Unions Oppose Kemper County Plant

Unions, why does it always have to be Unions?

Why does *what* "always have to be Unions, Ironghost?

You know, prior to the UAW showing up in a Mississippi Energy debate, I'd have said this plant isn't really, really needed. Might be nice to have, but I'm not sure it's right, for now. Now we have the UAW, who in my opinion can't make cars for crap, much less debate intelligently on Energy Issues wading into the debate. My first reflex on hearing that the UAW has taken a position is to do more research on whom they oppose. 'Cause the UAW isn't the beacon of wisdom and guidance in my book.

Iron, it's nice to see you admit that you might change your view on something because you happen to agree with a union.

Just think for yourself. There no reason that the union should get you to change your mind. It's not as if it's the Klan or the CofCC or, you know, Sarah Palin.

;-)

The fact that KBR is involved should give pause about such a project.

I happen to disagree with Unions almost reflexively. They can be as narrow minded as the KKK, CofCC or any other bunch. :) The project, prior to the UAW butting in, wasn't one that I saw as necessary.

As narrow-minded as the KKK? Really, Iron? I can be very critical of unions, and I can also appreciate what they have done for this country, and still do in many instances. I just don't understand just one-track, kneejerk thinking.

Your post above implies strongly that you might simply change your mind in the project because a union is speaking out against a loss of jobs.

Do you truly want to be the person who comes across in such a fashion? Can't you think independently aside from biases toward or against a group.

I don't agree with much that, say, Jim Giles, Rebel Armyman, says. But he and I agree on tort reform. What kind of fool would I be to take a different position just because a white supremacist happens to agree with me on that point?

With due respect, try a higher level of thinking. You're better than tea-party logic. I know you are.

Agreed on KBR, Golden. Definitely raises flags.

Thought Police on patrol, I see.

No, I don't like Unions. I understand they had their place once, but in this day and age I don't believe they have a place. GM wouldn't have had to declare bankruptcy if they'd had less greedy unions to deal with, I believe.

I've finally got it. I made a joke up there and it got misinterpreted. The joke was since the Unions are on the side against the plant, I might have to
rethink being against it.

GM wouldn't have had to declare bankruptcy if they'd had less greedy unions to deal with, I believe.

Really? I guess it had nothing to do with the fact that GM was making vehicles that people didn't want to buy. Or those tasty multi-million dollar executive compensation packages.

Unions aren't perfect by any stretch, Iron, but GM had a lot more problems than just unions, and to put their issues on such a single track is like saying Republicans are the only ones responsible for this crappy economy.

Ronni- Really they didn't sell vehicles people wanted? What do you base that on? Can't be sales figures.

They had the 2nd and 8th best selling vehicles in the U.S. in 2008 and if GM combined Chevy and GMC truck sales figures, they would have had the best selling vehicle in the U.S. in 2008.

So far this year the Chevy truck has been in the top 10 every month, inside the top 3(same as the last 20 years) except for a couple of months and the Impala and Malibu have been in the top 10 too,and they both will probably finish out the year in the top 10. So GM will probably have 3 of the top 10 for the year, so I think they are selling what people want.

As for the executive compensation packages, I have no idea if that was a problem, but it's their money they can give out how ever they want, not any business of mine. :)

Having to pay union workers to sit around and play cards their full salary while they are laid off is a problem so I have to agree with Iron unions were more of a problem than vehicle sales or executive compensation.

Wow, the JFP admitting the Republicans aren't soley responsible for the economies sudden wet thud. :)

No, one of GM's main problems was the Union's Health&Retirement;plan. As of 2006, it was a $64 Billion (Billion, now) problem. It could have been avoided if someone, Union or not, realized that there was no way GM could have ever afforded such an insane amount.

Actually, Bubba, GM at the time was a publicly traded corporation, so it was not technically just "their" money they were giving out as bonuses.

As for coal and lignite plants, why are there still incentives for these types of energy sources? I understand that everyone tries to bring jobs to their local area, but why not try to attract an innovative type of energy source that has a more promising future than coal? Coal plants are not much different than retail developers - they know how to make a quick buck, and they don't care how their decisions affect the area in the long term. Why not try to invest in sustainable types of energy that actually increase the quality of life rather than cause health and environmental issues? Mississippi is already thought of as "being behind the times", so why continue with the same mentality?

Dang, Chip, you mean we have to get back to the point? :)

Actually, that'd be close to my problem with the plant in the first place; as I understand it, there wasn't much of a call for something like this. It seems like they're manufacturing a reason for it to exist. If there's a good business case, then fine.

Bubba, I stand corrected regarding people wanting GM's products. The company did, however, once sell half of all cars in the U.S. and their market share has certainly dropped off considerably for the past 30 years, to something around 20 percent.

My point about a "one track" reason for their bankruptcy still stands, however. Blaming the unions—and only the unions—just doesn't stand up. This story cites seven reasons for the bankruptcy, not one of them having to do with unions or executive compensation, while this one puts the blame square in the lap of said compensation. Here's another take on it.

I fail to see how trimming a million-dollar salary will suddenly make up for a multi-Billion dollar hole. Even if it's part of an overall strategy, it won't be more than a cup of water to a drowning man.

According to "The Looting of America," the top 100 CEOs received $1,723 per year in total compensation as compared to each $1 earned by the average American worker in 2006. Given the annual average salary was around $40,100 then, the top 100 CEOs made on average roughly $69 million annually. $69 million x 100 CEOs = $6.9 billion

6.9 billion (est for top 100 CEO's) vs the 64 billion in Union Health Plan/retirement obligations GM (itself) had.

Still doesn't fire me up. You can call it what you like, the point is executive compensation is hardly worth the time and effort of Congress to investigate.

Iron, it's hard to see how anyone can be so blase about 6.9 billion in any context.

That's more than the entire financial industry spent in lobbying between 1998 and 2008, which bought the industry a truckload of deregulation (and thus, a prime reason for the financial meltdown according to this story).

Here's a Forbes piece that puts $1 billion into a bit of perspective: Send at least 16 million kids--that's all the children currently out of school in 14 Third World countries, including Cambodia, Sierra Leone and Rwanda--to five years of primary school. This according to the United Nations Development Programme. Uniforms not included.

Mathematicians have calculated that, counting non-stop, at one number a second, it would take 31 years, 251 days, 7 hours, 46 minutes, and 39 seconds to count to 1 billion.

Just a suggestion, but when $6.9 billion doesn't give you pause, you might have lost all sense of perspective.

Not to mention that $6.9 billion is only the top 100 CEOs in the US - think about the top 1,000 CEOs... or more.

I think that'd be a penalty for out of bounds, there.

First of all, the 6.9B is a vague estimate. You're assuming all of the Top 100 got the same package, which more than likely isn't so. Some probably got more, some less. Overall, I have no problem with a CEO who can guide his/her company well being paid for good profits and progress. This isn't the Soviet Union here, after all. There's also no law stating that CEO's in charge of a company which is tanking has to cut the CEO's pay. That's a matter for the shareholders.

The government can't keep Medicare and the Pentagon and Congress from running over budget, now we're supposed to trust them to oversee Corporate Pay? There's no law which would allow such a travesty.

I'd argue the rest of Ronni's points, but we've gone over that before and the Democratic Party line still prevails despite all efforts at enlightenment on my part. :)

Iron, the $6.9 billion is far from a "vague" estimate. Executive compensation for public companies is public record. Every SEC quarterly filing contains the information.

Second, if you have sources that point to the unions being the 'ONLY' cause for GMs failure, bring it on. So far you haven't presenting anything but conservative talking points, which, sans evidence, don't amount to anything. If you want to throw words around like "Democratic Party line," back it up.

Third, attempting to run the government like a business is, IMHO, one of the problems leading to the mess of an economy we have now. Very little in the government is a for-profit "product." Defense is taxpayer supported, for example. Some things just will never pay for themselves, including the majority of government services.