BUsh and Big Business

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 7:35:08 AM RV4 wrote:

What is ULLICO you ask?

----------------
[/blockquote]

Funny I dont remember any one asking?

It seems that Dave wants to turn this into his new RTW soapbox since no one goes to his forum any more.

 

[BeenThere]

One could argue, right or wrong, that Bush vowed to have no airline strikes to protect the economy. You know, the way Clinton intervened in the AA pilots' 5 minute strike. Let's go back to President Harry Truman who threatened to draft all the railway workers if they continued with the strike that would have crippled the nation.

 

[BeenThere]

One could argue, right or wrong, that Bush vowed to have no airline strikes to protect the economy. You know, the way Clinton intervened in the AA pilots' 5 minute strike. Let's go back to President Harry Truman who threatened to draft all the railway workers if they continued with the strike that would have crippled the nation.

 

[grndproxwarning]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 821 AM BeenThere wrote:

Next thing you'll be saying is that since Carty is so tight with Bush, he had the Gov't deny UAL the loans.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Can you say (AMR)
Cany you say(Texas)

 

[grndproxwarning]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 821 AM BeenThere wrote:

Next thing you'll be saying is that since Carty is so tight with Bush, he had the Gov't deny UAL the loans.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Can you say (AMR)
Cany you say(Texas)

 

[Buck]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 7:56:44 AM Rational Thought wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 754 AM Bob Owens wrote:

What does this prove? He rejects one mistress at the behest of all the others. This is a struggle BETWEEN big businesses and he has chosen sides.The employees are "collateral" damage, a bonus.

----------------
[/blockquote]

A biased comment. The point is that the US government should let the market decide who has a successfull business model. And it has. It has decided not to provide UAL with any money because investors (bond holders) don't think they will get it back. Nor do equityholders have any faith in the profitability of the business. The issue is that the government should not pick winners and losers.
----------------
[/blockquote]

I wonder how many shareholders (and those at United) sold there shares when Bush was elected?

 

[Buck]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 7:56:44 AM Rational Thought wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 754 AM Bob Owens wrote:

What does this prove? He rejects one mistress at the behest of all the others. This is a struggle BETWEEN big businesses and he has chosen sides.The employees are "collateral" damage, a bonus.

----------------
[/blockquote]

A biased comment. The point is that the US government should let the market decide who has a successfull business model. And it has. It has decided not to provide UAL with any money because investors (bond holders) don't think they will get it back. Nor do equityholders have any faith in the profitability of the business. The issue is that the government should not pick winners and losers.
----------------
[/blockquote]

I wonder how many shareholders (and those at United) sold there shares when Bush was elected?

 

[Buck]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 8:03:06 AM Bob Owens wrote:

Is the "market rate" for a mechanic the same in Tulsa the same as the "market rate" for a mechanic in NYC? Most economic experts would say "No". Its funny how all these Conservatives in Tulsa will bash baggage handlers and the "Socialistic" tendancies of many union contracts when they are the biggest benificiaries of the system. The fact is if "market rates" were indeed used instead of broad "socialistic" contracts where the rate of pay is the same despite the locality Baggage handlers in NYC would probably get a raise and mechanics in Tulsa would probably get about what a baggage handler is earning now.
I beleive the Topic of this thread is Bush and Big Business. The fact is while Bush may have taken a stand that appears to hurt a Big Business, he has done so against Employee owned UAL at the behest of other Big Businesses. This is corporate cannibalism not a sign that Bush's loyalties have changed.
----------------
[/blockquote]
You know the cost of living is lower in Tulsa. So you are ready to divide the compensation across the lines of cost of living? The company also chose to use the economic base of Tulsa to establish it's maintenance base, a move from NYC. If American were still in NYC would they have to compensate their workforce at a lower rate because of the cost of living? BTW I have supported the proposed issue of you in NYC being compensated for the economic difference for a long time. I guess I could say if you do not like it move. But lets go ahead with your attempt to lower the wage and benifit packages of your fellow union members.

Whose idea was the ESOP? Why does the IAM want to sit on the airline board? I see it as more of employee cannibalism by their union representitive that provided for the ESOP in the first place.

 

[Buck]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 8:03:06 AM Bob Owens wrote:

Is the "market rate" for a mechanic the same in Tulsa the same as the "market rate" for a mechanic in NYC? Most economic experts would say "No". Its funny how all these Conservatives in Tulsa will bash baggage handlers and the "Socialistic" tendancies of many union contracts when they are the biggest benificiaries of the system. The fact is if "market rates" were indeed used instead of broad "socialistic" contracts where the rate of pay is the same despite the locality Baggage handlers in NYC would probably get a raise and mechanics in Tulsa would probably get about what a baggage handler is earning now.
I beleive the Topic of this thread is Bush and Big Business. The fact is while Bush may have taken a stand that appears to hurt a Big Business, he has done so against Employee owned UAL at the behest of other Big Businesses. This is corporate cannibalism not a sign that Bush's loyalties have changed.
----------------
[/blockquote]
You know the cost of living is lower in Tulsa. So you are ready to divide the compensation across the lines of cost of living? The company also chose to use the economic base of Tulsa to establish it's maintenance base, a move from NYC. If American were still in NYC would they have to compensate their workforce at a lower rate because of the cost of living? BTW I have supported the proposed issue of you in NYC being compensated for the economic difference for a long time. I guess I could say if you do not like it move. But lets go ahead with your attempt to lower the wage and benifit packages of your fellow union members.

Whose idea was the ESOP? Why does the IAM want to sit on the airline board? I see it as more of employee cannibalism by their union representitive that provided for the ESOP in the first place.

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 9:32:09 AM BeenThere wrote:

One could argue, right or wrong, that Bush vowed to have no airline strikes to protect the economy. You know, the way Clinton intervened in the AA pilots' 5 minute strike. Let's go back to President Harry Truman who threatened to draft all the railway workers if they continued with the strike that would have crippled the nation.
----------------
[/blockquote]

One could argue that the Earth is flat, but that would not be supported by the facts.

Is that you Gary?

Once again, right or wrong, Clinton followed the long established policy of adhereing to what every President with the exception of GB-1 did.

While not making excuses for Harry we have to remember that the Railroad was still the preferred method of transportation at the time, once again was he following the recommendation of the NMB? More people travelled by rail than by air at the time. So if all the Rails Struck that would be about the same as all the Airlines striking today. Did Harry come out and tell workers that none of them would ever be allowed to strike during his administration like Dubya? While you might argue that Dubya is also following the normal practice of adhereing to the NMBs recommendations he went way beyond that by declaring "No strikes period".Clearly his position favored management.I'm sure that his position would change should a strike be favorable to his plans of weakening unionism. Grandpa Walker would be proud.

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 9:32:09 AM BeenThere wrote:

One could argue, right or wrong, that Bush vowed to have no airline strikes to protect the economy. You know, the way Clinton intervened in the AA pilots' 5 minute strike. Let's go back to President Harry Truman who threatened to draft all the railway workers if they continued with the strike that would have crippled the nation.
----------------
[/blockquote]

One could argue that the Earth is flat, but that would not be supported by the facts.

Is that you Gary?

Once again, right or wrong, Clinton followed the long established policy of adhereing to what every President with the exception of GB-1 did.

While not making excuses for Harry we have to remember that the Railroad was still the preferred method of transportation at the time, once again was he following the recommendation of the NMB? More people travelled by rail than by air at the time. So if all the Rails Struck that would be about the same as all the Airlines striking today. Did Harry come out and tell workers that none of them would ever be allowed to strike during his administration like Dubya? While you might argue that Dubya is also following the normal practice of adhereing to the NMBs recommendations he went way beyond that by declaring "No strikes period".Clearly his position favored management.I'm sure that his position would change should a strike be favorable to his plans of weakening unionism. Grandpa Walker would be proud.

 

[Buck]

"What does this prove? He rejects one mistress at the behest of all the others. This is a struggle BETWEEN big businesses and he has chosen sides.The employees are "collateral" damage, a bonus."

At least the Bush mistress has some economic value. Clinton chose his in another form.

The struggle you speak of is exactly my point. The working class has a representitive that it has "hired" to oversee it's affairs concerning collective bargaining and other worker issues. That representitive that you so dearly protect is the AFL-CIO and it's affiliates. They are on site to help out the non-union Enron employees only togain a larger dues base. However where are they to represent those that hae hired them at United? The people of this nation voted to turn the country over to the Republicans "Big Business". The unions are going to have to become more visable to fight this threat. Maybe a shift from left politics and focusing on direct representation of the worker would benefit the need for more union soldiers for organizing.Increasing the size of the membership is the only way to gain the clout to make gains for the union worker.

So are the employees (the union work force) the "collateral damage" of fraudulent insurance scams by the leadership of the AFL-CIO?

"FA Mikey, maybe you should tell BUCK what union you belong to.
Buck;
Is the APFA an industrial Union? How about the APA or in Uniteds case the AFA or ALPA? (Both AFL-CIO members)"

It does not really matter what union FA Mikey belongs to. If the APFA, why do they not affiliate themselves with the AFL-CIO? If AFA then where is the AFL-CIO? The same with the pilots. You pay for representation and get silence.

 

[Buck]

"What does this prove? He rejects one mistress at the behest of all the others. This is a struggle BETWEEN big businesses and he has chosen sides.The employees are "collateral" damage, a bonus."

At least the Bush mistress has some economic value. Clinton chose his in another form.

The struggle you speak of is exactly my point. The working class has a representitive that it has "hired" to oversee it's affairs concerning collective bargaining and other worker issues. That representitive that you so dearly protect is the AFL-CIO and it's affiliates. They are on site to help out the non-union Enron employees only togain a larger dues base. However where are they to represent those that hae hired them at United? The people of this nation voted to turn the country over to the Republicans "Big Business". The unions are going to have to become more visable to fight this threat. Maybe a shift from left politics and focusing on direct representation of the worker would benefit the need for more union soldiers for organizing.Increasing the size of the membership is the only way to gain the clout to make gains for the union worker.

So are the employees (the union work force) the "collateral damage" of fraudulent insurance scams by the leadership of the AFL-CIO?

"FA Mikey, maybe you should tell BUCK what union you belong to.
Buck;
Is the APFA an industrial Union? How about the APA or in Uniteds case the AFA or ALPA? (Both AFL-CIO members)"

It does not really matter what union FA Mikey belongs to. If the APFA, why do they not affiliate themselves with the AFL-CIO? If AFA then where is the AFL-CIO? The same with the pilots. You pay for representation and get silence.

 

[BeenThere]

Although, by no means whatsoever, do I agree with any measures that favor management over labor. And by no means do I agree with everything Bush does, but one would have to concur that since the airlines are such a vital industry to this economy, Bush's decions would warrant such actions. I suppose you would argue that a democrat would let the airlines strike, causing major disruptions throughout the nation. And then when the dust settles, the airlines, out of spite, retaliate with job reductions forcing employees out of work. Face it, the day of any group succesfully staging a strike for self help is long gone. Staying on the job, doing everything according to the letter, might the preferred method. Maybe, had the Air Traffic Contollers stayed on the job, keeping planes grounded for hours upon days and weeks, the pro-management anti-labor environment we now find ourselves in might be totally different, possible non-existent.

I believe Bush made the "no strike" pledge fot the airline industry. Did not the west coast dockworkers go on strike before a PEB was ordered?
Suppose the gov't granted UAL the loan, and thier situation deteriorated even further and the economy faltered. Now UAL could not repay their loans and the government got stiffed. Would you then say typical Bush government squandering taxpayers' money again? It's about time that someone addressed UAL and hopefully other management teams' questionable tactics in running their firms.

 

[BeenThere]

Although, by no means whatsoever, do I agree with any measures that favor management over labor. And by no means do I agree with everything Bush does, but one would have to concur that since the airlines are such a vital industry to this economy, Bush's decions would warrant such actions. I suppose you would argue that a democrat would let the airlines strike, causing major disruptions throughout the nation. And then when the dust settles, the airlines, out of spite, retaliate with job reductions forcing employees out of work. Face it, the day of any group succesfully staging a strike for self help is long gone. Staying on the job, doing everything according to the letter, might the preferred method. Maybe, had the Air Traffic Contollers stayed on the job, keeping planes grounded for hours upon days and weeks, the pro-management anti-labor environment we now find ourselves in might be totally different, possible non-existent.

I believe Bush made the "no strike" pledge fot the airline industry. Did not the west coast dockworkers go on strike before a PEB was ordered?
Suppose the gov't granted UAL the loan, and thier situation deteriorated even further and the economy faltered. Now UAL could not repay their loans and the government got stiffed. Would you then say typical Bush government squandering taxpayers' money again? It's about time that someone addressed UAL and hopefully other management teams' questionable tactics in running their firms.