Are Republicans Big Business And Dems For Unions?

[atabuy]

Looking at the way the two parties divide on this issue makes me wonder if Ual ever had a chance as an ESOP company and what chance is there of surviving the depression we are in right now.

I know we are told that the economy is getting better, but, since 911 airlines cut seat capacity drastically and lowered fares to unheard of prices, and we still cannot fill the aircraft.

Now maybe some believe what Bush is saying. And maybe others believe that help is on the way, but I think we are going to be lost until we get high tech and really let people decide their own fate through voting the issues that the politicians only talk about.

Bush should not be campaigning on our dime. He had 4 years to show us why he should remain in office. I mean that about whoever is in the office at the time.

Oops, I am getting off the subject.
My question is to all parties out there; was there and could there be a conspiracy within the Republican party which set up road blocks, to make sure union companies don't make it?
Not paranoid, just curious as to what kind of responses I might recieve.

By the way. I am registered as an independent, although, I will vote for Kerry.
My motto is anyone but Bush.

 

[KCFlyer]

Looking at the way the two parties divide on this issue makes me wonder if Ual ever had a chance as an ESOP company and what chance is there of surviving the depression we are in right now.

I know we are told that the economy is getting better, but, since 911 airlines cut seat capacity drastically and lowered fares to unheard of prices, and we still cannot fill the aircraft.

Now maybe some believe what Bush is saying. And maybe others believe that help is on the way, but I think we are going to be lost until we get high tech and really let people decide their own fate through voting the issues that the politicians only talk about.

Bush should not be campaigning on our dime. He had 4 years to show us why he should remain in office. I mean that about whoever is in the office at the time.

Oops, I am getting off the subject.
My question is to all parties out there; was there and could there be a conspiracy within the Republican party which set up road blocks, to make sure union companies don't make it?
Not paranoid, just curious as to what kind of responses I might recieve.

By the way. I am registered as an independent, although, I will vote for Kerry.
My motto is anyone but Bush.

[post="180555"][/post]​

The sad truth is that both Parties are driven by corporate coffers. If unions give either candidate more money than airline X...then the unions will have their ear. If Airline X gives more money, then they've got the elected officials attention. It's a shame - America was supposed to be for the people. But it seems the only people most elected officials work for are named Washington, Lincoln, Hamilton, Jackson, Grant and Franklin.

 

[diogenes]

I think it very believable this Administration would want to break up the employee/union ownership at UA, and bust unions in general.

 

[NWA/AMT]

I found it interesting that, when he used the Railway Labor Act to interfere in the NWA Mechanics contract negotiations in 2001, Bush made it clear that his belief in the concept of 'free markets' did not extend to Labor.

As long as corporate campaign contributions outpace those of labor by over five to one, there is not really anyone who is going to be looking out for the American worker. However, I was amazed this week when Congress, including many Republicans, managed to block the Bush administration changes to the overtime rules, so there is room for hope.

 

[Oneflyer]

Typical union sob story, its everyone's fault but your own.

 

[NWA/AMT]

Typical union sob story, its everyone's fault but your own.

[post="181117"][/post]​

Typical management sob story, blaming the workers and providing no answers.

Perhaps you could provide details of the process by which a union may avail itself of the benefits of 'free market forces' while negotiating under the Railway Labor Act?

Thought not.

 

[diogenes]

Moreover, neo-Republicans want judges that are strict constructionists of the Consititution.

Does not the First Amendment guarantee the citizen the right of peaceful assembly?

Is not a union a peaceful assembly?

It would seem a 'strict constructionist' would strike ANY law interfering with such assembly down.

Can you say hypocrisy?

 

[goingboeing]

If you do not recognize that BOTH parties are out for political power and control of money then you are living in fantasy land.
They do not give a rats about the average individual and their actions prove it.

Look at NAFTA for example:This should have been viewed as anti-labor but Bill Clinton[Democrat] pushed it on the fast track and signed the bill into law.
In the mid 1990's when the AA pilots tried to exercise self help[called a strike] in a dispute with AA management Bill Clinton ordered them back to work after 8 minutes with an Executive Order.I do not call this labor friendly.

The truth is that both parties love NAFTA because they like the votes and the cheap labor comung from Mexico.

Most Republicans are not the friend of organized labor either.

 

[NWA/AMT]

If you do not recognize that BOTH parties are out for political power and control of money then you are living in fantasy land.
They do not give a rats about the average individual and their actions prove it.

[post="181315"][/post]​

Yeah, that's pretty much what I said:

As long as corporate campaign contributions outpace those of labor by over five to one, there is not really anyone who is going to be looking out for the American worker.

[post="180740"][/post]​

Look at NAFTA for example:This should have been viewed as anti-labor but Bill Clinton[Democrat] pushed it on the fast track and signed the bill into law.

I realize that it's an election year and blaming Clinton is what we do then, but you need to keep in mind that NAFTA was begun under Reagan and negotiated under Bush 41, although it received wide bipartisan support. In other words Big Business wanted it.

In the mid 1990's when the AA pilots tried to exercise self help[called a strike] in a dispute with AA management Bill Clinton ordered them back to work after 8 minutes with an Executive Order.I do not call this labor friendly.

I call it far more labor friendly than Bush. In the AA pilots strike, Clinton let it go until the point that the pilots were actually going out the door before interfering so as not to affect the collective bargaining process. He also declined to interfere in the NWA pilots strike in Sept. 1998 when they were out for two weeks.

In the case of the NWA and UAL mechanics agreements, Bush made it very clear he planned to interfere long before it had even reached the 30 day cooling off period, a clear message to management that they need not negotiate in good faith until that point. No need to address the free market issues of labor costs if the government is going to regulate them for you. Big difference.

The difference in the handling of the NWA pilots in 1998 and the NWA mechanics in 2001 is particularly interesting when you remember that Elaine Chao, the Bush administration Secretary of Labor, was a member of the NWA board of directors during the pilots strike and running the DOL when the mechanics weren't allowed to strike. NWA campaign donation money well spent, I guess.

 

[goingboeing]

Taking away the AA pilot's right to self help DID INTERFERE in the colllective barganing process! The very reason that unions call strikes is to put pressure on a Company to bargain in good faith.
Striking is part of the collective bargaining process and Bill Clinton did take it away from the AA pilots in the mid 1990's.
Besides.If the unions had any b_ _ _ s they would have challenged George w Bush and Elaine Chao by striking and then taking it to the Supreme Court.

 

[KCFlyer]

Besides.If the unions had any b_ _ _ s they would have challenged George w Bush and Elaine Chao by striking and then taking it to the Supreme Court.

[post="181844"][/post]​

History shows that the sitting justices on the Supreme Court are very "pro-Bush".

 

[NWA/AMT]

Taking away the AA pilot's right to self help DID INTERFERE in the colllective barganing process! The very reason that unions call strikes is to put pressure on a Company to bargain in good faith.

[post="181844"][/post]​

The AA pilots got most of the economic effect of a strike, reduced ticket sales, etc., during the thirty days 'cooling off' period leading up to their abbreviated strike. The mechanics at NWA and UAL were denied even that as Bush clearly signalled his intent to interfere PRIOR TO the 'cooling off' period even beginning.

Striking is part of the collective bargaining process and Bill Clinton did take it away from the AA pilots in the mid 1990's.

In that he ordered them back once they had gone out on strike? Sounds a lot more labor friendly than clearly showing the airlines, long before discussion of a strike even begins, that there is no urgency to settle because they can count on the PEB to prevent a strike or any financial disruption.

Besides.If the unions had any b_ _ _ s they would have challenged George w Bush and Elaine Chao by striking and then taking it to the Supreme Court.

The Railway Labor Act is the law, what good would it do to take to the Supreme Court the fact that some presidents use it to benefit big business and some let the free market determine the cost of labor? Despite the fact that historically both Republicans and Democrats decline to use the PEB, including Bush 41 during the EAL strike, he is legally allowed to use it. My argument is that, considering his total belief in the effectiveness of 'free market' economics, there is no way he ethically SHOULD use it. To do so clearly demonstrates his double standard regarding 'free market' economics.

Challenge the President and the Secretary of Labor? That's not b___s, that's suicide.

The only outcome of the action you propose would be to destroy the unions legally and financially, something the AA pilots ALSO managed to almost do. No thanks.

 

[delldude]

The only outcome of the action you propose would be to destroy the unions legally and financially, something the AA pilots ALSO managed to almost do. No thanks.

no need for outside help here friend.....the workers of USA are taking care of this on their own through apathy..go read up on our union history,pay attention to the lines about those who don't learn from the past will repeat it."
what we got now a measly 12% unionized ???and going down?

 

[NWA/AMT]

no need for outside help here friend.....the workers of USA are taking care of this on their own through apathy..

[post="181983"][/post]​

Even if you choose to do nothing, it's still a choice. Maybe realizing that concessions have NEVER saved an airline had something to do with it.

go read up on our union history,pay attention to the lines about those who don't learn from the past will repeat it."

I'd say that advice goes for both sides. Unions don't spring up on their own, they're created by bad management. As for history repeating itself, that phrase has all sorts of applications; I just heard someone use it yesterday when comparing Bush's war in Iraq to Vietnam.

what we got now a measly 12% unionized ???and going down?

Roughly where it was in the 1920's, last time the Republicans declared war on unions. Talk about needing to learn from history...

 

[delldude]

Talk about needing to learn from history...

true to democratic form you attack attack attack...wake up..its apathy toward union rewards that is killing YOU and I.
I SEE YOU ARE AN ELITIST.