Obama, CEO Lovefest Produces No Pledges to Create Jobs, Stop Union Busting

[Better with a Union Man]

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/67...p_ilegal_u

Thursday Dec 16, 2010 1:52 pm



By Mike Elk

Yesterday, President Obama met with some of the nation’s largest CEOs asking them to do more to create jobs in the United States. Obama reportedly asked business leaders what he could do to help create more jobs in America. Perhaps Obama should have been asking these CEOs why, despite numerous pledges to keep good jobs in America, they continue to ship them overseas.


“We would have preferred to bare down on these CEOs to commit with actual specifics on how they were going to hire ten thousands of workers. I mean actual plans of where they were going to hire these people” said UE Political Action Director Chris Townsend. “We would have preferred feel good promises for the cameras that are based in facts.”

In attendance was GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt. Immelt had made big headlines last year promising to bring manufacturing jobs back to America. “Some companies had gone overboard with outsourcing in the past and now it was time to bring that work back into the United States to create a strong economy," Immelt said at the Detroit Economic Club. ”This country ought to be, and we can be, not just the world's leading market but a leading exporter as well. GE plans to lead this effort." The storied company launched a multi-million dollar ad campaign playing up their pledge to keep jobs in America.

excerpt shortened for copyright reasons CraigGrant

http://www.inthesetimes.com/images/worki...e/logo.png

[CraigGrant]

Is there a specific proposal that the Unions want to see adopted that would stop Union busting?

[Treestar]

What good would it to do not meet with them at all? They are still the ones who have the jobs.

[CraigGrant]

(12-19-2010 09:47 PM)Treestar Wrote:  What good would it to do not meet with them at all? They are still the ones who have the jobs.

I believe that the meeting was called after the President negotiated the tax cut and that he was leveraging the tax deal to get the CEOs to do more on employment.

[spazito]

It's unfortunate the writer of the article used the term "lovefest" to describe a meeting to encourage more job creation in the U.S. Meeting with various groups such as unions and CEOs of companies, not necessarily at the same time, makes sense and for the writer to term it a "lovefest" doesn't really help if the writer's intent is to generate discussion on the substantive issues involved, imo.

[There Is No Spoon]

(12-19-2010 09:51 PM)spazito Wrote:  It's unfortunate the writer of the article used the term "lovefest" to describe a meeting to encourage more job creation in the U.S. Meeting with various groups such as unions and CEOs of companies, not necessarily at the same time, makes sense and for the writer to term it a "lovefest" doesn't really help if the writer's intent is to generate discussion on the substantive issues involved, imo.

I agree - the article loses any point it was trying to make by pissing me off with that ass hole headline & heads touching lovie-dovie picture.

[Cha]

(12-19-2010 09:51 PM)spazito Wrote:  It's unfortunate the writer of the article used the term "lovefest" to describe a meeting to encourage more job creation in the U.S. Meeting with various groups such as unions and CEOs of companies, not necessarily at the same time, makes sense and for the writer to term it a "lovefest" doesn't really help if the writer's intent is to generate discussion on the substantive issues involved, imo.

Exactly. It's a slanted article and turns me off from the start.

[Arkana]

(12-19-2010 09:51 PM)spazito Wrote:  It's unfortunate the writer of the article used the term "lovefest" to describe a meeting to encourage more job creation in the U.S. Meeting with various groups such as unions and CEOs of companies, not necessarily at the same time, makes sense and for the writer to term it a "lovefest" doesn't really help if the writer's intent is to generate discussion on the substantive issues involved, imo.

But it makes for good copy for the fringe left.

[CraigGrant]

The Washington Post reports that the President engaging CEOs on the issue of adding payroll is having an effect:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...06668.html

Quote:The administration has been trying to encourage businesses to start spending the $1.9 trillion in cash they are holding on their balance sheets to stimulate the economy. And there are signs that companies may soon open their wallets. A new survey released Tuesday by the industry group Business Roundtable shows that 45 percent of top executives expect to add to their payrolls, the highest percentage ever reported since the group began the survey in 2002.

The Post also pointed out the President was going around traditionally anti Democratic and anti Union trade groups in order to build direct relationships with the CEO's

Quote:Some executives, however, have grown skeptical of these repeated overtures by the White House, which has opted to reach out directly to chief executives, rather than work through trade groups such as the chamber.

Michael Morris, chief executive of American Electric Power, attended an event at the White House with other chief executives in February and thought the president listened carefully - but then didn't act.

[sandnsea]

Here's an interview with the UPS Chief. It goes into the kinds of specifics UPS needs in order to add jobs. 2.5% more GDP growth, 22 packages across the border creates a UPS job, 50,000 jobs over the holidays, that kind of thing.

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/15/132087152/...With-Obama