Obama wants to cut tax benefits for d*cks

[thegreekdog]

How is it illegal? They wanted to move operations to a more business friendly state that wasn't going to obstruct their business plan. Unions have the right to bargain for wages, working conditions etc. But last I checked, they aren't allowed to tell executive leadership how they should run their companies.

As has already been stated, it is illegal to punish workers for belonging to a union and striking.

No. It is not. A company retains its right to do business when union workers strike.

Yes, it IS illegal. Certainly, a company retains it's right to do business when union workers strike...that doesn't change my point at all. It IS illegal to punish or retaliate against workers for belonging to a union and striking.

I wonder if the illegality includes closing the plant (and opening one in another state) or, alternatively, just opening a similar plant in another state. In other words, what is the definition of "punish" and "retaliate."

[spurgistan]

Ay, there's the rub.

Now that that's resolved, we can get to the part where you guys oppose eliminating tax benefits for companies that don't hire workers in the US, because it's something Barack Obama said he wants.

[ViperOverLord]

How is it illegal? They wanted to move operations to a more business friendly state that wasn't going to obstruct their business plan. Unions have the right to bargain for wages, working conditions etc. But last I checked, they aren't allowed to tell executive leadership how they should run their companies.

As has already been stated, it is illegal to punish workers for belonging to a union and striking.

No. It is not. A company retains its right to do business when union workers strike.

Yes, it IS illegal. Certainly, a company retains it's right to do business when union workers strike...that doesn't change my point at all. It IS illegal to punish or retaliate against workers for belonging to a union and striking.

You have no legal precedent. Management is obligated to oblige the terms of collective bargaining to workers that are working. Once, workers go on strike, the company still operates. By your definition, scabs would be illegal. Learn what you're talking about instead of just making shit up.

[Woodruff]

How is it illegal? They wanted to move operations to a more business friendly state that wasn't going to obstruct their business plan. Unions have the right to bargain for wages, working conditions etc. But last I checked, they aren't allowed to tell executive leadership how they should run their companies.

As has already been stated, it is illegal to punish workers for belonging to a union and striking.

No. It is not. A company retains its right to do business when union workers strike.

Yes, it IS illegal. Certainly, a company retains it's right to do business when union workers strike...that doesn't change my point at all. It IS illegal to punish or retaliate against workers for belonging to a union and striking.

You have no legal precedent. Management is obligated to oblige the terms of collective bargaining to workers that are working. Once, workers go on strike, the company still operates. By your definition, scabs would be illegal. Learn what you're talking about instead of just making shit up.

I am saying no such thing at all, and I'm certainly not making it up. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite of what you're trying to claim I said. In fact, you appear to be the only one in this entire thread that is still holding to the idea that it's not illegal for a company to retaliate or punish striking workers. Is this going to be another situation like where you were too stubborn to admit that you misused the term "coward"? Do you have any idea how willfully ignorant this makes you look?

[ViperOverLord]

^^^

First off: I ain't regarding your baggage that doesn't have anything to do with this thread. So take your coward baggage to someone that gives a damn about it b/c I ain't taking your bait.

Moving operations does not illegally punish workers. The company can shut down regional operations if they so choose before, during or after a strike.

If you're so sure of yourself, cite the legal precedent to the contrary.

[thegreekdog]

Ay, there's the rub.

Now that that's resolved, we can get to the part where you guys oppose eliminating tax benefits for companies that don't hire workers in the US, because it's something Barack Obama said he wants.

Actually, I think that's a pretty good idea. I liked when he said it two years ago in the State of the Union and I liked when he said it this past year.

There are two problems with it: (1) It will increase the debt and (2) I don't think it will have a very great impact as there are other reasons beyond taxes why companies ship jobs overseas.

[Juan_Bottom]

OMG - They were planning on closing the striking Union plant and building a new replacement plant in a non-union area. The courts decided against them. What's there to disagree with? MFG here we have a case where the guilty party is making confessions to journalists and you guys are still questioning the courts decision.

They weren't going to close the striking plant.

Yeah, I remember this from NPR and other news agencies, probably Current and MSNBC... I think what I remembered was the propaganda of the issue. I remember this was before an arbitrator but I thought that a court decided against Boeing, so that the arbitrator wasn't needed....but I guess it never got that far. Closing down the assembly line was what the workers had feared and insinuated. I doubt that they were wrong. If Boeing can afford to pay Washington's Union workers more than those South Carolinians then I see no reason why they shouldn't be paying more in South Carolina. I could understand factoring in the cost of living in each area, but even with the Union's tampering Boeing is having kick-ass sales.

I don't understand any of the hatred that some Americans (particularly in the poor South and the Carolinas) have against unions. Marriage is a Union, a Union of Blacks ended Jim Crow, and our whole system of government is a Union. It's even called "the Union" or "United States." What's there to hate about taking a fair wage?

[spurgistan]

Ay, there's the rub.

Now that that's resolved, we can get to the part where you guys oppose eliminating tax benefits for companies that don't hire workers in the US, because it's something Barack Obama said he wants.

Actually, I think that's a pretty good idea. I liked when he said it two years ago in the State of the Union and I liked when he said it this past year.

There are two problems with it: (1) It will increase the debt and (2) I don't think it will have a very great impact as there are other reasons beyond taxes why companies ship jobs overseas.

Unless I'm missing something, eliminating tax benefits for job exporters would be a revenue-positive event.

[thegreekdog]

Ay, there's the rub.

Now that that's resolved, we can get to the part where you guys oppose eliminating tax benefits for companies that don't hire workers in the US, because it's something Barack Obama said he wants.

Actually, I think that's a pretty good idea. I liked when he said it two years ago in the State of the Union and I liked when he said it this past year.

There are two problems with it: (1) It will increase the debt and (2) I don't think it will have a very great impact as there are other reasons beyond taxes why companies ship jobs overseas.

Unless I'm missing something, eliminating tax benefits for job exporters would be a revenue-positive event.

I was missing it, not you. I thought you were referring to the president's plan to give tax benefits to keep jobs here.

There are no tax benefits for job exporters actually. I'd like to read the president's plan. I can't find it written anywhere. He may be referring to the foreign tax credit mechanism (which applies to any companies who do any business overseas, even those that don't export jobs overseas). If that's the case, it would be revenue positive but he'd be fucking companies with their pants on in that case.

[Juan_Bottom]

Wasn't he referencing Apple there? Something about how their parts are all assembled in China, and all of their hirings here in the US are service jobs to sell those Chinese-assembled products. But then they get tax credits for those jobs and.......Steve Jobs died so now Obama doesn't have to be afraid.......damn it I can't remember..... Let me think about this, ignore me....