Getting back to the point---the corporations are entitled to the benefits of their bargains. As are is labor. When Ford enters into a contractural agreement that is a binding legal document. Ford is legally obligated, as well as morally and ethically obligated, to live up to that agreement. It is not socialism to hold their feet to the fire. It is not socialism to expect them to reap adverse consequences when they attempt to back away from their obligations.

It is amusing to watch the neo cons squirm and complain about socialism when the working man demands the boss to do what he said he would do. Oh yes, then the boss complains about unfair demands and that he is placed at a competitive disadvantage. This is a cute way of the neo con saying the corporations could make more money if the wages of the American worker were lowered to what they pay in India or China. In the meanwhile, the Japanese want to build their cars in the US because the labor is both cheaper and more productive than at home.

American management has to realize a contract is a binding agreement, not a settlement of convenience. It is not socialism to require that--or, if it is then you are branding our legal system as being socialistic. Is that what you are doing?

Publius