I bought a little GM stock when it was low and after the reorg, thanks ;) You are free to have your opinion, I have mine.

well Obama bought it dirt low and needs $133.78 to break even :zz:

$24.37 currently.....:wf

if I ever become a FL swamp salesman, you're my first call

Do you think the company as evaluated previous to reorganization at a stock price of $133.78 and the company now as evaluated at $25.37 are the "same" company, of the same worth and growth potential?

Do you think stock in reorganized manufacturing companies should pay a profit within months? Or say, over 10 years?

It's probably a good thing you don't purchase stocks.

I do purchase stocks.

But usually/always hold for less than 10 years. Cept XOM :zz:

But even w/o the 'sense' Obama seems to have for business, I'd never buy a $25 dollar stock knowing I had to get to $132 to get even.

Obama wasn't purchase a stock. Obama was saving an entire iconic American industry, all the associated manufacturing and supplier line companies and jobs, and 163,000 jobs.

and his whole plan cost more than XOM and Apple are worth together :zz:

Just think if Teddy Roosevelt would have saved the buggy whip.

http://news.yahoo.com/indiana-law-fi...133033570.html

Indiana right-to-work law to get final push this weekBy Susan Guyett | Reuters – 1 hr 14 mins ago


INDIANAPOLIS (Reuters) - Republicans lawmakers were expected to give a final push this week to legislation that would make Indiana the first right-to-work state in the nation's manufacturing belt, dealing a setback to organized labor in a presidential election year.

The measure, already given preliminary approval by both chambers of the Indiana legislature, would allow workers to opt out of paying union dues, even when a workplace is unionized.

Supporters of right-to-work, led by Indiana's Republican Governor Mitch Daniels, say it is needed to bring business and jobs to the state. Opponents call it "union busting" and say it will hurt workers with lower wages.




....i probably should have started a new thread, but i tend to try to keep stuff within a related one, much like in a normal conversation.

i agree wholeheartedly with this move;it is odd to me that one would ever be required, in this country of all the countries in the world, to join an organization whether one wishes to or not. especially considering it deals with employment.
of course unions would disagree.

Right to work, right to hire, right to fire, right to compete for a job, right to employ the best candidates, etc. etc. etc.
The thought that these laws need to be new is just fascinating.

"Right to work" means overturning current law protecting workers. Don't let the name fool you.

Current "right to work" states include these booming, financially growing, economically sound states:

Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Mississippi
Nebraska

Protecting them from what? Having people who want to strive and succeed not be held back by their unions. From being fired for mediocrity?

"Protecting" workers from minimum wages, fairer work hours, safer working conditions, fair and equal treatment from employers.

Hey, good luck with that! ;) Support the corporate masters taking away your rights :tro:

What union jobs are making min wage?
Dont we have a Dept of Labor at the Federal and state level that protects against "unfair work hours" and unfair and inequal treatment from employers?
Doesn't OSHA protect against unsafe working conditions?

So ONLY union employees are safe from the EVIL employers....

Most of my work is done in georgia, louisiana and mississippi. Don't leave out any of the actual booming states though. Or all of the awesome economic masterpieces like michigan.

I'm not leaving out any states (see below, added more). As I said, those are the states with current right to work laws, that have had those laws this past year and before. Is Michigan right to work? (was not on the list)

Yes, there are other states, in fact many more states, that are economically doing better than the above "right to work" states. They do not have right to work laws, however.

If the point of passing right to work is to improve the economic condition of the state, shouldn't the first thing be to see if it has worked in the past?

Here, found more right to work states:

Nevada
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Wyoming

What proof is there that these states havent improved? Because you say other states are "doing better"? To what degree does anything pertaining to employees and if they are unionized or not have on "economic conditions" of a state?

I mean I'm sure Mississippi and Idaho would be booming if they had more union workers...

i think it was boeing who not long ago had to re-start a factory in nc because of demands. of course that facility was non-union. so the union facility elsewhere tried to put a stop to work being done there-or did stop it i believe.
if people wish to join unions they can;but i'm all for people being able to work at a facility even if they choose not to join. and i think it should be a choice. if the union is able to offer so much and accomplish much, it seems it would be a no-brainer.
my husband chose to join the union at the facility here-for peace and quiet more than anything.

Their economic ratings.