This is an orange:
I don’t vote for RINO morons.
Posted on 09/21/2023 8:18:59 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina took a harsher stance toward striking autoworkers Monday than many of his fellow Republican presidential candidates, saying it did not make sense for workers to want higher pay for shorter workweeks and noting approvingly that President Ronald Reagan had fired federal employees for striking.
“I think Ronald Reagan gave us a great example when federal employees decided they were going to strike,” Scott said at a campaign event in Iowa, in response to a voter who had asked whether he would “insert” himself into the United Auto Workers talks as president. “He said, ‘You strike, you’re fired.’ Simple concept to me, to the extent that we can use that once again.”
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
Tim Scott is a neo-con tool.
Reagan fired the air traffic controllers who were FAA employees. The current situation is not the same. UAW auto industry employees are not working for a federal agency.
Yeah I can’t side with corporate raiders and CEO’s. Big companies like GMC and Ford are quasi government owned entities. They build what the government says they should build. Very fascist.
I don’t think Tim Scott is very bright.
Reagan fired the air traffic controllers because it was illegal for them to strike. IOW he was just enforcing the law. That has zero applicability to the auto workers striking.
This is an orange:
I don’t vote for RINO morons.
I believe in a level playing field. With a few exceptions for public safety, workers have the right to strike. And an employer has the right to permanently fire those workers for striking.
However, many states now have laws that prohibit the *permanent* firing of striking workers. The employer had lost his ace in the hole. The workers still have theirs. It’s no longer a level playing field.
The establishment believes nothing should stand in the way of the power they obtain from global warming measures.
Ask Scott if he’d support rescinding Kennedy’s EO 10988...
That is a politically-dumb answer. The answer should have been: The two sides need to hash this out themselves.
Note to Tim Scott: Auto workers are not Federal employees. Scott needs a 101 course in comparing apples and oranges.
Correct this is not the same situation at all.
I wonder if he’s trying to say that he’s in favor of firing striking workers in a business.
I wonder if he is trying to make a statement against labor unions. There’s a general perception out there, among some people ,that conservatives oppose labor unions ,and Liberals are in favor of labor unions. So maybe he’s trying to make this political statement.
But again, this situation would not be something that the president of the United States can deal with anyway.
Tim Scott is not ready for Prime Time.
I wouldn’t hire Tim Scott as 3rd shift manager in McDonalds, but that’s me.
Truman called out the National Guard on striking steel workers, but that was a completely different situation.
Talking about Reagan in this situation make him sound as dumb as a Dimocrat.
I wonder.. as the UAW is going after all three Car makers.
IF all three fired them all simulytaneously...
Then ramped up their production in Mexico and non union plants.
How much down time would they have?
Would it be any worse than what was experienced due to Covid and supply chain interuptions?
And.. For us.. How much $$ would we save on cars if all three were non union? 20%+?
The auto companies fear strikes not only because of increased costs of a successful strike, but also the fear of losing market share to companies not engaged in the strike. The auto companies should do what the Maritime Association did back in the '50's. They got together and agreed they would all shut down their docks. The total closure forced all stevedores out of a job, resulting in a flood of unemployment claims on the strike fund, which was neither anticipated or planned for by the union. The total dock closure meant no one lost market share because they were all closed and the workers couldn't hold out because, without strike benefits, the workers quickly agreed to settle on less-that-favorable terms.
I don't know why the auto companies don't do something similar.
His answer was stupid, actually thru their actions all Republican candidates have basically been silent on this issue, I do give Trump credit for going to Michigan to talk with the workers.
The Republicans are wasting a HUGE opportunity to put a small amount of separation between the workers and Democratic Policies.
The contract the UAW was living with has lost 40% of it’s value because of inflation, what has caused that inflation ??
The Biden economic policies.
The workers also know the push to EVs will mean less Auto Workers because EVs have fewer parts than ICE cars, meaning fewer workers are required to build them.
The workers also know they are forced to build EVs which lose money but are restricted on building cars that make a profit, like Trucks and SUVs.
What Party is pushing the EV agenda, Biden and the Democrats.
The Republicans are basically giving the Democrats a pass on this strike, it’s the policies of the Democrats that is primarily responsible for this strike.
LOL, I like this because Tim Scott is comparing apples and oranges.
Ronald Reagan had the authority to deal with the Striking air traffic controllers.
The president of the United States has no authority to deal with striking workers in a private business such as an auto company.
But I guess he got a certain sound bite out of these comments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.