President Obama and the Unions
May 6, 2009
I’m a union teacher. Granted I’m retired now, but I still belong to the union and proud of it. In fact in my early days of teaching I got fired for starting a union in Romulus Michigan. It took men like Mike Berry and Roger Craig and the late Bernie Fieger to take the case to court and get me reinstated and then the next year I came to Dearborn. So don’t accuse me of being anti union. It just won’t stick.
Now I must say that I am a little concerned about President Obama and his cozying up to the union big shots. Now you got to know that there are business crooks, we’re told about that by the media all the time, but very little do we hear about union crooks. Some union leaders take the dues of there members and do what they want with the money. Frankley, this practice has been controlled under the Bush administration, but now under Obama, he’s loosening up these rules and the union bosses again will not have to disclose what they do with all the money. They’ll just say that we spent 60 million on “this” and not tell you exactly what “this” is, à la Bill Clinton
So much for Obama and his transparency. He’s paying back the unions for their support and they’re also working on the Employees Free Choice Act. Well the Free Choice Act really means that two or three union guys can come up to you in your home or anywhere and say “Are you for the union or not? “ Now in a public situation it is very hard to tell your fellow employees that you’re not for a union, or that you may feel better off without a union.
This is a strong arm deal that they are pushing. So much for fairness, and so much for Obama’s treatment of unions. If you haven’t figured it out, Obama’s in the union bag. Obama is paying back the unions for their support during his elections. No question. Now if you disagree with me fine, just write me and tell me your side of the story and I’ll be glad to put it up.
OTHER RECENT NEWS
<< Previous Article: Allison, Take this !!!!
>> Next Article: may peace reign
5 Comment(s)
Of course you are right about Obama and the union paybacks.
Also, just wait until the unions "own" 55 percent of Chrysler and GM. Watch that all self-destruct.
--by on 5/7/09 Lives: Dearborn
This site and its comments are about as authentic as the celebrity Apprentice
--by on 5/7/09 Lives: Dearborn
Poor :Donald Trump: from Dearborn, LOL his comment authentic. Not too bright.
--by on 5/7/09 Lives: Detroit area
Russ, I think it is more telling that Obama rejected GM's business plan because it didn't cut enough American jobs. What money will the union bigwigs have if all the jobs go overseas?
--by on 5/18/09 Lives: Dearborn
Dear Russ:
I was reading an account of General Motors and its history. I could comment for days on how GM has run its company almost exclusively as a corporation that has historically slow to react to changes in marketplace. I was intrigued by the evolution of GM’s product lines over the decades.
The Chevrolet was the entry level GM product, the Oldsmobile was the intermediate model, Pontiac as the middle of the pack, Buick was the upper echelon intermediate and of course Cadillac being the pinnacle of status.
It was suggested that as ones status in the community and business world increased, as did the GM model he drove (I say he because this was some decades ago).
Isn’t it ironic that as our middle class herd is being thinned as our government (Democrats and Republicans alike) kill off Unions, so are those “intermediate” brands? Gone are Oldsmobile’s, Pontiacs and soon Buicks as well as the Saturn’s and the buy ins like Saab, Hummer and all the others. All that will be left is the Chevy’s for the poor folks, and the Cadillac’s for the rich folks, nothing in between.
So what is good for GM is good for the country. The very rich and the very poor. It’s where we are headed and GM, now with its controlling investor being the US Government, we find ourselves and our culture being slowly transformed to reflect the soon to be population/earnings shift. God help us all!
--by on 6/6/09 Lives: Dearborn