BUsh and Big Business

[Buck]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 834 AM Bob Owens wrote:

[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.

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

ULLICO is an insurance scam for profit. Those profiting at the behest of the union members are it's own leadership of the AFL-CIO. Come on Bob you know that RTW has nothing to do with representation under the RLA. Nice try.

 

[Buck]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 834 AM Bob Owens wrote:

[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.

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

ULLICO is an insurance scam for profit. Those profiting at the behest of the union members are it's own leadership of the AFL-CIO. Come on Bob you know that RTW has nothing to do with representation under the RLA. Nice try.

 

[RV4]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 9:48:45 AM Bob Owens wrote:

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

[/blockquote]

That is false!

When William Zipper Clinton prohibited the APA from conducting a strike, it was the first time in the airline industry since the early 70's.

That was hardly following "long established" policy.

Bob,

When making reference earlier to NYC market rate compared to Tulsa, were you giving us a clue into future negotiations with AA?

Is it the NYC TWU Officer's position that when PAYCUTS arrive, the Tulsa employees should take a bigger cut because of market rates? Or should Tulsa absorb all of the cut and let you maintain your pay?

 

[RV4]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 9:48:45 AM Bob Owens wrote:

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

[/blockquote]

That is false!

When William Zipper Clinton prohibited the APA from conducting a strike, it was the first time in the airline industry since the early 70's.

That was hardly following "long established" policy.

Bob,

When making reference earlier to NYC market rate compared to Tulsa, were you giving us a clue into future negotiations with AA?

Is it the NYC TWU Officer's position that when PAYCUTS arrive, the Tulsa employees should take a bigger cut because of market rates? Or should Tulsa absorb all of the cut and let you maintain your pay?

 

[Buck]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 809 AM Bob Owens wrote:

Bush the second came right out and said that he will not allow any airline strikes during his administration. He blocked two strikes of mechanics already.
----------------
[/blockquote]

IT is interesting that by forcing the mechanics in the PEB, that mechanic wages were increased dramtically. Bob is your allegence to the AFL-CIO and the Democrats so important that you would have your fellow mechanics wages reset to Pre-PEB rates?

 

[Buck]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 809 AM Bob Owens wrote:

Bush the second came right out and said that he will not allow any airline strikes during his administration. He blocked two strikes of mechanics already.
----------------
[/blockquote]

IT is interesting that by forcing the mechanics in the PEB, that mechanic wages were increased dramtically. Bob is your allegence to the AFL-CIO and the Democrats so important that you would have your fellow mechanics wages reset to Pre-PEB rates?

 

[RV4]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 834 AM Bob Owens wrote:

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.

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

Bob,

Do you really have trouble understanding the difference between Union Corruption and Right-to-Work?

As a TWU Union Officer, are you going to ask us to oppose the wage freeze?

 

[RV4]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 834 AM Bob Owens wrote:

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.

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

Bob,

Do you really have trouble understanding the difference between Union Corruption and Right-to-Work?

As a TWU Union Officer, are you going to ask us to oppose the wage freeze?

 

[WingNaPrayer]

Things change. Sometimes you have to slap them in the face to get their attention.

 

[WingNaPrayer]

Things change. Sometimes you have to slap them in the face to get their attention.

 

[RV4]

 

[RV4]

 

[Buck]

Bob why do you a TWU Local officer keep harping on the use of a strike? When are we at American going to use this against the evil Republican? Art. 33 is a No Strike No Lockout clause of the contract that you helped negotiate. If the TWU were to strike would it not be an illegal strike? We as a collective bargaining unit have stated that we will not strike and the company has agreed not to lock us out.

 

[Buck]

Bob why do you a TWU Local officer keep harping on the use of a strike? When are we at American going to use this against the evil Republican? Art. 33 is a No Strike No Lockout clause of the contract that you helped negotiate. If the TWU were to strike would it not be an illegal strike? We as a collective bargaining unit have stated that we will not strike and the company has agreed not to lock us out.

 

[Buck]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 8:55:27 AM Bob Owens wrote:

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

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]

Biased? In what way?

Ok. So the government should not pick winners vs losers amongst big businesses. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the government picking winners and losers between business interests and labor. Their actions have been clear here where time after time they use all sorts of reasons why they choose business all the time.
----------------
[/blockquote]

You mean like the AFL-CIO picking winners and losers between morals and ethics?