www.ditl.org

The high-flying execs at Citigroup caved under pressure from President Obama and decided today to abandon plans for a luxurious new $50 million corporate jet from France.
The bank used TARP funds to purchase a new corporate jet for executives.

The decision came 24 hours after the banking giant, which was rescued by a $45 billion taxpayer lifeline, defended buying the state-of-the-art Dassault Falcon 7X -- one of nine to be flying in U.S. skies -- as a smart business deal.

The jet, the epitome of corporate prestige and privilege, can carry 12 passengers in elegant comfort.

ABC News has learned that on Monday officials of the Obama administration called Citigroup about the company's new $50 million corporate jet and told execs to "fix it."

8)

Nice. No matter who the president is if he calls you and tells you to fix it you know you're in deep shit. And Obama doing it makes it even better

That was good business, for our Pres. Would you rather have a handful of bigwig execs pissed at you for taking there toy, or the entire working class public who is backing the man.

A really big challenge will be getting the Employee Free Choice Act passed, which will allow workers to unionize without corporate intimidation.

Since Obama actually seems to give a shit, I think that he can pull it off.

I think that would be counterproductive in the current climate.

Without unions (or the threat of unions), workers will get screwed over, especially in a climate like this. (Look at the Republic Windows and Doors strike, in which union action saved factory workers from being screwed out of their benefits.) As it is now, the unionization process is rife with intimidation, harassment and misinformation by employers.

And look at the state of US auto manufacturing, with the UAW not only refusing to participate in any belt-tightening, but actually reneging on their pledges of assistance.

You mean those non-existent UAW workers who earn $70 an hour? Workers trying to get half-decent wages are not the reason why the US auto industry is failing.

I think a regulated union wouldn't nessessarily be a bad thing.

Lazar wrote:You mean those non-existent UAW workers who earn $70 an hour?

Yes, I do. That link leads to an article with an impressive amount of spin, but I work for a GM franchise and with former GM line employees - and the huge amount of money that GM is paying for non-productive former employees, et. al., is G-d's honest truth.

Lazar wrote:Workers trying to get half-decent wages are not the reason why the US auto industry is failing.

No, it's not. And I understand full well both the values and pitfalls of unionization, so don't be pedantic with me. The problem isn't workers trying to get half-decent wages - the problem is the unions of those workers trying to go beyond their scope, trying to get whatever they can touch (no matter how unfairly biased agaisnt the company in question or how bad for the health of the company AND the individual worker,) and trying to either hold up or steer the company in question, merely for the sake of being able to say that they hold the reins. Are you honestly going to say that the UAW is ploying strong-arm tactics because the average UAW member is currently so woefully under-compensated? If so, you have got some strange and unsubstantiated ideas.

Mikey wrote:Yes, I do. That link leads to an article with an impressive amount of spin, but I work for a GM franchise and with former GM line employees - and the huge amount of money that GM is paying for non-productive former employees, et. al., is G-d's honest truth.

Not unlike the spin that you find in the mainstream media? Conservatives were claiming that UAW workers were paid $70 an hour, and that's quite simply a lie. If we really want to boost this and other industries, then we should have real universal health care, like any other developed country, so American companies aren't shackled with insurance costs.

Are you honestly going to say that the UAW is ploying strong-arm tactics because the average UAW member is currently so woefully under-compensated? If so, you have got some strange and unsubstantiated ideas.

I'm not saying they're woefully under-compensated. I do, on the other hand, think that corporate execs are woefully over-compensated.

Lazar wrote:Conservatives were claiming that UAW workers were paid $70 an hour

I don't recall that claim at all. I do recall the (quite accurate) claim that total compensation - including all perqs and bennies - totalled approx. $70/hour for some non-productive retirees depending on how grandfathered their contracts were, and for some current employees exclusive of future retirement options.

Mikey wrote:I don't recall that claim at all.

As you can see in my first link, it was claimed in the New York Times and by a host of conservative operatives that UAW workers earn $70 an hour (with or without the caveat that this includes benefits). And that claim is false - the average UAW worker is not getting $70 an hour in wages and benefits - it's more like $41 an hour. The $70 figure includes all legacy costs as if they were going to the current workers.

Lazar wrote:The $70 figure includes all legacy costs as if they were going to the current workers.

But is therefore a valid figure to use when discussing those legacy costs. I'm not here to defend some third-party viewpoint.