PDA

View Full Version : Stimulus Package II?


revefsreleets
11-13-2008, 10:07 AM
I'm all for it...send me a check for $1200 this time. I'm going to dump it in my current car and keep it on the road for another year instead of trading it in this Spring. That's probably worst case and NOT what the government wants, but if they can give AIG and Lehman money to party, and PNC money to buy National City (none of which was the original intention), I can take my money and look out for #1 too!



http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/34381229.html

Are consumers spent?
By David Leonhardt


Published on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008
NEW YORK: Just as one crisis of confidence may be ending, another may be coming.
The panic on Wall Street has eased in the last few weeks, and banks have become somewhat more willing to make loans. But in those same few weeks, American households appear to have fallen into their own defensive crouch.
Suddenly, our consumer society is doing a lot less consuming. The numbers are pretty incredible. Sales of new vehicles have dropped 32 percent in the third quarter. Consumer spending appears likely to fall next year for the first time since 1980 and perhaps by the largest amount since 1942.
With Wall Street edging back from the brink, this crisis of consumer confidence has become the No. 1 short-term issue for the economy. Nobody doubts that families need to start saving more than they saved over the last two decades. But if they change their behavior too quickly, it could be very painful.
Already, Circuit City has filed for bankruptcy, and General Motors has said that it's in danger of running out of cash. If the consumer slump continues, there is a potential for a dangerous feedback loop, in which spending cuts and layoffs reinforce each other.
''It's a scary time,'' Liz Allen, 29, a nursing student in Atlanta, told one of the Times reporters who fanned out across the country last weekend to ask people about the economy. ''Worry can make the economy worse. If people worry too much, they won't spend as much money. We're seeing that happen, I think, already.''
It's not entirely clear what anyone, including Barack Obama and his incoming administration, can do to temper the current worries. Obama has called for a stimulus package, which will make up for some of the consumer pullback. He and his advisers will also try to shore up confidence by projecting both a calm competence and a willingness to be more aggressive than the Bush administration. All of that should help.
But the stimulus package under discussion would bring no more than $150 billion in new government spending. The difference between a good year for consumer spending and a really bad one is about $400 billion.
So 2009 could turn out to be fairly miserable. The American consumer, long the spender of last resort for the global economy, may finally be spent.
You have heard such warnings before, I realize. For years, journalists and other economic worrywarts have been predicting a serious slump in consumer spending, and it did not happen. ''Never underestimate the American consumer,'' as a Wall Street cliche puts it.
Like most cliches, this one has some truth to it. Even before its recent housing-fueled boom, consumer spending was a bigger part of the American economy than of, say, the French or German economy. Americans like to buy things, and they also don't tend to stay pessimistic for long.
Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, noted that his recent polls showed a sharp rise in the number of people planning to cut back on spending but also a clear increase in the number who expected the economy to be in better shape next year. ''What the American economy has going for it is the innate optimism of the public,'' he said. ''Americans get optimistic at the drop of a hat.''
Perhaps falling gas prices or Obama's victory will shake them out of their torpor, Kohut said. A recent Gallup Poll found that consumer confidence rose slightly after the election. (Links to the Pew and Gallup research are at nytimes.com/economix.) Based on recent history, it's easy to imagine that the trend will continue and spending will soon bounce back.
Yet if the last year has proved anything, it's that we should not assume something can't happen simply because it hasn't happened recently. Cold economic realities deserve the benefit of the doubt, even when they point to uncomfortable conclusions. And right now, the economic realities are pointing to a serious consumer recession.

Let's start with the job market. It ''already appears to be in worse shape than at any time during the recessions of the early 1990s or early 2000s,'' says Lawrence Katz, a Harvard professor and former Labor Department chief economist.
Unemployment is higher than the official rate suggests, and it is rising. Incomes, which for most families barely kept pace with inflation over the past decade, are now falling.
In all, the total amount of income taken home by American households will still probably rise next year, because the population will grow and government transfer payments (like jobless benefits) will surely increase. But total real income will rise a lot more slowly than it has been rising recently. One percent is a reasonable estimate.
The next question is how much of that income people will spend. For decades from the 1950s through the 1980s Americans spent about 91 percent of their income, on average, and put away the rest. In the past few years, they have spent close to 99 percent and saved only about 1 percent.
This simply cannot continue. For one thing, people need to pay down their debts and replenish their retirement accounts. For another, the psychology of spending and saving may well be changing.
After the worst housing bust on record and one of the three worst bear markets of the past century, Americans are probably starting to realize that they can't always fall back on ever-rising house values or stock values to make ends meet.
In the unlikely event that Obama decided to mimic President Bush's post-9/11 plea for spending in the name of patriotism, it probably would not have the same impact. We're not as flush as we were in 2001.
Economists are now busy trying to forecast how rapidly people will begin saving again, but it's essentially an exercise in guesswork. There is no good historical analogy. A savings rate of about 3 percent seems plausible higher, but not radically so and that's what some forecasters are projecting.
At that rate, consumer spending would decline about 1 percent next year, which is worse than it sounds. It would be the first annual decline since 1980, as I mentioned above, and the biggest since 1942. Relative to the typical increases from recent years, it would represent $400 billion in lost consumer spending. To find a stimulus package so big, you'd have to go to Beijing.
And get this: Spending in the past few months has actually been falling at an annual rate of 3 percent. So the seemingly pessimistic events I have sketched out here are based on the assumption that things are about to get better.
As Joshua Shapiro of MFR, an economic research firm in New York, puts it, the American consumer has quickly gone from being the world economy's greatest strength to its Achilles' heel. ''Everything has changed,'' he says. ''The financial sector is deleveraging. Credit availability is severely constrained. Asset prices are deflating. And household balance sheets are severely stressed.''

It would be silly to insist that a few terrible months meant the end of American consumer culture. But it would be equally silly to assume that culture could never change. It might be changing right now.
Leonhardt is a New York Times business columnist.

T.Richardson
11-13-2008, 12:42 PM
My family makes "too much money" to recieve a stimulus or they say when they were sending them out months back.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
11-13-2008, 12:45 PM
I never heard of that!? My dad makes a pretty decent sallary and he still got one.

Preacher
11-13-2008, 07:16 PM
I'm all for it...send me a check for $1200 this time. I'm going to dump it in my current car and keep it on the road for another year instead of trading it in this Spring. That's probably worst case and NOT what the government wants, but if they can give AIG and Lehman money to party, and PNC money to buy National City (none of which was the original intention), I can take my money and look out for #1 too!



Yep. I have a trip to Pittsburgh I need to pay off...

I-Want-Troy's-Hair
11-13-2008, 08:29 PM
The only stimulus I see coming out of Wackington is Nancy Pelosi touching herself every time she swings that gavel in the House.

tony hipchest
11-13-2008, 08:44 PM
this is a horrible idea! they need to take all money and give it to the uber rich so it can "trickle down" :rolleyes:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/mostread/s_598168.html

(nice to see they got rid of "golden parachutes" yet left "bonuses" alone)-

Despite the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Wall Street firms expect to pay billions in executive bonuses after being shored up with billions in taxpayer dollars.

Merrill Lynch & Co. lost money for five straight quarters and its stock dropped 70 percent this year. Yet, it set aside about $6.7 billion to pay bonuses this year, according to a Bloomberg analysis.

"I think it's sickening when I hear these stories," Democratic Rep. Jason Altmire of McCandless said Wednesday. "The Wall Street firms are tone deaf. They don't understand the American people are outraged at this type of behavior."

Many banks paying bonuses are receiving billions in capital from the Treasury department as part of the government's $700 billion financial rescue plan. The Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP, was announced in September.

Stock brokerage giant Merrill Lynch is receiving $10 billion from the government. The struggling institution is merging into Bank of America.

Bank of America, which is getting $15 billion from TARP, is offering bonuses equaling up to 100 percent of revenue Merrill's brokers generate, in order to retain them, said Bloomberg.

"The public is angry about this, and they should be," said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy organization in Washington.

"(Wall Street executives) are the ones who caused this economic crisis, and they are the ones who should be asked to sacrifice," said Claybrook.

National City Corp. is not receiving government money -- but tried to. The struggling Cleveland-based bank applied to the Treasury for money but was told Oct. 19 it would not receive any, according to a recent Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

Five days later, National City agreed to merge into PNC Financial Services Group in a $5.6 billion deal. PNC, in turn, will get $7.7 billion -- more than enough to cover the acquisition -- from the Treasury in exchange for preferred stock.

National City spokeswoman Kristen Baird Adams declined to discuss the issue yesterday, saying it was "inappropriate for us to comment for your story on bonuses, given our pending merger with PNC."

PNC spokesman Fred Solomon said: "PNC will comply with the rules governing TARP participants, and the (board's) compensation committee shortly will start the annual process of carefully considering compensation decisions."

The Wall Street bailout passed by Congress states the five highest-paid executives cannot receive rich severance packages known as "golden parachutes," but it doesn't address bonuses. Altmire said he voted against the bailout for that reason.

"Wall Street firms will say the money isn't from the bailout," said Altmire. "But there is no separate pot of money. You have all the money in your budget, and you decide what to do with it."

Said Claybrook: "The deal was the $700 billion bailout would provide money to banks to increase their liquidity to extend credit to businesses and the public.

"The public's irritation with this is we're going into debt as a nation to try to save the economy, and then these banks are using the money to pay bonuses to executives," she said. "The cost is equal to about $3,000 to $4,000 per citizen, yet many are losing their homes. It's morally and economically wrong."
Fifth Third Bancorp, which operates 13 branches in the Pittsburgh region, is another TARP recipient -- $3.45 billion. The Cincinnati bank's stock fell 63 percent this year.

"At this particular point in time, we do not have a decision with respect to executive bonuses. That's a decision that will be made in January 2009," said bank spokesman Debra DeCourcy.

Bank of New York Mellon Corp. is receiving $3 billion from the government in exchange for preferred shares in the New York-based institution. It was among the nine major institutions chosen by the Treasury to jump-start TARP.

"We are not using the $3 billion from the capital infusion to pay bonuses or dividends," said BNY Mellon spokesman Ron Gruendl. The bank hasn't determined executive bonuses for 2008, he said.

Spokesmen for Citizens Financial Group could not be reached for comment.


yeah! thats the ticket! not only should all these execs (who are so great for our country) receive this money, they should be given tax breaks on it TOO!

God forbid we raise their taxes and force them to leave to another country with lower ones so they can sink their fangs into that economy.

MACH1
11-13-2008, 08:52 PM
God forbid we raise their taxes and force them to leave to another country with lower ones so they can sink their fangs into that economy.

At least the people over there would have a job to go to. :rolleyes:

tony hipchest
11-13-2008, 08:55 PM
At least the people over there would have a job to go to. :rolleyes:i hear sweatshops are REAL nice! :thumbsup:

Preacher
11-13-2008, 10:13 PM
I have no problem with bonuses, even big bonuses, when they are paid out for work that HELP THE COMPANY.

But now? In this economy? To those people? Come one.

Hey, if a couple guys made some trades and took the company in a direction that kept them afloat, give em a good bonus.

tony hipchest
11-13-2008, 10:41 PM
I have no problem with bonuses, even big bonuses, when they are paid out for work that HELP THE COMPANY.

But now? In this economy? To those people? Come one.

Hey, if a couple guys made some trades and took the company in a direction that kept them afloat, give em a good bonus.the ONLY thing keeping them "afloat" is taxpayer dollars.

if one wants to live by free enterprise, they oughtta be willing to die gracefully by free enterprise.

i do see where you are trying to sepearate the good execs from the bad ones. but it may just be a case of seperating the lucky ones from the unlucky.

JPPT1974
11-13-2008, 10:49 PM
Seems like we will never receive one.
We are paying more than receiving anything it seems.
Taxes are taxes but we are paying for something.
Like AIG's three swanky conferences that they had.
And they just got $40B from the Treasury just very recently.
We are paying for their dumb and expensive conferences.:banging:

Preacher
11-13-2008, 10:51 PM
the ONLY thing keeping them "afloat" is taxpayer dollars.

if one wants to live by free enterprise, they oughtta be willing to die gracefully by free enterprise.

i do see where you are trying to sepearate the good execs from the bad ones. but it may just be a case of seperating the lucky ones from the unlucky.

I agree with you, if you live by free enterprise, die by it. That is why I wasn't too excited about the bailout, and still nto excited about the supposed bailout of the auto companies.

When I worked sales for an insurance company, there were times when someone would get lucky and get a good bonus, but over a few months, you could tell the lucky ones from the good ones.

Same thing with execs. They may get lucky now and then, but the good ones will separate themselves... I think bonus SHOULD be tied DIRECTLY to output of the company... AND a clean bill of health on accounting procedures.

Preacher
11-13-2008, 10:54 PM
Seems like we will never receive one.
We are paying more than receiving anything it seems.
Taxes are taxes but we are paying for something.
Like AIG's three swanky conferences that they had.
And they just got $40B from the Treasury just very recently.
We are paying for their dumb and expensive conferences.:banging:

While I am quite ticked about the spending of the money on the conferences... keep in mind. That money went to whom? Chances are, a bunch of people who make 30,000 a year or so were guarenteed employement for at least another month or two from that conference because the hotel received that money. The money doesn't disappear, it changes hands.

However, the next question is, why should a company that shows bad judgment in money by almost going bankrupt get that much money in the first place..and then the politicians be surprised when the AGAIN show bad judgement?

MACH1
11-13-2008, 11:06 PM
Seems like we will never receive one.
We are paying more than receiving anything it seems.
Taxes are taxes but we are paying for something.
Like AIG's three swanky conferences that they had.
And they just got $40B from the Treasury just very recently.
We are paying for their dumb and expensive conferences.:banging:

Now we get to pay their legal fees to keep their ass's out of jail.

tony hipchest
11-13-2008, 11:11 PM
Now we get to pay their legal fees to keep their ass's out of jail.

...and thats why they deserve a tax break. :thumbsup: (theyre not so "lucky" as to be appointed public defenders.)

MACH1
11-13-2008, 11:13 PM
...and thats why they deserve a tax break. :thumbsup: (theyre not so "lucky" as to be appointed public pretenders.)

Fixed it for ya. :wink02:

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
11-14-2008, 05:51 AM
You know, with the last stimulus package, the porn industry had the largest increase in sales and benefited the most...

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/02/bush-porn/

GBMelBlount
11-14-2008, 06:32 AM
You know, with the last stimulus package, the porn industry had the largest increase in sales and benefited the most...

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/02/bush-porn/

Now watch what happens to the porn industry when Obama employs HIS "stimulus package" and redistributes a trillion dollars to these same people......a trillion dollars that would would have otherwise been used to create new jobs.....

revefsreleets
11-14-2008, 10:51 AM
The message is clear: We bail out the biggest offenders, the slimiest and sleeziest, but Joe Ham-n-egger is on his own:

http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20081113/ap_on_bi_ge/meltdown_credit_cards

Regulators nix credit card debt forgiveness plan
By MARCY GORDON, AP Business Writer Marcy Gordon, Ap Business Writer
Wed Nov 12, 9:23 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Federal bank regulators have rejected a request by banks and consumer advocates for a program to let lenders forgive huge portions of credit card debt.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency rejected the request for a special program that would allow as much as 40 percent of credit card debt to be forgiven for consumers who don't qualify for existing repayment plans.

An unusual alliance of financial industry interests and consumer advocates, represented by the Financial Services Roundtable and the Consumer Federation of America, made the request to the Treasury Department agency on Oct. 29. It demonstrated the urgency of the situation in a deepening economic crisis: consumers — even those with strong credit records — defaulting at high levels on their credit cards, while banks battered by the credit crisis bleed tens of billions from the losses.

An agency official said the government objects to allowing banks to defer losses for several years on the forgiven debt, as would occur in accounting by lenders under the special program.

The agency "does not consider any plan that defers the timely recognition of loss as prudent, and any such proposal cannot be viewed favorably by us," Timothy Long, senior deputy comptroller for bank supervision policy, said in a letter to the two groups dated Monday and made public Wednesday.

"The timely identification, reporting and management of credit losses, along with adequate loan-loss reserves and capital levels, provide the public with ... confidence" in the banking system, Long wrote.

The Financial Services Roundtable, which represents more than 100 large banks, brokerage firms and insurance companies, will "continue to look for ways to help consumers in these extraordinary times," said the group's senior vice president, Scott Talbott.

Travis Plunkett, legislative director of Consumer Federation, said that with the number of deeply indebted consumers growing dramatically, "we still hope to work with bank regulators or Congress to create an alternative" to bankruptcy for them.

Under the proposal, borrowers would be able to defer payment of income taxes they owe on the forgiven part of the credit card debt until after the remainder was paid off. The lenders could wait until then to book their losses on the forgiven debt.

The two groups hoped such a pilot program would become permanent and that as many as 50,000 people struggling with credit card debt would be involved. On an individual basis, the amount of debt to be forgiven would rise according to the severity of the borrower's financial situation, up to a maximum of 40 percent. Consumers would be allowed to pay back the remainder over several years.

The largest credit-card banks each set aside between $1 billion and $3.5 billion in the third quarter for losses on card loans as their profits plummeted.

The biggest credit card lenders include Discover Financial Services LLC, Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Capital One Financial Corp., American Express Co. and HSBC Holdings.

Credit card charge-off rates, balances written off as unpaid, rose to 6.8 percent in August, up 48 percent from a year earlier, according to Moody's Investors Service.

Americans are weighed down by about $900 billion in credit card debt, according to the latest available Federal Reserve figures.

revefsreleets
11-14-2008, 10:55 AM
Here's the other long-term problem I see with this. As the economy worsens, and more and more people are impacted, without some kind of deferrment or program to help, this country will slowly become a nation of bad credit risks. If 1/3rd of the people who are now 700+ become 600 or worse, one of two things will happen: Either the banks will lower standards, start writing "b" paper again out of necessity, or credit will just dry up altogether. That might be good in the long haul, but man is that gonna kill consumer spending over the short run.

I think things, without some sweeping relief, are going to get a lot worse.

TroysBadDawg
11-14-2008, 02:57 PM
Lets face it the problem with the auto Companies is the Unions. They want and want but when it came time to trim the fat when the auto companies started automating, the Union would not let the Companies lay the workers off. They made the Job Bank. Those people who would have been laid off sat in the cafeteria and collected full pay and benifits plus seniority while they played cards, talked, etc.
Automating did nothing to help the companies stay afloat like they wanted. Now what is going to happen to those workers when the companies go belly up. Who will then pay for their insurance and the 36.00 her hour the were making to punch a button. I installed switches that took the place of some of them, but they would not lay them off, they went to the Job Bank, now with no job (button to push) but still collected full pay and benefits plus seniority.
That cost I bet over 2 mill a day (not including benefits) for workers doing absolutely nothing.
That has to affect the bottom line. And people ask why are cars so expensive.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
11-14-2008, 03:08 PM
Now watch what happens to the porn industry when Obama employs HIS "stimulus package" and redistributes a trillion dollars to these same people......a trillion dollars that would would have otherwise been used to create new jobs.....

Bush did a great job in creating jobs.... just look at our economy

GBMelBlount
11-14-2008, 03:19 PM
Bush did a great job in creating jobs.... just look at our economy

BBFW, we can go down this road again, but you know if we analyze the TRUE causal factors of our economic problems, we will find that our problems are more to do with big government, high taxes and liberal polices than anything specifically having to do with Bush.

So, would you like to start again? If so, tell me the reasons you think the problems with the economy are because of Bush and we'll take it from there.....

Also, tell me how you think Obama's economic "solution" is any better....

And finally, I just called you out regarding you ridiculing Bush's one time stimulus creating a boon in the porn industry and Obama is making that permanent by giving a trillion dollars to the same group that obviously runs out and spend all their money on porn and drugs. So, please explain why Obama's trillion dollar wealth distribution to porn peddlers is going to turn this economy around?

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
11-14-2008, 03:23 PM
I forgot that you part of the 20 percent...

http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

Preacher
11-14-2008, 03:30 PM
Bush did a great job in creating jobs.... just look at our economy

Bush doesn't own a company. He doesn't create jobs.

Up until the last few months, unemployment has been HISTORICALLY low, staying within 1 to 2 points of full employment. That has been a trend since the early 90's. Even then, unemployment (under the early 90's recession was within 5-7 points of full employment). We haven't seen a "BAD" job market since the late 70's and early 80's. When we dropped to 20-22 points away from full employment. So let's adjust our perspective to the historical realities.

The REAL problem, in my estimation, is the politicization of the economy. Both parties, when they are in power, do what they think will keep the economy moving while they are in power. Thus, short term solutions pro-long the brick wall at the end, but only makes that wall harder, thicker, and higher. We are paying for about 20 years of bad economics. The last long-term thinker of the economy was Reagan. Before him, Carter and Nixon both created a similar catastrophe... with an emphasis on Nixon and price controls.

GBMelBlount
11-14-2008, 03:39 PM
I forgot that you part of the 20 percent...

http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

Nice try BBFW. 80% of the people in the Soviet Union approved of communism..... Were they right? :wink02:

revefsreleets
11-16-2008, 02:45 PM
Blame Bush? What a cop out...

TBD has a point. The average US auto manufacturing Union job pays $73 an hour with bennies and all. Japanese is $48. And don't even get me started on the whole idea of the "Job bank".

Unions should be for servers and people who clean office buildings, Wal-Mart workers and the like. people who are really being taken advantage of. When I sold advertising for Bellsouth, mine was a union job...and I was knocking down between $1500 and $3500 a week. When I think back on the conditions that necessitated Unions and juxtapose that with my cushy job it's really kind of sickening...

SteelCityMan786
11-16-2008, 02:50 PM
Nice try BBFW. 80% of the people in the Soviet Union approved of communism..... Were they right? :wink02:

Well Said. :thumbsup:

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
11-16-2008, 10:41 PM
I personally don't agree with any bailout or stimulus packages. Too close to socialism for comfort to me. A government that is big enough to give you everything you have, is big enough to take all you've got. I believe in a free market based capitalist economy. You live by the sword, you die by the sword...so to speak

Preacher
11-17-2008, 03:31 AM
Blame Bush? What a cop out...

TBD has a point. The average US auto manufacturing Union job pays $73 an hour with bennies and all. Japanese is $48. And don't even get me started on the whole idea of the "Job bank".

Unions should be for servers and people who clean office buildings, Wal-Mart workers and the like. people who are really being taken advantage of. When I sold advertising for Bellsouth, mine was a union job...and I was knocking down between $1500 and $3500 a week. When I think back on the conditions that necessitated Unions and juxtapose that with my cushy job it's really kind of sickening...

Hey,

I was in the BellSouth Union.. it killed me. I didn't get a chance to negotiate my entry pay. I wouldn't have gotten a chance to move up in pay based on my performance or sales, I saw people there that should have been fired YEARS ago, and lastly, it was one of the most poisonous worker/manager atmospheres I have ever worked in.

Yeah, unions are great :rolleyes:

Needless to say, I didn't stay there long. I ended up getting my first full time pastorate and moved out of there ASAP.

revefsreleets
11-17-2008, 10:42 AM
Hey,

I was in the BellSouth Union.. it killed me. I didn't get a chance to negotiate my entry pay. I wouldn't have gotten a chance to move up in pay based on my performance or sales, I saw people there that should have been fired YEARS ago, and lastly, it was one of the most poisonous worker/manager atmospheres I have ever worked in.

Yeah, unions are great :rolleyes:

Needless to say, I didn't stay there long. I ended up getting my first full time pastorate and moved out of there ASAP.

I didn't join. The Union apple has fallen FAR from the tree.

There was a dispute. The Union threatened to strike. I was in an elevator filled with pencil pushers in suits, and they threatened me not to cross the picket lines if they struck. I laughed and spoke my mind on the subject. They were not pleased.

Preacher
11-17-2008, 03:04 PM
I didn't join. The Union apple has fallen FAR from the tree.

There was a dispute. The Union threatened to strike. I was in an elevator filled with pencil pushers in suits, and they threatened me not to cross the picket lines if they struck. I laughed and spoke my mind on the subject. They were not pleased.

Figures.

I was in Kentucky. You HAD TO join the union. Furthermore, Kentucky courts have ruled that anyone who crosses a picket line my pay back their wages to the union when the strike is over.

revefsreleets
11-17-2008, 06:15 PM
Florida was a little more enlightened.

My manager pulled me aside and started to give me the speech about how "you need to look out for numb..." and I cut him off said "I don't need the speech. I'm not joining the Union and you can expect me here Monday morning if they strike"