Caterpillar Will Get What It Deserves
by Big Dog on Mar 20, 2010 at 05:41 Political
If the health care takeover passes then Caterpillar, the company that makes large earth moving equipment, will get exactly what it deserves. Caterpillar is howling about the bill because it claims that its health care costs will increase about 100 MILLION dollars in the first year alone. This is a bill that is supposed to decrease health care costs.
Caterpillar was walking hand in hand with Obama when he wanted to pass the stimulus and the company supported him in that process. Caterpillar was a useful idiot for Obama. He got what he wanted and now he could not care less about how the health care takeover effects this company. He valued the company’s input when he wanted its support and now that they have a different opinion about health care, Obama wants nothing to do with the company.
Caterpillar has no one to blame but itself. If you lie down with dogs you will get fleas and Obama is a dirty, flea bitten, mangy dog.
If this passes then I have no sympathy for Caterpillar and its increased health care costs which will certainly be passed on to consumers through higher equipment prices.
There are plenty of companies in other countries that make large earth moving equipment and they will not be handcuffed by the health care takeover so they will sell equipment at a lower price and gain business.
Caterpillar can try to hang on or go out of business. It is a tough lesson to learn but sometimes it takes a tough lesson for the information to actually sink in.
Hey Caterpillar, how’s that hope and change working out for you?
Source:
Chicago Breaking Business News
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: caterpillar, dogs, health care, lies, Obama
You’d think they would have learned over the last 10 months as Obama’s numbers have precipitously dropped. Someone in that company should have been smart enough to see what was happening and asked themselves why. Like you, I have no sympathy. Likewise, you won’t see me buying a GM product or a Chrysler product.
I am with you GM. I love my Jeep but when it is time to get rid of it (9 years old and still running great) I cannot buy another one unless the company gets bought up by one that did not get bailed out. I will buy a Ford before I would buy any vehicle from a company that took bailout money.
I have a very vested interest in this as I am retired from Cat. Our CEO denies the bit about being able to rehire laid off workers as a result of the stimulus. Yes Owens supported the plan as it relates to Cat, but that’s his job.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/doh-caterpillar.html
It is also Owens’ job to oppose the healthcare bill as that hurts Cat. Again that’s his job.
http://www.pjstar.com/news/x645471662/Cat-urges-rejection-of-health-care-bill
Mike, as a consumer it is my job to look at the hypocrisy of a CEO that walks hand in hand to support a bailout that takes money from the pockets of taxpayers to bolster his company but then complains because a program of health care that will go to people (some of whom pay taxes) will cost him more.
It cost us more to bail him out and now it will cost him more to bail out Congress and its desire for socialized medicine.
I feel bad for the rank and file but companies make decisions and sometimes they are bad…
BigDog, Owens has a fiduciary duty to do what’s in the best interest of Caterpillar, and Caterpillar only. That’s not a choice, it’s required. And I don’t expect Cat to require any bailout money under any circumstances. Yeah, we’re down from a profit of 3.6 billion in ’08, but still managed a profit of 0.9 billion in ’09 and ’10 is looking better.
Mike, you have a valid point.
I would agree with BD, except for the observation you made; Cat isn’t in business to help the public at large. It has little to do with Good or Bad, as a political observation or humanities judgment.
Politicians and NPO’s, social advancement groups, even blogger s should follow the rules of “what is best for all the people,” and that is a sad indictment of Obama and the clack of Democrat leaders making this health care monster.
Because the point BD made earlier is ALSO true; Cat, and in fact all companies, will pass the added costs to the consumers, and if the consumers can’t or wont pay…the companies go bust and then bankrupt….oooops.
No they don’t! The government bails them out!
Hey! Looks like your gonna get it both ways, Mike!
But the fault is the Democrats, not Cat.
Owens has a duty to do what is in the best interest and that is fine until taxpayer money is used to bail them out or to help them in any way. The company’s best interest ends when NON shareholders are paying for ANYTHING for the company. We do not get the dividends, we should not have to support the company. Whether they used it or not Owens was propping it up with Obambam and that means he either did it to support Obambam or he did it for the company. Since you are saying it is for the company (and that would be the only reason?) then he advocated using tax dollars to help his company.
They are a private business and any use of taxpayer money is a problem.
But, they have a duty to do what they see as right to help the company. But I feel no sympathy when the people they were once in bed with ignore them once they have been the useful idiot.
Cat will survive or not but I do not care about its issues with health care costs. It did not care about my issues with the bailout.
That pretty much sums it up…
Correct me if I’m wrong BigDog, but the only stimulus money Cat would get is indirectly selling machines to construction companies working on public works projects. That’s a huge ongoing business with Cat. Roads, bridges, and energy always were and always will be a major source of revenue for Cat. Is there some other stimulus money you’re referencing?
I never said they got the money, only that they supported the stimulus.
In what way did CAT support the stimulus? Obama talked up CAT hires with a speech about the stimulus at a factory but I’m not really seeing this “hand in hand” stuff you keep referring to. In fact the CEO seems to have refuted Obama on some of his stimulus narratives.
I also have to laugh at the fact that you won’t buy GM now. You’ve scoffed in the past about progressives calling for the boycott of companies like Wal-mart for workers rights abuses and such but to you that’s just business. GM takes tax payer money (which they’re paying back ahead of schedule I might add) to stay afloat and you’ve broken your outrage meter. Yet another difference between regressives and progressives I guess…
Progressives resemble progress the same as high fashion resembles clothing.
When progressives take a once-fine country to the edge of socialist disaster, a little regression is in order.
Adam, maybe you can explain for us knuckle dragging rocket scientists how tax money is collected, who pays it, and why it is progressive to dole that money to companies that are failing?
I have yet to see worker’s rights abuses at Wal Mart. The company offers health insurance (but a lot of employees already have it) and it pays above minimum wage.
Like any company it has had issues but it did not take my TAX dollars to do its job.
And I don’t think I called for a boycott, I said I would not buy them.
“I have yet to see worker’s rights abuses at Wal Mart.”
You see it, you just don’t think it counts. For instance it’s a worker’s right to unionize if he or she so chooses. It’s as simple as that. Wal-mart is aggressively and sometimes illegally anti-Union and that’s a fact. But you’re anti-Union yourself so why should you care if they prevent it, right?
“The company offers health insurance…”
They offer often unaffordable care, yes.
“…it pays above minimum wage.”
Wal-mart’s starting wage isn’t high enough above minimum wage to mean something considering what a joke minimum wage is in the US right now.
“And I don’t think I called for a boycott, I said I would not buy them.”
Not buying from them is a boycott even if today you aren’t calling for multiple people to join you. Yet, you have done so not too long ago.
“Like any company it has had issues but it did not take my TAX dollars to do its job.”
I don’t think Wal-mart is some ultimate evil but considering the fact that Wal-mart is not just any company but rather the world’s largest don’t you think it should set a good example with labor and not a bad one? For this and numerous other reasons I still boycott Wal-mart and I wish that more people would, especially in the South.
The company has a right not to be unionized and has worked to ensure it is not. Illegal? If that were the case Congress and its union thugs would be beating Wal Mart into submission.
I know people who work at Wal Mart and they can afford their health care. Also, they pay above minimum wage. Just because you think minimum wage is not sufficient is not a reason for the company to increase wages even more.
They never seem to have trouble hiring people.
And I might add, I choose not to buy certain other items. I do not buy Citgo Gas. Does this mean that I am boycotting them? I choose not to buy hundreds of things on a regular basis for one reason or another. Is that a boycott?
I will not buy GM or Chrysler. My choice. If you want to buy them then that is your choice.
The difference is that I think freedom means you get to choose what you want and you think freedom means that I get to choose what YOU want.
If a conservative does not like guns he does not buy one. If a liberal does not like guns he wants to enact laws so no one can.
“Illegal? If that were the case Congress and its union thugs would be beating Wal Mart into submission.”
Yes, believe it or not Wal-mart has used legal and illegal means of busting unions for decades.
“I choose not to buy hundreds of things on a regular basis for one reason or another. Is that a boycott?”
Only if refusing to buy is more than a personal preference. I don’t boycott foods with animal products in them but I do boycott Wal-mart. When you say, “I will buy a Ford before I would buy any vehicle from a company that took bailout money,” then you are boycotting. It’s not that complicated but you like to make it.
“I will not buy GM or Chrysler. My choice.”
Of course. But as usual you turn into a victim. This is like me saying something you said is racist and you crying about how you have a free speech right to say it. Right, but who said otherwise? Nobody. Boycott away. Just don’t pretend you’re not boycotting when you really are. It’s a boycott.
“If a conservative does not like guns he does not buy one. If a liberal does not like guns he wants to enact laws so no one can.”
Glad to see you’re still getting your wisdom from chain e-mails.
I claim no victimhood, you just see victims in everything because you are a progressive socialist.
It is not as difficult as I am making it? Perhaps it is because by dfinition, one person can not stage a boycott:
to combine in abstaining from, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion: to boycott a store.
To combine, I can’t combine if I am by myself. So it is not as difficult as you are making it but a better command of the language might help you. A boycott is a concerted effort.
“So it is not as difficult as you are making it but a better command of the language might help you.”
Or maybe a better grasp of your own history would help you not look like a fool. Again, your statement less than a year ago:
But reading that I’m just not sure how I could think that today when you continue to say you will never buy GM that you were calling for a GM boycott. My mistake, clearly…
Bigd: “one person can not stage a boycott:”>>
DAR
False. Notice how Bigd is careful to snip and not include the second (and very common) definition of this word:
“to abstain from buying or using:”
If you do this, you are boycotting. That’s what the word means.
Bigd: “I do not buy Citgo Gas. Does this mean that I am boycotting them?”>>
DAR
Of course. That’s exactly what you are doing.
I was not deceptive. The second part of the definition pertained to groups, not individuals.
But to make it clear for you since you have trouble with it, here is the legal definition of a boycott [emphasis mine]:
A lawful concerted attempt by a group of people to express displeasure with, or obtain concessions from, a particular person or company by refusing to do business with them. An unlawful attempt that is prohibited by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq.), to adversely affect a company through threat, coercion, or intimidation of its employees, or to prevent others from doing business with said company. A practice utilized in labor disputes whereby an organized group of employees bands together and refrains from dealing with an employer, the legality of which is determined by applicable provisions of statutes governing labor-management relations.
Oh, I get it. HRW, the a group that finds Human Rights abuses in all kinds of things find sit horrible that Wal Mart will not let employees form a union and then calls things illegal. Never mind the illegal means unions use to organize and the illegal move toward card check, let’s focus on a legitimate company that has the right to run as it wishes.
If workers can use all assets to unionize then the company can use all assets to keep it from happening.
Wal Mart employs about 2 million people. They must be doing OK or they would not work there.
And keep in mind, those employees are associates and can buy stock in the company through payroll deduction. They can gain financially because of the company.
You choose not to use Wal Mart, your choice and good for you. It is not a boycott, it is a choice. I choose to not use GM or Chrysler because they extorted bailout money. MY CHOICE, not a boycott.
But feel free to buy one if you want.
“If workers can use all assets to unionize then the company can use all assets to keep it from happening.”
Absolutely wrong of course. Wal-mart cannot break the law to prevent Unions and they have been penalized for it several times.
And let’s face it. The unions want to sink their teeth into those 2 million workers so they can collect their money and then abuse them as they always do. Union leadership is the biggest problems with unions. While those morons get rich the workers get screwed.
Maybe if we are lucky they can all go visit Jimmy Hoffa…
But again, I rest my case. You fail to see the workers rights violations simply because you hate unions.
I will certainly not buy from any company that raped the US taxpayer. Boycott GM and put them out of business.
That was from a post some time ago. At that time I said to boycott GM. Since we were talking about this post and I clearly stated IN THIS POST that I was not calling for a boycott, only saying I would not buy one then I fail to see how you garnered FROM THIS POST that I was calling for a GM boycott.
I previously stated that people should boycott them and put them out of business but then figured that was not necessary. They would do it themselves.
So try as you might, your reference to boycotting is not from this post which is what you based your original claim upon.
Notice I never said that I have never called for a boycott.
You’ll argue with a sign post, won’t you? No, you’re not boycotting, you’re just refusing to buy a product from a company for political reasons. I see nothing about that even remotely related to boycotting. So silly of me…
But unions can break the law to get unionized?
Has Wal Mart been fined or sanctioned for this law breaking or do we have assertions from some wacko group? If they have been sanctioned in some way then they broke the law, otherwise it is only an assertion.
Adam, Wal Mart and any other company has the right not to be unionized and to work to keep that from happening. If workers do not like that they can get a job witha union store.
Oh wait, they are losing workers because unions have destroyed them.
I have a problem with this idea that if 50.1% of a workforce votes to unionize then all employees are required to join the union and pay dues. Shouldn’t joining the union be up to the individual?
Oh wait again, this is that community collectivism that liberals love. Unions allowed us to take poorly educated products of the American school system and band them together so they could demand lots of money for doing simple labor.
Not all union employees are like this but many could not make a decent living without extorting from companies. They force companies to pay them more than they are worth.
I refuse to join a union. I was turned off by the SEIU guys when they came tot he hospital I worked at. They stood outside the boundaries of the hospital and handed out papers to us that depicted management in a bad light. There were disgusting pictures that defamed the character of some good people.
I told the union guy to get out of my face or he was going to need the ER. They tried to play thuggish with the veiled threats about signing papers but they backed down when stood up to. We booted them before they could get their teeth in our throats, Thank God
HRW sources it’s claims if you care to find out more or you can just ignore it still and pretend imaginary situations of unions breaking the law makes it OK for wal-mart to break the law for real.