Did Cons defend Autoworkers' employment contracts as vigorously as they now defend AIG's bonus contracts?
Why or why not?
Cons = Conservatives. (Yahoo! Answers limits how long a question can be.)
Related Blogs
- How to Drive Massive Traffic with Yahoo! Answers (The Social Networking Experiment) | My 4 Hour Workweek
- Mom and Dad's on Yahoo Answers If Britney Spears Asked You on How To Be a Good Parent, Would You Help Her??? | Britney Spears Music
- Raising the ante with the smart Monte | Yahoo Answers Traffic Guide
- Yahoo Japan Chooses Google as Search Partner | Kara Swisher | BoomTown | AllThingsD
- How can Yahoo answers take a frickin coffee break and not let me submit my answer? | Home Aid Blog
Tags: conservatives, yahoo, yahoo answers
July 28th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
In the business world of republicans, contracts are sacrosanct unless you are a union member?
July 28th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Contracts yes, the unions no…
July 28th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
I’d like to see some evidence of "cons" defending the AIG bonus contracts. I’m sure there are supporters from both sides, and honestly…what can be done about it?
I only ask you because I would be classified as a "con" and I hate what AIG did and I think their funding should be cut completely!
Unions get their money from the workers, not the companies or the Government. The Government has never bailed out a union either.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
I was against UAW bailout just as and are many "cons" were and are against both.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
I am not a con, but absolutely YES, I do defend my fellow Americans right to work for a livable wage.
Unlike SOME people, I don’t think $12 an hour is a livable wage.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
UAW AGREED to alter contracts. Chris Dodd (D) slipped in a provision that would allow bailed out companies to give bonuses. Guess he was "before it before he was against it" like John Kerry.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Let’s be clear. Conservatives did not want to give any money to AIG, or the UAW for that matter. But now, the government is trying to do something that is unprecedented and really sets a bad precedence.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
What is a cons?
July 28th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
perhaps you should question yourself if you defend aig as much as you probably did union autoworkers?
I don’t agree with what aig is doing/did.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
The lesson here is no bailouts… not for AIG, not for the Big Three, not for the UAW. Are you on board or are some bailouts good, like the UAW bailout?
July 28th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
The AIG bonuses are indefensible, but why aren’t libs criticizing the excessive compensation paid to UAW union employees by the big 3 automakers?
July 28th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Don’t mistake workers for union. I know it’s common to do that. We defend the workers, not the corrupt union. AIG is a company, an executive works for that company. It was in their contract with that company. A union is not a company.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
I think that both autoworkers and and AIG bonus recipients should have had their labor contracts renegotiated in bankruptcy court.
However, outside of bankruptcy, no outside entity has the right to break a valid contract between two parties.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Dodd gave the green light to the bonuses, and Pelosi refused to even discuss any oversight conditions on the TARP bill.
Besides it’s only a loan!
Get back to work, comrade! Dear leader knows what is best.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
As AIG should have been allowed to fail and go into Bankruptcy Court to REORGANIZE – so should the failing Car Makers / Auto Workers.
EVERY CONTRACT needs to be upheld. The Autoworkers were ASKED to agree to different terms – that was their choice in doing so and if they accept. You can not FORCE A CONTRACT TO CHANGE though. CONTRACTS are protected by the Constitution.
I don’t support the TAXPAYERS paying for any of these failed Companies, however, our Government has gotten us into the mess and must play by the rules of the Constitution.