Enough is Enough

[getitgoin]

Billions of dollars in oil profits, millions of good jobs exported, terrorism used to tear down our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Government squeezing the life out of airline workers by keeping ticket prices so low that it's ridiculous. Enough is enough.

Let's stop giving our income to oil companies.

Let's demand restoration of our pensions.

Hold government accountable to us, the people that pay the taxes.

American families should'nt be paying for a crooked system that's purposely bankrupting us.

Fight back people... form a union.

We'll use that union for our bully, and squeeze them for a change.

Ceo pay averages over six hundred times that of the working man and woman.

Enough...Enough...Enough

 

[DalMD88]

What do oil company profits have to do with forming a union? And BTW there is nothing wrong with them making a profit. Sure it sounds like they are "gouging". Their profits are huge so they must be.

The size of their profits is actually in line with the size of the companies. Their tax bill is already larger than their profits so who is gouging who? So what are they doing with these huge profits? How about going and looking for more oil. It cost about a Billion dollars to set up one offshore rig in the Gulf of Mexico. If we tax these companies more the money dosen't get spent exploring for oil. Instead it goes to our wonderful government. I would much rather it stay in the hands of Exxon-Mobil. We tried this windfall tax on the 'big oil profits' once before. Carter did it and that only caused us to stop exploring for oil in the US and stop reinvesting in our refinery capablities.

 

[cooper43]

What do oil company profits have to do with forming a union? And BTW there is nothing wrong with them making a profit. Sure it sounds like they are "gouging". Their profits are huge so they must be.

The size of their profits is actually in line with the size of the companies. Their tax bill is already larger than their profits so who is gouging who?

This is the first I've heard of this. I watch CNBC almost on a daily basis and the common talk on there is that the oil companies now get tax breaks and that is what most people are upset about. The Bush tax cuts I believe benifit the oil companies. I may be wrong but I have never heard that the oil companies pay more tax than is their profits. If that were so why have they lately been before congress defending why thier profits are the largest in history.

 

[GSEMAN]

Billions of dollars in oil profits, millions of good jobs exported, terrorism used to tear down our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Government squeezing the life out of airline workers by keeping ticket prices so low that it's ridiculous. Enough is enough.

Let's stop giving our income to oil companies.

Let's demand restoration of our pensions.

Hold government accountable to us, the people that pay the taxes.

American families should'nt be paying for a crooked system that's purposely bankrupting us.

Fight back people... form a union.

We'll use that union for our bully, and squeeze them for a change.

Ceo pay averages over six hundred times that of the working man and woman.

Enough...Enough...Enough

I can surely understand the frustration you are feeling as we all should. I don't see how forming a union would resolve any of the issues you bring up though. Even as far as pay and pension, my oppinion is a union would have nothing to bargain with at this point. Even if it did I look at the present situation the same way I look at the housing market. It is a buyers market at the present. In the industry it is a corporation market as opposed to an employee market. Right now the company would probably say...hey take or leave what we have to offer, leaving us with less or nothing. I say no thanks to that, my company is paying me quite well for what the industry is going through. Ask the NW AMT's how a union can protect your job. Just my view at the moment anyway.

 

[getitgoin]

I can surely understand the frustration you are feeling as we all should. I don't see how forming a union would resolve any of the issues you bring up though. Even as far as pay and pension, my oppinion is a union would have nothing to bargain with at this point. Even if it did I look at the present situation the same way I look at the housing market. It is a buyers market at the present. In the industry it is a corporation market as opposed to an employee market. Right now the company would probably say...hey take or leave what we have to offer, leaving us with less or nothing. I say no thanks to that, my company is paying me quite well for what the industry is going through. Ask the NW AMT's how a union can protect your job. Just my view at the moment anyway.

Actually there's different factions of labor unions, and some are fighting the tearing down of the middleclass, and some are aiding it.
In the case of AMFA, IAM and some others associated with the AFL-CIO, they seem to be working against the membership. On the other hand, looking at the unions in "Change To Win", and that includes the Teamsters, Communication Workers Union, SEIU(Service Employees Int. Union), Carpenters Union, Steel Workers, and I believe there's at least one or two more unions in that group, they are fighting back.
At the 2006 AFL-CIO convention these unions split from the AFL-CIO, and formed"Change To Win", because of the inaction on behalf of the members.
So, no it isn't that there can't be anything done, it's whether or not the union is actually putting forth an effort. Realistically though, the membership has to show that they won't be swayed, and labor in general must stand as one. That means; AMT's, F/A's, Pilots, Ramp, etc. Workers rights are a common cause. They were won collectively. It took many people from all walks, and that's what it will take to save the middleclass.

 

[DalMD88]

This is the first I've heard of this. I watch CNBC almost on a daily basis and the common talk on there is that the oil companies now get tax breaks and that is what most people are upset about. The Bush tax cuts I believe benifit the oil companies. I may be wrong but I have never heard that the oil companies pay more tax than is their profits. If that were so why have they lately been before congress defending why thier profits are the largest in history.

Check this out then. Jacoby is a Globe columnist with a very conservative and I think in this piece Libertarian slant to Big Oil.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editoria...profits_no_oil/

Take it all with a grain of salt. I am a big fan of Ayn Rand. Making money isn't a bad thing that should be punished. I find it amazing that in this country we seem more worried about the perceived 'right' to cheap gas than our access to affordable healthcare for all.

 

[cooper43]

Check this out then. Jacoby is a Globe columnist with a very conservative and I think in this piece Libertarian slant to Big Oil.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editoria...profits_no_oil/

Take it all with a grain of salt. I am a big fan of Ayn Rand. Making money isn't a bad thing that should be punished. I find it amazing that in this country we seem more worried about the perceived 'right' to cheap gas than our access to affordable healthcare for all.

I guess I can't condem anyone or any company for making what ever profits they can. However I also can not defend the oil companys at this moment in history. For years there have been many saying that the predicament that we are in now (damand for oil outpacing the supply) and our government has done nothing to battle this. There is plenty of blame to go around but in my opinion and I have no documents to prove my thinking just my own observations, the oil companys have spent billions lobbying our law makers to do nothing that would help reduce our dependance on foriegn oil. Big corporations in general have way more power than the average joe and until we take away thier power they will continue to pass laws or budgets that favor thier agendas. The only way I can think of to fight them is thru unions or taking away thier power which means taking away thier money thru higher taxation. Again I am not opposed to any company making money, I am however against allowing them to use that profit to secure favorable legislation that stiffles other alternatives other than their product. For instance we all know that the technology to make cars that get twice the fuel miledge that cars get today is available. Who do you suppose lobbys to congress against that. Ok I apologize in advance because I know that this is probably a little too political.

 

[DalMD88]

My belief is it is our government's fault that we use so much oil. When gas was cheap they should have imposed a higher tax on the gas at the pump. It seems it has taken the $4.00 price point to make the American consumer stand up and take notice of the wise use of oil. If we had been taxing fuel to this level the consumer use of gas would have driven us into more fuel efficient vehicles years ago. Not by government mandate, but by consumer demand. I'm guilty of this myself. I drive a big Toyota truck. do a I really need it, no. For me right now it actually still makes economic sense. It is paid for, so I really need to make a huge gain in gas savings to offset a car payment. I'm the type that drives a vehicle forever. I'm not the average American consumer that gets bored with my car and trades it in. My wife is that type. But she drives two miles to the train station so mileage doesn't really matter much, even at $5.00 a gal.

From a Libertarian view taxing the producer is wrong. It is just like income tax is so anti capitalistic. Don't tax me for working hard and then tax me again when I take my money and invest it in a company like Exxon or GE that makes more money. Instead let us tax the schlub that wastes his paycheck on useless consumer goods that after a few short months ends up in a landfill. The first word in the Green mantra is Reduce. Most of us consume way more than we need to. Our homes are filled with STUFF, because STUFF is cheap, and my neighbor has a lot of STUFF in his house. Now I need a bigger house because I have more STUFF. Beginning to sound like a Carlin rant, I know, but he is right many times. So is Henry Rollins. Their voices have always been right. Our country was founded on be frugal and don't trust the government.

Wow, way too big of a political rant for this website, sorry. Funny how this all started because I didn't think his reasons for being pro union were valid. I'm very pro union, I just didn't agree with the guy that began this thread.

 

[DalMD88]

Actually there's different factions of labor unions, and some are fighting the tearing down of the middleclass, and some are aiding it.
In the case of AMFA, IAM and some others associated with the AFL-CIO, they seem to be working against the membership.

I don't think that is the case with AMFA. AMFA isn't AFL-CIO. That is actually part of the problem. Other AFL-CIO unions want nothing to do with any actions that AMFA undertakes. AMFA is truly run by it's members and they don't pay any money into the AFL-CIO union machine, so AFL-CIO will not back them. That was part of the problem at NW. I personally also believe they being member lead may have been a little naive to the true intent of NW. I don't think they took the company's 'We will break you' stance serious. The local union was calling the shots and blew it. They had no help from the other unions on site. This they knew was the case. They waited way too long to strike and gave NW ample time to set up a replacement workforce.

Now look at AMFA at Southwest. They are some of the highest paid AMT's in the country. Why? Because locally they negotiated a good contract.

 

[getitgoin]

I don't think that is the case with AMFA. AMFA isn't AFL-CIO. That is actually part of the problem. Other AFL-CIO unions want nothing to do with any actions that AMFA undertakes. AMFA is truly run by it's members and they don't pay any money into the AFL-CIO union machine, so AFL-CIO will not back them. That was part of the problem at NW. I personally also believe they being member lead may have been a little naive to the true intent of NW. I don't think they took the company's 'We will break you' stance serious. The local union was calling the shots and blew it. They had no help from the other unions on site. This they knew was the case. They waited way too long to strike and gave NW ample time to set up a replacement workforce.

Now look at AMFA at Southwest. They are some of the highest paid AMT's in the country. Why? Because locally they negotiated a good contract.

I didn't say AMFA is part of the AFL-CIO but they did aid in the outsourcing of AMT jobs with the very first NWA AMT contract they "negotiated". It was so obvious that NWA would find it opportune to look for cheap labor to replace the AMT's when AMFA "negotiated" away what amounted to 38% of the previous year's maintenance budget, that it had to be intentional.
Do you understand what I'm saying? AMFA allowed NWA to put a dollar figure on that 38%, instead of 38% of the manhours. In other words, through the contract, AMFA gave NWA a check for however much the amount was and said go find cheap labor. If they'd had nailed them down to the number of manhours were expended the previous year for aircraft maintenance, then 38% would have been 38%.
I think AMFA is and always has been a company union. I believe it was and is controlled by the heads of the industry, or people acting on behalf of the globalists that are outsourcing our future.

 

[cooper43]

This may not be the proper venue for political debate but why not? It really all relates to what is happening now in our economy and the airline industry. I am a believer that government is there to protect the average citizens from those who would abuse thier constitutional rights. Also I feel that government indeed pays a large role in national policies that affect the nation. On of those issues is energy. Now this is just my view but I will put it out there. I believe in capitalism but what happens when those who own all the capital become a smaller and samaller group and have more and more power that they weild in order to keep the capital they have as well as take more of that capital? It is my belief that now we have a situation where those who have the capital (i.e. power) have high jacked our government for thier own benefit. The government is not longer "by the people for the people" Why dont we have a better transportation policy, a better energy policy, a better trade policy, and a better education policy? I could go on and on. Most all Americans know what the problem is and you would think our leaders know what the problems are. So why do they seemingly do the opposite of what is needed and what is good for the people? In my opinion, it is because they are persuaded to do what is in the best interest of Who? Corporate America. We have the tools to fix most of all these issues but somehow those who are supposed to be using our tax dollars for the benefit of our country are blowing it and we are getting further and further behind. Ok well I will stop my little soap box speach. I just think it is all related and we should all start making noise.

 

[Richard]

This topic really is not related to Delta, so we'll move it to the water cooler.

 

[Cosworth]

The only way we will stop our dependence on oil is to stop using it, or at the very least, reduce the consumption by a substantial amount. People are not yet at the point where they are pissed off enough. I live in the DFW area and there is no/none/zero/zip/nada public transportation for me to get from where I live to where I work which is abut 10 miles away. There are still tons of over sized vehicles on the road with one person in them. There are still people sitting in cars in parking lots with the engine running.

I know the technology is out there. The Tesla already exists. Put that into a Focus, Cobalt, Caliber. Stick a small solar aray on the roof of the house and you have a car with virtually 0/zip/nada/ziltch emissions. Toss in the government subsidies and tax breaks until people start to buy them, increase the tax on fuel to steer people away from combustion engines, give a tax break to truckers (we need them and they need diesel) and we are well on our way to oil independence.

 

[delldude]

What do oil company profits have to do with forming a union? And BTW there is nothing wrong with them making a profit. Sure it sounds like they are "gouging". Their profits are huge so they must be.

The size of their profits is actually in line with the size of the companies. Their tax bill is already larger than their profits so who is gouging who? So what are they doing with these huge profits? How about going and looking for more oil. It cost about a Billion dollars to set up one offshore rig in the Gulf of Mexico. If we tax these companies more the money dosen't get spent exploring for oil. Instead it goes to our wonderful government. I would much rather it stay in the hands of Exxon-Mobil. We tried this windfall tax on the 'big oil profits' once before. Carter did it and that only caused us to stop exploring for oil in the US and stop reinvesting in our refinery capablities.

Excellent post..................

We want cheap oil but then again drill in someone else's backyard.............Unless Uncle Sam and all the tree hugger's relent.....you'll be importing oil until the supply drys up.

 

[Seatacus]

Billions of dollars in oil profits

Enough...Enough...Enough

In your mind what do you think the oil companies should make?