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

Tags: , ,

15 Responses to “Did Cons defend Autoworkers' employment contracts as vigorously as they now defend AIG's bonus contracts?”

  1. keeping a stink eye on the right Says:

    In the business world of republicans, contracts are sacrosanct unless you are a union member?

  2. enter name here Says:

    Contracts yes, the unions no…

  3. somberHater Says:

    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.

  4. Free or Fee Country? Says:

    I was against UAW bailout just as and are many "cons" were and are against both.

  5. I Have To P On U Says:

    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.

  6. ROBOT ROLL CALL Says:

    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.

  7. It's Quagmire! Says:

    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.

  8. slodana2003 Says:

    What is a cons?

  9. grantadvocacy Says:

    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.

  10. Sheriff Buford T. Justice Says:

    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?

  11. Smoove B Says:

    The AIG bonuses are indefensible, but why aren’t libs criticizing the excessive compensation paid to UAW union employees by the big 3 automakers?

  12. BERNIE MADOFF WITH MY MONEY! Says:

    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.

  13. Time to Shrug, Atlas Says:

    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.

  14. AngelaTC Says:

    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.

  15. Gardener for God(dmd) Says:

    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.