Workers in Chattanooga Tennessee Chose GOOD PAYING JOBS OVER THE UNITED AUTO WORKERS

Workers in Chattanooga Tennessee Chose GOOD PAYING JOBS OVER THE UNITED AUTO WORKERS UNION

Unions suffer another setback.

VW workers at Tennessee plant reject union
By ERIK SCHELZIG and TOM KRISHER Associated Press
Posted: 02/14/2014 11:35:28 AM CST

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn.—Workers at a Volkswagen factory in Tennessee have voted against union representation, a devastating loss that derails the United Auto Workers union's effort to organize Southern factories.

The 712-626 vote released late Friday stunned many labor experts who expected a UAW win because Volkswagen tacitly endorsed the union and even allowed organizers into the Chattanooga factory to make sales pitches.

The loss is a major setback for the UAW's effort to make inroads in the growing South, where foreign automakers have 14 assembly plants, eight built in the past decade, said Kristin Dziczek, director of the labor and industry group at the Center for Automotive Research, an industry think tank in Michigan. "If this was going to work anywhere, this is where it was going to work," she said of Chattanooga.

http://www.twincities.com/columnists/ci_25143087/uaw-vote-at-volkswagen-plant-tenn-ends-Friday

Looks like a little less cash going into the pockets of the Progressive candidates campaign coffers.

The good news is that the wages are competitive and the workers are being paid well.......the bad news it is the first of many votes over the next decade, and the Germans have shown that trade unions and rapid growth in industry and a vibrant export of their products can coexist and flourish. The other good news is that Germany puts its people first and puts a priority on vocational training and industry. The thought of a factory moving to a region of Germany to lower the pay for workers and make profits for multinational corporations is completely alien to Germany, and is why the median income in Germany has increased while America's middle class has been raped.

Looks like they'll take what they can get in the economy the GOP left in shambles.

Keep on being a moron

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Keep on being a moron

You are sick and brainwashed. It must really suck to be you.

Floridatexan wrote:
Looks like they'll take what they can get in the economy the GOP left in shambles.

You mean that recession that occurred while the LIBS had majority rule? the one that wont go away because fuzzy math doesn't make for good reality so you are forced to cling to a lie and not take any responsibility for your pic for dear leader? lol

2seaoat wrote:The good news is that the wages are competitive and the workers are being paid well.......the bad news it is the first of many votes over the next decade, and the Germans have shown that trade unions and rapid growth in industry and a vibrant export of their products can coexist and flourish.  The other good news is that Germany puts its people first and puts a priority on vocational training and industry.  The thought of a factory moving to a region of Germany to lower the pay for workers and make profits for multinational corporations is completely alien to Germany, and is why the median income in Germany has increased while America's middle class has been raped.

Chancellor Angela Merkel...Conservative

President Barack Hussein Obama...Progressive

Floridatexan wrote:
Looks like they'll take what they can get in the economy the GOP left in shambles.

As you know, Democrats took over all of congress SEVEN YEARS ago. The recession ended July of 2009.

If unions are so grand...why do they continue shrinking?

Dot wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
Looks like they'll take what they can get in the economy the GOP left in shambles.

You mean that recession that occurred while the LIBS had majority rule? the one that wont go away because fuzzy math doesn't make for good reality so you are forced to cling to a lie and not take any responsibility for your pic for dear leader? lol

You are either completely insane or in total denial:

http://www.bushtoll.com/

Here’s a BushToll nugget that pretty much speaks for itself. When George W. Bush took office on Jan. 20, 2001, the S&P 500 stock market index stood at $1,342.54. The day he left office, it was $805.22, a drop of 40 percent
The Dow Jones Industrial Average fared a bit better. It dropped only 25 percent. Sadly, the tech-heavy NASDAQ shed 48 percent of its value on President Bush’s watch.
As they say, a picture is worth 1,000 words:



Source Data: Yahoo Finance, Historical Quotes
1/19/2001 1/20/2009 Decline
S&P 500 $1,342.54 $805.22 -40%
Dow Jones Industrial $10,587.59 $7,949.09 -25%
NASDAQ $2770.38 $1440.86 -48%



Since President Obama took office, the Nasdaq has increased by 188 percent, the S&P 500 by 127 percent, and the Dow Industrial Average by 105 percent.

----------------------------



------------------------------------

Bush Left Obama a $1.2 Trillion Deficit

When we hear the partisan whining and complaining that President Obama has exploded the Federal budget deficit, it’s important to understand the budget train wreck he inherited from the previous administration.
At the beginning of Jan. 2009, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its report The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019. In it, the CBO projected that the deficit for fiscal 2009 would total $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP. Note that Federal fiscal year 2009 was Oct. 1, 2008 to Sept. 30, 2009.
The CBO also cautioned that its projection did not include the effects of future legislation such as the stimulus package. In fact, the CBO was prescient as the actual 2009 deficit turned out to be $1.4 trillion.
In brief, the projected deficit for 2009 was $1.2 trillion before Barack Obama set foot in office, and he in turn contributed an additional 14 percent ($200 billion) attributed by the CBO to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, i.e., the stimulus program.

Floridatexan wrote:

Dot wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
Looks like they'll take what they can get in the economy the GOP left in shambles.

You mean that recession that occurred while the LIBS had majority rule? the one that wont go away because fuzzy math doesn't make for good reality so you are forced to cling to a lie and not take any responsibility for your pic for dear leader? lol

You are either completely insane or in total denial:

http://www.bushtoll.com/

Here’s a BushToll nugget that pretty much speaks for itself. When George W. Bush took office on Jan. 20, 2001, the S&P 500 stock market index stood at $1,342.54. The day he left office, it was $805.22, a drop of 40 percent
The Dow Jones Industrial Average fared a bit better. It dropped only 25 percent. Sadly, the tech-heavy NASDAQ shed 48 percent of its value on President Bush’s watch.
As they say, a picture is worth 1,000 words:



Source Data: Yahoo Finance, Historical Quotes
                                1/19/2001 1/20/2009 Decline
S&P 500                 $1,342.54   $805.22 -40%
Dow Jones Industrial $10,587.59 $7,949.09 -25%
NASDAQ                 $2770.38        $1440.86 -48%



Since President Obama took office, the Nasdaq has increased by 188 percent, the S&P 500 by 127 percent, and the Dow Industrial Average by 105 percent.

----------------------------



------------------------------------

Bush Left Obama a $1.2 Trillion Deficit

When we hear the partisan whining and complaining that President Obama has exploded the Federal budget deficit, it’s important to understand the budget train wreck he inherited from the previous administration.
At the beginning of Jan. 2009, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its report The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019. In it, the CBO projected that the deficit for fiscal 2009 would total $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP. Note that Federal fiscal year 2009 was Oct. 1, 2008 to Sept. 30, 2009.
The CBO also cautioned that its projection did not include the effects of future legislation such as the stimulus package. In fact, the CBO was prescient as the actual 2009 deficit turned out to be $1.4 trillion.
In brief, the projected deficit for 2009 was $1.2 trillion before Barack Obama set foot in office, and he in turn contributed an additional 14 percent ($200 billion) attributed by the CBO to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, i.e., the stimulus program.

As you know, the TRILLION DOLLAR "Stimulus" package was added to the budget of 2009. A Budget Nancy Pelosi refused to bring up for a vote because they said President George Bushes DEFICIT of LESS than $500 BILLION was to HIGH.

You know he is a failure, everyone knows he is a failure. How do you keep pushing his agenda and failure?

Markle wrote:As you know, the TRILLION DOLLAR "Stimulus" package was added to the budget of 2009.  A Budget Nancy Pelosi refused to bring up for a vote because they said President George Bushes DEFICIT of LESS than $500 BILLION was to HIGH.

Once again, you are objectively wrong.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

Decreased tax revenue and high spending resulted in an unusually large budget deficit of about $1.4 trillion, well above the $407 billion projected in the FY 2009 budget.[3] A 2009 CBO report indicated that $245 billion, about half of the excess spending, was a result of the 2008 TARP bailouts. Spending increases and tax credits resulting from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 accounted for another 200 billion of the budget deficit.

Also known as the "stimulus" package, the bill eventually added $831 billion to government spending between 2009 and 2019. [5]

See ya later, Forrest!

Mr. Markle takes pride in President Reagan starting the decline in median income as his wealth shifting destroyed the American middle class and the unions were just a symptom of the underlying policies which shifted wealth from the middle class to the wealthy. A great platform to run for elected office......I figure nationally by 2020 the Republican Party will have a solid 35% of the vote in national elections, and Texas, Florida, and Virginia will no longer be swing states. The problem is that we need the traditional Republican Party as a counterweight, and not these folks who want to hurt middle america in favor of the wealthy.

You're comparing apples with oranges comparing President Barack Hussein Obama with job production for other presidents.

To be realistic, you would have to compare all the Presidents...FIRST FIVE YEARS. Can't do that can you?

Have you figured in the people who have QUIT LOOKING?

Allow me to help.



http://www.marketwatch.com/story/participation-rate-in-labor-force-matches-35-year-low-2014-01-10

Wow...you actually believe this is good for America?

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:As you know, the TRILLION DOLLAR "Stimulus" package was added to the budget of 2009.  A Budget Nancy Pelosi refused to bring up for a vote because they said President George Bushes DEFICIT of LESS than $500 BILLION was to HIGH.

Once again, you are objectively wrong.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

Decreased tax revenue and high spending resulted in an unusually large budget deficit of about $1.4 trillion, well above the $407 billion projected in the FY 2009 budget.[3] A 2009 CBO report indicated that $245 billion, about half of the excess spending, was a result of the 2008 TARP bailouts. Spending increases and tax credits resulting from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 accounted for another 200 billion of the budget deficit.

Also known as the "stimulus" package, the bill eventually added $831 billion to government spending between 2009 and 2019. [5]

See ya later, Forrest!

You left out that it was a failure and the interest between now and 2019...and beyond.

Here is the spike in spending and how it trailed off RAPIDLY.

America was once about the median income of its citizens, now one party takes pride in Union busting and the drop in median income, and the other party becomes a mouthpiece for unions, but what happen to the Republican party being a mouth piece for the middle class. It is pure illusion, because many middle class jobs depend on unions. Nixon and Republicans always got their share of union vote until Reagan declared war on the middle class and Patco was his war on unions as he dropped the tax rate on the wealthy and the flow from the middle class began.

In my life I have fought unions and supported unions.......it is a dynamic power struggle between capital and labor. Sadly, the unions have to fight for the right of American workers as they lose some of their basic protections fought for so many years ago. Casinos are hard to unionize. I have seen arbitrary firings of dealers which is no way to treat workers. Without collective bargaining these folks are helpless and powerless. In some industry like the bearing industry in the 70s they actually hurt productivity and worker job security. The same can be said about the auto industry in the 70s. A blanket statement is not always true. All unions are not bad, and some unions are not helpful to the very workers they seek to protect.

2seaoat wrote:America was once about the median income of its citizens, now one party takes pride in Union busting and the drop in median income, and the other party becomes a mouthpiece for unions, but what happen to the Republican party being a mouth piece for the middle class.   It is pure illusion, because many middle class jobs depend on unions.  Nixon and Republicans always got their share of union vote until Reagan declared war on the middle class and Patco was his war on unions as he dropped the tax rate on the wealthy and the flow from the middle class began.

Please show us the link you have to a reliable source for your STATEMENT that the median income began to drop during the Reagan administration.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:It looks like Markle is trying to impress us with another cut and paste.... Except this new one has print so small that it can't be read, LOL!

Obviously you can read it or you wouldn't making your trivial efforts to denigrate my post which blows up yours...again

Here's a suggestion...ENLARGE THE PHOTO! Whew, who'd have thought of that?

With all the money the unions funnel into politics and politicians and bullying business... why don't they just build plants?

Markle wrote:You left out that it was a failure and the interest between now and 2019...and beyond.

That is because I tend to try and stay on subject, and we weren't discussing the policy's effectiveness but, rather, the year in which it was added to the budget.

Stand corrected, Forrest.