Therefore, his reasoning is that the company management at that time is ALSO responsible for the present financial woes, not soley the responsibility of the union.
However, he didn't get much chance to expound on this point. The majority of the debate actually became Rush's usual history of how he was a self-made man.
The caller should have known you never get a well-rounded debate with any radio host. The host controls the time devoted to each side of the issue. He also controls the shut-off switch.
The guy was game, though. I give him credit for that.
Leni
Exactly. It's plain political lying for the companies management to blame unions for their woes. We are in a situation where there is way too much car manufacturing capacity in the world so how bad would it really have been to let union workers strike for a month rather than giving them more and more and more. The financial leaders of a company are supposed to be on top of the industry and the business case. All grunts always want more money, that's a constant as sure as gravity. You can't simply give it to them and hope everything works out ok.
However, he didn't get much chance to expound on this point. The majority of the debate actually became Rush's usual history of how he was a self-made man.
Yes, exactly, and for me it was more irritating than usual. Maybe that's because I got layed off 7 weeks ago.
The caller should have known you never get a well-rounded debate with any radio host. The host controls the time devoted to each side of the issue. He also controls the shut-off switch.
Yup, but Rush is usually surprisingly fair.