The only conclusion that I can draw!
The only conclusion that I can draw from this news - GM forced into bankruptcy by bondholders - is that Obama and Harper conspired to smash the Unions. If the bondholders aren't forced into concessions by Obama and harper/clement.maguinty then why did they set up the union for a haircut? Smash the union that's why. If Obama is so union friendly where is his "card check" legislation? Nope the neo-cons did the workers in and it was set up to be so from the beginning.
10 comments:
Ben, that is a completely unwarranted and paranoid conclusion. Neither Obama nor Harper have any say over bond-holders and what they might do. I don't see why either would want GM to go bankrupt and further, I don't think the unions care one way or the other. Both the CAW and UAW made sure their recent agreements would work in the event of bankruptcy. It's probably better for them - more Government ownership and no ownership by bondholders would suit them better.
The bondholders have always been the wild card in this. I understand that their assets are unsecured which would mean to men that Obama could enact anything to make them come into line, including nationalisation. But the point is that the powers to be didn't hesitate to force the unions into untenable concessions but left the BHers alone? Why. Perhaps I am paranoid on this point but when the establishment hates unions is not an illogical conclusion.
Is it the 'establishment' that hates unions? Or is it unions that hate the 'establishment'?
I don't really think there is any animosity involved. The friction is about cash, who gets what. Bondholders are loaning money on a contract that fixes a rate of return. That is not the case for shareholders. In the event of bankruptcy, bondholders get precedence before shareholders. Bondholders have no incentive to encourage bankruptcy because it would mean less money for them, and delayed money at that. What do they stand to gain in the current circumstances by busting the balls of a union?
It is not BHers against the Union it is Obama et al against the union, crushing the union means a compliant and docile workforce willing to work for peanuts. The ruling classes have never been able to accept the fact that Labour can organise and effect change The BHers should have had pressure from Obama in the same proportion that the Union faced.
If speculation's the game, have a look at my paranoia in a piece I published May 6 at m-schumann.blogspot.com - conspiracy theories will live forever because trust appears to be a thing of the past.
For some unfathomable reason BB has had a hate-on for Obama for at least a year now. He can be depended upon to trash any and every move the new US President makes. This is just the latest.
BB does not have hate on for BO, just a great sense of disappointment and the realisation that he will never be able to live up to the expectations place upon him by a fawning electorate. The only change to take place so far is the face of the prez.
I love his SC appointment!
Is is Obama's fault that you are disappointed and he has supporters who are unrealistic? Try to give him a break, some time on the job before your disappointment overwhelms your patience.
DJO
Exit Saint Obama, Enter Bush Lite, with apologies to Thomas Walkom in The Toronto Star here.
As to the substance of your remarks, Ben: I agree, but would add "bleating" to "fawning".
Ben said, "...he will never be able to live up to the expectations place upon him by a fawning electorate."
I think Obama lama ding dong had considerable influence in nourishing those expectations. "Change you can believe in." I guess he meant small change.
Post a Comment