BUsh and Big Business

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 12:29:01 PM Rational Thought wrote:

I really don't see what your point is. Are you discussing the current airline situation? or the current Administrations policy on federal regulations and their relation with organized labor and labor markets? I thought you were discussing the ATSB.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Take your pick. This administration has been extremely anti-labor. It uses the public as an excuse when it suits its attempts to block any move by labor yet it will say to the same public that some inconveniences must be tolerated in a free market system. It simply depends on who stands to benifit from causing the disruption. When NWA faced a strike by its mechanics, Bush steped in. This was government intereference at its worst- depriving workers of their rights, involuntary servitude. Bush cited the inconvenience the strike could cause to the travelling public and he did the same at UAL last December. Now you expect us to beleive that if UAL should go C-7 that inconvenience would be minimal so the President would be consistant with promoting free market, minimal government interference? The line about how a strike would be more disruptive than liquidation, while skilfully delivered is pure bunk. Bush wants it and has dealt it both ways, he intercedes in private dealings in behalf of corporations, citing the best interests of the public, then allows corporations to act in complete disregard of the public, and other commerce as in the case of the West Coast port shutdown. Without a doubt the disruptions caused by the shutdown were massive in scale and dwarfed any comparable disruption that a strike at NWA or UAL would have caused. His actions in both cases were what the company wanted. Minimal government interference took a back seat to promoting corporate interests. He should have stayed out of both. His actions were inconsistant in regard to Free market ideals or Lassaize faire. He clearly favors corporate interests over labor interests.
Our nation is on a dangerous course where property rights are put ahead of human rights.

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 12:29:01 PM Rational Thought wrote:

I really don't see what your point is. Are you discussing the current airline situation? or the current Administrations policy on federal regulations and their relation with organized labor and labor markets? I thought you were discussing the ATSB.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Take your pick. This administration has been extremely anti-labor. It uses the public as an excuse when it suits its attempts to block any move by labor yet it will say to the same public that some inconveniences must be tolerated in a free market system. It simply depends on who stands to benifit from causing the disruption. When NWA faced a strike by its mechanics, Bush steped in. This was government intereference at its worst- depriving workers of their rights, involuntary servitude. Bush cited the inconvenience the strike could cause to the travelling public and he did the same at UAL last December. Now you expect us to beleive that if UAL should go C-7 that inconvenience would be minimal so the President would be consistant with promoting free market, minimal government interference? The line about how a strike would be more disruptive than liquidation, while skilfully delivered is pure bunk. Bush wants it and has dealt it both ways, he intercedes in private dealings in behalf of corporations, citing the best interests of the public, then allows corporations to act in complete disregard of the public, and other commerce as in the case of the West Coast port shutdown. Without a doubt the disruptions caused by the shutdown were massive in scale and dwarfed any comparable disruption that a strike at NWA or UAL would have caused. His actions in both cases were what the company wanted. Minimal government interference took a back seat to promoting corporate interests. He should have stayed out of both. His actions were inconsistant in regard to Free market ideals or Lassaize faire. He clearly favors corporate interests over labor interests.
Our nation is on a dangerous course where property rights are put ahead of human rights.

 

[Bob Owens]

"The Longshoremen would have had an even larger impact on economuc activity. Significantly greater than the role these individuals play in the economy. It was a wise decision to prevent that from occuring. The Administration shouldn't let the interests of a narrow/irrelevant portion of the economy, negatively impacting the economy as a whole."

You mean like when the President allowed the West Coast Port operators to lock out the workers?

 

[Bob Owens]

"The Longshoremen would have had an even larger impact on economuc activity. Significantly greater than the role these individuals play in the economy. It was a wise decision to prevent that from occuring. The Administration shouldn't let the interests of a narrow/irrelevant portion of the economy, negatively impacting the economy as a whole."

You mean like when the President allowed the West Coast Port operators to lock out the workers?

 

[Buck]

[blockquote]

No I would have preferred that he let them go for $40/hr which AMFA at NWA was willing to strike for. Or did you conveintly forget that. The PEBs held back the profession.

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

Bob you know that AMFA at NWA changed the industry in a manner that the TWU would have never approached. Before the last AA contract we were up for somewhere around a $2.00 an hour increase. You claim that the PEB failed to aquire the increase that AMFA at NWA would have struck for. The TWU would have never found themselves at any kind of PEB in the first place. You attack Bush for holding pushing AMFA at NWA into a PEB then but you know that we at AA would never have even considered $40 an hr. Then you chide the TUL mechanics for the problems of the system but the majority at TUL are TWU sheep. You are now jumping on a band wagon started by theories of trade unionism, when you support industrial unionism. The only thing you have ever preferred was a socialistic, democrat only union that carries everyone on the coattails of skilled labor. Go ahead and spout your liberal rhetoric. I could now care less whay happens to you and your TWU supporters. I got mine brother! ( Thanks to AMFA) Your union will be the first to roll over when the concession wagon pulls in. Hmmm will the members get a chance to vote?

 

[Buck]

[blockquote]

No I would have preferred that he let them go for $40/hr which AMFA at NWA was willing to strike for. Or did you conveintly forget that. The PEBs held back the profession.

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

Bob you know that AMFA at NWA changed the industry in a manner that the TWU would have never approached. Before the last AA contract we were up for somewhere around a $2.00 an hour increase. You claim that the PEB failed to aquire the increase that AMFA at NWA would have struck for. The TWU would have never found themselves at any kind of PEB in the first place. You attack Bush for holding pushing AMFA at NWA into a PEB then but you know that we at AA would never have even considered $40 an hr. Then you chide the TUL mechanics for the problems of the system but the majority at TUL are TWU sheep. You are now jumping on a band wagon started by theories of trade unionism, when you support industrial unionism. The only thing you have ever preferred was a socialistic, democrat only union that carries everyone on the coattails of skilled labor. Go ahead and spout your liberal rhetoric. I could now care less whay happens to you and your TWU supporters. I got mine brother! ( Thanks to AMFA) Your union will be the first to roll over when the concession wagon pulls in. Hmmm will the members get a chance to vote?

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 11:06:16 AM Buck wrote:


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

One thing that you failed to include about the ULLICO scandal is that Sweeney reportedly did not make any money from trading ULLICO shares. In fact an article about the scandal in Business Week, Nov 18 "Labor Cheiftans Secret Stock Deal" said that not only did Sweeney not make any money on the deal but he has taken a hard line and pushed for an internal investigation. The article implies that Sweeney favored disclosure but the President of ULLICO was against it. The article went on to say that the head of the Carpenters Union, who has been sucking up to Bush made over $400,000 dollars off the deal which, since its revelation he has decided to return. If any thing the scandal, which is bad for the labor movement as a whole is worse for the craft union side of the movement. McCarron,Georgine-who is against disclosure of the findings of the investigator, and several other board members are from the Building-Trade Unions.

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 11:06:16 AM Buck wrote:


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

One thing that you failed to include about the ULLICO scandal is that Sweeney reportedly did not make any money from trading ULLICO shares. In fact an article about the scandal in Business Week, Nov 18 "Labor Cheiftans Secret Stock Deal" said that not only did Sweeney not make any money on the deal but he has taken a hard line and pushed for an internal investigation. The article implies that Sweeney favored disclosure but the President of ULLICO was against it. The article went on to say that the head of the Carpenters Union, who has been sucking up to Bush made over $400,000 dollars off the deal which, since its revelation he has decided to return. If any thing the scandal, which is bad for the labor movement as a whole is worse for the craft union side of the movement. McCarron,Georgine-who is against disclosure of the findings of the investigator, and several other board members are from the Building-Trade Unions.

 

[Rational Thought]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/8/2002 551 PM Bob Owens wrote:

This administration has been extremely anti-labor. It uses the public as an excuse when it suits its attempts to block any move by labor yet it will say to the same public that some inconveniences must be tolerated in a free market system. It simply depends on who stands to benifit from causing the disruption. When NWA faced a strike by its mechanics, Bush steped in. This was government intereference at its worst- depriving workers of their rights, involuntary servitude. Bush cited the inconvenience the strike could cause to the travelling public and he did the same at UAL last December.
----------------
[/blockquote]

A biased analysis. First, Democratic administrations have stopped and "interfered" with labor unrest (AA, UPS). Second, it is perfectly understandable for the government to interfere when the cost of the disruption exceeds the importance of a particular group and as a result, generates a non-value maximizing outcome for society. Finally, I believe the decision for both incidents were framed by the negative economic impact, disruption being a by-product.


[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/8/2002 551 PM Bob Owens wrote:

Now you expect us to beleive that if UAL should go C-7 that inconvenience would be minimal so the President would be consistant with promoting free market, minimal government interference? The line about how a strike would be more disruptive than liquidation, while skilfully delivered is pure bunk. Bush wants it and has dealt it both ways, he intercedes in private dealings in behalf of corporations, citing the best interests of the public, then allows corporations to act in complete disregard of the public, and other commerce as in the case of the West Coast port shutdown.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Again, you misunderstand my point. UAL is not ceasing operations. In the event that it does go Chapter 7, it is likely that creditors will conduct an orderly disposal of assets and that the routes and planes will continue to fly as the assets are sold to other carriers. So, it really doesn't matter if it goes Chapter 7 or 11. The economy is unlikely to be damaged and better yet, those assets will be used by more productive firms.

By interjecting the ATSB in the process, the Bush Administration - and any Administration - runs the risk of creating a Moral Hazard. The ATSB should have never been created. It distorts incentives and runs the risk of supporting unproductive, value destroying organizations.

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/8/2002 551 PM Bob Owens wrote:

Bush wants it and has dealt it both ways, he intercedes in private dealings in behalf of corporations, citing the best interests of the public, then allows corporations to act in complete disregard of the public, and other commerce as in the case of the West Coast port shutdown. Without a doubt the disruptions caused by the shutdown were massive in scale and dwarfed any comparable disruption that a strike at NWA or UAL would have caused. His actions in both cases were what the company wanted. Minimal government interference took a back seat to promoting corporate interests. He should have stayed out of both. His actions were inconsistant in regard to Free market ideals or Lassaize faire. He clearly favors corporate interests over labor interests.

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

It appears that you both do not understand my point and the concept of free market capitalism. UAL filed bankruptcy today and guess what? The planes still fly! If the routes and the assets are productive, they will be used. If they are not, the government should not support them. The administration intefered in situations that would have caused a different impact on the economy and at a point of declining economic activity. You should try and understand that. But I have a sense that you have some sort of agenda that I am not aware of that prevents you from seeing this in a broader light.

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/8/2002 551 PM Bob Owens wrote:

Our nation is on a dangerous course where property rights are put ahead of human rights.

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

Well, they didn't have property rights in the USSR.

 

[Rational Thought]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/8/2002 551 PM Bob Owens wrote:

This administration has been extremely anti-labor. It uses the public as an excuse when it suits its attempts to block any move by labor yet it will say to the same public that some inconveniences must be tolerated in a free market system. It simply depends on who stands to benifit from causing the disruption. When NWA faced a strike by its mechanics, Bush steped in. This was government intereference at its worst- depriving workers of their rights, involuntary servitude. Bush cited the inconvenience the strike could cause to the travelling public and he did the same at UAL last December.
----------------
[/blockquote]

A biased analysis. First, Democratic administrations have stopped and "interfered" with labor unrest (AA, UPS). Second, it is perfectly understandable for the government to interfere when the cost of the disruption exceeds the importance of a particular group and as a result, generates a non-value maximizing outcome for society. Finally, I believe the decision for both incidents were framed by the negative economic impact, disruption being a by-product.


[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/8/2002 551 PM Bob Owens wrote:

Now you expect us to beleive that if UAL should go C-7 that inconvenience would be minimal so the President would be consistant with promoting free market, minimal government interference? The line about how a strike would be more disruptive than liquidation, while skilfully delivered is pure bunk. Bush wants it and has dealt it both ways, he intercedes in private dealings in behalf of corporations, citing the best interests of the public, then allows corporations to act in complete disregard of the public, and other commerce as in the case of the West Coast port shutdown.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Again, you misunderstand my point. UAL is not ceasing operations. In the event that it does go Chapter 7, it is likely that creditors will conduct an orderly disposal of assets and that the routes and planes will continue to fly as the assets are sold to other carriers. So, it really doesn't matter if it goes Chapter 7 or 11. The economy is unlikely to be damaged and better yet, those assets will be used by more productive firms.

By interjecting the ATSB in the process, the Bush Administration - and any Administration - runs the risk of creating a Moral Hazard. The ATSB should have never been created. It distorts incentives and runs the risk of supporting unproductive, value destroying organizations.

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/8/2002 551 PM Bob Owens wrote:

Bush wants it and has dealt it both ways, he intercedes in private dealings in behalf of corporations, citing the best interests of the public, then allows corporations to act in complete disregard of the public, and other commerce as in the case of the West Coast port shutdown. Without a doubt the disruptions caused by the shutdown were massive in scale and dwarfed any comparable disruption that a strike at NWA or UAL would have caused. His actions in both cases were what the company wanted. Minimal government interference took a back seat to promoting corporate interests. He should have stayed out of both. His actions were inconsistant in regard to Free market ideals or Lassaize faire. He clearly favors corporate interests over labor interests.

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

It appears that you both do not understand my point and the concept of free market capitalism. UAL filed bankruptcy today and guess what? The planes still fly! If the routes and the assets are productive, they will be used. If they are not, the government should not support them. The administration intefered in situations that would have caused a different impact on the economy and at a point of declining economic activity. You should try and understand that. But I have a sense that you have some sort of agenda that I am not aware of that prevents you from seeing this in a broader light.

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/8/2002 551 PM Bob Owens wrote:

Our nation is on a dangerous course where property rights are put ahead of human rights.

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

Well, they didn't have property rights in the USSR.

 

[Rational Thought]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/8/2002 5:13:54 PM Bob Owens wrote:

You mean like when the President allowed the West Coast Port operators to lock out the workers?

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

An irrelevant point.

 

[Rational Thought]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/8/2002 5:13:54 PM Bob Owens wrote:

You mean like when the President allowed the West Coast Port operators to lock out the workers?

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

An irrelevant point.

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/9/2002 4:25:52 PM Rational Thought wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/8/2002 5:13:54 PM Bob Owens wrote:

You mean like when the President allowed the West Coast Port operators to lock out the workers?

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

An irrelevant point.

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

Your saying that its irrelevant does not make it so. Your statement "The Administration shouldn't let the interests of a narrow/irrelevant portion of the economy, negatively impacting the economy as a whole."
When Bush allowed the Port operators to close down the ports he allowed a small group of operators to have a negative impact on the economy. Does it really make any difference to all the importers whether they do not get their goods due to a lockout vs a strike?Claiming that something is irrelevant is not a counter point, its an evasion. The fact is you know that your assertion that Bush's actions are neutral and fall into following a free market philosophy is flawed by Bush's actions. His record shows a clear bias against unions.

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/9/2002 4:25:52 PM Rational Thought wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/8/2002 5:13:54 PM Bob Owens wrote:

You mean like when the President allowed the West Coast Port operators to lock out the workers?

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

An irrelevant point.

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

Your saying that its irrelevant does not make it so. Your statement "The Administration shouldn't let the interests of a narrow/irrelevant portion of the economy, negatively impacting the economy as a whole."
When Bush allowed the Port operators to close down the ports he allowed a small group of operators to have a negative impact on the economy. Does it really make any difference to all the importers whether they do not get their goods due to a lockout vs a strike?Claiming that something is irrelevant is not a counter point, its an evasion. The fact is you know that your assertion that Bush's actions are neutral and fall into following a free market philosophy is flawed by Bush's actions. His record shows a clear bias against unions.

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/9/2002 4:40:25 PM Rational Thought wrote:

"A biased analysis. First, Democratic administrations have stopped and "interfered" with labor unrest (AA, UPS)."

Yes but Democrats dont pretend to be lassaiz faire.Republicans preach minimal govt interference, let the chips fall where they may, the market is the great equalizer. But when labor enjoys an advantage they dont hesitate to step in.

"Second, it is perfectly understandable for the government to interfere when the cost of the disruption exceeds the importance of a particular group and as a result, generates a non-value maximizing outcome for society."

Exceeds the importance of a particular group? Whoa! So only the important people can cause disruption? Who decides who is important? I thought that in Amerca, everyone is important and we all should expect equal treatment under the law? So now ones rights are measured and granted in accordance with monetary value? One law for us important people and one law for the rest of you?

" Finally, I believe the decision for both incidents were framed by the negative economic impact, disruption being a by-product."

I beleive that one of the tenents of Free market philosophy is that periodic disruptions are market self corrections. They should be allowed to run their course.
When Bush the 1st refused to issue the PEB at EAL thousands were stranded. Bush said the inconvenience was the price we pay for a free market. His son says the opposite, that he will use government power to suppress the desire of workers to get their price for their product-labor. There is no way, despite your eloquent delivery to reconcile the inconsistancies.


"It appears that you both do not understand my point and the concept of free market capitalism. UAL filed bankruptcy today and guess what? The planes still fly! If the routes and the assets are productive, they will be used. If they are not, the government should not support them. The administration intefered in situations that would have caused a different impact on the economy and at a point of declining economic activity. You should try and understand that. But I have a sense that you have some sort of agenda that I am not aware of that prevents you from seeing this in a broader light."

I understand your point, I just dont agree with your assertion that Bush is not pro-business or ani-labor. Your half baked rationalizations that you use to try and justify his obvious bias towards business and against labor are absurd. Again how do you reconcile the fact that Bush told the Dockworkers that he would not allow them to strike, due to the economy, yet he allowed the owners of the ports to lockout the workers and effectively close the west coasts ports for over a week?

"Well, they didn't have property rights in the USSR."

They didnt have a good human rights record either, maybe thats why it no longer exists.