BUSH HAS IT BOTH WAYS REGARDING HIS FAILURE TO END THE WEST COAST DOCK WORKERS LOCKOUT By the way, the president could step in and invoke Taft-Hartley. But he won't because since it's a lockOut it's an action designed by the employers to push down the wages of the shipping clerks by showing them that starving is worse that working for shit wages. Even though they call it a "strike" in most of the media. . . since it is a lock-out it is an action initiated by the employers . The prez won't step in because his inaction gives him the best of both worlds . . . for three reasons: 1- Keeping this dispute alive furthers the wage-depressing interest of his pals that employ the unionized shipping clerks. 2- Since the media characterize this as a "strike" the onus for this job action is on the unions and God knows bush and his republican predecessors have been union busters from the get-go. (remember one of Reagan's first actions was to fire the striking air-traffic controllers and replace them with non-union people and management) (Here's a laugh, the Washington punditocracy has it that bush is hesitant to use his powers to end this lock-out by immediately imposing an 80 day "cooling-off period" because he is afraid of offending labor interests this close to the election!) (If he ended it - it would really be against the interests of the people who actually instituted this lock-out, the employers) . . . . The employers said that they imposed the lock-out because the workers were staging a slow-down . . . In reality, according to a seldom quoted spokesman for the unions. . ."in the run up to this lock-out the workers were assigned 2 - 3 times their normal workload so it was impossible for them to keep up with the frenetic pace" so obviously this whole job action is a very successfully staged ploy by the business interests and the bush people.. 3- It diverts the blame for the shitty economy away from the deflationary policies of the central government, including bush, the fed, etc.

the contract sticking point is not over wages. the problem is that the employers want to move away from clerks writing hand-written logs to more modern technologies that would improve the efficency of our ports. the union wants any new jobs created to be union. the employers do not want to promise this. the unions have already agreed to the concessions the employers have made for people losing their jobs to technological advancement. back when shipping moved to containerized practices, there was a similar union complaint. in the end the employers kept everyone who lost their job to the new technology on the payroll for the rest of their lives. in other words, get paid the same, don't work at all. how unfair. the unions impede the movement of business. the success of business is success for us all. the economy went south during the end of clinton's term. bush has reacted appropriately at every stage regarding the economy. these moronic lefty critisims have no basis.

Wow. I have nothing to add to that.

Before unions, the work week was 6 1/2 days long. Just a thought.

Before unions, Baseball players played for the sport. Just a thought.

Bullshit.

are we arguing the validity of unions? or the validity of the longshoreman issue? the 40 hour work week is based in law, not in the power of unions. Full-time West Coast dockworkers who load and unload ships make on average nearly $100,000 a year, while clerks who keep track of cargo movements average $120,000. Not only does the medical coverage for active longshoremen require no out-of-pocket expenses, but the same holds true for retirees.

why do you think we have that law?

where have all the abolitionists gone? what's your point, kaz? i'm not saying unions are not necessary. i'm saying that unions are not always right.

then I think you got my point, and it was I that misunderstood you.

"Before unions, Baseball players played for the sport. " This is a myth. A popular one, but a myth nonetheless. You could look it up.

Hey, another Union Related hot topic. Should inept government employees (expecially in NSA, CIA and FBI) be protected by Union Laws that do not allow them to be fired due to performance related issues? Not that I agree 100% with the Homeland Security Act, the main reason it has not been signed off on yet is because it removes the union from the agencies. Carter did it once before, but I need to research it to have the correct facts.

"This is a myth. A popular one, but a myth nonetheless. You could look it up." So, you think the union has improved baseball? Unions were necessary in the past to protect the workers, there is little to no doubt about that. However, labor laws, eoe laws and market conditions have made unions obsolete, even a hinderance. Ever shop at a Consumer's grocery store, or some other unionized grocery store? I refuse to go to one because the price are at least 50% higher then non-union stores. And in the case of the dock workers? They make The highest pay of any blue collar workers in the country. But that website is in error, this is not a strike, it is a lock out initiated by the employers. However, the union did walk out of negotiations last night over the automation issue. After being offered a huge raise and money in the 401K accounts.

Union workers and teamsters are overwhelmingly fat.

i counted about 23 mega container ships sitting idle off the Port of LA last night.

I'm not fat. Of course I'm not a union worker. But I used to be. I wasn't fat then either.

Your post is very interesting, where did you get your information about the ins and outs of the situation on the docks?

From Lenny (doing what he does best) and Carl teamster extraordinaire!!

Nate, your post is very interesting, where did you get your information about the ins and outs of the situation on the docks?

His ass. That's where he gets everything. Or puts everything, I get confused as to which....

this is papaver, the one who posted West Coast Dock Workers LOCKOUT and i resent having my name mis-used for the "lenny" and "carl" post above. Who is that person?

you don't fool me

here's another point the answer that the employer's put out is that some of them make 120,000 a year and a dock worker responded that "only a foreman could possibly make that much and only if he worked a heck of a lot of overtime." The rumour that the dock workers were already making 120,000 was put out by the employers. See above top paraghaph. . for reply. if and only if they worked 60-75 hours a week, and he would have to be a foreman.

. . . mares eat oats and does eat oats . . and little lambs eat ivy. a kid'll ivy too, wouldn't you?

Typed www.prettysite.com into a browser window. It just came into my head. Look at what you get....

typed in www.lovesmenot.org some English teenager's site

www.lovemeatsnot.com comes back with nothing. this should be changed. imposters are lape.