If auto workers contracts can be re-negoitated, why can't derivatives traders

[notadmblnd]

contracts be re-negotiated? Seems to me we have a double standard here.

[Motown_Johnny]

1. I think they have better lawyers

[fjc]

2. There's no contract on earth that cannot be re-negotiated.

[Wapsie B]

3. Re-negotiated or just broken altogether.

[closeupready]

4. I don't get this either.

??

[phantom power]

5. Remember the Golden Rule...

Them that has the gold, makes the rules.

[stillcool]

6. they can be..

and they need to be forced to...either they amend the contracts, or they fail, and take everyone down with them.

[Fire1]

7. You noticed that, too?

[notadmblnd]

8. I won't deny, I have a horse in this race

My husband was an auto worker who died five years ago. Our son was 10 at the time. I lost my job shortly after. If it weren't for the benefits my husband worked for and won in his union negotiated contract, we'd been on the streets long ago. The excuse has been given by the talking heads, that both parties have to be agreeable to re-negotiation in order for it to actually happen. They say AIG employees are against it. I think I can speak safely when I say - the auto workers were against re-negotiation.

[Fire1]

10. Exactly. Teachers Unions, too. We didn't even get to vote on

it.

[Sherman A1]

9. Precisely

They screwed this up, so I say let THEM pay for it, not the taxpayer.

[Igel]

11. They can be.

But how would you feel if the government just went in and said what wages had to be--in other words, don't renegotiate, just mandate?

Pressure was applied to the UAW, but they could have said no. It's a lot harder for the UAW to say no when there's such a large workforce than for a few hundred AIG folk to say 'no'. It's also a lot easier for the UAW to say 'yes' because they can speak with one voice; the AIG folk would all individually have to say 'yes' and the renegotiation might not be up to a set of negotiators with collective responsibility.

Note that the UAW 'yes' took how long? Weeks? A couple of months? How long's the AIG business been around?

The UAW 'yes' started out as a 'no' with moderately discrete pressure placed on them by the government (after all, the UAW is a political player) and more pressure put on them by management. Imagine if Obama were quoted as telling Geithner just to find some way to lower the autoworker's pay, and Barney Frank were to say that he's not quite in favor of ignoring the contract, but they should check to see what the downside would be to simply unilaterally cutting autoworker's wages. Can you imagine the furor? In this case, it's the government putting a lot of pressure on individuals, with much less being brought to bear by management. That's simply because the autoworker's pay is still seen as being paid by the auto makers, not by a direct government subsidy; whereas AIG's 'bonus' pool is seen as composed entirely of government funds. The perception's skewed, but what perception isn't?

The UAW renegotiations dealt with future compensation. Most of the outrage over AIG deals with compensation for the past.

There are, no doubt, other significant differences that seem to have been missed that further muddle the righteous indignation rampant (on a field azure).