Sorry to say it's Republicans helping to lead a fight for pension rights

[Still a Democrat]

Looking for Answers for Delphi Retirees

By Congressman Michael Turner

In March, I along with Congressman Dan Burton (IN-5) sent a letter to Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa requesting that the Committee convene hearings into the actions of Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) relating to Delphi employee pensions. Congressman Burton and I are members of this Committee, which has the responsibility to oversee and investigate a wide range of government agencies and operations.

When the US government took over General Motors, a decision made by the PBGC in consultation with the U.S. Treasury resulted in approximately 15,000 salaried Delphi retirees from across the country taking a severe cut in their promised pension benefits that had been earned throughout their careers. This action undertaken with taxpayer funds has not been explained or justified...

http://www.delphisalariedretirees.org/de...nswers.pdf

[SeattleGirl]

I don't think I understand this, or at least the title of it. Of COURSE it's Republicans. The Republicans are the majority in the House right now, so theyget to lead the committees.

[Still a Democrat]

(07-06-2011 07:58 PM)SeattleGirl Wrote:  I don't think I understand this, or at least the title of it. Of COURSE it's Republicans. The Republicans are the majority in the House right now, so theyget to lead the committees.

Yes, they lead the committees, but that doesn't mean their position has to be in favor of retirees. But in this case, it is.

The Obama administration has been indifferent toward the entire cause of pensions for Delphi salaried employees. I have contacted them and my Senator's offices about PBO's position and have no response. I hope I am wrong, but everything I read indicate he is not supportive.

[SeattleGirl]

(07-06-2011 08:08 PM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  

(07-06-2011 07:58 PM)SeattleGirl Wrote:  I don't think I understand this, or at least the title of it. Of COURSE it's Republicans. The Republicans are the majority in the House right now, so theyget to lead the committees.

Yes, they lead the committees, but that doesn't mean their position has to be in favor of retirees. But in this case, it is.

The Obama administration has been indifferent toward the entire cause of pensions for Delphi salaried employees. I have contacted them and my Senator's offices about PBO's position and have no response. I hope I am wrong, but everything I read indicate he is not supportive.

Okay, here's where I get prickly. Yes, Obama is the President, and I'm certainly glad that you are pushing on this matter (so many people don't - they just like to bitch), but you know what the current Congress is like. PBO pushes and cajoles and fights and needles and many other things, but with so many Congress members having their stubborn feet in the ground against anything and everything he wants, what would you suggest he do? Frankly I think you are taking the right tack in contacting your congress person. That's where the work happens. PBO can't just wave his magic wand and make happen what we would like to see happen. I wish he did have a magic wand, but wishing doesn't make it so.

[Still a Democrat]

(07-06-2011 08:52 PM)SeattleGirl Wrote:  

(07-06-2011 08:08 PM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  

(07-06-2011 07:58 PM)SeattleGirl Wrote:  I don't think I understand this, or at least the title of it. Of COURSE it's Republicans. The Republicans are the majority in the House right now, so theyget to lead the committees.

Yes, they lead the committees, but that doesn't mean their position has to be in favor of retirees. But in this case, it is.

The Obama administration has been indifferent toward the entire cause of pensions for Delphi salaried employees. I have contacted them and my Senator's offices about PBO's position and have no response. I hope I am wrong, but everything I read indicate he is not supportive.

Okay, here's where I get prickly. Yes, Obama is the President, and I'm certainly glad that you are pushing on this matter (so many people don't - they just like to bitch), but you know what the current Congress is like. PBO pushes and cajoles and fights and needles and many other things, but with so many Congress members having their stubborn feet in the ground against anything and everything he wants, what would you suggest he do? Frankly I think you are taking the right tack in contacting your congress person. That's where the work happens. PBO can't just wave his magic wand and make happen what we would like to see happen. I wish he did have a magic wand, but wishing doesn't make it so.

I share your frustration with people just expecting PBO to make things happen. He can't.

But in this case. he isn't even stating his support for the retirees or putting his weight behind them.

[nofurylike]

Panel Hears Complaints on Pensions at Delphi
By Mary Williams Walsh
June 22, 2011

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/busine...nsion.html

-snip-

In the messages, officials from the Obama administration’s Auto Task Force asked G.M. executives how they intended to handle the pensions at Delphi.

-snip-

Matthew Feldman of the Auto Task Force warned G.M. that honoring the 10-year-old promise “could get messy,” and expressed uncertainty about whether the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation would permit it.

But Walter Borst, G.M.’s treasurer at the time, replied that the pension agency could not throw such a wrench into G.M.’s plans. “Our reading of the benefit guarantee is clear, that it’s for the benefit of retirees, and not the P.B.G.C.,” he wrote.

-snip-

Ron Bloom, who testified for the Treasury’s Auto Task Force, said G.M. had complied with all relevant laws while in Chapter 11, adding that he was also troubled by the losses some parties suffered.

-snip-

###

Obama administration favored union worker pensions in GM bailout, House Republicans say
The administration gave union employees of auto parts supplier Delphi Corp. preferential treatment over nonunion, salaried employees when the U.S. took over Delphi's pension plan, GOP representatives say.
By Andrew Seidman
June 23, 2011|

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/23/...w-20110623

-snip-

Delphi was spun off from GM in 1999 but maintained its supply relationship and an agreement that three unions, including the United Auto Workers, would be compensated by GM in the event of a Delphi bankruptcy.

The agreement stipulated that GM would make whole, or "top up," the remainder of the pensions not covered by the federal government. GM made no such agreement with salaried employees.

At the time, the administration instructed the Treasury Department's Auto Task Force to ensure "that all stakeholders were treated fairly and received neither more nor less than they would have simply because the government was involved."

-snip-

The alternative to cutting pensions was liquidating the company, said Ron Bloom, former senior advisor to the Treasury secretary who served as one of the administration's principal architects in restructuring the auto industry.

-snip-

###

Still a Democrat, i understand your concern. taken at face value, the repub portrayal of what has happened is even more disturbing for Democrats, all of us. but it is not a case of President Obama, or Democrats, not caring, and not supporting.
there is much information in those two articles. i hope you will read them!

thank you!

[DFLforever]

I'm curious. Did Burton, Turner or Issa support the Fed Gov rescue of GM?

It sucks to be a non-union worker sometime. No one to bargain for or protect your pension and other rights.

[Still a Democrat]

(07-06-2011 08:44 PM)DFLforever Wrote:  I'm curious. Did Burton, Turner or Issa support the Fed Gov rescue of GM?

It sucks to be a non-union worker sometime. No one to bargain for or protect your pension and other rights.

Probably not. And I'm sure Republicans supporting the retriees have various motives.

Agreed on the non-union worker! We should have accepted overtures to unionize back in the GM days, but most salaried unwisely put their faith in the company.

[nofurylike]

hmmm.

first, i wondered why you would be sorry that republicans can do something decent.

next, why you think others, here, ought to be apologized to for either that being so, or for your stating it.

next, i read the details, and thought, it is no surprise that repubs are helping do something that might undermine what a vital, and indispensible protection unions are. (i mean, if anything underlines that importance, this situation does!)

reading further on through this thread, i thought, as i wrote to you earlier this week ("i have a hard time believing that he would have 'no problem' with that situation"), there is no reason to presume that your not knowing the President's view of, and on, this is equal to his being "indifferent" or "not supportive."



i am puzzled.
what's up, Still a Democrat?

[Still a Democrat]

(07-07-2011 12:07 AM)nofurylike Wrote:  hmmm.

first, i wondered why you would be sorry that republicans can do something decent.

next, why you think others, here, ought to be apologized to for either that being so, or for your stating it.

The headline is klunky, I'll never be an editor. I meant I regret that my party's administration is playing coy while a committee controlled by Republicans has to carry water for us. I'm sorry we don't have full throated support from the administration.

Quote:next, i read the details, and thought, it is no surprise that repubs are helping do something that might undermine what a vital, and indispensible protection unions are. (i mean, if anything underlines that importance, this situation does!)

You are correct, and I have no doubt part of the motivation for some Republicans are this or simply a chance to criticize PBO.

Quote:reading further on through this thread, i thought, as i wrote to you earlier this week ("i have a hard time believing that he would have 'no problem' with that situation"), there is no reason to presume that your not knowing the President's view of, and on, this is equal to his being "indifferent" or "not supportive."



i am puzzled.
what's up, Still a Democrat?

Silence or playing coy is not support. The issue was pointedly brought up at the hearing and there wasn't a strong statement of support, Bloom lawyered up, "it's being litigated, I can't talk".

It all puzzles me because I believe supporting the retirees is both the moral and politically beneficial thing to do.

As I've said, I hope I'm wrong. I've asked people here if they have information indicating PBO supports us, and I'd be a happy man if that exists.

I'm part of the retirees association (DSRA) and Republicans in the group crucify PBO for the way Delphi salaried were treated and his lack of support now. I have no answer.

[nofurylike]

(07-07-2011 04:37 AM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  

(07-07-2011 12:07 AM)nofurylike Wrote:  hmmm.

first, i wondered why you would be sorry that republicans can do something decent.

next, why you think others, here, ought to be apologized to for either that being so, or for your stating it.

The headline is klunky, I'll never be an editor. I meant I regret that my party's administration is playing coy while a committee controlled by Republicans has to carry water for us. I'm sorry we don't have full throated support from the administration.

Quote:next, i read the details, and thought, it is no surprise that repubs are helping do something that might undermine what a vital, and indispensible protection unions are. (i mean, if anything underlines that importance, this situation does!)

You are correct, and I have no doubt part of the motivation for some Republicans are this or simply a chance to criticize PBO.

Quote:reading further on through this thread, i thought, as i wrote to you earlier this week ("i have a hard time believing that he would have 'no problem' with that situation"), there is no reason to presume that your not knowing the President's view of, and on, this is equal to his being "indifferent" or "not supportive."



i am puzzled.
what's up, Still a Democrat?

Silence or playing coy is not support. The issue was pointedly brought up at the hearing and there wasn't a strong statement of support, Bloom lawyered up, "it's being litigated, I can't talk".

It all puzzles me because I believe supporting the retirees is both the moral and politically beneficial thing to do.

As I've said, I hope I'm wrong. I've asked people here if they have information indicating PBO supports us, and I'd be a happy man if that exists.

I'm part of the retirees association (DSRA) and Republicans in the group crucify PBO for the way Delphi salaried were treated and his lack of support now. I have no answer.

i am sorry to hear you are having to go through that, Still a Democrat.

i hope you have read, or get a chance to read the articles i posted up-thread. i think they make a difference in perspective.

please know that when it is being framed as "playing coy while a committee controlled by Republicans has to carry water for us," it is because it is being framed by republicans. that is not, at all, what is being done there.

please remember that people gave their lives trying to warn workers that without collective bargaining, things like this were to be expected every moment through working life. many of us did not learn before we got burned, but it doesn't make it less true.

thank you for replying, and for your peaceful way of discussing, Still a Democrat.

[Still a Democrat]

(07-07-2011 04:58 AM)nofurylike Wrote:  i am sorry to hear you are having to go through that, Still a Democrat.

i hope you have read, or get a chance to read the articles i posted up-thread. i think they make a difference in perspective.

please know that when it is being framed as "playing coy while a committee controlled by Republicans has to carry water for us," it is because it is being framed by republicans. that is not, at all, what is being done there.

please remember that people gave their lives trying to warn workers that without collective bargaining, things like this were to be expected every moment through working life. many of us did not learn before we got burned, but it doesn't make it less true.

thank you for replying, and for your peaceful way of discussing, Still a Democrat.

Thanks for your support and comments.

The articles don't really paint much of a different picture to be honest. And there is evidence the administration was involved in cutting the pensions.

Again, I'm leery of Republican motives, but the cause needs all the support it can get. To say the DSRA operates on a shoestring is an understatement. We have to leverage any support we can.

Here's an article on the administration's role.


Private emails detail Obama admin involvement in cutting non-union worker pensions post-GM bailout
[/size]Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/22/privat...z1RR4Ldh6q

[Baltoman991]

(07-07-2011 09:57 AM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  

(07-07-2011 04:58 AM)nofurylike Wrote:  i am sorry to hear you are having to go through that, Still a Democrat.

i hope you have read, or get a chance to read the articles i posted up-thread. i think they make a difference in perspective.

please know that when it is being framed as "playing coy while a committee controlled by Republicans has to carry water for us," it is because it is being framed by republicans. that is not, at all, what is being done there.

please remember that people gave their lives trying to warn workers that without collective bargaining, things like this were to be expected every moment through working life. many of us did not learn before we got burned, but it doesn't make it less true.

thank you for replying, and for your peaceful way of discussing, Still a Democrat.

Thanks for your support and comments.

The articles don't really paint much of a different picture to be honest. And there is evidence the administration was involved in cutting the pensions.

Again, I'm leery of Republican motives, but the cause needs all the support it can get. To say the DSRA operates on a shoestring is an understatement. We have to leverage any support we can.

Here's an article on the administration's role.


Private emails detail Obama admin involvement in cutting non-union worker pensions post-GM bailout
[/size]Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/22/privat...z1RR4Ldh6q

Firstly, sorry for what you're going through. It shouldn't be happning.

Second, the article you linked to here claims private e-mails were obtained. Do we know for fact that those e-mails are legit? I can't tell from the article, can you or anyone else?

And in reading some of the comments pertaining to that articles, well, lets just say it's not visited by any pro-Obama folks or not many at least.

Not saying one way or another what, if any Obamas roll was in this. I will say that a website telling me the obtained private e-mails isn't going to convince me it's fact.

[nofurylike]

(07-07-2011 09:57 AM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  

(07-07-2011 04:58 AM)nofurylike Wrote:  i am sorry to hear you are having to go through that, Still a Democrat.

i hope you have read, or get a chance to read the articles i posted up-thread. i think they make a difference in perspective.

please know that when it is being framed as "playing coy while a committee controlled by Republicans has to carry water for us," it is because it is being framed by republicans. that is not, at all, what is being done there.

please remember that people gave their lives trying to warn workers that without collective bargaining, things like this were to be expected every moment through working life. many of us did not learn before we got burned, but it doesn't make it less true.

thank you for replying, and for your peaceful way of discussing, Still a Democrat.

Thanks for your support and comments.

The articles don't really paint much of a different picture to be honest. And there is evidence the administration was involved in cutting the pensions.

Again, I'm leery of Republican motives, but the cause needs all the support it can get. To say the DSRA operates on a shoestring is an understatement. We have to leverage any support we can.

Here's an article on the administration's role.


Private emails detail Obama admin involvement in cutting non-union worker pensions post-GM bailout
[/size]Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/22/privat...z1RR4Ldh6q

i understand that you are hurting. i understand that details of this crisis differ from source to source. but i also feel as if you have already decided what is, and nothing others say will change that.

the emails described in that piece show treasury task force members advising on interpretation of options, not advising on which options to take.

for no action to be taken meant the non-union workers would get no coverage, though they might still have gotten a certain percentage of their pensions. the options being explored are about how to make sure all the workers lose as LITTLE as possible - versus the everything that maybe all, and certainly the non-union people, would have lost in a complete bankruptcy and shut-down.

i ask that you please not decide what is happening based on obviously conflicting interpretations of the events. i aks that you consider writing snail-mail letters to the White House, your Senator and Representative (including getting appointments to see them in their local offices - they will tell you how to do that), and members of the task force, asking them for correct details, and advice on how best to proceed to protect yourself.

as for whether or not union was an option for you, it is these lessons that lead workers to form unions. it is unfortunate that it is even necessary, but they wouldn't exist except because they ARE necessary. yes, you couldn't join a union, then and there. you could have become active in forming a union.

many of us lost a LOT in NOT being in union shops - many of us lost far more than i see you all have lost. so do not think i speak without empathy. but many of us learned to either hold out for union jobs, serve the creating of unions, or relentlessly educate others on the dangers of not having a union. what the repubs are doing, in this case, is USING your suffering to UNDERMINE, by casting blame on, unions, and on the Obama Administration.

*

that site appears to be right-leaning, no?

[Still a Democrat]

(07-08-2011 12:49 AM)nofurylike Wrote:  i understand that you are hurting. i understand that details of this crisis differ from source to source. but i also feel as if you have already decided what is, and nothing others say will change that. the emails described in that piece show treasury task force members advising on interpretation of options, not advising on which options to take.

Feldman responded by reminding Borst the steps required to eliminate Delphi’s pension plans. “Keep in mind we need the PBGC’s help to terminate this plan so we will have to deal with the PBGC,” wrote Feldman. “If you think there is a way to cause its unilateral termination (outside of Delphi going down an 1113 process) let me know.”

That's a member of the administration speaking. He is explicitly discussing the pension elimination. It's not an outright endorsement of it, but it's indifference at best.

It is more important to look forward, but the fact Sen. Brown placed a hold on an Obama appointee to prod him to help Delphi retirees is pretty good support for the notion PBO can and should be doing more.

Quote:i ask that you please not decide what is happening based on obviously conflicting interpretations of the events. i aks that you consider writing snail-mail letters to the White House, your Senator and Representative (including getting appointments to see them in their local offices - they will tell you how to do that), and members of the task force, asking them for correct details, and advice on how best to proceed to protect yourself.

I suppose I could write snail mail letters, but I doubt the attitude will be different. I'm able to google Senators like Stabenow, Brown, and Levin supporting the Delphi retirees in no uncertain terms and am finding it impossible to see anything similar from the administration.

Quote:as for whether or not union was an option for you, it is these lessons that lead workers to form unions. it is unfortunate that it is even necessary, but they wouldn't exist except because they ARE necessary. yes, you couldn't join a union, then and there. you could have become active in forming a union.

many of us lost a LOT in NOT being in union shops - many of us lost far more than i see you all have lost. so do not think i speak without empathy. but many of us learned to either hold out for union jobs, serve the creating of unions, or relentlessly educate others on the dangers of not having a union. what the repubs are doing, in this case, is USING your suffering to UNDERMINE, by casting blame on, unions, and on the Obama Administration.

*

Agreed on unions. I wanted one then and it turns out we really needed it.

I have no delusions about Republican motives - a lot of it is political. But this opening never should have existed. And again, getting it corrected is more important than who did what. But I see no inclination from PBO to correct it.

I'm largely supportive of PBO, but I suppose there will be some mad-michigander moments on this one from me.

[nofurylike]

(07-08-2011 09:12 AM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  

(07-08-2011 12:49 AM)nofurylike Wrote:  i understand that you are hurting. i understand that details of this crisis differ from source to source. but i also feel as if you have already decided what is, and nothing others say will change that. the emails described in that piece show treasury task force members advising on interpretation of options, not advising on which options to take.

Feldman responded by reminding Borst the steps required to eliminate Delphi’s pension plans. “Keep in mind we need the PBGC’s help to terminate this plan so we will have to deal with the PBGC,” wrote Feldman. “If you think there is a way to cause its unilateral termination (outside of Delphi going down an 1113 process) let me know.”

That's a member of the administration speaking. He is explicitly discussing the pension elimination. It's not an outright endorsement of it, but it's indifference at best.

It is more important to look forward, but the fact Sen. Brown placed a hold on an Obama appointee to prod him to help Delphi retirees is pretty good support for the notion PBO can and should be doing more.

Quote:i ask that you please not decide what is happening based on obviously conflicting interpretations of the events. i aks that you consider writing snail-mail letters to the White House, your Senator and Representative (including getting appointments to see them in their local offices - they will tell you how to do that), and members of the task force, asking them for correct details, and advice on how best to proceed to protect yourself.

I suppose I could write snail mail letters, but I doubt the attitude will be different. I'm able to google Senators like Stabenow, Brown, and Levin supporting the Delphi retirees in no uncertain terms and am finding it impossible to see anything similar from the administration.

Quote:as for whether or not union was an option for you, it is these lessons that lead workers to form unions. it is unfortunate that it is even necessary, but they wouldn't exist except because they ARE necessary. yes, you couldn't join a union, then and there. you could have become active in forming a union.

many of us lost a LOT in NOT being in union shops - many of us lost far more than i see you all have lost. so do not think i speak without empathy. but many of us learned to either hold out for union jobs, serve the creating of unions, or relentlessly educate others on the dangers of not having a union. what the repubs are doing, in this case, is USING your suffering to UNDERMINE, by casting blame on, unions, and on the Obama Administration.

*

Agreed on unions. I wanted one then and it turns out we really needed it.

I have no delusions about Republican motives - a lot of it is political. But this opening never should have existed. And again, getting it corrected is more important than who did what. But I see no inclination from PBO to correct it.

I'm largely supportive of PBO, but I suppose there will be some mad-michigander moments on this one from me.

please read this article for background:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/busine...wanted=all

-snip-

The idea that G.M. might back up Delphi’s pensions emerged in 1999, during the spinoff. Companies that spin off subsidiaries are supposed to shift adequate pension assets to the new company, and the automaker did this for its white-collar workers.

But it did not have enough money to cover the benefits of the Delphi union workers, who are represented by the United Auto Workers, the United Steelworkers and the International Union of Electrical Workers.

The unions threatened to block the spinoff. To appease them, G.M. promised that if the pension fund for the hourly workers at Delphi ever collapsed, it would restore any benefits that the government refused to pay.

White-collar workers did not get such a promise. They said they did not expect to need one; their pensions were fully funded.

-snip-

***

the quote you picked from the article you posted, and their use of it, is ambiguous. as i see it, the task force was telling how they - company and task force - needed to handle the guarantor system to take the next steps to resolve.

yes, snail-mail letters. if it matters enough to you, the work is well worth it, as is getting an appointment with your sens and reps. ask them expecting them to tell you.
write one version, send it, hand-addressed, then make copies, edit, and keep sending them until you get an answer.

media is as we all know it to be - unreliable as a source. especially with the likes of michelle malkin presenting 'the facts,' ah?

please let me know what you think after reading that background, and especially what you hear, or not, from those you write. i'm posting briefly, for now, but will continue soon.

thank you, Still a Democrat!
hang in there!

[The Capitol Punisher]

If President Obama got involved in every labor dispute, he wouldn't have time to do anything else. Bottom line - Delphi employees did not collectively bargain. They did not unionize. And if Obama were to get involved in a non-union labor dispute, can you begin to imagine the expectations that would be placed on him for getting involved with every union labor dispute? He'd be completely renounced if he weighed in on this, but not the many labor disputes that go on every day somewhere in the country, and he'd risk his support from the unions. It's a bad precedent to set.

I'm sorry that you personally are caught up in this - I really am. I understand your frustration and your need to find help and answers. But this is not Obama's responsibility. We did not elect him to be a labor arbitrator. It'd be nice if he lent a hand, sure, but to EXPECT that is beyond unreasonable. This is why you have your own locally elected Congressmen - to deal with these issues on behalf of their constituents. Otherwise, if you want union protections, you join a union.

[Still a Democrat]

Quote:If President Obama got involved in every labor dispute, he wouldn't have time to do anything else. Bottom line - Delphi employees did not collectively bargain. They did not unionize. And if Obama were to get involved in a non-union labor dispute, can you begin to imagine the expectations that would be placed on him for getting involved with every union labor dispute? He'd be completely renounced if he weighed in on this, but not the many labor disputes that go on every day somewhere in the country, and he'd risk his support from the unions. It's a bad precedent to set.

We're talking about 15,000-20,000 who were pointedly treated as second class citizens. I don't expect PBO to be front and center on every labor dispute, but there's pretty strong evidence his administration played an active role in this happeneing.

Quote:I'm sorry that you personally are caught up in this - I really am. I understand your frustration and your need to find help and answers. But this is not Obama's responsibility. We did not elect him to be a labor arbitrator. It'd be nice if he lent a hand, sure, but to EXPECT that is beyond unreasonable. This is why you have your own locally elected Congressmen - to deal with these issues on behalf of their constituents.

I disagree totally. I think we should expect a Democratic president to be strongly pro-worker.

Quote:Otherwise, if you want union protections, you join a union.

Unfortuneatly, that's not an individual choice.

[The Capitol Punisher]

(07-07-2011 12:36 PM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  

Quote:Otherwise, if you want union protections, you join a union.

Unfortuneatly, that's not an individual choice.

Where you work and who you work for is an individual choice. You were not bound to the company.

I, too, expect that Obama be pro-worker. I believe that he is. But stopping everything to step in on behalf of .0006% of the population he serves--which is the case in this situation--is the very definition of an unrealistic expectation. And yes, if he sets a precedent with one labor situation, he would absolutely be expected to do so in others unless the circumstances were so unusual as to compel him to make this an exception (which does not seem to be the case). Again, this is why the House of Representatives, the NLRB, and the Judicial System exists.

That Obama does not weigh in on one problem makes him no less pro-worker. It's simply unfair for you to say otherwise.

[Still a Democrat]

Quote:Where you work and who you work for is an individual choice. You were not bound to the company.

That's sort of like saying people don't have to work for minimum wage, just find a job that pays more. Union jobs are rare, particularly for white collar workers in the private sector. I'd gladly join one, but it's not as simple as "go get a job with a union".

Quote:I, too, expect that Obama be pro-worker. I believe that he is. But stopping everything to step in on behalf of .0006% of the population he serves--which is the case in this situation--is the very definition of an unrealistic expectation. And yes, if he sets a precedent with one labor situation, he would absolutely be expected to do so in others unless the circumstances were so unusual as to compel him to make this an exception (which does not seem to be the case). Again, this is why the House of Representatives, the NLRB, and the Judicial System exists.

That Obama does not weigh in on one problem makes him no less pro-worker. It's simply unfair for you to say otherwise.

I think he is generally pro-worker. But remember this isn't just expecting him to intervene in a dispute between workers and a company. The administration engineered the auto rescue and there's evidence they were actively involved in cutting a deal that denied these workers full pensions. That's why I'd at least like to hear an expression of regret for that and support for it being corrected.

[Still a Democrat]

For those that think PBO has no obligation to do more, Sen. Brown disagrees. In fact, he put a hold on an appointee to try and force PBO's hand in helping Delphi pensioners.

11 May 2010

Ohio’s own Senator Sherrod Brown has placed an indefinite hold on President Obama’s nomination of Joshua Gotbaum to head the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation in a bid to force the Obama administration’s intervention on behalf of retired Delphi workers whose pensions were jeopardized by GM’s bankruptcy last year, the Pee Dee is reporting...

The issue over which Sen. Brown is holding Gotbaum’s nomination is this: when GM declared bankruptcy, it agreed to supplement the PBGC pensions for Delphi UAW retirees, saying it was obligated to do so by its contract. However, non-union former Delphi employees received no such supplement. Brown is pressing that the government, which owns 60% of GM as the result of the old GM’s bankruptcy and subsequent rescue by the government, should intervene to force the new GM to make good on its pension promises to its non-union as well as union Delphi retirees....

http://www.buckeyestateblog.com/sherrod_...i_pensions

[The Capitol Punisher]

(07-07-2011 08:25 PM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  For those that think PBO has no obligation to do more, Sen. Brown disagrees. In fact, he put a hold on an appointee to try and force PBO's hand in helping Delphi pensioners.

11 May 2010

Ohio’s own Senator Sherrod Brown has placed an indefinite hold on President Obama’s nomination of Joshua Gotbaum to head the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation in a bid to force the Obama administration’s intervention on behalf of retired Delphi workers whose pensions were jeopardized by GM’s bankruptcy last year, the Pee Dee is reporting...

The issue over which Sen. Brown is holding Gotbaum’s nomination is this: when GM declared bankruptcy, it agreed to supplement the PBGC pensions for Delphi UAW retirees, saying it was obligated to do so by its contract. However, non-union former Delphi employees received no such supplement. Brown is pressing that the government, which owns 60% of GM as the result of the old GM’s bankruptcy and subsequent rescue by the government, should intervene to force the new GM to make good on its pension promises to its non-union as well as union Delphi retirees....

http://www.buckeyestateblog.com/sherrod_...i_pensions

...and that's what Senators do - leverage whatever they can to get the job done for you.

[Still a Democrat]

(07-08-2011 06:39 AM)The Capitol Punisher Wrote:  

(07-07-2011 08:25 PM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  For those that think PBO has no obligation to do more, Sen. Brown disagrees. In fact, he put a hold on an appointee to try and force PBO's hand in helping Delphi pensioners.

11 May 2010

Ohio’s own Senator Sherrod Brown has placed an indefinite hold on President Obama’s nomination of Joshua Gotbaum to head the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation in a bid to force the Obama administration’s intervention on behalf of retired Delphi workers whose pensions were jeopardized by GM’s bankruptcy last year, the Pee Dee is reporting...

The issue over which Sen. Brown is holding Gotbaum’s nomination is this: when GM declared bankruptcy, it agreed to supplement the PBGC pensions for Delphi UAW retirees, saying it was obligated to do so by its contract. However, non-union former Delphi employees received no such supplement. Brown is pressing that the government, which owns 60% of GM as the result of the old GM’s bankruptcy and subsequent rescue by the government, should intervene to force the new GM to make good on its pension promises to its non-union as well as union Delphi retirees....

http://www.buckeyestateblog.com/sherrod_...i_pensions

...and that's what Senators do - leverage whatever they can to get the job done for you.

Yes, but I posted the article to support the position the administration needs to do more. Sen. Brown obviously thought so.