Posted on 02/17/2006 3:43:01 PM PST by outofhere2
Michael Savage is talking to Chuck Schumer at this very minute.
It wouldn't surprise me... "I repeat myself when I'm under stress, I repeat myself when I'm under stress..."
Didn't you make this same statement on another post today??? Getting feelings of deja vu.....
It wouldn't surprise me... "I repeat myself when I'm under stress, I repeat myself when I'm under stress..."
Mark
Mark
There are no American lines anymore because shipping is a commodity and thus is destined to always find its pricing declining on the long run.
As just like any commodity, it's production goes overseas because American firms have costs that are jsut to high to survive.
"IMO if Halliburton had the contract he would be screaming 100 times louder."
Sad, but true.
LOL!!! : )
LOL!!! : )
I thought you did.
I thought you did.
Oklahoma City.
Dude, you're so clueless about this. Just stop. Please.
Do you know who pays the payroll? It's not the Port Operator.. it's the Ocean Line's Association organization, the PMA (Pacific Maritime Association).
The PMA pays the ILWU. (It was the PMA that locked out the ILWU in 2002).
http://www.pmanet.org/docs/index.cfm/id_subcat/87
The principal business of the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) is to negotiate and administer maritime labor agreements with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU).
The membership of the PMA consists of American flag operators, foreign flag operators, and stevedore and terminal companies that operate in California, Oregon, and Washington ports.
The labor agreements the PMA negotiates on behalf of its members cover wages, employee benefits, and conditions of employment for longshoremen, marine clerks, and walking bosses and foremen.
The Association processes weekly payrolls for shoreside workers and collects assessments on man-hours, revenue tonnage, and other units of cargo to fund employee benefits plans provided for by the ILWU-PMA labor agreements.
On the East coast there is a similar arrangement with the ILA (I think) union.
I had that confused with the '44 dock disaster on the coast.
But the material handling procedures at that plant were tantamount to disaster. Since 9/11, all plants of that type have been placed under heavy guard. Not to mention, they are not allowed anywhere near large populated areas.
I noticed you didn't answer the question.
I say nothing will change because there is nothing to indicate it would. If you have something to indicate things would change as far as how we operate security at our ports because this company is changing hands, kindly share.
Scroll up to #295.
You were partial inspiration for my post 456.
If you read that you'll see that
1 - You are woefully uninformed on port procedures
2 - The Port Operator is irrevelent
3 - My typing is horrible
As to the rest of the thread, I don't know enough about the actual people who would be involved in ownership, but I do know this.
There is a serious credibility issue growing up around Bush at this time. While I am totally supportive of his Iraq policy, having a border so porous undercuts his stance of protecting the United States from both a practical and public relations standpoint. With the terrorists being a patchwork of religious based cults spread throughout all Muslim countries, most Americans don't really trust any of them. The democrats may be simply grandstanding, but it's the grandstand that will give them traction. For all their Kumbaya talk, they'll exploit current American concern about Islam as quickly as they exploit black-white relations. This also gives them a big opportunity to secure the high ground on homeland security. There are a lot of people that are sick of being hassled in airports and spending billions on security while the southern border is wide open. They're thinking "Great! NOW he wants to turn the ports over! I also know three people who have had to eat the price of their cars because they've been hit by illegals who have no license or insurance. What gets them even madder is that the cops just kind of shrug and turn the illegals loose. Losing your car takes it from the theoretical to the personal, and the border issue nags in people's minds while they're listening to speeches about security. There's REAL anger out there in the Republican base, and the Republicans no longer have the high ground on controlling spending or reducing regulations. If the Democrats can shut up their lunatics and Hillary and Schumer can claim this bill, it will pull a lot of Republican votes in both the House and Senate. This would put Hillary standing in front of a Congress that "came together" AND give her the high ground on "protecting us from foreign threats."
If I was Bush, I'd fold on this hand.
That was worth a good head scratch.
Lets see... who runs "security" at the port in 2005... hmm.. US Customs
who will run "security" next year.. US Customs
Please explain "turning over the ports." because the point is lost on me. (You may want to read my other posts in this thread for add'l info)
Thanks -- I think that's a very reasonable approach.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.