What do we think about Indiana pension funds blocking the sale of Chrystler to Fiat and the UAW? I didn't like that the UAW (or whatever the name of the worker/laborer group is) would own 68% anyway, but that's me...
What do we think about Indiana pension funds blocking the sale of Chrystler to Fiat and the UAW? I didn't like that the UAW (or whatever the name of the worker/laborer group is) would own 68% anyway, but that's me...
This may only be negotiating ploy to get the pension funds a bigger piece of the pie and not an attempt to kill the deal. Fiat isn't backing out yet.
Bond holders have rights protected by contract. This psuedobankruptcy (and GM's) is an abominable violation of the rule of law. The long term effect of allowing the bankruptcies to continue in their present form is that it compromises trust and good faith that contracts will be honored.
PeteWW wrote: Bond holders have rights protected by contract. This psuedobankruptcy (and GM's) is an abominable violation of the rule of law. The long term effect of allowing the bankruptcies to continue in their present form is that it compromises trust and good faith that contracts will be honored.
Uh, the UAW had a contract, too. That GM, Ford and Chrysler would pay them ~$90B into a trust fund. Whoes contract wins? (and this ISN'T a labor contract, but a financial agreement contract) How much of a violation of the rule of law when two contracts are competeting for so few remaing $$??
quietly, Ford sold the UAW some stock earlier this year to pay off part of their outstanding debt for this trust fund.
Had this agreement not been signed, the UAW would have gotten nothing.
Although, you can post this in the same thread on the main GRM forum.
The difference is legal precedent. There is a chain, or queue, in who is to get their money first in such matters. 150+ years of legal precedent in this country have been swept aside because the current administration is SO kissing the collective behinds of the union. This has serious legal implications and is a legitimate gripe.
I don't think it will alter the Fiat takeover either way.
Well, apparently not. The SCOTUS reviewed, and didn't find a need to hear it.
As for the legal precdent- how sure are you about the financial contract between the UAW and Chrysler, GM, and Ford that is may have more financial weight than a bond? Since I've not seen the contract, I'd say there's a decent chance that it does have some weight, since no court has intervened on behalf of the bond holders.
Or, most of this was settled out of court, so the legal precedent is moot.
Eric
I really don't know the laws in this situation, but laws can be fluid (otherwise precedent wouldn't even be a consideration) and bankruptcies are ALL about those that are owed money getting screwed!!
This isn't the original segment where he explains why the pension funds should get their money before the UAW and the legal precedent involved (and it wasn't just Glenn, but backed up by Judge Napolotano), but here is a 8 minute examination of how this whole deal was ramrodded through to save the unions.
Edit: found it, but can't figure out a direct link. Scroll down to "Best Coverage of Auto Trouble". Part 2 offers a simplistic explanation of how bankruptcy law works. GB Clips
dd Can you come up with a more credible source than Glenn Beck? He's not a journalist, but an entertainer. It's not news, it's all opinion.
E-
alfadriver wrote: dd Can you come up with a more credible source than Glenn Beck? He's not a journalist, but an entertainer. It's not news, it's all opinion. E-
As Glenn likes to say, "not so much".
Look, I understand he's not a trained journalist, but he's certainly more than an 'entertainer'. He's moved from being ha-ha radio entertainment into...gee, actual journalism, pedigree of recovering alcoholic deejay be damned. Why do I think this? Because his reportage has turned out to be right so often I can trust what he's spewing. What he brings us is what the blatantly biased 'elite' media does not. Is there a bit much hysteria in his delivery? Certainly. But he's got a crack staff that checks facts and have rarely been wrong. And, he does a great job of explaining and educating what the regular news and our institutions of learning do not. So I feel he is eminently credible.
Do I simply swallow the Kool-Aid? Of course not. I pride myself on being a thinker. Much like those who loathe Bill O'Reilly, I find that most critics really don't watch the program (and the radio show is rather different than the TV show). For this topic, the link posted is relevent.
In reply to ddavidv:
ddavidv, to say Beck insn't an entertainer is just silly. You said yourself he comes from radio entertainment, he just changed his schtick, which is now an ultra conservative persona. As far as the 'elite' media goes, can you define what 'elite' media is and do you have any clear/simple examples?
Now as far as Chrysler and Fiat are concerned, the deal is done and that's that.
I personally feel that the ENTIRE thing was handled in a piss poor way, by both administrations. I'm not sure how this will all turn out but letting the UAW own a majority stake in the company is, to me, going to be very negative.
It's probably as futile as trying to explain to a Democrat how your elected leader is a Marxist, but I'll try...
If someone brings you news, based on actual tech and study and backed up by fact checkers and leading thinkers, is it not news? Even if it's delivered by someone without a rigid, monotone news anchor way of speaking? Even if he uses a chalkboard to explain how government works?
"Ultra-conservative"? Define that please. Beck no longer defines himself as a 'conservative', but a Libertarian. Personally, I think he falls somewhere in between those two. Penn Gillette is a Libertarian. Beck is a bit to the right of that.
Elite media is easy...that's the Big 3 networks plus a dappling of print media such as the NYT and Newsweek and so forth. Which either does a piss poor job of reporting the news in general via 30 second bytes or has such a blindingly liberal bias (cough, NBC, cough) it isn't news but propoganda. The incredible ratings success of people like Beck, regardless of their background or delivery method, speak volumes about the poor content of your mainstream news shows. The days of trusting sources like Walter Kronkite are long over.
This is straying far OT, but if you want to debate it, go ahead. But you must confess just how often you watch the show(s) you criticize and dismiss as mere 'entertainment'.
ddavidv wrote:alfadriver wrote: dd Can you come up with a more credible source than Glenn Beck? He's not a journalist, but an entertainer. It's not news, it's all opinion. E-As Glenn likes to say, "not so much". Look, I understand he's not a trained journalist, but he's certainly more than an 'entertainer'. He's moved from being ha-ha radio entertainment into...gee, actual journalism, pedigree of recovering alcoholic deejay be damned. Why do I think this? Because his reportage has turned out to be right so often I can trust what he's spewing. What he brings us is what the blatantly biased 'elite' media does not. Is there a bit much hysteria in his delivery? Certainly. But he's got a crack staff that checks facts and have rarely been wrong. And, he does a great job of explaining and educating what the regular news and our institutions of learning do not. So I feel he is eminently credible. Do I simply swallow the Kool-Aid? Of course not. I pride myself on being a thinker. Much like those who loathe Bill O'Reilly, I find that most critics really don't watch the program (and the radio show is rather different than the TV show). For this topic, the link posted is relevent.
So it's ok for you to dismiss what the Supreme Court of the United States does, or does not, but it's not ok for me to dismiss Glenn Beck, an entertainer, and sort of, kinda, speaking loosely, a journalist?
Ok.
I belive Beck as much as I believe Oberman. Although, I like Oberman since he's more entertaining to me. Very few news reports can't be filtered to say a story that's biased in the manner you want to hear.
And if you want to belive that the Obama administration is Marxist, that's entirely your perogotive. Even if I did, there's little I can do about it, so I'm not actually going to worry about it. Whatever he does that's ACTUALLY damaging can be undone in 3.5 more years. That's the beauty of our system.
Ever see Avenue Q? There's a pretty telling line in one of the songs about our most recent past President.
It's never wise to mix opinion with journalism.
.... it's also almost impossible to remove opinion from journalism.
Objectivity is supposed to be the cornerstone of professional journalism. Professional journalism is rare.
Yeah, well Fiats are better than Alfas, so nyah! 
As I said at the outset of this argument, it's pretty pointless to argue with someone about this much like trying to change their opinion on their political party of choice. These are strongly seated beliefs.
However, regardless of party, saying that anything done can be undone through the next election is naiive. Look at any number of government programs and freedom reducing laws that have been enacted over the last 75 years and tell me how many have been successfully rescinded. Prohibition? That's one.
BTW, I didn't "dismiss" the supreme court. Not agreeing to hear a case is very different than making a ruling in one. In this case, they took the hands-off way out. The only decision they made was to not create waves for Our Saviour and the unions he panders to.
You'll need to log in to post.
