Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30
Thanks Tree31Thanks

Thread: Forbes names Michelin ‘America’s Best Employer’

  1. #11
    Veteran Member TNVolunteer73's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    32,081
    Thanks
    8211

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    Fancy French company who only locates themselves in right to work states without unions. Hmmm.
    Thatis why they are the Best Employer.. they take care of their employees, and they employees don't have to be extorted by union thugs.

    https://soundcloud.com/philvalentine...nion-thug-stan

  2. #12
    Member
    Joined
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,163
    Thanks
    2060

    From
    Switzerland
    Quote Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
    No it would not.. if they deal with the devil they deserve to be burned.

    But I bet Iran isn't Bib's only clients.
    In fact pulling out of the treaty is a breach of contract. Nothing in the commitments accepted by the USA authorizes to pull out fron it this way. There are provisions in the treaty to settle problems and they have to be respected. So it seems awkward to punish companies from other countries which keep up to their words. It is a very bad example and the USA will not be considered as being trustworthy by most of the rest of the world. If you want to be a superpower you need to maintain your credibility and not to destroy it.
    Thanks from labrea

  3. #13
    Member
    Joined
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,163
    Thanks
    2060

    From
    Switzerland
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    Fancy French company who only locates themselves in right to work states without unions. Hmmm.
    You know unions are not the main fear of French companies, with what they have at home, nothing coming from an American union can threaten them… And Michelin either in France or in other countries focus alway on the well being of its workers. It is part oft he paternalistic culture of the company whose owners are very Catholic. Simply Michelin is in away old fashioned because its shareholders have a vision on the long run and are not interested in quick profits. It is very often the case in family owned companies in Europe which are ready to invest and wait long for the return, which makes them develop over générations.
    Thanks from labrea

  4. #14
    Flibbertigibbet Wonderer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2014
    Posts
    24,476
    Thanks
    16350

    From
    Missouri
    Quote Originally Posted by galatin View Post
    In fact pulling out of the treaty is a breach of contract. Nothing in the commitments accepted by the USA authorizes to pull out fron it this way. There are provisions in the treaty to settle problems and they have to be respected. So it seems awkward to punish companies from other countries which keep up to their words. It is a very bad example and the USA will not be considered as being trustworthy by most of the rest of the world. If you want to be a superpower you need to maintain your credibility and not to destroy it.
    Except that it wasn't a treaty.

  5. #15
    Junior Member Sprockey's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    1,885
    Thanks
    2332

    From
    Boston
    My Company is on the list
    Thanks from Wonderer

  6. #16
    Member
    Joined
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,163
    Thanks
    2060

    From
    Switzerland
    Quote Originally Posted by Wonderer View Post
    Except that it wasn't a treaty.
    It was binding for the USA……. whatever you may consider what a treaty is…..

  7. #17
    Flibbertigibbet Wonderer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2014
    Posts
    24,476
    Thanks
    16350

    From
    Missouri
    Quote Originally Posted by galatin View Post
    It was binding for the USA……. whatever you may consider what a treaty is…..
    It's not about what I consider a treaty to be. "Treaty" has a specific legal definition in the US - and requires the advice and consent of 2/3 of the Senate in order to be considered as such.

    This wasn't a treaty by U.S. standards, but rather an executive agreement -- and there are arguments as to whether/to what extent it is "binding." Here's one:

    The next president will have the legal right under both domestic and international law to scrap the JCPOA and reimpose U.S. nuclear sanctions on Iran. Such an action would be inconsistent with political commitments made by the Obama administration, but it would not constitute a violation of international law, because the JCPOA is not legally binding. Nor would it constitute a violation of the new UNSCR. https://www.cfr.org/interview/how-binding-iran-deal
    Here's a different one:

    Article 25 of the UN Charter makes UN Security Council Resolutions binding on all member states, including the United States.

    UN Security Council Resolution 2231 “Calls upon” member states to support and implement the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (ie, the Iran nuclear deal).

    The phrase “Calls upon” is a directive on all member states, including the United States.

    The Iran nuclear deal is therefore binding on the United States and all UN member nations in accordance with its terms.

    It’s a question of law. And it’s a question of honor.

    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...-Still-Binding

  8. #18
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    33,742
    Thanks
    26572

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
    I don't know. Are Terrorist that killed people in Paris, Denmark and London on the Iranian Dime Angels in your manifesto?

    I dead women and children in Europe your idea of heaven.. that is on your conscience.
    Have we punished Saudi Arabia for 911.
    Thanks from Minotaur

  9. #19
    Member
    Joined
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,163
    Thanks
    2060

    From
    Switzerland
    Quote Originally Posted by Wonderer View Post
    It's not about what I consider a treaty to be. "Treaty" has a specific legal definition in the US - and requires the advice and consent of 2/3 of the Senate in order to be considered as such.

    This wasn't a treaty by U.S. standards, but rather an executive agreement -- and there are arguments as to whether/to what extent it is "binding." Here's one:



    Here's a different one:
    Under international law when the government of a country commits itself toward other countries and make an agreement it is bindingespecially if it is a multilateral one…… You cannot oppose to other countries the majorities which are necessary internally. And as far as I know to pull out from the treaty was a decision of the President Trump and not of the Senate ! International agreements prevail over domestic legislations. Very often most nations when they make treaties reserve the approval of their parliaments, but if not treaties and agreements are binding. In the case of the nuclear treaty with Iran and the other signatories, there is an entity which function is to settle problems with precise provisions how to do it.

  10. #20
    Flibbertigibbet Wonderer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2014
    Posts
    24,476
    Thanks
    16350

    From
    Missouri
    Quote Originally Posted by galatin View Post
    Under international law when the government of a country commits itself toward other countries and make an agreement it is bindingespecially if it is a multilateral one…… You cannot oppose to other countries the majorities which are necessary internally. And as far as I know to pull out from the treaty was a decision of the President Trump and not of the Senate ! International agreements prevail over domestic legislations. Very often most nations when they make treaties reserve the approval of their parliaments, but if not treaties and agreements are binding. In the case of the nuclear treaty with Iran and the other signatories, there is an entity which function is to settle problems with precise provisions how to do it.
    The agreement was never approved by the Senate in the first place. That is why it isn't a "treaty" under the U.S. Constitution. (All of which was discussed at great length at the time the agreement was made, as well.) Yes, there are arguments on either side of the issue as to whether it is legally binding (as I noted above.) And there are even more arguments on either side of whether it is politically and morally binding and what the repercussions of the U.S. leaving the agreement are/should be.
    Thanks from bajisima

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 7th December 2017, 03:14 PM
  2. Replies: 47
    Last Post: 19th September 2016, 11:20 AM
  3. Forbes Smackdown
    By MaryAnne in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 30th January 2015, 04:30 PM
  4. Forbes: Obamacare is working
    By Davocrat in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 686
    Last Post: 15th September 2011, 03:45 PM
  5. The Forbes 400
    By Blueneck in forum Economics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 14th December 2010, 08:31 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed