[maica]

Not non-union, but more efficient use of employees, which would decrease the number of employees - many of whom are earning six figure incomes.

[SJackson]

Not non-union, but more efficient use of employees, which would decrease the number of employees - many of whom are earning six figure incomes.

I don't buy that, there are plenty of reasons to have concerns about, and even oppose, the deal outside of union influence. Do you think David Horowitz is a union apologist.

I'll remain with Donald Rumsfeld on this, ...reluctant to judge whether the management contracts posed national-security risks because he was not fully informed, and yes, I'll have to hear the risks addressed to support it, the administration has blown the trust issue.

[raybbr]

Not non-union, but more efficient use of employees, which would decrease the number of employees - many of whom are earning six figure incomes.

So what if they are? Are only white-collar workers allowed to make big bucks?

If you had crane operators at half the salary and they unloaded 10,000 containers a year that breaks down to about $6 per container. Divide that over the cost of the goods inside the container and you may save about ten cents per item. It that really such a big deal to you?