication of authority of historic proportions has left the executive branch with nearly complete discretion over how to handle GM and Chrysler's restructuring. President Barack Obama has further delegated authority, giving effective control to this task force, which operates under the titular authority of a top-level interagency group headed by National Economic Council Director Larry Summers and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. In the days before an avoidable June 1 bankruptcy filing, it is imperative that Congress honor its constitutional duties and demand that the GM restructuring deal be sent to it for deliberative review -- before any irreversible measures, such as a voluntary bankruptcy declaration, are taken.
This means delaying any precipitous decisions until after Congress returns from its Memorial Day recess. The case for congressional involvement would be solid enough on constitutional and procedural grounds alone. But the secretive task force's plan raises red flags and requires Congressional examination in open hearings. With the government set to take a 70% ownership stake in GM, there are too many unanswered, troubling questions to proceed with a risky bankruptcy declaration. Here are 10 pressing issues among many:
1) Has the task force conducted any kind of formal or informal cost-benefit analysis on the costs of a GM bankruptcy and excessive closures? These may include the social effects of lost jobs (including more than 100,000 dealership jobs alone), more housing foreclosures, the government expense of providing unemployment and social relief, lost tax revenues, supplier companies that will be forced to close, damaged consumer confidence in the GM brand, and impacts on GM's industrial creditors.
2) Do GM and Chrysler really need to close as many dealerships -- which do not cost manufacturers -- as have been announced? Is the logic of closing dealerships to enable the remaining dealers to charge higher prices? If so, why is the government facilitating such a move
3) Is the task force asking for too many plants to close and the elimination of too many brands?
4) Why is the task force permitting GM to increase manufacturing overseas for export back into the U.S.? Under the GM reorganization plan, the company will rely increasingly on overseas plants to make cars for sale in the U.S., with cars made in low-wage countries like Mexico rising from 15% to 23% of GM sales here. For the first time, GM plans to export cars from China to the U.S. in what is a harbinger of the company's future business model. What is the conceivable rationale for permitting GM to increase manufacturing overseas -- especially in dictatorships, for export back into the U.S. -- when preserving jobs and industry is the avowed goal of this immense taxpayer bailout?
5) Why is the task force supporting GM's efforts to devise a two-tier wage structure, whereby new auto jobs no longer provide a ticket to the middle class?
6) How will bankruptcy affect GM's overseas operations, with special reference to China and GM's corporate entanglements with Chinese partners? Are they and their large profits being exempted from the conditions imposed on domestic operations? Are GM's China-based assets and profits inside or outside of the bankruptcy process?
7) Would a corporate and government-driven bankruptcy process comport with any rights of owner-shareholders to decide whether they want their company to be dissolved?
8) How will bankruptcy affect GM's obligations to parties engaged in pending or future litigation in the courts with GM regarding serious injuries suffered because of design or product defects in vehicles sold prior to the bankruptcy? Or parties engaged in "lemon" litigation?
9) What guarantees are the task force, supposedly representing the taxpayers' investment, obtaining to ensure that the GM of the future invests in safer and more fuel-efficient vehicles?
10) Why is the Obama administration signaling that, after reorganization, when the government owns 70% of GM, it will not exercise the control that attaches to ownership? Many in Congress have been eager to disassociate themselves from the perceived mess of the GM reorganization, believing it too complicated. This is a stark contrast to 1979, when Congress held extensive hearings and passed enacting legislation on the Chrysler bailout and later with the complex Conrail restructuring. If not motivated by their constitutional duty, members of Congress might perhaps listen to political arguments to assert their rightful authority. If GM and the task force take the company into bankruptcy, more than displaced workers will be demanding that Congress answer: "Why are we bailing out the auto companies and then facilitating their moving production overseas? Why aren't we leveraging the public investment to protect jobs and manufacturing capacity, as well as facilitate investments in environmentally appropriate technologies?" It need not be so. The congressional leadership still has a few days to stop the reckless rush to bankruptcy court and to assert its responsibilities.
Mr. Nader is a consumer advocate. Mr. Weissman is editor of Multinational Monitor magazine.
. Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A15 Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
----------------------------------------------------------------------
forcing auto industry into bankrupsy might be one of the most boneheaded economic moves in history. It is not good for anyone involved, except a handful on Wall Street it appears.
MAY 29, 2009
Obama's GM Plan Looks Like a Raw Deal Congress, not a secret task force, should decide the company's fate
. Article more in Opinion »Email Printer By RALPH NADER and ROBERT WEISSMAN
What public purposes animate the government's planned rescue of General Motors Corp? David Gothard Millions of people in communities across the country depend on the government getting the GM rescue right. That's why it is startling -- and mistaken -- for the future of GM to rest with a small, largely unaccountable, ad hoc task force made up of a handful of Wall Street expats.
A congressional abdication of authority of historic proportions has left the executive branch with nearly complete discretion over how to handle GM and Chrysler's restructuring. President Barack Obama has further delegated authority, giving effective control to this task force, which operates under the titular authority of a top-level interagency group headed by National Economic Council Director Larry Summers and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. In the days before an avoidable June 1 bankruptcy filing, it is imperative that Congress honor its constitutional duties and demand that the GM restructuring deal be sent to it for deliberative review -- before any irreversible measures, such as a voluntary bankruptcy declaration, are taken.
This means delaying any precipitous decisions until after Congress returns from its Memorial Day recess. The case for congressional involvement would be solid enough on constitutional and procedural grounds alone. But the secretive task force's plan raises red flags and requires Congressional examination in open hearings. With the government set to take a 70% ownership stake in GM, there are too many unanswered, troubling questions to proceed with a risky bankruptcy declaration. Here are 10 pressing issues among many:
1) Has the task force conducted any kind of formal or informal cost-benefit analysis on the costs of a GM bankruptcy and excessive closures? These may include the social effects of lost jobs (including more than 100,000 dealership jobs alone), more housing foreclosures, the government expense of providing unemployment and social relief, lost tax revenues, supplier companies that will be forced to close, damaged consumer confidence in the GM brand, and impacts on GM's industrial creditors.
2) Do GM and Chrysler really need to close as many dealerships -- which do not cost manufacturers -- as have been announced? Is the logic of closing dealerships to enable the remaining dealers to charge higher prices? If so, why is the government facilitating such a move
3) Is the task force asking for too many plants to close and the elimination of too many brands?
4) Why is the task force permitting GM to increase manufacturing overseas for export back into the U.S.? Under the GM reorganization plan, the company will rely increasingly on overseas plants to make cars for sale in the U.S., with cars made in low-wage countries like Mexico rising from 15% to 23% of GM sales here. For the first time, GM plans to export cars from China to the U.S. in what is a harbinger of the company's future business model. What is the conceivable rationale for permitting GM to increase manufacturing overseas -- especially in dictatorships, for export back into the U.S. -- when preserving jobs and industry is the avowed goal of this immense taxpayer bailout?
5) Why is the task force supporting GM's efforts to devise a two-tier wage structure, whereby new auto jobs no longer provide a ticket to the middle class?
6) How will bankruptcy affect GM's overseas operations, with special reference to China and GM's corporate entanglements with Chinese partners? Are they and their large profits being exempted from the conditions imposed on domestic operations? Are GM's China-based assets and profits inside or outside of the bankruptcy process?
7) Would a corporate and government-driven bankruptcy process comport with any rights of owner-shareholders to decide whether they want their company to be dissolved?
8) How will bankruptcy affect GM's obligations to parties engaged in pending or future litigation in the courts with GM regarding serious injuries suffered because of design or product defects in vehicles sold prior to the bankruptcy? Or parties engaged in "lemon" litigation?
9) What guarantees are the task force, supposedly representing the taxpayers' investment, obtaining to ensure that the GM of the future invests in safer and more fuel-efficient vehicles?
10) Why is the Obama administration signaling that, after reorganization, when the government owns 70% of GM, it will not exercise the control that attaches to ownership? Many in Congress have been eager to disassociate themselves from the perceived mess of the GM reorganization, believing it too complicated. This is a stark contrast to 1979, when Congress held extensive hearings and passed enacting legislation on the Chrysler bailout and later with the complex Conrail restructuring. If not motivated by their constitutional duty, members of Congress might perhaps listen to political arguments to assert their rightful authority. If GM and the task force take the company into bankruptcy, more than displaced workers will be demanding that Congress answer: "Why are we bailing out the auto companies and then facilitating their moving production overseas? Why aren't we leveraging the public investment to protect jobs and manufacturing capacity, as well as facilitate investments in environmentally appropriate technologies?" It need not be so. The congressional leadership still has a few days to stop the reckless rush to bankruptcy court and to assert its responsibilities.
Mr. Nader is a consumer advocate. Mr. Weissman is editor of Multinational Monitor magazine.
. Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A15 Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
----------------------------------------------------------------------
forcing auto industry into bankrupsy might be one of the most boneheaded economic moves in history. It is not good for anyone involved, except a handful on Wall Street it appears.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Saturday, November 22, 2008
A good day to troublemake
This is an article from the St. Louis Post Dispatch and some of us thought it outragous. Below is the article and a couple replies from folks.
It is sad in a union town like St. Louis that its major newspaper is a spokesperson for the GOP.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/editorialcommentary/story/FB9B0E99CEEAECE18625750700685EE1?OpenDocument
Protecting pensions is good for G.M. and the country
11/20/2008
Once, what was good for General Motors was good for the United States. This week, the chief executive of General Motors — along with his counterparts at Ford and Chrysler — tried to convince Congress that the saying still holds true. Their pleas for a financial bailout seemed as difficult of a sale as their large-size, low-mileage vehicles. Members of Congress and others pilloried automakers for their failure to innovate and the inability to respond to changing market conditions quickly enough. Automotive executives certainly are guilty of many failures. But one issue cited by critics deserves closer examination. It is the charge that a contributing factor to American automakers' financial distress is excessively generous pension benefits for retirees.Writer Malcolm Gladwell has pointed out in The New Yorker that retirement, health care, disability and unemployment benefits provided to U.S. autoworkers actually are about average for the industrialized nations.
The real issue for U.S. automakers — and steel makers and aircraft manufacturers and other industries — isn't that benefits are too generous. It's that there are too many retired people getting them, compared with the number of working men and women left at the companies that provide them.For all of Detroit's mistakes and misjudgments, its pension problem is mostly a function of excessive success. America's automakers have prospered for so many decades that now there are hundreds of thousands of retired autoworkers. But thanks to steady improvements in production efficiency, the industry has far fewer workers now than it did in early 1960s.When American car companies and the unions representing their workers agreed in 1950 to create retirement pensions for employees, some of the people eligible to receive the new benefit were workers on the brink of retirement. Because the pension system had just been devised, they had paid nothing into it. When these long-time workers retired soon after, it put the companies instantly in the hole in funding their pension obligations.Each time pensions were renegotiated in a new contract, the hole got deeper. The hope — based on actuarial tables of life expectancy — was that companies would catch up in time and that retirement plans eventually would have the funds they needed to fulfill the promises made to workers. Until then, the difference would have to come from profits earned by those who still were working.In 1962, G.M employed 460,000 American workers, and it was providing retirement benefits to about 40,000 former employees. By 2005, G.M. had about 140,000 employees in this country, but it was paying benefits to 450,000 retirees. Those numbers simply cannot be sustained.Almost six decades ago, management theorist Peter Drucker wrote that pension benefits offered by individual companies amount to long-term bets on the financial security of each single business. "Is there any one company or any industry whose future can be predicted with certainty for even 10 years ahead?" he asked.As former workers at G.M., Bethlehem Steel, American Airlines and numerous others can attest, the answer is no.In most other developed countries, governments provide pension benefits directly to retired workers, using money collected from private businesses. So instead of betting their future security on the fate of one company or even one industry, workers are betting on their own country's economies as a whole. The approach creates the largest possible pool and, therefore, the smallest possible risk. In the long term, that's a more sensible solution to the pension crisis that's still roiling American corporations.Companies shouldn't be penalized because they've been successful enough to stay in business for a long time. A national pension system would allow them to remain competitive. It also would protect the interests of the retired workers whose skill and dedication helped make that success a reality.
(4) Comments
nyc-stl November 20, 2008 1:49PM CST
Our country cannot afford for rank and file workers to retire at 55 years of age be on a pension for 20 or 30 years; whether a pension fund or the government is holding the money is irrelevant.And before we commit yet more retirement dollars to government "stewardship" (spent and replaced with IOUs), let's pause for a moment and think about the social security trust fund.Workers should draw a valuable lesson from the collapse of these defined benefit plans. The unions took promises in lieu of cold hard cash in their paychecks. Next time fight for the cash.
---------------------------
gary roller November 21, 2008 11:06AM CST
I am one of those "retired workers" refered to in the article and the response by Ny-Stl.
I made a decision many decades ago based on the "word" of a major container company, the union and believe it or not, the government.I was a senior at a major university at the time and had job skills in a variety of industries.
I factored in the pay, benefits and the "word" on retirement benefits to make an informed decision to my "career". Series of "mergers, buy-outs and the rest" and early retirementGood deal or so I thought.I find out some moons later that the company had no intention of honoring agreement and that the union was not able of defending contract based on court decision of Bush political appointees.
Money? Partly, but it is my belief that those corporations and the government will most certainly honor agreements or there will be some political unhappiness of the first order.
As far as I am concerned, politicans whom side with companies not to honor agreements should be replaced. As long as corporations can pay tens of millions to top executives, they can afford pension/medical benefits.
--------------------------------
acret99 November 22, 2008 10:49AM CST
As a retired steelworker in the container industry, I am appalled by this article. I worked 40 years in various operation with the promise of benifits after retirement. In those years, a portion of our hourly wage was designated to fund our retirement. Not realizing the company had no intention of honoring their agreement at the time, we upheld our end and worked to make the company very profitable. It is only just that the company is required to uphold their agreements.The wasteful spending of manufacturing, excessive CEO salaries/perks, and the outsourcing of jobs to other countries have contributed to the demise of manufacturing in this country. Retirees spend their money on appliances, cars, and necessary needs, which help to support our economy.Note: Retirees have paid their dues and we shall demand justice from the government and the companies. R. Merkel, Pres. SOAR Chapter 11-3
----------------------------
d.abernathy November 22, 2008 7:14PM CST
I retired after thirty four years. Retirees deserve what they were promised in retirement benefits. They have worked very hard for what they were guaranteed. People who say they get to much retirement benefits,should get a job on the line and under the same circumstances. Do you feel you could last the 90 day probation period? Then see if you feel the same way. We purchase homes, appliances, pay doctor bills. If the retirees didn't purchase these items, you would see a big negative change in the economy. Millions of dollars the CEO'S make, plus perks, should demand that a reasonable amount in parity with the working class like the foreign companies. I can say because of my experience with my fellow employees, during our working tenure we all have major health problems. We didn't have OSHA to stop the the problems in those days. Even now, OSHA does not have the ablility or will to correct workplace problems.D. Abernathy, UAW Local 325 Retiree Chairman
It is sad in a union town like St. Louis that its major newspaper is a spokesperson for the GOP.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/editorialcommentary/story/FB9B0E99CEEAECE18625750700685EE1?OpenDocument
Protecting pensions is good for G.M. and the country
11/20/2008
Once, what was good for General Motors was good for the United States. This week, the chief executive of General Motors — along with his counterparts at Ford and Chrysler — tried to convince Congress that the saying still holds true. Their pleas for a financial bailout seemed as difficult of a sale as their large-size, low-mileage vehicles. Members of Congress and others pilloried automakers for their failure to innovate and the inability to respond to changing market conditions quickly enough. Automotive executives certainly are guilty of many failures. But one issue cited by critics deserves closer examination. It is the charge that a contributing factor to American automakers' financial distress is excessively generous pension benefits for retirees.Writer Malcolm Gladwell has pointed out in The New Yorker that retirement, health care, disability and unemployment benefits provided to U.S. autoworkers actually are about average for the industrialized nations.
The real issue for U.S. automakers — and steel makers and aircraft manufacturers and other industries — isn't that benefits are too generous. It's that there are too many retired people getting them, compared with the number of working men and women left at the companies that provide them.For all of Detroit's mistakes and misjudgments, its pension problem is mostly a function of excessive success. America's automakers have prospered for so many decades that now there are hundreds of thousands of retired autoworkers. But thanks to steady improvements in production efficiency, the industry has far fewer workers now than it did in early 1960s.When American car companies and the unions representing their workers agreed in 1950 to create retirement pensions for employees, some of the people eligible to receive the new benefit were workers on the brink of retirement. Because the pension system had just been devised, they had paid nothing into it. When these long-time workers retired soon after, it put the companies instantly in the hole in funding their pension obligations.Each time pensions were renegotiated in a new contract, the hole got deeper. The hope — based on actuarial tables of life expectancy — was that companies would catch up in time and that retirement plans eventually would have the funds they needed to fulfill the promises made to workers. Until then, the difference would have to come from profits earned by those who still were working.In 1962, G.M employed 460,000 American workers, and it was providing retirement benefits to about 40,000 former employees. By 2005, G.M. had about 140,000 employees in this country, but it was paying benefits to 450,000 retirees. Those numbers simply cannot be sustained.Almost six decades ago, management theorist Peter Drucker wrote that pension benefits offered by individual companies amount to long-term bets on the financial security of each single business. "Is there any one company or any industry whose future can be predicted with certainty for even 10 years ahead?" he asked.As former workers at G.M., Bethlehem Steel, American Airlines and numerous others can attest, the answer is no.In most other developed countries, governments provide pension benefits directly to retired workers, using money collected from private businesses. So instead of betting their future security on the fate of one company or even one industry, workers are betting on their own country's economies as a whole. The approach creates the largest possible pool and, therefore, the smallest possible risk. In the long term, that's a more sensible solution to the pension crisis that's still roiling American corporations.Companies shouldn't be penalized because they've been successful enough to stay in business for a long time. A national pension system would allow them to remain competitive. It also would protect the interests of the retired workers whose skill and dedication helped make that success a reality.
(4) Comments
nyc-stl November 20, 2008 1:49PM CST
Our country cannot afford for rank and file workers to retire at 55 years of age be on a pension for 20 or 30 years; whether a pension fund or the government is holding the money is irrelevant.And before we commit yet more retirement dollars to government "stewardship" (spent and replaced with IOUs), let's pause for a moment and think about the social security trust fund.Workers should draw a valuable lesson from the collapse of these defined benefit plans. The unions took promises in lieu of cold hard cash in their paychecks. Next time fight for the cash.
---------------------------
gary roller November 21, 2008 11:06AM CST
I am one of those "retired workers" refered to in the article and the response by Ny-Stl.
I made a decision many decades ago based on the "word" of a major container company, the union and believe it or not, the government.I was a senior at a major university at the time and had job skills in a variety of industries.
I factored in the pay, benefits and the "word" on retirement benefits to make an informed decision to my "career". Series of "mergers, buy-outs and the rest" and early retirementGood deal or so I thought.I find out some moons later that the company had no intention of honoring agreement and that the union was not able of defending contract based on court decision of Bush political appointees.
Money? Partly, but it is my belief that those corporations and the government will most certainly honor agreements or there will be some political unhappiness of the first order.
As far as I am concerned, politicans whom side with companies not to honor agreements should be replaced. As long as corporations can pay tens of millions to top executives, they can afford pension/medical benefits.
--------------------------------
acret99 November 22, 2008 10:49AM CST
As a retired steelworker in the container industry, I am appalled by this article. I worked 40 years in various operation with the promise of benifits after retirement. In those years, a portion of our hourly wage was designated to fund our retirement. Not realizing the company had no intention of honoring their agreement at the time, we upheld our end and worked to make the company very profitable. It is only just that the company is required to uphold their agreements.The wasteful spending of manufacturing, excessive CEO salaries/perks, and the outsourcing of jobs to other countries have contributed to the demise of manufacturing in this country. Retirees spend their money on appliances, cars, and necessary needs, which help to support our economy.Note: Retirees have paid their dues and we shall demand justice from the government and the companies. R. Merkel, Pres. SOAR Chapter 11-3
----------------------------
d.abernathy November 22, 2008 7:14PM CST
I retired after thirty four years. Retirees deserve what they were promised in retirement benefits. They have worked very hard for what they were guaranteed. People who say they get to much retirement benefits,should get a job on the line and under the same circumstances. Do you feel you could last the 90 day probation period? Then see if you feel the same way. We purchase homes, appliances, pay doctor bills. If the retirees didn't purchase these items, you would see a big negative change in the economy. Millions of dollars the CEO'S make, plus perks, should demand that a reasonable amount in parity with the working class like the foreign companies. I can say because of my experience with my fellow employees, during our working tenure we all have major health problems. We didn't have OSHA to stop the the problems in those days. Even now, OSHA does not have the ablility or will to correct workplace problems.D. Abernathy, UAW Local 325 Retiree Chairman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
