What About Bush's Promise?

[luvn737s]

Didn't President Bush say during his first term that there would be no airline strikes on his watch?

 

[Bob Owens]

Didn't President Bush say during his first term that there would be no airline strikes on his watch?

[post="290347"][/post]​

Yes but that was only if workers were in a position to make gains. Now that they are trying to bust the union he is willing to let strikes happen.

To all those who voted for Bush "We told you so".

 

[Hopeful]

Yes but that was only if workers were in a position to make gains. Now that they are trying to bust the union he is willing to let strikes happen.

To all those who voted for Bush "We told you so".

[post="290350"][/post]​

President Clinton was a really big labor supporter when he allowed the AA pilots to strike for a whole 5 minutes before stepping in!

Wake up, BOB! THEY ARE ALL FULL OF S***!

 

[Bob Owens]

President Clinton was a really big labor supporter when he allowed the AA pilots to strike for a whole 5 minutes before stepping in!

Wake up, BOB! THEY ARE ALL FULL OF S***!

[post="290355"][/post]​

Clinton was a RTW Democrat. I'd rather have a New York Republican than a RTW Dixie Democrat , but a RTW Dixie Republican is about as bad as it gets for working people. And this Bush is the worst ever!

 

[Hopeful]

Clinton was a RTW Democrat. I'd rather have a New York Republican than a RTW Dixie Democrat , but a RTW Dixie Republican is about as bad as it gets for working people. And this Bush is the worst ever!

[post="290363"][/post]​

Maybe so, Bob!
But the difference is we all know how the Republicans feel about labor and their pro corporation stance. No question about that!
They make no secrets about it whereas the Democrats support whatever the flavor of the day is and if you look at the labor sensitive and worker right issues that some democrats voted pro company for, I repeat, they are all full of s***!

 

[luv2fly]

One thing to consider with the AA strike. The APA was not affiliated with the AFL-CIO. It was an independent association. The ramifications of intervening with an AFL-CIO strike would have been much greater for a pro labor party. The APA membership was inconsequential, politically speaking.

 

[Bob Owens]

One thing to consider with the AA strike. The APA was not affiliated with the AFL-CIO. It was an independent association. The ramifications of intervening with an AFL-CIO strike would have been much greater for a pro labor party. The APA membership was inconsequential, politically speaking.

[post="290379"][/post]​

Exactly. The AFL-CIO (because of the TWU) was reportedly pressuring Clinton to intervene in the APA negotiations. The TWU stood lockstep, much to the chagrin of the membership, with the company.

So from where Clinton was sittting he was doing what "Labor" wanted. The APA, a group that is likely to be more Republican than Democrat, was not one that Clinton would see as an ally. A short time later he did nothing when the AFL-CIO affiliated ALPA represented pilots at NWA went on strike.

 

[FA Mikey]

Bill Clinton let the FA's strike. He saved the pilots from a disaster. There was little support on the line.

 

[Buck]

Bill Clinton let the FA's strike. He saved the pilots from a disaster. There was little support on the line.

[post="290413"][/post]​

I fail to understand why union men and women on these boards blame one political party or the other. The Republicans, the party of the business and the Democrats the party of the working man. At Northwest, you have unions against unions as evident in those not supporting the striking mechanics. In the industry you have the AFL-CIO destroying itself from within and individual union members are blaming elected officials in a representive republic. The fact remains that there has been no political support for labor for many years. This evident in the break up of the AFL-CIO. If you want someone to blame blame yourselves. And yes I am as gulity as the rest of you.

 

[bwipilot]

Let's see. AMFA wanted to go on strike. NW wanted AMFA wanted to strike. President Bush let them have their wish since NW was prepared to continue operating--if somewhat delayed. Liberals complaining the President let it happen--priceless 🙂!

 

[luv2fly]

Let's see. AMFA wanted to go on strike. NW wanted AMFA wanted to strike. President Bush let them have their wish since NW was prepared to continue operating--if somewhat delayed. Liberals complaining the President let it happen--priceless 🙂!

[post="290457"][/post]​

The President letting it happen had nothing to do with the AMFA wanting to strike, and everything to do with NW wanting the strike.
It is perplexing to me that both sides asked to be released. The AMFA surely could have extended negotiations by petitioning the NMB to continue negotiations. I would be curious to know the political makeup of the NMB.

 

[eolesen]

The AMFA surely could have extended negotiations by petitioning the NMB to continue negotiations.

[post="290461"][/post]​

The AMFA could have also extended negotiations by continuing to negotiate past the strike deadline, instead of walking off the job. It wouldn't be a guarantee against a lockout, but at least they wouldn't be the ones taking the first swing.

I would be curious to know the political makeup of the NMB.

[post="290461"][/post]​

When you have two parties who reach the point of being unwilling to negotiate further, the political makeup of the NMB doesn't really matter.

 

[Buck]

The AMFA could have also extended negotiations by continuing to negotiate past the strike deadline, instead of walking off the job. It wouldn't be a guarantee against a lockout, but at least they wouldn't be the ones taking the first swing.
When you have two parties who reach the point of being unwilling to negotiate further, the political makeup of the NMB doesn't really matter.

[post="290467"][/post]​

And when you have the AFL-CIO destroying itself from within it becomes easy for the corporations to "railroad" them.

 

[luv2fly]

The AMFA could have also extended negotiations by continuing to negotiate past the strike deadline, instead of walking off the job.

It is extremely unlikely that NW would have continued to negotiate.  With scabs in place, why would they?  That simply doesn't make any sense.

When you have two parties who reach the point of being unwilling to negotiate further, the political makeup of the NMB doesn't really matter.
It most certainly does.  Without the release you are forced to stay at the table.  A pro labor board could have drug out negoatiations for quite a while, if the AMFA had wanted to continue.  Status quo would have remained in effect.  By requesting the release, the AMFA and NW management started the 30 day clock that management so desperately wanted.

[post="290467"][/post]​

 

[SegmentKing]

I think that AMFA would complain even LOUDER if Bush ordered them back to work.

Damned if you do, Damned if you don't... the unions will still blame Republicans for this, regardless!