Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
SportTrac Discussion
General Sport Trac Discussion
Another Very Sad Day for the USA
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bill V" data-source="post: 956494" data-attributes="member: 54538"><p>TJR, I see similarities as well--but there are important differences. The biggest of which is the fact that the federal bailout money is optional. Companies are not required to take it--and therefore are not required to abide by the compensation restrictions. Another big difference is the fact that some provisions of the bailout requirements were done retroactively, which I think is fundamentally wrong. If the company and the employee signed a contract regarding compensation, then both parties are obliged to abide by that contract unless/until that contract is terminated. And even once it is terminated, any compensation owed based on the previous contract should still be owed.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, I agree with that, and I agree with the objectives of that. I've said many times--I'm all in favor of the government playing hardball with the unions to reduce the cost to the taxpayers. In that regard, way to go Scott Walker. But to me, that in no way is any reason to block the unions or strip them of their negotiating ability. Same goes for the bailed-out companies. I'm all for putting compensation restrictions in as part of the requirements for accepting bailout money. But that should in no way affect compensation for work done prior to the bailouts, and it should in no way prohibit affected employees from joining together for bargaining leverage if they so desire.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bill V, post: 956494, member: 54538"] TJR, I see similarities as well--but there are important differences. The biggest of which is the fact that the federal bailout money is optional. Companies are not required to take it--and therefore are not required to abide by the compensation restrictions. Another big difference is the fact that some provisions of the bailout requirements were done retroactively, which I think is fundamentally wrong. If the company and the employee signed a contract regarding compensation, then both parties are obliged to abide by that contract unless/until that contract is terminated. And even once it is terminated, any compensation owed based on the previous contract should still be owed. Again, I agree with that, and I agree with the objectives of that. I've said many times--I'm all in favor of the government playing hardball with the unions to reduce the cost to the taxpayers. In that regard, way to go Scott Walker. But to me, that in no way is any reason to block the unions or strip them of their negotiating ability. Same goes for the bailed-out companies. I'm all for putting compensation restrictions in as part of the requirements for accepting bailout money. But that should in no way affect compensation for work done prior to the bailouts, and it should in no way prohibit affected employees from joining together for bargaining leverage if they so desire. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
SportTrac Discussion
General Sport Trac Discussion
Another Very Sad Day for the USA
Top