Hey Unions all your union dues to Obama have now just resulted in am amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. No wonder all the unions have been actively recruiting illegal aliens.

millions of more middle working class whites and blacks pushed out of the work force.
their children pushed aside for affirmative action slots and scholarships for these new minority Americans at universities. Govt mandated job preferences for these new citizens.

Your unions have really [bleep] over the country.

Congrats

Sounds right

Snake

Well said. The a$sclown is the gift that keeps on giving.

Bush had intentions of doing the same granting amnesty to illegal_imms.

Many individual union members are upstanding, ok guys. I know that many of them hunt, fish, care for their families, go to church, and follow the rules.
In many places, in order for them to be able to work at all, they MUST join the union. I give them a bye, because taking care of family comes first.
The folks that live in right to work states though, and still join give me a bit of a problem.

Unions are, by and large, socialist/communist in outlook. They have strong ties to organized crime. They force members to pay dues, and use that money to finance the destruction of the America we know and love.
Union dues are the biggest cash cow for the liberal dhimmicrat party. Those forced dues paid for all the hell in Wisconsin recently. Those forced dues are bank rolling barak obama's goal of total American financial collapse.

[bleep] em

Ah, unions represent what % of the US workforce?

Don't take this wrong:

1: Bush is out of office

2: Bush did not do it

3: Seems Obwan will, on his own, with no input from congress

Snake

Americans just ain't squeezin out enough babies to supply the future manpower required to run an economy of our size.

we need the influx

Americans are not birthing enough workers to suck out the porto-potties at all the Nascar races you bigots harbor up at.

I have yet to see any union members protesting in the streets regarding forced union dues and the fact that they give radical America hating Mau Mau Marxist Barry Soetoro hundreds of millions of dollars for his scheme to completely [bleep] over the middle class.

In fact when the TEA Party came out and protested in Wisconsin UNION MEMBERS attacked them. And want me to support them?

WTF?

if Snake Plisken was here he would tell you to wipe the Obama [bleep] off of your chin toodogs.

So what??? Bush isn't the current President.

Keep molding in the past...this is now.

Well trained Soetoro puppet

No such thing as a good Union

That is a good portion of the logic of why GWBush wanted to make those qualified illegals tax paying US citizens. A conservative State Senator of WI was on board too.

BTW, I do admire Bush, great POTUS.

agreed.

BTW, fugg off ribka.
Union strength is pretty close to gone. Look to my state of Wisconsin as an example. Bravo Gov. Walker!

Yep, Thank G*d and thank Walker.

Union poison has done in our steel industry, much of our auto industry, our education system...

At least WI showed it had the grey matter to get the gov't unions under control on a state level.
Unions have left a wake of destruction everywhere they have been given free reign...look at much of Europe, an economic "50y/o retiree" wasteland.

Someday maybe everyone will realize that when you give money to a bureaucracy, epspecially a government bureaucracy, it WILL be used against you.


It ALWAYS boils down to who ends up starving the other.
YOUR ass is on the line.
Decide.

True words

You need to read up on economics if you truly believe that.

These industries were targeted and taken out in textbook mercantilistic fashion. You might want to try and understand what role the reserve currency status of the dollar played in the decimation of American industry. You might want to consider why it is that industry and industry, union or not, was taken down in similar fashion. How did unions play a role in making textiles and clothing unprofitable? (Hint: none)

Blaming unions is a stupid and incorrect way of trying to understand how American industry has been strip mined. You're going to have to go beyond Rush and Ron to understand it.

Will

Wonder why we don't need No Stinkin Congress? Borat Oboma knows whats best for us.

Guess American young people here in GA won't be working at McDonalds much longer.

Really good job by Prez and Axelrodd!!

I remember as a kid my dad getting two weeks vacation every Summer. He was a Sherwin Williams machinist and a member of the machinist union.
That union did little to nothing for him and he resented paying dues to them.
My childhood pals down the road had a dad who worked for USS (U.S. Steel.)
He was a steelworkers union member.
He had 14 weeks a year vacation--every single year, and he was just a grunt at the plant. They spent their Summers at Yellowstone, Alaska...the list goes on.
Those plants are now all empty and we import Chinese steel.

Those union pigs sacrificed the future on the altar of the present. It was all about GREED. It still is for the most part.

Spot on.. But to some, it's always Bush's fault..

Regarding public unions, GOOD.. Yep.. And the unionistas are gagging en-masse on all them bitter pills.. All I can say is, "open wide and hold yer nose"..

Dinner's on me if we ever meet.

Will, while I respect "Rush" and know of "Ron" (he's not my guy in spite of your clairvoyance), I have a firm understanding of what the unions have done to this great country.
There was a time when they protected the U.S. worker and had a net positive impact, those days are long gone. eg. Europe.

The textile industry likely couldn't compete with Malaysia, China, Mexico, Pakistan and other $1-a-day wage sources...try again.

You are likely a union member getting your pout on...

It was a rhetorical question meant to gently guide you into an area where union labor costs clearly played no role in the eventual destruction of an entire industry (one of many BTW).... and hence throw some level of doubt into your theory.

As a matter of fact I am not a union member getting my 'pout on'. You can ask around if you wish to confirm this as I have no inkling whatsoever to share my resume with you. Suffice it to say I'm not in a union, I don't believe one exists for my profession.

You're just another right wingnut who would have to resort to Wikipedia to tell me the difference between a shop union and a hiring hall. I'm not really interested in an internet bout with someone who hasn't bothered to understand even the basics of how America was strip mined.

Will

The Congress had YEARS to fix the illegal immigration problem before it comes to this. I blame congress as much as I do Mr. O. Americans either knew or should have known Mr. O was going to do something like this just before the election and 53% still voted for him 3 years ago. Congress should of had this figured out a long before that. kwg

More clairvoyance, lol...wiki, Rush, Ron (Paul, I presume.)

btw..I've been on Wiki once or twice in my life. I saw immediately that it is a bogus source of imperfect (usually progressive-sourced) information.
Vote early and often, Penguin...it's your Democrat way...

No question - whatsoever...

This Congress is the weakest bunch of weak-teats I've ever known in my LIFE... I wonder if they'll ever find a small pair of cajones to DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THE COUNTRY???

I won't hold my breath..

~snort~

Will

Bravo Walker and we can both agree on that point

I was born and raised in Wisconsin. I left at 18 because of sh&&tbags like you that ruined the state. Used to be a great place to live before the parasites like you took control.

Thank God for the TEA party to eradicate the parasitic pests there.

Shades of 1986

Bush had eight years and didn't do it. Obama has three years and did it. Tell us what he did, not what you wanted him to do.

1. How many millions did the unions donate to the Oabama campaign in 2008?

2. Why did Boeing move many of its operations to SC? Better BBQ than Seattle?

3. So The mercantilistic Chinese are repsonsible for destroying Detroit -one of the industrial centers of the world 50 years ago? Have you been to Detroit recently? Gary Indiana?

4. Why are all unions actively pursuing illegal aliens for their membership?

Comedy gold indeed, Will.

Reread your postings..."gently guiding" with narcistic, know-it-all, condecending "Rush, Wiki, Ron, Wingnut" rhetoric.
If that doesn't read like a page out of Zero's/Emmanuel's/Axelrod's playbook I don't know what does.

The Daily Kos is that way----->

And I couldn't care less about your "resume," lol...G*d, the arrogance.

OK...you're off my schidt list...

wellllllll, I can't take credit for ruining the state. I do believe Wisconsin did benefit from you leaving. BTW Rebeka, I happen to be a parasite who took back control by helping to ensure Scott Walker remains my Governor, . And every election cycle before that opportunity to remove the real parasite known as Diamond Jim Doyle (D)Madison.

And George Bush did propose a process to enable illegals to become tax paying citizens. THAT is a positive action Bush intended to do. Business would have none of that as it would have hurt their business model. Ya know, pay Juan under the table, not have to contribute to Juan's SS and unemployment insurance costs if Juan was on the payroll as a US citizen. Just saying.

Rebeka, you ignorant s.........

What can I say, you're the one who labeled union members as veritable democracy smashing wrecking balls in one sentence and then labeled me as one of them in the next. :p

It's not my fault if you don't know the first god damned thing about currency manipulation, dumping, and mercantilism... but then spout off about the decimation of American industry as a byproduct of union membership. And then refuse to acknowledge that nonunion industries have as much likelihood and union ones to fall prey to this unionized menace lol. Next thing you'll be telling us all how lowering the salaries of teachers and firefighters will make us all globally competitive and put an end to this decline in US.

We'll then get back to the neo-liberal (look it up it doesn't mean what you think it does) master plan of importing Asian made durable goods in exchange for PowerPoint presentations and critical path management schedules.

Will

say Will, you still carrying that communist party membership card?

Lowering the salary of a fireman or cop from NY, NJ or CA who receives over a $100,000 tax payer funded retirement salary a year with free lifetime healthcare at age 50 would not be a bad idea.

Ok will Keep it simple so even a Neo Lib or Neo Con can understand:

Unions give over $500 million to Obama in 2007 for his campaign

Unions say they are for the working/middle class

Obama says he will "fundamentally change America" if elected

Union leaders are docuemnted visting the house more than any other group

American families' assets fall 40% in the past 20 years

Real unemployment for Americans around 13-15%

Obama gives amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegals displacing working class American workers and university students from middle class families in the worst economy since the depression.

Unions actively pursue illegal aliens for their rolls.

Obama and Unions say they are for the middle/ working class Americans


Please explain this for me

Yer an idiot. I am a teacher.

"Critical path management schedules...neo-liberal master plans"...more economic jargon and comedy gold.

Unions (particularly those of gov't sector) have f*cked much of our economy for decades. They screw the little guy, empower the bosses who donate to the DNC to ensure power and a constant money grab.
Many factors add to an economic decline, but the subject at hand is unions.

uh.....Bush stopped being president a long time ago. get over it.

you might want to pull your head out of your ass and consider what the textile workers union did to the textile trade's profitablity....read the Darlington case for one small example..
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/380/263/

and you really can't be ignorant of the activities of the ILGWU, one of the most aggressive, and most communist dominated unions, in America.

to say the textile and garment industries weren't rendered unprofitable in America by their unions is simply to deny reality.

Will,

As we all know it doesn't take a union to destroy an industry, but saying that they have not or do not play a part is a little short sighted. While I don't disagree with your assessment that unions are not the main factor in destroying industries I also think that the ones we have left would be healthier without them. What say you?

Penguin/Will - your posts do create some doubt that you have any real knowledge to offer here? Rather than tossing out vague jargon and terms seemingly intended to belittle others, why not use your time and wisdom to explain your "strip mining" concept as applied to the decline of manufacturing in the US. With the assumption that you are as smart and knowing as you present yourself, let me note that I have a fairly good brain and some life experience - and many others here have more of both than do I - so there is a better than even chance that we will understand your theories. What say you?

So Detroit, the manufacturing glory of the world fifty years ago, went to [bleep] because GM sent jobs and built factories in China, Mexico according to Penguin.

Nothing to do with unions and shoddy work, welfare, the great society.

or American environmental, labor and diversity regulations, products liability laws, high taxes on income and capital gains, and the always lurking specter of an all democrat regime which might just decide you really need to take it up the butt with something like Obamacare and a huge tax increase, along with a mandate to use only electricity produced by free range hamsters running in an open air wind wheel.

if I've got capital, and shareholders to answer to,why on earth would I not go somewhere where I could make my shirts in peace.

And those hamsters better be LGBT (lesbian gay bi trans gender) or Obama 's EEOC will come in and start with the big fines


BTW June is Gay pride month according to the DOJ

I admired GW Bush as a person and a POTUS. Still do. You, not so much. Ya seem to be narrow minded, as well as of a bloated ego temperament.

Toodog, the obama [bleep] is still dripping from your chin.

I have a suggestion:
Why not paint or dye your WI foam cheesehead headgear brown in dedication to your hero barry soetoro?

Dang empty headed union parrot. Bush did it, Bush did it!

Polly want an ebt card?

You sure show yourself to be a stupid person ribka. Can't read either. Never said anywhere I've anything to do with Dems and so forth. Been casting ballots for the conservative party most of my voting history.

What a moron ribke. I suppose you have first hand experience with "[bleep]" on your chin, lol. Yer the one load your mommy should have swallowed.

What union do you belong ? Teamsters? SEIU?

Can only assume your attacks are based upon union membership

You're way too kind, CCCC.

I have no tolerance for those like the Penguin who take such a condescending, belittling tone and in reality offer NOTHING meaningful to the conversation.

Right, Left, you are all full of it. The sad and simple truth is that the downfall of the American economy has a lot less to do with union or non-union than it does that most people are all to willing to forgo American made products for whatever is on sale at Walmart. And I for one don't want to hear a single one of you that doesn't support American workers and American jobs by BUYING AMERICAN spout off about what's wrong with this country.

Industry always dies from the neck up.
Always.


dave

You mean like the re-pub-low-crap party that shipped all our jobs to china for a higher stock price serving there corporate masters?
The dim-o-craps arent smart enough to dick over our economy like the chi-com itcho sucking re-pub-low-crap party.


dave

So let me get this straight. You think that I am UN-American if I choose not to support a bunch of Union guys gaming the system to get more pay for less work, while they drive the price up on their product. Piss off. I will buy as I choose. miles

Show me where the Republican party mandated that companies move overseas. miles

me, too.

If you realized how ignorant you appear with the "less work for more pay"...

It's 2012 not the 80's. Reach down between your legs, grab your ears and pull your head out of your aze.

You forgot about the petrodollar issue

Love how people only believe what they want to believe. Unions arent the sole reason behind you guys shipping your manufacturing industries to China piece by piece. Canada is doing the same thing, union or not we all want more for less and North American wages will never get [bleep] done like Ping-Chu China/Taiwan/every other hole in the fcking ground country.

Im just a union dude getting his pout on though. A working union man who joined because they offered better wages/pension/benefits than non-union companies in my neck of the woods..

Got one thing to say, the big unions are on their backs and too fat to get back up. Our new gov put in a little amendment that allows teachers to drop the union dues mandate!!!!!!! Teachers union membership dropped 50 % in districts that took up Walkers act 10. Milwaukee , Madison and many others districts signed new contracts to beat Walkers new law. When them contracts expire the unions will loose even more money. Unions are in a world of hurt now. Example: We have 300,000 state workers, half or so are teachers. So if half of 150,000 teachers stop paying their 600 dollars a year dues that is 90 million dollars a year unions won't have to " buy " votes. This is going to happen in many states. I was in the carpenters union for 5 years. I won't ever go back.

If you realized how ignorant you appear defending the unions that extort the company and drive prices up. If you can't find and keep a job on your own, you need to change your ways. I have worked all of my life and am now retired and never had to have somebody else protect my jobs for me. miles

No. Your mistaken. It use to be that the USA did very well in competition with the rest of the world. The problem is that the unions and socalist USA governments suck the life out of the economy and make it impossible to compete with others. Furthermore, the Federal government is letting foriegn governments cheat in trade.

EXECUTIVE PAY
Tying pay to performance is a great idea. But stock-option deals have compensation out of control
It seems to have worked like a charm. In recent years, as boards shifted the mix of executive pay away from cash and toward stock options, corporate profits and the stock market have vaulted to record levels. It's exactly the win-win situation that pay for performance was expected to bring: more reward for the leaders and better returns for shareholders, who can sleep well knowing that executives feel the same pain they do if their companies underperform.

It's a soothing lullaby, but shareholders are starting to wake up to some sour notes. The explosion of executive pay--propelled by huge option grants, easy performance provisos, and a bull market--has created a windfall for all. Star CEOs are winning big, but so are many second-stringers. Even for the success stories, the CEO's gains often exceed the company's own strong year proportionally. And while the mass embrace of options has helped shareholders, options have hidden costs and are diluting those gains to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

Few doubt 1996 was a stellar year. The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index rose a stunning 23%. Corporate profits rose, too--an impressive 11%. Who would begrudge U.S. chieftains a healthy raise?

Apparently, no one. But many CEOs took that--and a good deal more. For 1996, CEO pay gains far outstripped the roaring economy or shareholder returns. The average salary and bonus for a chief executive rose a phenomenal 39%, to $2.3 million. Add to that retirement benefits, incentive plans, and gains from stock options, and the numbers hit the roof. CEOs' average total compensation rose an astounding 54% last year, to $5,781,300. That largesse came on top of a 30% rise in total pay in 1995--yet it was hardly spread down the line. The average compensation of the top dog was 209 times that of a factory employee, who garnered a tiny 3% raise in 1996. White-collar workers eked out just 3.2%, though many now get options too.

It all adds up to quite a payday--and one that's raising a storm of criticism. ''We've got terrible tensions this year'' with institutional investors, says Pearl Meyer, president of pay specialist Pearl Meyer & Partners. Even many shareholder advocates who pushed for the move to pay for performance in the early 1990s question whether the approach is working. As once-outsize options packages become the norm, many CEOs are taking the lion's share. Far smaller gains are going to managers and other key employees. The disturbing message: The CEO deserves nearly all the credit for the company's success. Worse, there's very little downside to many CEO pay deals. Many executives are negotiating big guaranteed payouts in case they stumble. And if the market drops, some pay experts worry that executives will demand--and get--options at lower prices to ensure that their pay packets remain full.

What are the main results of BUSINESS WEEK's 47th annual Executive Pay Scoreboard? Compiled with Standard & Poor's Compustat, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, the survey examines the compensation of the two highest-paid executives at 365 of the country's largest companies. In comparing pay with performance over three years, BUSINESS WEEK found that Microsoft's William H. Gates III and Avon Products' James E. Preston gave investors the best results for their pay (page 61). Conseco's Stephen C. Hilbert and America Online's Stephen M. Case were the worst-performing CEOs relative to payouts.

Despite the soaring pay, many experts argue that the system is working better than ever. They see the bull market and healthy corporate sector as proof positive that companies get what they pay for. They argue that as long as CEOs continue to turn in strong results for their shareholders, the absolute level of executive pay is irrelevant. ''You can't legislate morality,'' says James E. McKinney, consultant at pay experts Hirschfeld, Stern, Moyer & Ross Inc. ''The U.S. is the most exciting economy the world has ever seen.'' Adds Charles W. Sweet, president of A.T. Kearney Executive Search: It's simply ''the cost of finding brains.''

LITTLE-KNOWN LEADER. In many cases last year, those brains cost a lot more. The top ranks were peopled by such corporate standouts as Intel's Andrew S. Grove, who earned $97.6 million, and Travelers Group's Sanford I. Weill, who made $94.2 million, most of which remains in Travelers stock that he can't sell until he retires. Heading our list for the second straight year was Lawrence M. Coss, the little-known CEO and chairman of Green Tree Financial Corp., based in St. Paul, Minn. Thanks to a five-year deal set in 1991 that paid him 2.5% of pretax income, Coss made $102.4 million last year--a 56% rise over the $65.6 million he earned in 1995.

By any standard, Coss's paycheck is huge. And for many investors and pay experts, he remains the poster boy for all that is right with pay for performance. Coss himself makes no apologies. ''Indeed it is a huge number,'' he says, ''but I'd rather talk about the success of the company.'' That's easy to do. Between 1991 and 1996, Green Tree's shares had compounded annual returns of 53% as it became the largest lender to the manufactured-home sector. Although two small pension plans recently sued Coss and the board for excessive compensation, most big shareholders appear satisfied. ''In no way would I consider him overpaid,'' says Thomas W. Smith, partner at Prescott Investors Inc., which holds 2.7 million shares.

Like Coss, most well-paid execs point to stock gains as proof that their pay is richly deserved. Ask Sam Wyly, chairman of Sterling Software Inc., about the fact that his $439 million company produced three of the biggest pay packages in Corporate America last year, and he lets out a belly laugh. ''We should,'' he says, pointing to the company's 673% stock price rise since its 1983 initial public offering. The payouts--which totaled $69.6 million for Wyly, $34.7 million for his brother, vice-chairman Charles J. Wyly Jr., and $58.2 million for CEO Sterling L. Williams--came mostly from option exercises.

Yet if few would dispute the success of such fast-growing companies, investors are increasingly asking how much is enough to get top performance. Again, take Coss. His pay is so gargantuan that it dwarfs his stellar performance. The ratio between his three-year pay and the shareholders' return puts Coss third on BUSINESS WEEK's list of CEOs who gave shareholders the least for their buck. Moreover, the huge award significantly diluted other shareholders' gains: Coss's payouts cut Green Tree's 1996 earnings 16%, to $308.7 million.

Because he received shares directly, rather than options, Coss's compensation differs from that of most CEOs. But as the sheer number of options has soared, shareholder dilution is proving an unanticipated by-product. Companies use options in part to align executives' interests with shareholders. But they also favor them because--unlike other forms of pay--they never show up on an income statement. Instead, starting this year, companies must footnote them in their annual reports using the Black-Scholes fair value option pricing model.

It takes some digging, but those footnotes provide plenty of surprises. For all the benefits that options create, they're not free. PepsiCo Inc., for example, reported that its option grants would have reduced earnings by $68 million, or 6% last year, had they been counted as compensation. Medical-equipment maker Guidant Corp.'s earnings after charges would have taken an 11% hit. By putting more potential shares into circulation, options reduce every shareholder's slice of the earnings pie. And because the footnotes include only options granted since 1995, Bear, Stearns & Co. accounting analyst Pat McConnell estimates they understate the impact by at least 50%.

CONCERNED INVESTORS. Companies with broad-based option plans say the dilution is a small cost next to the benefit of motivating employees. But the largest share of those new options goes to the corner office. According to Executive Compensation Reports, a Fairfax Station (Va.) newsletter and database, 51% of companies that have reported granting options for 1996 have given 10% or more of them to the CEO. In 1993, only 18% of companies did so.

But that's not the only hidden cost of options. Companies have been buying back shares in record numbers, even as many sell discounted shares back to executives when they cash in their options. With many shares trading near record highs, those companies are paying top dollar to buy back stock--while execs pocket the aftertax difference between the option price and the market price. That often results in large cash outlays, and it also means executives end up with an ever higher percentage of outstanding shares. ''Want to talk about the largest social welfare transfer program in the world?'' says Patrick S. McGurn, director of corporate programs at Institutional Shareholder Services Inc., a proxy advisory service based in Bethesda, Md. ''It's from shareholders into the pockets of executives.''

So far, investors have been relatively quiet on dilution. But now they're taking notice. Institutional Shareholder Services is recommending ''no'' votes against at least 20% of new stock-option plans, including those at Starbucks Corp. and Sprint Corp. And the five New York City pension funds will oppose some one-third of plans this year, primarily because of concerns over dilution. Options ''do come home to roost,'' says Jon Lukomnik, New York City Deputy Controller for pensions.

Another unwelcome result of the shift to pay for performance: It's not just the best who are pulling in giant pay. Performance targets are often set so low--or so loosely--that they're virtually meaningless. ''Performance criteria are almost like intellectual Silly Putty,'' says Warren Bennis, Distinguished Professor of Business Administration at the University of Southern California's Marshall School of Business.

According to Executive Compensation Reports, of proxies examined so far this year, only 6.6% of option-granting companies issued any ''premium-priced'' options--those with prices above market value on the day of issue. And though the number is up from last year's 3.5%, most companies boasting premium-priced options make them only a small portion of the package. Just 20% of PepsiCo CEO Roger Enrico's 1.7 million stock-option awards in 1996 were made at prices above then-current market value, for example. And of last year's record-setting grant of 8 million options to Walt Disney CEO Michael D. Eisner, only 3 million were awarded at above-market prices.

Shareholder advocates say that tougher targets are necessary to keep from rewarding average CEOs who are simply riding a bull market. Nell Minow, a principal in LENS, an activist investor group, argues, for example, that executives should outperform the market or their peer group to receive big packages.

Instead, with grants in the hundreds of thousands of shares now commonplace, managers can earn a big payday even if their stocks rise only slightly. In Eisner's case, if Disney shares rise a tiny $2 annually--a poor performance by Disney's standards--the value of his market-priced options would increase $10 million annually. And there's little real downside. Few executives suffer financially if the stock drops. ''One of my biggest complaints is there's not much risk'' with options, says Anne Yerger, director of research at the Council of Institutional Investors. ''In a bull market, most executives are going to get money.''

LOSING THE BALANCE? As a result, many execs whose performance trailed their peers' have also benefited. Typical was H.J. Heinz's Anthony F.J. O'Reilly, who made $64.2 million last year. His company's stock performance rose just 11%, trailing both the S&P and other food companies. O'Reilly defends his huge option grants as part of a generous incentive scheme. ''There can be no more honorable or fairer way'' to compensate CEOs, O'Reilly argues.

The staggering rise in pay for the good, the bad, and the indifferent has left even some advocates of pay for performance wondering whether the balance between the CEO and the shareholder is tilting the wrong way. ''I've been consulting for over 20 years and have seen options accepted carte blanche as a good thing,'' says George B. Paulin, president of compensation consultancy Frederic W. Cook & Co. ''Now, boards and investors are starting to question the structure of option deals.''

In the meantime, many top execs have amassed vast troves of options that have yet to be exercised (page 66). Among those with the largest potential jackpots: Disney CEO Eisner, who holds some $364.4 million in unexercised stock options. The gains are so enormous that AOL's Case, who cashed in most of his $27.4 million in options before growing pains and accounting changes beat up the stock last year, is still sitting on options worth an additional $116.6 million. And topping the list is HFS CEO Henry R. Silverman, with $544.3 million in exercisable stock options.

The question, of course, is why boards don't set the performance bar higher. While compensation committees are much more vigilant than they've ever been, Kayla J. Gillan, general counsel at the California Public Employees' Retirement System, a $110 billion pension fund, points out that about 25% of the companies in the S&P still have an insider on the compensation committee. And companies fear they'll lose talent if their executive pay falls below that of their peers. That helps to inflate compensation. Says Howard B. Edelstein, a principal of the Todd Organization, a benefits consulting firm: ''Companies are saying, 'Take me to the middle.'''

Despite recent requirements that boards disclose the criteria they use to set pay, there's plenty of wiggle room. At Mattel Inc., for example, newly named CEO Jill E. Barad wasn't eligible for a bonus in 1996 because the company missed internal targets. So instead, the board awarded her a $280,000 ''special achievement bonus'' for progress made in 1995. And like many executives, Barad has also negotiated protection should things at Mattel go wrong. If Barad is dismissed or leaves for ''good reason,'' she'll receive five times her last salary plus average bonus, become vested in an executive retirement plan at the age of 50, and have a $3 million loan forgiven.

SELLER'S MARKET. Even those whose subpar performance makes their options worthless have recourse. For example, in 1995 Digital Equipment CEO Robert B. Palmer was granted 300,000 options at the then-market price of $48. The next year the package was smaller, but the exercise price fell to $37.75 to match the swooning stock. If the stock returns to its already depressed 1995 price, Palmer will pocket nearly $2 million.

Many consultants say companies, faced with executives who are more willing to job-hop, must dole out juicy options packages and guarantees to get the execs they want. It's a seller's market, with CEOs in demand holding most of the cards. ''In many cases,'' says Peter T. Chingos, national practice director of compensation at KPMG Peat Marwick: ''You don't have a choice.''

And if the recent tremors in the stock market turn into an earthquake? With shareholder returns increasingly the gauge for setting executive compensation, the truest test of pay for performance may come in a bear, not a bull, market. Yet few expect CEOs, now accustomed to supercharged awards, to cut back. Instead, experts anticipate demands for lower-priced options or for more cash. ''When stock prices go down [CEOs argue], it's purely the vagaries of the market,'' says Kevin Murphy, a professor of business administration at USC. ''But when they go up, it's what they did to create value.''

Already, the pressure to reprice has begun. After a difficult few years in the trucking industry, Jerry W. Walton, chief financial officer at J.B. Hunt Transport Services Inc. in Lowell, Ark., says he tried to get the top brass to reprice their options, which have fallen below market value, on condition that they surrender some of the stock. Included: a grant of 2.5 million options for Chairman Wayne Garrison. ''Everybody thought it was a good idea to reprice,'' Walton says with a laugh. ''Nobody thought it was a good idea to surrender [the options].''

Will executive pay ever descend from the heavens? Some who helped push the early-1990s reforms aimed at trimming exorbitant executive pay--and tying it more closely to performance--are cynical. ''I wouldn't say the glass is half full; I'd say it's one-millionth full,'' says Minow. ''I do think things have improved. But a lot of the reforms we thought would happen with executive pay have been ineffective.'' For shareholders, 1996 was a good year indeed. But it was a far better year for the boss.

By Jennifer Reingold in New York, with bureau reports




Companies always die from the neck up.



dave

unless the unionized workers do a significantly better, more efficient and productive job....which is highly unlikely given union work rules....it ain't hard to figure out which employer would be more profitable, able to grow, hire more workers, and weather hard times better, is it?

Tell that to the longshoreman, railroad workers, warehouse workers(teamsters), building trades workers who no longer have jobs - which CAN NOT be outsourced. They were all replaced by technology, and machines, for cost savings. Tell that to the teamsters who have been replaced by intermodel transport. The list is endless, but feel free to believe what want.

Public sector unions should be outlawed, because the owners (taxpayers) have no control over the process. That's done by the politicians who happily take the union's money, then bill the people as a whole for the cost of those votes.

Private sector unions are another matter, the owners have the abilty to do as they see fit, and in case you haven't noticed - have been busy doing it for quite for some time (see my first paragraph).

Oh, and for the record, unions started in this country at the hand of a man named Eugene Debs. Learn about him - you'll be quite surprised as to what he stood for.

Debs was to the left of Trotsky, Lenin and Engels


Debs was so far left he would give King Obama a run for his money

At least Debs, as far as I know, did not hate white people like Obama does

I'm not going to post what I know to factual about Debs, beacuse of the instinctive reaction it brings. Best that folks take the time to find out for themselves - thus being able to accept the reality of the situation.

Gompers more important to the development of American unionism

Steve, speaking of my experience those restrictive work rules were written out of our contract two contracts ago...

By the time Gompers had even the notion of what a labor union was, Debs had been active as a member, and official, riding that wave of popularity all the way to the Indianna Assembly, where he continued to megaphone his beliefs, but with a much larger, broader audience.

Also, Gompers was involved with a much smaller segment of the labor force with his one, and only association (ever) being the AFL. Debs on the other hand was involved with the railroads, and the industrial unions, and had a many-year headstart - hardly a comparison.

I find it funny that a lot of folks on the fire are on the federal, state or municipal tit.

Obozo the clown that just keeps giving. Your money and jobs that is.

Gompers philosophy of seeking economic power and not political power is the one US trade and industry unions adopted, not Debs increasingly socialist one. The AFL as the AFL-CIO became the modern day union and power and what unions are based on, not the ARU or the Wobblies.

Gompers didn't start out with that attitude, or effort - it took him several years to evolve to it, and he was in the vast minority of union mentality to the day of his death. I know it's convienient to hold less, um, "change", orientated folks out as being the way it was (even presidents did it), but it was Debs, and his philosophies that paved the road, and are still in existance to this day.

So Obama 's SEIU union committing organized voter fraud is not based on seeking political power?

The Teamsters TRUMKA aappearing in Wisconsin and ordering his union minions to smash the TEA Party is not political?

Obama to the TEA Party: They bring a knife we'll bring a gun is not political?

Union dues going directly to the Dem Party is not political?


funny

Considering the biggest, most profitable and growing industrial maintance/construction companies here are union I would say youre wrong. And by your idea of "union rules" you know nothing about trades unions and how theyre ran.

In fact just today, I was listening to NPR while headin' to buy my Jazz Apples, and hickory wood for smokin' meat. The hot topic on NPR is the wonders, and virtues of the unions, and how they've done all-good, all-great, all-hail the middle class.

Being interviewed was a fella who travels the country organizing unions for bus drivers. He spoke of the higher wages, better benefits, holiday, and personal days off (things that would align with Gompers' philosophies), but emphasized that the real benefit of a union is it's power, it's clout, it's strength to effect political change (Eugene Debs personified).

Now, as to what that change should be - well, read what Debs' phiosophies were; 'cause I'm not gunna argue 'bout 'em.

And the right to get high or drunk or work and not lose your job or work at 25 per cent level of the private sector

Plus your union dues will pay for the amnesty of millions of illegals who have more rights than citizens under new diversity laws

Win win situation for obama's despised white middle class in the US

Let's examine the truth in Canada:

Without your environmentally destructive gold, silver and other precious metal mines, timber industry, combined with the Bakken Oil Fields in Alberta , Canada would be in a major recession.

if oil fell below 60 dollars a barrel and gold below $1000 oz Canada and the unions would be phugged.

Obama' a Johnny-come-lately to this scenario.

Now, ifn the fella earlier who would like to believe that Sam Gompers was the guiding light to modern labor relations would post on the position of Gompers' in relation to immigration (he opposed it - with a fury, and vengance), and compare it to what's happening today; then consider Debs' positions on the subject - well, some lights would be forced to come on.

I dont see where that fits into my and Steve-Nos debate, but sure change the topic if you want.

If you want to talk to me about the industrial maintance/construction sector of my province than join in. If you want to keep changing the topic to make yourself feel like youve won the battle, then...well carry on, no ones gonna stop ya...

And if oil and metals fell, then we'd all be in trouble, union or not.

I went to work in a union plant when I was 19. I was told by relatives who worked there that the way to get hired permanently and get benefits was to work my butt off and impress the "bosses". Two union stewards took me aside in short order and told me I was making the rest of them - who preferred to sit on their butts as much as possible - "look bad", and I would have to slow down. I did not. I joined the union sort of under duress, but received a lot more support from the "company". Later, in the oil industry, I watched union members use any excuse possible to get out of the work they were being paid to do. Was not my idea of how things should be. I freely admit the early unions in this country did a lot for the working man, but that seems to be long in the past.

texas99 had the same experience when i was FORCED to join a union

Archie in KAnada When oil waa around 40 dollars a barrel and gold $600 an oz I was much better off.

You Canadians are benefiting from an environmentally destructive and global warming product namely oil from the Bakkan Oil field

Fyi man made warming is a hoax

i listen to Canadian public radio and they ad naseum talk about global warming, evils of oil but the Canadian economy is based on the Bakken oil Field

What hypocrites

[/quote]

Considering the biggest, most profitable and growing industrial maintance/construction companies here are union I would say youre wrong. And by your idea of "union rules" you know nothing about trades unions and how theyre ran. [/quote]


I'm not talking about their rules for internal governance, I'm talking about work rules. You know, the ones that minimize the work done by individual workers, and maximize the requirements for use of that craft. So an electrician has to stop the job so a carpenter's union guy can come over and cut something for him, or a truck can't unload until the right union guy is there to do it, etc etc. I have not seen many work rules aimed at cutting costs or increasing efficiency....neither of which is in the union's interest since it would then require fewer workers.

but I agree not all decline is self-inflicted....technology has killed off some unions. New Orleans used to have two stevedore unions...one black and one white...with thousands of members handling break bulk cargo at the port. huge hiring halls, people making very good wages for the time.....containers have virtually decimated the stevedore's unions.

No. Scum like you and other lazy bastids and your deamonrats have us paying people a lot of money not to work.

Some of you guys can't see the trees for the forest. Sounds like a bunch of old women blaming the first thing you can think of for the first thing you think of when you wake up in the morning. Simply pathetic.

Bingo!

railroad

longshoreman

printers

textiles

farm workers

teamsters

building trades

Just off the top of my head, and there are many more examples of entire industies who replaced workers for two basic reasons:

1) cost

2) machines don't question who's in charge.

When the NPR's of the world are waxing eloquant about the positives that unions have brought to America, they's be wise to also scrutinize the negatives.

in 2007 Obama raised 745 million according the lib rag Wa Post

400 of that 745 million came from the corrupt unions.

Obama just phugged over black and white working class worker and college students by granting this amnesty that will allow anyone who can prove he or she is under the age of 32 to come to the US. And can they will be able to bring their family in the future under another Obama amnesty.

Again thanks unions for bank rolling the Marxist Dictator

Good job Canadian Unions

http://www.thestar.com/news/article...ly-hurt-at-downsview-park-show-cancelled

The same can be said for A LOT of non-union companies/employers, but you dont want to hear that do you.

Carry on.

Not sure I see where youre going with this. The union said they werent involved in the project?

Robotics/automation is an obvious choice for any companies with the option wether theyre unionized or not. To keep a worker doing a robots job would be foolish wether the worker is non-union or union. Unless the cost of going automated is unfeasable, obviously.

Well, actually I do.

Let's hear 'em.

just like in big union cities in the US you cannot come and set up concert stages, platforms without union involvement. there would be major union strikes

Canada has the same rules I believe

Ive personally been given poor conditioned safety equipment from companies i worked with prior to becoming a union member. Ive personally been asked to perform tasks with little thought to my own health and safety.

My best friend has worked for a small propane store for 6 years. In that time he pulled his back twice lifting 100 pounders into their work truck because the boss didnt want to fix the power tailgate. The boss refused to.let him file a claim and go to the hospital with a work injury. He strong armed him.

Ive worked on a large scale painting project in a steel mill. We had to eat our lunch on the road sitting on cable spools and drinkable water was not.supplied. During the project I had to spend 1 month in a crane basket painting and in that time me and my partner had to take our lunches into the basket with us and take turns eating because the boss wanted to impress the mill with our efficiency.

I can go on about that job, including when the mill health and safety condemned the life lines and lanyards our employer made us use...

The union said they werent invloved in the build. How do you link them with the accident? By the sounds of the article the stage was assembled non-union. Our country does not have rules forcing jobs to be 100% union.

There it is folks, the horrors of putting in a full days work, what with having to eat in a basket without someone to bullschit about last nights happenings, or having to sit along side the road and eat, nobody bringing you cold water, someone actually wanting to impress the bosses and or clients with hard work and performance... The humanity... Thank GOD for unions where these horrific conditions are no longer imposed on the poor workers.

Sometimes you have to grow a pair and just say no.



I managed to see that I had drinking water for years. When a boss, I managed to see that my men had water because a lot were too lazy to fix it themselves. They would find the energy to bitch and moan about it instead of filling up the water can. You don't have to be in a Union to take care of yourself. miles

So, how many of you voted for him????

Bullspit...
Don't tell me unions aren't destroyers of business, I saw the steel mills crumble due to their G R E E D.

Your union dues is about due...Oblamo can use your cash about now...

I have been accused of many things over my tenure here but condescending only in repay of kind. Might want to check your tone out if my gibes cause you to cringe.

Fact is I've been listening to economic gibberish around here for so long that most of it I just ignore. I only speak up when things get so comically out of kilter than a normal response has to include some level of attention getting... call it condescending if you will but blaming unions for the decimation of American industry is putting the cart before the horse.

I asked you about currency manipulation which is used to permanently underprice another country's labor costs... you ignored me.

I asked you about the textbook mercantilism which China, Japan, and many other countries have employed to strip productive capacity from the US... you ignored me.

I asked you to comment on the use of the dollar as reserve currency and its contribution to the loss of industry (because it facilitates the first two)... and was again ignored.

These aren't rhetorical questions. They are the means and ways with which one country can target and take down the productive industry of another country. These are the primary foundations upon which a chronic and non-selfcorrecting trade deficit is laid. These are enablers of the dollar recycling trade which has mutated our economy from a muscle bound industrial giant into a bubble generating, debt fueled zombie that staggers from one emergency to another.

I don't pay much attention to the gibes directed to me on matters economics. I remember well several years ago when I warned of an economic collapse and was ridiculed. I remember a damned large portion of the people supporting you on this thread agreeing that the onset of the crisis was a 'Democratic conspiracy to talk down the economy'. I remember people here applauding the imbecile Phil Gramm when he spoke of a 'mental recession'.

I'm not trying to pick on you, honestly I'm not.

But to understand ~why~ and ~how~ the economy has been strip mined necessitates going beyond coin operated economists and know it all pundits. You are going to have to understand that there are now two economies the produce/consume traditional one and the finance based one that has become parasitic in nature and is encouraging the very policies that are causing the middle class to wither.

Blaming unions is worse than being merely wrong it misdirects the honest blame from those who have helped to devalue goods producing activities. It distracts from the fact that the most massive fraud in the history of mankind has only recently concluded and the statutes of limitations is running out without the prosecution of one single Wall St welfare queen.

So forgive me if I seem trite... tbh I've just heard the usual ideological bullshit machine running one too many times.

Will

So the 400 plus million given to politiciansm, by the union, who monetize our debt, make sweetheart trade deals with China, refuse to impose tarrifs on countries screwing us over, giving amnesty to millions of illegals has no implications for our country and economy will?


The unions provide the dinero to bankroll all of these nightmares

I know you are a big fan of Obama but come on

Now I don't wish to keep this monstrosity of a thread on life support any more than absolutely necessary...

But do you honestly believe that unions are opposed to import tariffs to counter the currency manipulation/mercantilism I have noted? Really? Is that honestly what you believe?

In addition do you really believe that trade unions were in favor of giving most favored nation status to China and allowing an ongoing currency peg? Really?

On immigration you will find disagreement among the various unions. Those with large hispanic membership, now or anticipated, do favor immigration while those who do not tend to disagree. It is nuanced. Don't expect the IUOE membership to have a similar stand to the hotel workers union. By and large the democratic party ~has~ folded. The republican party was in favor of large scale immigration for decades while the democratic party had platform planks opposed to it. Both have given in and joined the Chamber of Commerce.

But I have to say you have a grave misunderstanding of what trade unions desire politically and have pursued if you believe what you just posted.

Will

400 PLUS million?!? You dont say....what a significant contribution to the liberal machine. Holy fcking balls thats really gonna bankrupt America...


No one managed to answer to me why that article of the stage collapse was mentioned either. Can anyone help me? I know im a union sociaLOST so there really is no help for me...but give it a try.

Edited. Too hard to type on a smart phone.

Funny, you side-stepped/ignored the health and safety issues I mentioned, the workers comp claims I mentioned and went right for the easy pickings. Thanks for walking into that one. You aught to be a Liberal Politician...

God bless union people. America needs them!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not easy picking, just pointing out how a complete non-issue, such as an employer not providing drinking water, is construed as a legitimate problem within a union. A simple solution would be to bring a few bottles of water from home, nobody thought of that:O instead you get together like a bunch of old women and bitch about it.

Now when you cannot figure out how to bring water from home I don't expect you to stand up for your own health and safety, I certainly don't expect people to fill out injury forms, or go to the hospital when injured, without the bosses permission.

As I said I took care of myself, even though washrooms, breakrooms, and drinking water is mandatory union or not. I simply highlighted the fact that some non-union companies arent the peaches and cream operations you people make them to be. I still started at the bottom, worked up to foreman and eventually quit and went on to other things. But again you dodged my original health and safety comments by insulting my intelligence and backbone.

Good show sir. Theres a cubical at the UAW hall for you.

I thought "Union" was slang for "I'm a lazyasss". You'd never make it in the oilpatch.

The illegal aliens love the unions. Unions keep phugging American workers yet many on here still say unions are wonderful

http://www.zimbio.com/Illegal+immig...cago+Teamsters+Rally+Support+Immigration

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/issues/unions/afl-cio-turns-its-back-us-workers-endors.html

I know, Im not a drunk cokehead with a grade 10 education and 2 ex-wives.


The oil patch aint for everyone...rig pig.

What a [bleep] joke of a spin that is. What, the GOP has no culpability on cheap labor flowing into this country? Unions foght against illegal immigration for years, including Cesar Chavez and the UFW union. Business is just as culpable by stuffing the pockets of the GOP to allow the cheap labor spigot open and jobs to flow over seas.


Another point of view to ponder...

In the wake of labor�s defeated effort to recall Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) last week, both pro- and anti-union pundits have opined that unions are in an all-but-irreversible decline. Privately, a number of my friends and acquaintances in the labor movement have voiced similar sentiments. Most don�t think that decline is irreversible but few have any idea how labor would come back.

What would America look like without a union movement? That�s not a hard question to answer, because we�re almost at that point. The rate of private-sector unionization has fallen below 7 percent, from a post-World War II high of roughly 40 percent. Already, the economic effects of a union-free America are glaringly apparent: an economically stagnant or downwardly mobile middle class, a steady clawing-back of job-related health and retirement benefits and ever-rising economic inequality.

In the three decades after World War II the United States dominated the global economy, but that�s only one of the two reasons our country became the first to have a middle-class majority. The other is that this was the only time in our history when we had a high degree of unionization. From 1947 through 1972 � the peak years of unionization � productivity increased by 102 percent, and median household income also increased by 102 percent. Thereafter, as the rate of unionization relentlessly fell, a gap opened between the economic benefits flowing from a more productive economy and the incomes of ordinary Americans, so much so that in recent decades, all the gains in productivity � as economists Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon have shown � have gone to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans. When labor was at its numerical apogee in 1955, the wealthiest 10 percent claimed just 33 percent of the nation�s income. By 2007, with the labor movement greatly diminished, the wealthiest 10 percent claimed 50 percent of the nation�s income.

Today, wages account for the lowest share of both gross domestic product and corporate revenue since World War II ended � and that share continues to shrink. An International Monetary Fund study released in April shows that the portion of GDP going to wages and benefits has declined from 64 percent in 2001 to 58 percent this year. The survey compared the United States with Europe, where the only other nations in which labor�s share declined were Greece, Spain and Ireland � countries whose economies are at death�s door. Our economy is nowhere near so weak, but as Americans� ability to collectively bargain has waned, so has their power to keep all corporate revenue from going to top executives and shareholders.

When unions are powerful, they boost the incomes of not only their members but also of nonunion workers in their sector or region. Princeton economist Henry Farber has shown that the wages of a nonunion worker in an industry that is 25 percent unionized are 7.5 percent higher because of that unionization. Today, however, few industries have so high a rate of unionization, and a consequence is that unions can no longer win the kinds of wages and benefits they used to.

Deunionization is just one reason Americans� incomes have declined, of course; globalization has taken its toll as well. But the declining share of pretax income going to wages is chiefly the result of the weakening of unions, which is the main reason American managers now routinely seek to thwart their workers� attempts to unionize through legally questionable but economically rewarding tactics (rewarding, that is, for the managers).

The weakening of unions has had a huge political effect as well: the realignment of the white working class. Since the �60s, exit polls have shown that unionized blue-collar whites vote Democratic at a rate 20 to 30 percent higher than their nonunion counterparts. The decline in union membership has weakened Democrats in such heavily white, increasingly deunionized states as West Virginia and Wisconsin � the main reason Republicans such as Walker have sought to reduce labor�s numbers. Liberals who have been indifferent to unions� decline will find it difficult to enact progressive legislation in their absence.

Understandably, some liberals are searching for ways to arrest the economic decline of the majority of their fellow Americans in a post-union environment. I fear they�re bound to be frustrated. If workers can�t bargain with their employers, it can�t be done. If and when Big Labor dies � it�s on life support now � America�s big middle class dies with it.

[email protected]

The joke, is the hysteria surrounding Walker's efforts. They were billed as an assault on unions, by the press, the democrats, and labor leaders - so of course the rank 'n' file believed it.

Nothing could be farther from reality, as Walker's efforts were aimed squarely at the public sector. PERIOD.

By recall time, even the lefty press in Wisconsin had to retrace their earlier steps. Oh, they still hate Walker, but were forced to at least be honest in their presentation - Walker's bills have ZERO direct effect on private unions, and the only indirect effect, is reduced taxes - primarily property tax.

Can't argue the fact that the GOP has no culpability here,...but the rest of that article qualifies as deer camp TP.

Love this gem...



The author doesn't address that these unsustainable benefits are the reason that many businesses cease to exist. There is simply no money to pay for them.

Look at Greece (which ironically he mentions) for a case-in-point.

So just because I'm a union member I'm scum?

Let me tell something to all the jerk-offs here that think they know everything. I work for one of the top 5 concrete companies in the nation, not because we're union, because we regularly kick the competitions @ss in quality and efficiency.

By the way, the Jackwagon that doesn't think workers should get to sit down for break, or have water supplied on site has never poured concrete in 100 degree heat.

I've worked for both union and nonunion companies and I'm not saying that unions are perfect, but they sure as hell ain't the antichrist either.

I'm all for the workin' man union or not doesn't matter to me in the slightest.

Hard work and feeding your family is nothing to look down upon.

Its useless trying to have a conversation with a republican. They are as senseless as seagulls...as soon as one squawks they all join in for a squabble.

Where is the proof of Bush's intentions, TooDogs? He sure as hell did NOT do it: OBAMA DID!

Does your union tell you how often you're allowed to wipe your azz every day too?

Nice rebuttal you know-nothing rig pig. I [bleep] AND wipe my ass on my own. During my mandated/collectively bargained breaks (that is if its not too busy to take breaks)...I know I know..a union dog NOT taking breaks?!?!?

What a train wreck of a thread....

Ribka, Tell us more about this stage collapse, Talk about a Barry Bonds type swing and a miss.........

Hey Jughead, are you too stupid to realize there's more to the oilpatch than rigs? Get out of the office sometime. There's lots oilpatch in Canada too lazyazz, you should know better. You clowns don't know what hard work is.

I don't know who you are referring to, I'm an Independent.
Although given the two evils I'd sure as hell hold my nose and align myself with the GOP rather than the Democrats.
It's why I'll be voting for Romney rather than Zero.


See how your above qoute measures up with the liberal Occupy movement...my friend irony.

And one can see why the SEIU, longshoreman, teamsters and others have been beating the chit out of those who they disagree with for many decades...always in numbers mind you, and always with a blind eye by the public sector members--cops etc., and the progressive media.

Union blood runs thick.
Hey I've been forced to be a part of unions, but my opinion and voting lever are beyond their reach.
It's a shame for many union membership doesn't = common sense.

And one can see why the SEIU, longshoreman, teamsters and others have been beating the chit out of those who they disagree with for many decades...always in numbers mind you, and always with a blind eye by the public sector members--cops etc., and the progressive media.

Union blood runs thick.
Hey I've been forced to be a part of unions, but my opinion and voting lever are beyond their reach.
It's a shame for many union membership doesn't = common sense.

Some do get it...it's why 35% of WI union members voted for Walker.

I knew this thread would bring out all of the Obama luvers out of the closet

No theres [bleep] all to the patch. Ive seen drug addicts have a go at it and make great money and go places with it. Operating isnt hard. And Im well aware of our oil patches.

Also the view from my office is great, it varies from 20-150 feet above mindless operators heads. Although the 115+ degree ambient temps can be uncomfortable at times while doing hoist and bridge reducer changeouts, end truck repairs/swaps, motor installs, etc.

I'll let you use your texas-googlefu to decipher what an end truck is.

So Ribka, whats the deal with the stage? Did you get any sweet insider leads on it re:union conspiracy/cover-up?

That Jackwagon hasnt stepped foot in a Mill let alone spun a wrench in same, most assuredly not 50 feet above a heat treat furnace on a down crane with the mill waiting to come ahead because of said crane
His tune would change pretty quick the second his pusssy sweat soaked through his thong.

They might if the government wasn't sucking the life out of them with taxes and social security.

Lets have a bump for such an enlightening thread.

Ok.